Comments

I like it!

I like it!

He was showing that GREED

He was showing that GREED can kill you. Remember "economies of scale" from your Econ classes? If you can make "X" number of dollars raising ONE cow on an acre of land, than you can make "X" + "Y" raising multiple cows on the same piece of land. Problem is, the cows get crowded, stressed and diseased. This happens with virtually all livestock today because most animals are raised on corporate farms.
I live in Northern California, and when I drive down to L.A. you pass stockyards where THOUSANDS OF COWS are penned together.
The stench is overwhelming! As a matter of fact, if the wind is right you smell the cows long before you see them. They stand in their own excrement and "moo" at you as you drive by.
Is it torture? Probably. But it's also the free market.
Until we decide to use our resources in more constructive ways, corporate farms will always exist.

hankjmatt's picture

It is very hard to keep your

It is very hard to keep your breathing even when trying to convince someone with multiple degrees that he/she is not and should not act like the Dalai Lama or that you won’t be made to see yourself personally immediately and individually responsible for industrial pollution.

That's really nice for we're

That's really nice for we're growing a lot of garbage corn to feed animals which turns them into garbage meat so that we may eat food that makes us obese and weak and will quickly turn us into garbage as well. Thanks.

Hi, thank you good post. İm

Hi, thank you good post. İm follow your blog. now in my rss reader : )

Please do your homework on

Please do your homework on the subject. By moving to a more plant-based diet, we wouldn't have the food shortages that we do. We have enough food and stored grains to feed all the hungry people- but it's being feed to your hormone loaded, antibiotic laden beef.

I hope you look into this...

Thanks

Surprised with As animal

Surprised with As animal sacrifice pertains to medical research, I'm sorry to say that the ratios would have to be pretty darned high to get my Irish up. Or (it goes without saying) if testing was being performed on cute puppies.

Thanks for helpful

Thanks for helpful information you catch up us with your instructional explenation.

What people do is more important that what they say…

Best regards

lisem's picture

By the time I was 8, I can

By the time I was 8, I can tell you that I'd spent far more than a day crammed into subway cars, poked and prodded by needles, pushed around, and loaded onto conveyor belts. In short: confused, frightened, uncomfortable. Life. And I can also tell you that (presuming I knew when I was going to die), I would take a bolt to Oyunthe brain over disease or organ failure or stroke any day. In fact, I would take my throat being slit over any of these things, too.

very nice

very nice

Ah, for God's sake people,

Ah, for God's sake people, It's a cartoon (and a halarious one at that).
Did anyone notice that Fiore didn't insert any "animal rights" commentary into the cartoon?
He was showing that GREED can kill you. Remember "economies of scale" from your Econ classes? If you can make "X" number of dollars raising ONE cow on an acre of land, than you can make "X" + "Y" raising multiple cows on the same piece of land. Problem is, the cows get crowded, stressed and diseased. This happens with virtually all livestock today because most animals are raised on corporate farms.
I live in Northern California, and when I drive down to L.A. you pass stockyards where THOUSANDS OF COWS are penned together.
The stench is overwhelming! As a matter of fact, if the wind is right you smell the cows long before you see them. They stand in their own excrement and "moo" at you as you drive by.
Is it torture? Probably. But it's also the free market.
Until we decide to use our resources in more constructive ways, corporate farms will always exist.

This pertains to nothing in

This pertains to nothing in particular...

Mr. Fiore. You are the funniest thing on the internet. Thank you. Please persist.

So gross, so sad, so funny,

So gross, so sad, so funny, so true.Regards, Jack

Anyone read the latest issue

Anyone read the latest issue of Wired?

Apparently, free range cows not only are less efficient producers of food, but they also produce siginificantly more CO2 emissions themselves, as well as requiring more CO2 emissions to feed, produce, and ship them than genetically modified foods.

In fact, the only advantage to using free range cows is that they are more expensive, thereby giving more profits to the "free range organic" arms of big agribusiness. (Honestly, you didn't really think that organic farms were owned by small-time operations, did you?)

Oh, and there's the other advantage to free range food-- it brings back the class war into the food industry.

Throw all the sarcasm and guilt you like at food producers, but if we're going to be serious about avoiding climate change, we need those mass-produced cows.

Well, either that or we ask the rest of the world to stop having so many children...

"In fact, the only advantage

"In fact, the only advantage to using free range cows is that they are more expensive"

That is not a fact.

Thank you very much for this

Thank you very much for this useful article. I like it nakliyat evden eve nakliyat

Give me a f---n' break! Stop

Give me a f---n' break! Stop producing children? Howsabout the industrialized world stops consuming so much? Remember, the United States accounts for roughly 2 to 3% of the world population, yet we consume an astonishing 25% of the world resources. That means the non industrialized countries are not have nearly as much impact for 10 babies as the US has for one of its damn babies. The answer is not free range cows...its stop eating so many damn cows and chickens and pigs PERIOD. Other industrialized countries such as Germany don't eat meat more than once or twice a week. I just don't get it. Why do you need a slice of pig on your two cow patties?

We live in Orwellian times

We live in Orwellian times so please don't believe statistics. I don't believe the USA uses 25% of the world resources. You shouldn't either. This "stat" is just a ruse to prepare the middle class for the coming minimalist society.

The TAX EXEMPT foundations and their think tanks are pushing "Post Industrial Zero Growth" policies which we will "vote for" after this same Foundation power structure's Propaganda campaign. The Elite don't want an INDEPENDENTLY wealthy Middle Class.

The rule is SCARCITY = CONTROL. So you create artificial scarcity which creates "the need for government." And "created crises" also allow more Government power-grabs.

Ah, for God's sake people,

Ah, for God's sake people, It's a cartoon (and a halarious one at that).
Did anyone notice that Fiore didn't insert any "animal rights" commentary into the cartoon?
He was showing that GREED can kill you. Remember "economies of scale" from your Econ classes? If you can make "X" number of dollars raising ONE cow on an acre of land, than you can make "X" + "Y" raising multiple cows on the same piece of land. Problem is, the cows get crowded, stressed and diseased. This happens with virtually all livestock today because most animals are raised on corporate farms.
I live in Northern California, and when I drive down to L.A. you pass stockyards where THOUSANDS OF COWS are penned together.
The stench is overwhelming! As a matter of fact, if the wind is right you smell the cows long before you see them. They stand in their own excrement and "moo" at you as you drive by.
Is it torture? Probably. But it's also the free market.
Until we decide to use our resources in more constructive ways, corporate farms will always exist.

ChampionOfTheOmnivores's picture

Some good news, finally, in

Some good news, finally, in the war to protect our animals.

We all know how the Flamey McGassies of the world (holding out like idiots for mathematically valid, causal climate models) hate to stifle innovation, but some forward-thinking European nations have not only thumbed their noses at McGassy, they've expanded principles of good environmental stewardship to our meat problems too! :)

Starting 2009, much of Europe will laud a system of 'compassion credits'. Here's how it works:

  1. Omnivores are allowed to eat all the meat they want, but if they go over their maximum quota, they'll need to purchase compassion credits from vegetarians and the like.
  2. Vegetarians (and mini-omnivores) have a standard meat quota, too. But since they don't eat their quota's worth, they can sell their extra compassion to the omnivores. Prices are still being hammered out, but it looks like it'll be close to €0.15 per metric tonne of compassion.
  3. (The best part!) Omnivores and vegetarians alike can offset their quotas through further compassion! For example, by petting bunnies, or giving a hungry pet more food than he'd usually get. If an omnivore wants to eat his fill and doesn't want to shell out hefty coin, he'll be spending more than a few hours at the petting zoo! ;)

An added bonus: for some reason, the E.U. can guarantee that the compassion credit system won't degenerate into the corrupt, pointless mess their 'carbon credits' system did. So fear not. This is not a ploy by rich men to broker your money without actually doing anything for the animals.

And, as Snuggly the Security Bear says: "If you're not with us, you're supporting eco-terrorism!"

Take that, McGassy!

- COTO

To All animal rights

To

All animal rights activists/freaks.

You people need to get your priorities straight or maybe your heads examined.

The are count less millions of living breathing human beings suffering all over the world cause of war, feminine disease and oppression ; all the while you guys spend
you time championing/funding animal rights.

Heck in some countries animal rights organisations get more public funding than the ones that champion the safety and security of our children…I mean c’mon that just sick and twisted on so many fucking levels.

blablabla's picture

Wow. You clearly know almost

Wow. You clearly know almost nothing about what you are saying. Please look in to this subject before you post some stupid comment. Then, it may be best if you get YOUR head examined.

Please do your homework on

Please do your homework on the subject. By moving to a more plant-based diet, we wouldn't have the food shortages that we do. We have enough food and stored grains to feed all the hungry people- but it's being feed to your hormone loaded, antibiotic laden beef.

I hope you look into this.

Thanks

You clearly know nothing

You clearly know nothing about what you are saying. *sigh* you seem to be just another one of those people who thinks eating animals is the natural order and that sticking up for animals is stupid and obscene.

Please. learn stuff.

Commenting to animal rights

Commenting to animal rights people is foolish. Some of them are smarter than usual which means that you’ve got a tougher opponent than the usual sports fan and, unfortunately, “animal rights” is a sort of hippy-dippy, I-am-right, more virtuous than thou, way of looking at things. This means that you’re going to run into at least two levels of opposition: religious and reasoned.

The first are the people who have too much time on their hands and really love animals, often to the exclusion of their fellow humans (who count only as sources of human overpopulation). In them, you’ll find mentalities filled with read-only virtue: that is, “I am right and no counter-example or irony will change that.” Looking at this type of animal rights adherent, you see someone with real problems with reality.

“Meat is murder!… except when I use the meat-producing industry to feed beef to a cat or a dog I like."

“Human resource uses is ruining the environment and must be stopped!… um except where my position in society allows me to give animals veterinary care even as human children go without access to basic medical services.”

Seriously, good luck arguing with these people. Members of world religions routinely ignore or suppress well-understood reasons why you should stop believing their main ideas that have been around for centuries and you can expect no less rancid a style of thinking from this kind of animal lover.

They don’t think: they shout until you walk away either nauseated or laughing depending on your mindset.

The second type, the reasoned animal lover, is someone who is often highly intelligent and can look at things clearly and argue cogently; citing not shouted dogma but calmly asserting facts with various degrees of real relevance.

These are the people who are really deadly when it comes to argument because they are often *very* highly educated and committed, not on the basis of pure and ignorant touchy-feely, but from an examination of real ‘big-picture’ issues of which compassion for animals is only a part. It is very hard to keep your breathing even when trying to convince someone with multiple degrees that he/she is not and should not act like the Dalai Lama or that you won’t be made to see yourself personally immediately and individually responsible for industrial pollution.

Worse still, they employ complex arguments which use facts and truths. If you and everyone else in the United States ate nothing but grains, there would be a lot more grain available to feed the world’s hungry millions—that is, if anyone motivated only by profit was actually going to use that spare grain to feed anyone who couldn’t pay for it.

It is also true that if everyone in the world Bicycled to work, there would certainly be less in the way of greenhouse gasses (and it would turn the Nations of the Middle-east back into the forgotten backwaters they deserve to be). And they are certainly telling the truth when it comes to the treatment of downer cows: it is cruel and nasty and disrespectful to the lives we take to feed ourselves to mistreat animals for the sake of maximizing profit.

However, one thing that is always overlooked by the intelligent style of compassion-seller is just how unnatural compassion is.

To go beyond the biological complexity of algae in nature is to see a world that is run by murder. There are food-chains with predator and prey relationships on the land, in the sea and in the air and a strong argument against compassion as a force in human action with respect to animals is that it exists nowhere else in the animal kingdom. Predators don’t make pets of anything; they don’t make complex laws and regulations about how their prey died before they ate it. Bears pull perfectly healthy but wildly unlucky salmon out of rivers and literally eat them alive. There is a simple reason for this: everything kills to live and nature doesn’t give a damn about pain.

There is no compassion and no mercy to be found, not from an amoeba engulfing a paramecium and not from a pride of lions killing old and weakened wildebeests. In all the animal world compassion is a purely human trait and you can say that it is one that the intelligent type of animal lover carries to the point of ridiculousness.

Even *plants* defend themselves from animals and destroy competition from other plants by chemical means. The nicotine in tobacco plants is a natural insecticide and so is the Eucalyptus we use in cough drops. The above-ground parts of the potato and Jimson weed plants contain compounds to discourage herbivorous mammals from eating them.

As predators go, nature is worse than we are (remember, plant and animal species we use have a *greater* number of individual members than similar species found in the wild) and the only really valid attacks against how we handle the business of mass-producing meat is that it is environmentally disastrous (it is) and that with the profit motive behind it, we are bound to to increase pain in animals we eat to maximize profit.

This is true now and it was true when Upton Sinclair wrote, ‘The Jungle’ because the whole issue with downer cows that started this messy conversation stems from companies interpreting federal law to their own advantage; so that even animals too sick to stand, even *diseased* animals with bacteria and pus in their flesh, will make it through the factory slaughter system and onto your child’s lunch plate.

That is the part that you don’t see the animal compassion specialists of either type bothering to mention so I’ll say it for them.

“Causing additional suffering to animals that are brought into the meat factory system is monstrously cruel and potentially deadly to the people who later eat them.”

Now, having said that all that, I would like somebody to find some high-quality ground beef and to make me a cheeseburger. I like mine medium-rare.

That's all fine--nature's

That's all fine--nature's nasty and we're all born to kill or be killed. But you forget that the primary motive is self preservation and reproduction. We're acting against nature if we knowingly follow actions that cause our (human) species to starve to death. Unlike most animals, we have a ton of choice in what we eat and the intelligence to make more complicated decisions than killing whatever crosses our path first when we're hungy.
Heck we've even figured out how to use fire to make that flesh tastier and safer. no more raw entrails.

Ok, so with that all said.

Ok, so with that all said. If this is where we belong on the food chain, and the people are eating fairly raised meat. I believe one should not eat what they would not kill and clean themselves. I am mostly vegan. I will get eggs from my moms chicken's I will kill and clean a fish- so I feel responsible with my choice to eat them.

I am not a country hippie, I am a professional chef in San Francisco.

What are your thought on this?

Dude, awesome response, I

Dude, awesome response, I was dying from the irony and thruths. I couldn't stop laughing, especially when I read this:

"Predators don’t make pets of anything; they don’t make complex laws and regulations about how their prey died before they ate it. Bears pull perfectly healthy but wildly unlucky salmon out of rivers and literally eat them alive."

“Meat is murder!… except

“Meat is murder!… except when I use the meat-producing industry to feed beef to a cat or a dog I like."

the thing is, cats and dogs are carnivores (they have to eat a mainly meat diet)

Humans have the ability to eat either plants or animals. In situations where you have a choice between living off of just vegetables or vegetables and meat as well, I think that it is better to choose the veggi diet.

For those who are starving somewhere I think it is best to eat whatever the heck will keep you alive. However, to those who have a choice, you should choose a vegetarian diet.

Very thought provoking

Very thought provoking comments. Thanks for taking the time to express your very interesting personal point of view.

I guess I personally wouldn't describe an animal predator/prey killing as "murder." Regarding "compassion," which I think is a way too "miscellaneously defined" term or word, it seems to me (this is merely my belief) that animals other than human animals are generally very sensitive to and cooperative with their environment, which of course includes the animal or vegetable food they will eat. Humans, on the other hand, can seem very DE-sensitized, callous, and consciously removed from their own environment although they are dependent upon it and share with other animals and other life.

I personally have no problem with the idea of killing animals for food. It's just the WAY they are raised and slaughtered that really bothers me.

I remember seeing a video of an African tribesman killing a goat to eat. He chased the goat but did not frighten it. The goat more or less seemed to allow itself to be caught (it was free to roam, not penned). The man then held the goat gently (but as firmly as was necessary), drew out a sharpened stick about the diameter of a pencil and quickly and accurately pierced a prominent vein of the neck. He held the small wound open and stroked the animal as it bled then passed into unconsciousness and died. That struck me as a very humane way of killing an animal, especially in contrast to the methods used in the U.S. and "civilized" world.

I would hate to be killed like we slaughter the animals we eat. It repulses me so much that I rarely eat meat. Yet I have no problem with animal predators and prey under the usual (non human-involved) circumstances in which such killing happens.

I do believe that if a person kills for food, or eats animals killed by others, that person should be conscious of and have no problem with the idea of another animal (or even human animal) killing him for food.

Regarding my comment immediately above ("or even human animal"), I was raised in the Peruvian rainforest, fairly near a previously unknown tribe of natives who one day shot (with a long arrow) and killed one of the men of our village as he worked in the jungle many kilometers from the settlement. They ate him, we later discovered. They also ate their own dead.

Anyway, just my own point of view.

"The are count less millions

"The are count less millions of living breathing human beings suffering all over the world cause of war, feminine disease and oppression ; all the while you guys spend you time championing/funding animal rights."

Just a couple of quick points on the comment above (OK, make it three):

1). It is actually quite possible to care about the rights of human AND non-human animals. Simultaneously. In fact, a person who is empathic enough to care about the lives, feelings, needs and rights of non-human animals is MORE, not less, likely to champion human rights causes as well.

2). There is a strong relationship between the war, famine, disease and oppression you mention and the horrific way in which animals are treated. The meat-centered North American diet is wasteful and resource-intensive, creating an increasing demand for land, oil, water and all the other resources that keep the big meat-machine chugging along, which in turn contributes to conflict over these resources -- in other words, war. The majority of grain grown in North America goes to feed animals, not hungry people, thus the North American burger habit also contributes to the famine you mentioned. And I think the downer cow video makes the link between disease and animal abuse abundantly obvious. Dr. Will Tuttle's book, "The World Peace Diet" is an excellent resource on all these facts and more.

3). Finally, if you care so much about human rights, you might want to ask yourself if there are better uses for your time and energy than attacking human beings who happen to also care about animals. Ironically, one of the very best things you can do to help your fellow human beings (AND the animals, AND the environment) is to GO VEGAN. You will be reducing your carbon footprint, freeing up land and resources so that the grain going to animal feed can go to hungry people instead, and you'll be making the world just a little bit less violent, and just that little bit more compassionate. And compassion is one resource we definitely can't get enough of right now.

***IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE,

***IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, JUST READ THIS:

The basic long and short of this discussion is that no animal wants to be killed. All animals (most humans included) want to live. Just because they may have a blue sky to look at once a day, or are able to stand in real grass (which I can assure you, is not the norm), it doesn't mean that they are skipping and carrying their happy, smiling faces right up to the dude that clocks them in the head with a hammer to stun them before slowly and painfully killing them. They don't want to die. Stop eating them. Just stop it.
Haven't you ever wondered why Americans typically only eat cows, pigs, chickens, and fish? It's because those animals don't have the teeth or claws to fight back. We are actually killing living beings that want to live and nurture their young so that we can eat their corspes. Now THAT is sick and twisted. Please think about it.

ChampionOfTheOmnivores's picture

As some may suspect, this

As some may suspect, this issue is particularly vexing to me. I have put together this polemic to champion my cause!

At present, regarding the matter of an animal's 'right to live' (rather than the much broader argument on the treatment of animals), I submit that considering animals to be sub-human is undeniably right and sensible. Human life is sacred. Animal life is not. Simple. Beautiful. Playing around with this logic inevitably means that there are varying degrees of 'animal sacredness'.

-- LEVEL 1 SACRECY --

Cute fuzzy animals like bunnies and moo-cows have the sacred right to live. We shouldn't raise them and slaughter them for food.

If it was possible, even the wild 'Doreens' should die with a morphine drip and a loving Vegan gently mooing in their ear as they pass on to Heifer heaven. Not... you know... being strangulated by a puma after a mad stampede, or having chunks of their flank ripped out by ravenous wolves, or twitching in a pile of vomit, unable to get up as they slowly die from organ failure in old age.

And certainly not with a bolt to the brain.

-- LEVEL 2 SACRECY --

Even mean fuzzy animals like bears and lions (that routinely rip apart other animals) are sacred. If a lion or a shark kills a human who happens to encroach on the animal's territory, the animal is simply doing what it was made to do. The animal shouldn't be put down if caught.

-- LEVEL 3 SACRECY --

Now we get into things like crabs. They're not so cute and fuzzy anymore. So they're a little less sacred. But, still. (Maybe just an occasional crab leg wouldn't hurt.)

-- LEVEL 4 SACRECY --

Now we have creatures like intestinal parasites. Like the lion and the shark, these creatures are just doing what they were made to do. Many parasites (guinea worm, tapeworm, etc.) can live inside a host for months and even years without doing any real harm. Eventually, they get pooed out and the little baby worms make their brave way in the world. Strangely, not many vegans consider tapeworms and lamprey eels sacred, and few would be appalled if a host animal (or human) was given an antiparasitic to (painfully, no doubt) kill the parasite.

-- LEVEL 5 SACRECY --

Now come insects. We obviously shouldn't eat honey, because it means enslaving the bees, but what about killing bees? That's cruel too, isn't it? Obviously, since most vegans consider driving their SUV down the highway to be cruelty, right? And all of them switch to riding a bike, saving countless buggy lives?

-- LEVEL 6 SACRECY --

And let's move to bacteria, algae, and eukaryotic microbes. The bacteria ('normal flora') in your body right now is about 5 percent of your bodyweight. Brushing your teeth, dieting, and even cleaning the crud out of your eyes kills countless billions of these poor little guys. So, do they deserve to be un-sacred just because they're the little guys? Just because they weren't born a lion or a cow? I think not!

-- LEVEL 7 SACRECY --

Viruses, plants, coral, etc. Why not extend sacrecy to all living things? Why is a plant less sacred than an animal just because it has a different cell structure? Plants don't want to die. They can probably feel pain, too. Horrible, horrible pain as you boil them alive.

So... is a cuttlefish sacred or not?

Is a spider-mite sacred or not?

Is a whale sacred or not?

Is the truly 'evil' thing merely the concept of animal husbandry--the fact that animals shouldn't be raised by humans? If so, then are activities like hunting, fishing, trawling for crabs, etc. vegal? What about seal clubbing? No animal husbandry there.

Is it OK to eat dairy-free cheese into which billions of bacteria have been cultivated and sacrificed?

Can I inject a cute monkey with a potential cure for Alzheimer's that might also kill him? What about a dirty little rat? What about a mushroom?

If...? What...? Can I...? Where...? How...?

Human life is sacred.
Animal life is not.

Simple. Beautiful.

- Champion of the Omnivores

Champion's point is flawed

Champion's point is flawed and the flaw is repeated several times. That is, "these creatures are just doing what they were made to do." The beasties mentioned, humans included, were not "made to do anything." They evolved into their respective niches in the food chain.

Some of the arguments against the human consumption of meat are equally flawed in that they project human culture, morals and thought processes on creatures that have neither the necessary intellect nor the training to have culture, morals and thought processes.

The point is not whether humans should derive the energy necessary to live and procreate by consuming the flesh of domesticated animals. The point is that the particular meat you are fighting about _is not food_. It is garbage.

The corn that is fed to these animals is not fit for human consumption and is, in fact, so harmful to the animals that slaughtering them at the end of their fattening cycle is the only cost effective way to end their suffering. Even if that feed corn were shipped to starving humans on this planet -- the human recipients would still starve.

Most of the corn that is grown in the US today is genetically modified to fatten animals or to be manufactured into high-fructose corn syrup. Look at the labels on the packaged foods you buy. Check those tasty carbonated beverages in particular -- beverages that are nearly vegan because the only ingredient from a once live thing is the sweetener. This feed and sugar corn, without a great deal of manufacturing processes, is unfit for human consumption. If you tried to eat it, you would starve to death.

To be frank, the corn that is grown for feed is not even fit for animal consumption, but it HAS been genetically altered to fatten live-stock as it kills them, so that the most profit can be made in the least amount of time.

So, we're growing a lot of garbage corn to feed animals which turns them into garbage meat so that we may eat food that makes us obese and weak and will quickly turn us into garbage as well. There are no saints or sinners here. There is only garbage.

ChampionOfTheOmnivores's picture

Over the weekend, I had the

Over the weekend, I had the occasion to meet with an M.D. and a vet (family friends). I was curious, and so I raised this issue.

There was a bit of a debate, but the synopsis came back as follows:

  • All corn is high-fructose, whether genetically-modified or not. As you've pointed out, it's largely why the crop is grown. The M.D. also pointed out that roughly 65% of the sweetener in the U.S. today is corn-derived.
  • Humans cannot subsist on a diet of corn because we are (surprise, surprise) omnivores by nature. Cows, on the other hand, possess the enzymatic processes to create all ten amino acids from plant matter. The corn grown for cows is, 'to be frank', fit for animal consumption. If it was not, the cow would die of starvation within weeks.
  • The cell structure in cows does not vary. So long as the animal is given the food necessary to enzymatically construct the ten amino acids and to regenerate cells, these cells are biologically identical to cells in grass-fed cows, etc. If the food given to cows is insufficient to sustain these cellular processes, the animal starves, very quickly.
  • Feeding cows high-fructose corn does indeed 'fatten them up', but only by increasing the rate at which fat cells are produced. Fatty meats and lean meats (i.e. muscle protein) are marketed separately. The fat content of any burger, steak, etc. is clearly labelled, and it becomes the responsibility of the consumer to make low-fat choices.
  • In short, the meat of corn-fed cows is not garbage.
  • Disease, BSE, hormones that build up in muscle tissue, etc. are real factors that 'taint' meat. If you want to take up arms against the meat producers, do us a favour and concentrate your efforts here.
  • The M.D. argued passionately (in agreement with the findings of another M.D. that elicited my seminal arguments in this forum) that vegans, like the hyperobese, are the unhealthiest, most lethargic people that walk into his practice. He also pointed to India's abysmal health record, which is in no small part due to vegetarianism-related malnutrition.

It would seem that another omnivore has crept into the forum to bolster our numbers.

And although one of the arguments he/she seems to be making is that humans should show no compassion because animals show no compassion (behaving like animals is a terrible precedent either way, IMHO), he/she is right to point out that compassion-based arguments won't hold much sway with the industry.

Unless you can pin down a level of animal sacrecy that i) is defensible, and ii) vegetarians of all stripes can agree on, you'll happily spin your wheels during the hundred-or-so years God gave you.

Regards,

COTO

The bullet list of

The bullet list of counterarguments to some of the bleating by vegetarians and animal rights advocates. It was interesting and enlightening; showing argument the way it should be conducted, not via the assertion of anecdote or belief but using facts bolstered by assertions from valid authorities on the subject at hand.

>> It would seem that another omnivore has crept into the forum to bolster our numbers.>>

I am certainly omnivorous. I eat both animal and plant matter and I do so to survive and to add flavor and experience to my existence. That does not mean that I fall into lock-step with yours or anyone else’s assertions—I bolster no one’s numbers—although for the most part, we do share some points of basic agreement.

>> And although one of the arguments he/she seems to be making is that humans should show no compassion because animals show no compassion (behaving like animals is a terrible precedent either way, IMHO), he/she is right to point out that compassion-based arguments won't hold much sway with the industry.>>

Please let me clarify. I don’t think that humans should show no compassion for animals.

Cultures differ in their general level of compassion for animals and for animals in terms of their ‘type.’ There are cultures that boil small mammals alive in the belief that the stress that the animal undergoes improves the flavor of its flesh. We in the west are so much “better” and “more civilized” than all those people who aren’t us, that we reserve boiling alive for lobsters instead of finding where its brain-stem is and cutting off its head.

Here in the west with a strong Judeo-Christian influence, we consider ‘humane’ slaughtering of animals used for food to be desirable and I see absolutely no reason to disagree with it as a secular practice. The reason I argue against the sort of “compassion” that I see in practitioners of borrowed Eastern Religions, PETA-puppets and animal-rights advocates of the two types I wrote about is that their reasoning stems from things that offend me—especially when that compassion’s most obvious characteristic is its lack of human centricity. I agree with you in large part because hypocrisy and ignorance stink whether or not they work in my interests.

Now, cutting the question of compassion out of the equation altogether, I can argue that you are not right to say that compassion does not affect the meat-packing industry. If the quality of the animal’s death became significant to the meat-eating public to the point where it had an effect on their bottom-line, the industry would improve (or at least claim that it had improved) the conditions under which the animals died. It is the same market-force that puts buffalo-burgers onto the shelves in supermarkets: the will of a set of consumers put them there.

Unfortunately for all concerned, two things work against any scenario involving the public’s riding to the rescue in the meat-packing industry’s problems .The first is that aside from a few smart people with too much time on their hands, no one cares: People are willing and able to eat fast food until it puts them into hospital beds and as long as that is true, there will be an industry out there that will be ruthless in its approach to supplying them with the means to do it. This brings us to the second thing: our system of government makes bribery too easy and too much a part of the ordinary course of government.

The thing that started this whole thread was Mark Fiore’s cartoon exposing the mistreatment of ‘downer’ cows by the meat industry. The truth is that the treatment of these sick animals is only a small, but emotionally resonant part of a larger problem. We have exceedingly lenient legal standards for meat handling compared to other countries and the industry likes it that way because more selective slaughter and more extensive testing of carcasses for any number of deadly pathogens would either raise the price of meat or lower its profitability. The industry likes it that way and so do its pro-business allies and lobbyists.

Considering the number of scares and recalls that happened during the last eight years of pro-business, anti-regulatory Republican stewardship of the food supply, the wonder is not that we’ve seen massive recalls for lethal strains of E. Coli, but that not one reporter has found and broken a story about something worse like mad cow disease (BSE) hopping from cows to humans.

>> Unless you can pin down a level of animal sacrecy that i) is defensible, and ii) vegetarians of all stripes can agree on, you'll happily spin your wheels during the hundred-or-so years God gave you.>>

What is “sacrecy” is it akin to “ sacredness”?

>> Regards, >>

>> COTO>>

Thanks for the straight(er) look at the questions of the meat-packing industry.

Me.

ChampionOfTheOmnivores's picture

> ...not via the assertion

> ...not via the assertion of anecdote or belief but using facts bolstered by assertions from valid authorities on the subject at hand.

Anecdotal evidence isn't categorically worthless. A concise account of a visit to a slaughterhouse or a discussion of 'animal spiritualism' are still relevant to the debate (to me, at least). As you know, whole branches of the social sciences are based largely on anecdotes. Still, in Downerland, I shan't look a gift horse in the mouth if a fellow omnivore wants to press the cold, hard facts.

> I eat both animal and plant matter and I do so to survive and to add flavor and experience to my existence.

(Slurp) :P'

> ...PETA-puppets...

This is probably the only time you'll ever hear me say this, but PETA did something good in Canada (muh home) just recently. They lobbied KFC for higher standards for chickens, and ultimately came to an 'agreement' with the company brass.

In this case, the 'puppets' limited their tactics to harmless picketing and a billboard ad campaign. I took a look at the concessions that KFC made; they're strangely reasonable (both in terms of public health, and for wellbeing of the animals).

Uncharacteristically, PETA thanked KFC for listening, stopped the ads, ended all pickets, and shut down their anti-KFC project in Canada. The battle still rages in the US, since 'KFC' in Canada is apparently a separate business entity and the agreement doesn't extend south of the border.

Still, you can count on one hand the number of times that PETA has issued reasonable demands, used less-than-deplorable PR tactics, and stopped pushing anywhere short of wanting to decimate a company's productivity.

> ...I can argue that you are not right to say that compassion does not affect the meat-packing industry...

And you'd be right. But 'bottom line' isn't 'compassion' in any direct sense.

Yes. Public pressure on corporations is a force to be reckoned with. (See PETA example above.) :)

Seems like we're on the same page for the rest.

>> What is “sacrecy” is it akin to “ sacredness”?

It's a word I made up to refer to an 'animal's inalienable right to life'. Not quite sacredness. Not quite lunacy. Sacrecy.

>> Thanks for the straight(er) look at the questions of the meat-packing industry.

Thanks for being the only other meat-eater within fifty light years of this website. ;)

Regards,

COTO

"The bullet list of

"The bullet list of counterarguments to some of the bleating by vegetarians and animal rights advocates. It was interesting and enlightening; showing argument the way it should be conducted, not via the assertion of anecdote or belief but using facts bolstered by assertions from valid authorities on the subject at hand."

Don't be too sure of that. Some of those arguments in the bulleted list are wrong (regarding "high fructose corn," for example). And the source is unnamed and therefore unverifiable, and he may not really be the authority COTO claims him to be, among other problems in COTO's neat but misleading list.

COTO's post is not good argument at all, but just a collection of transparent debating tactics to try to support questionable beliefs and assertions. The arguments don't really hold water. They are unconvincing and anything but authoritative.

ChampionOfTheOmnivores's picture

> Some of those arguments in

> Some of those arguments in the bulleted list are wrong (regarding "high fructose corn," for example).

You don't think all corn can be used for high-fructose corn syrup?

http://www.hfcsfacts.com/

There. Go nuts. You might find the Q/A sections enlightening.

> And the source is unnamed and therefore unverifiable, and he may not really be the authority COTO claims him to be, among other problems in COTO's neat but misleading list.

He's an M.D.; she's a vet. They're both family friends. I trust them. (I think that you should, too.)

Forgive me for not dragging their names into the public domain, especially since I could call them 'Joe Blow' and 'Plain Jane' and you'd still have no way of validating their suitability as sources.

> COTO's post is not good argument at all, but just a collection of transparent debating tactics...

While you're coming up with an actual counterargument, you should probably check out India's health statistics.

http://www.who.int/countries/ind/en/

I'll be enjoying my tasty, tasty steak (mmm, marbled just right; juicy, tender and delicious; I can almost hear its plaintive moos) until you get back. ;)

Thanks for Caring,

Champion of the (Hungry) Omnivores

"You don't think all corn

"You don't think all corn can be used for high-fructose corn syrup?"

That's not what I said, and that's not what you said either.

To respond with a neat bulleted list, like yours—


  • "Go nuts." — No thanks.
  • "I trust them. (I think that you should, too.)" — I don't think so.
  • "While you're coming up with an actual counterargument" — I don't have to. Yours defeat themselves.
  • "I'll be enjoying my tasty, tasty steak" — Go right ahead. You have a perfect right to poison yourself with bad meat.
  • Your arguments are not presented for constructive discussion. You are simply "evangelizing" your own particular beliefs and opinions, using, as I indicated, silly debater's tricks.Why should anyone pay attention to them or take them seriously?
  • You could have just said that I used a debater's trick too, an ad hominem attack. Some of my arguments are therefore as worthless as yours.
  • You can trust these arguments, however, because they are in such a pretty bulleted list.


>Champion's point is flawed

>Champion's point is flawed and the flaw is repeated several times. That is, "these creatures are just doing what they were made to do." The beasties mentioned, humans included, were not "made to do anything." They evolved into their respective niches in the food chain.

I would say that COTO would claim that evolution is bunk, so God created the creatures to do what they do... or serve the humanocentric purpose they've been turned to.

Well, Champion's point is

Well, Champion's point is definitely flawed not even from the POV of PETA.

Cows were not 'made to' be raised in the way they are. Cows, naturally, can not live on a diet of corn. They weren't built to digest corn. Period.

Grass, yes. If you're after burgers made from animals that were 'just doing what they were meant to do' then stick with pasture raised, grass fed cattle.

Bonus is that they taste better.

ChampionOfTheOmnivores's picture

> I would say that COTO

> I would say that COTO would claim that evolution is bunk...

How nice. An auto-reply service! :D

To get into evolution, I'd need an opponent educated in the modern theory of evolution; preferably a professional ecologist. The reason being that the tinkertoy Darwinian model taught to high school students has been shot to pieces by scientists and creationists alike and I'd spend most of my time getting people up to speed on modern theory (arguing for the ecologists, as it were).

If you fit the bill or know someone who does, you know where to find me.

> ...so God created the creatures to do what they do... or serve the humanocentric purpose they've been turned to.

Nice try, but my religious beliefs have never featured in this forum. (It otherwise becomes terribly convenient to blackball any dissenting opinion as 'religious propaganda'.)

In Downerland, I'm looking at the issues with the monolithic sterility of scientific logic that we all so revere.

So, if:

  1. you consider raising animals as food to be 'serv[ing] the humanocentric purpose they've been turned to'
  2. you are at most a sacred-level-4 vegan (any higher and you're too far gone)
  3. you believe that (-up-to-level-4-or-less) animals have a sacred right to live (i.e. possess an inalienable right to life) and that humans should not breed, cultivate, slaughter, and consume animals on a mass scale
  4. you won't accuse me of using 'debater's tricks' in the same sentence that you conveniently discount everything I've said as 'religious beliefs' (despite the total absence of any religious argument)

Then join the fray.

- COTO

"To get into evolution, I'd

"To get into evolution, I'd need an opponent educated in the modern theory of evolution; preferably a professional ecologist. The reason being that the tinkertoy Darwinian model taught to high school students has been shot to pieces by scientists and creationists"

WTF are you talking about?

ChampionOfTheOmnivores's picture

Can't anybody just say 'What

Can't anybody just say 'What do you mean?', 'Please explain.' anymore?

The statement is straightforward. The simplified model of evolution taught to US highschool students is just that: a simplified model.

In the case of evolution, it's an extremely simplified model, to the point that it bears little resemblance to the modern theory of evolution.

But don't take my word for it.

Go out and buy a junior university level ecology textbook. Then buy some senior level texts. Then buy graduate-level texts. And finally, consult the latest and greatest in the ecology/biology journals.

You're foolish to think that you're 'up to speed' on evolution with only a K-12 education on the subject matter, which was my point.

I personally am not

I personally am not persuaded by most of Champion's arguments because no matter how slyly crafted (with debater's tricks) or reasonable they may sound, they are based on his religious beliefs. Only if you accept those arbitrary beliefs do his arguments make much sense. But as Champion himself has said elsewhere here at MarkFiore.com, his assertions are based on specific assumptions. To me, most of those assumptions are questionable, doubtful or simply wrong.

To give Champion some credit, he argues fairly well for a person whose arguments have such a weak foundation. I'm surprised that a person as intelligent and reasoning as he seems to be has accepted the beliefs he has in the first place. But then again, I'm surprised that anyone would cling so hard to a set of religious beliefs and regard as an authority something outside of themselves, like a book or a person or an imagined god.

Strange how you write your

Strange how you write your response decrying Champion, yet fall to the same fallacies you dislike.

That was for a reason.

That was for a reason.

Neither animal nor

Neither animal nor human rights really have anything to do with it being "sacred"; life is just an undeniable right to all intelligent creatures, which includes all animals. A microbe, or Level 4 and beyond in your post, can't feel anything or think beyond basic instincts so it shouldn't be included in animal rights. Intelligent animals, on the other hand, can feel and think just as humans do and should be treated as such.
Nothing should be tested on anyone or any animal until the scientist is almost positive it will work and is positive it won't kill them. If that's done, it should be suitable for testing on a human or an animal without any harm or mistreatment. Animal testing is almost always bad, but if it is done responsibly and there is very little chance for hurting the animal it can be used well for everyone's benefit.

ChampionOfTheOmnivores's picture

> A microbe, or Level 4 and

> A microbe, or Level 4 and beyond in your post, can't feel anything or think beyond basic instincts so...

Hoo boy.

Fine. At least it's something.

And yet tapeworms and guinea worms aren't microbial. They'd still technically fall inside the 'sacred' realm for you. (For now, let's just consider 'sacred' to mean 'possessing an inalienable right to life'. I don't want to have to write it out each time.)

> Intelligent animals, on the other hand, can feel and think just as humans do...

Sez who?

That animals can think and reason, I'll grant you. Some possess the capacity for impressive intellectual feats. Although, rightly programmed, so does the computer you're reading this post on. 'Intelligence' seems to me to be a fragile basis on which to deem something sacred or not, especially since there isn't a shadow of a hint of a universally-accepted litmus test for intelligence.

Whether animal intelligence extends to a beyond-basic-instinct willingness to live is (so far as I've seen in the science literature) still a big question mark. Whether animals any less intelligent than the 'big, smart 10' (dolphins thru octopuses, none of which I eat) possess emotion is sliding evermore toward a definite 'no'.

I suspect that if science definitively proved that cows were incapable of thinking (or especially, of feeling) anything beyond basic instinct, you still wouldn't up and grab yourself a burger the next day.

> Nothing should be tested on anyone or any animal until the scientist is almost positive it will work and is positive it won't kill them...

This is going to come as a rather unpleasant shock to you.

To have animals suffer and die is in most cases why we have animal testing. If a drug or a treatment modality or a new medical device, etc. is 'almost positively' safe, it's into human trials. That is, there is no such thing as an 'almost positively safe' treatment going into animal testing. Animals are (literally) the guinea pigs.

Going into animal testing, scientists (may or may not--some experiments are purely explorative) have a good idea of the biological effects of a new treatment. Testing in real organisms reveals effectiveness, side-effects, mortality rates, immunity rates, contraindicators, etc., etc. Most treatments fail. Furthermore, if you're producing a cure for diabetes, you're going to need a lot of diabetic chimps and you make diabetic chimps. You lower blood pressure, cause organ failure, induce tumour growth, introduce infections and viral agents. You give half the animals (the control group) placebos so there's no hope of recovery. You keep them in sterile, confining cages to prevent interaction with other animals and environmental vectors that can contaminate experimental results.

You watch tumour-ridden rats pass away from carcinoma and meningioma over days and weeks, seeing which ones survive after one week, two. You observe pain levels, and note instances of bleeding and dehydration, and euthanize subjects that survive but are no longer suitable for further experimentation. (Only so much money is available, and keeping 'spent' animals alive can be grossly inefficient.)

And by now perhaps you're saying 'that's draconian!', but know two immutable facts:

  1. This is regrettably the best we can do with our current technology. Biological systems are complex, and testing of this kind is the only way to engineer, refine, validate, and guarantee safety of medical treatments used on humans. At present time, we simply do not have the technological means to reliably simulate the full effects of new treatments.
  2. The research works. We get new treatments for diabetes. We get better blood thinners for heart-attack victims. We get painkillers with fewer side-effects, and pacemakers that last ten years longer, and new organ transplant techniques for children that reduce mortality rates. We get the prescription acne cream that you use, and the antibiotics that helped you with your tuberculosis, and the life-saving medication that let you hug your mother again after she suffered a transient ischemic attack.

Perhaps someday our capacity to simulate complex biological systems will have matured enough to spare the animals. It's a small part of why I became a researcher (QFC, in my case, more chips and fewer chimps). But today isn't someday. And there are still millions of sick people.

So which is it for you?

By making use of the medications and treatments animal testing provides, you are not only supporting it but financing it. If you go the other route (naturopathic medicines, etc.), you're cutting yourself off from a huge percentage of the best treatment modalities out there. Statistically, you will die younger and more painfully.

Personally, if I become seriously ill, I will use the animal-tested modalities. I acknowledge the sacrifice of the animals, but in my worldview such animals do not possess an inalienable right to life and the sacrifice is justified.

That being said, where do you stand?

Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Filtered words will be replaced with the filtered version of the word.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.