XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.global-warming
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:51:59 -0500, John Stafford
wrote:
>
>I would like to know if any of these "animals for slaughter are well
>off" people would agree that the animals are of vastly sub-human
>intelligence,
· Because there are so many different situations
involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
cruelty or abuse at all.
Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
confined to such a degree that they appear to have
terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
groups of animals in the same way.
Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
groups in the same way. ·
>so if/when a human being goes to the same place, then why
>don't we just add them to the food supply?
It probably goes back to the evolutionary process before
modern man appeared. For example chimps eat monkeys, but do they
eat dead chimps? Probably not. Wolves and lions scavenge, but do
they eat their own dead? It probably goes back to disease, and
animals who ate dead of their own kind died from disease as a
result often enough that it influeced the reproduction of species
including humans.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
