![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 74. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2004, at 22:32:20
In reply to eating animals., posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2004, at 22:30:25
Posted by Cass on November 26, 2004, at 22:36:48
In reply to eating animals., posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2004, at 22:30:25
alexandra,
What you wrote reminds me of a quote by Alice Walker:
"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than blacks were made for whites or women for men."
Posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2004, at 22:39:09
In reply to Re: eating animals. » alexandra_k, posted by Cass on November 26, 2004, at 22:36:48
Posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2004, at 22:45:15
In reply to Thats great Cass, thanks (nm), posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2004, at 22:39:09
Actually this issue first came up for me when I studied 'Environmental Ethics'. That was a fair few years ago now though.
I remember reading stuff on an 'athropocentric' as opposed to 'e?????pocentric' worldview.
The athropocentric (human centered) world view is promoted by the idea that humans are the 'most evolved' of the species, and / or the idea that god gave us the animals to use however we want.
The other one (can't remember what it is called) puts the ecosystem at the center of the worldview.
"The Land Ethic" is a major for advocating this one. From the perspective of the land ethic 'massive human diebacks would be good' (for the ecosystem).
The universe doesn't revolve around us humans.
We have reason to refrain from doing harm.
Not cunning to exploit...
Or at least, we have the choice
Posted by Cass on November 26, 2004, at 23:49:19
In reply to Re: Thats great Cass, thanks, posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2004, at 22:45:15
>
> The athropocentric (human centered) world view is promoted by the idea that humans are the 'most evolved' of the species, and / or the idea that god gave us the animals to use however we want.
>Thanks for bringing that up. I don't agree with the anthropecentric point of view. It doesn't make sense that being evolved (and that's subjective) gives us the right to abuse or torment other creatures. We are certainly not spiritually evolved if we confine living, feeling creatures in torturous conditions.
I'm no expert on the bible, and I personally don't believe that the bible is "the word of God,"
but I do believe that the idea that God gave us animals to do with as we please, including eating them, isn't really supported by the bible.
Here are a couple of biblical quotes that support a plant based diet:Genesis 1:29 "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."
Psalm 104 says that the vegetation is for the service of man ..."14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;"
There is a passage in the bible about eating meat, but from what I understand, the word "meat" did not originaly mean the flesh of animals; it simply meant "food." There is also something that says that man should have dominion over animals, but who knows what the original meaning of "dominion" was. There's an alternate interpretation of it here: http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=dominion+over+animals&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D13fc8d5c906627ab%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Ddominion%2Bover%2Banimals%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fbibletools.org%252Findex.cfm%252Ffuseaction%252FTopical.show%252FRTD%252Fcgg%252FID%252F2163%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPToolbarNS%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fbibletools.org%2Findex.cfm%2Ffuseaction%2FTopical.show%2FRTD%2Fcgg%2FID%2F2163
and here: http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=dominion+over+animals&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D13fc8d5c906627ab%26clickedItemRank%3D3%26userQuery%3Ddominion%2Bover%2Banimals%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.essene.com%252FVegetarian%252FDidGodGiveHumansDominionOverAnimals.htm%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPToolbarNS%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.essene.com%2FVegetarian%2FDidGodGiveHumansDominionOverAnimals.htm
Posted by alexandra_k on November 27, 2004, at 0:22:10
In reply to Re: Thats great Cass, thanks » alexandra_k, posted by Cass on November 26, 2004, at 23:49:19
Yeah, I don't like the athropocentric world view much either. It is simply wrong to say that we are 'most evolved'; it is not like we are the 'best' or are at the 'top'. Evolution is like a tree where there is a single trunk (ancestor) and all the different species are just different branches or twigs. Everything that exists today is similarly evolved because it all exists TODAY (at least thats one way we can look at it). It is true that we have distinctively human attributes, but then dogs have distinctively canine ones etc etc.
I liked your links. My understanding (though I may well be wrong) was that (according to the bible) people didn't eat meat until... some point where they were supposed to sacrifice them and then were told they could eat them too.
I have read a lot of stuff about how it is biblical that we have 'dominion' over the animals and so it was very interesting to me that your link challenged that and challenged the correct interpretation of 'dominion'.
(It is kind of like how the interpretation of 'soverignty' is a hot topic in NZ because according to the Treaty of Waitangi Maori should retain their 'soverenty'. - not sure how to spell that, they are probably both wrong!)
I also take the point that people try to argue for all sorts of stuff on the basis of the bible...
I think that there has been work done, however, on how established religion (perhaps rather than the bible explicitly) has taught that animals are gifts from god for us to do what we want with. Perhaps it is also because the differences between humans and animals are emphasised rather than the continuities... I dunno.
I just think it is wrong to subvert the interests of another for our own. Especially when there is little reason for it and it is unnecessary and unnecessarily cruel.
Of course we can argue about whether animal research is ok etc etc, but food is different: we simply do not need to eat animal products in order to live healthily.
But of course I am preaching to the converted :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 27, 2004, at 0:29:21
In reply to Re: Thats great Cass, thanks » Cass, posted by alexandra_k on November 27, 2004, at 0:22:10
'Genesis 9, the text often cited as justification for eating animals, is recognized by most theologians as either a very temporary post-flood concession (all vegetation had been destroyed)'
I do worry about this though. There is only two of every animal at that time so ya can't go eating them!
Also: Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, then they had children. But to get the next generation you need their children to do the wild thing (and this is of course assuming that Adam and Eve also had girls which just happened to be neglected by god when he wrote the bible...)
However... thats another topic :-)
Posted by Cass on November 27, 2004, at 0:47:59
In reply to Re: Thats great Cass, thanks » Cass, posted by alexandra_k on November 27, 2004, at 0:22:10
> Of course we can argue about whether animal research is ok etc etc, but food is different: we simply do not need to eat animal products in order to live healthily.As a vegan, I try to avoid things that have been researched or experimented on animals. The beauty of having gone to a plant-based diet is that my health has improved to the point that I almost never need medication anymore.
I'm not saying that a plant-based diet is a panacea, but I'm sure animal experimentation for drugs would be minimal if people improved their health by becoming health conscious vegans. Drug companies wouldn't like that too much. By the way, I say "health conscious vegans" because it is possible to eat badly as a vegan. Processed foods like refined sugar, iodized salt ...
FYI, I really respect you for your ethics, alexandra :)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 27, 2004, at 0:54:15
In reply to Re: animal research » alexandra_k, posted by Cass on November 27, 2004, at 0:47:59
> FYI, I really respect you for your ethics, alexandra :)
I really respect you for acting in accordance with yours.
I am just so much noise
Till I can follow through with action.I am practically vegetarian already for one simple reason: I am too lazy to buy anything that needs cooking! But then that doesn't count!
Thanks for your input Cass,
I have decided to make a conscious effort to:
#1 become vegetarian as of tomorrow
#2 learn more about veganism so as to do it sometime...:-)
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 27, 2004, at 1:00:54
In reply to Re: Larry and Gabbix » Gabbix2, posted by Cass on November 26, 2004, at 22:12:31
> Hi Gabbix,
>
> I agree with you.
Hi Cass
Come over for a visit some timeWe can have olive oil baked potatoes!
It's nice to meet a kindred spirit.
Gabbi
Posted by Poetess on November 27, 2004, at 1:44:10
In reply to Re: animal research, posted by alexandra_k on November 27, 2004, at 0:54:15
Hi!
Cool to read this thread! I was a health conscious vegan for about a year. In my mind, I still consider myself a vegan, but at this time I occasionally eat eggs for health and financial reasons.
I have also felt better since changing my diet. I no longer take meds, either.
Wanted to mention something. I found out that there's a nutrient in eggs (unfortunately, I can't remember what it was) that can only be found in wheat germ, eggs and liver. I wasn't eating wheat germ. I began eating eggs and I felt better. Since money is a problem for me, I got the eggs instead of the wheat germ because eggs are a protein source, as well (I'm a person who needs a lot of protein to function well). I honestly believe that really cheap, conventially grown wheat germ won't be effective enough.
Flax is a really important vegan supplement, for the omega fatty acids. It's the only high source of omegas that I know of for vegans. I used to eat organic, cold milled flax daily and then couldn't afford to buy it anymore. I've noticed a big difference (for the worse) in my health since then. I'm going to make sure that I have it budgeted in from now on. I don't eat enough eggs to compensate for the omegas. And flax is super for the skin! It helps with dryness and any face blemishes completely vanish.
I'm not sure where you live, but there is one company in the U.S. that doesn't buy eggs from factory farms (Egg Innovations). Those are the eggs that I buy. They have a detailed list of conditions they expect the farmers to maintain. It's not perfect, but it's the best that I've found. I also buy eggs from one local farmer. She's the only one in this whole area that seems to treat the hens with some care. I won't get into the horrors of factory egg farming :0
I'll throw this out there, as well since I've met many vegartarians who didn't know this. Many cheeses are made with animal rennet (too digusting to describe). It can be a chore finding vegetable or microbial rennet cheese. Gelatin is also from animals (too digusting to get into).
By the way, I just read something that said that 80% of U.S.D.A. chicken inspectors no longer eat chicken. Humm...cluck, cluck :)
Poetess
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 27, 2004, at 2:28:58
In reply to Whoops! AlexandraK, posted by Gabbix2 on November 26, 2004, at 22:00:21
Chickens are also force fed, your friend was correct
Posted by alexandra_k on November 27, 2004, at 2:40:29
In reply to Re: Whoops--again- AlexandraK, posted by Gabbix2 on November 27, 2004, at 2:28:58
Oh. Did you find a link? I looked for one but couldn't find one...
Can I come?
I'll bring desert?
Posted by alexandra_k on November 27, 2004, at 2:46:08
In reply to Veganism, posted by Poetess on November 27, 2004, at 1:44:10
I think we can only get free range eggs here. Though 'all squished into a large room and pecking each others feathers off' is probably more accurate though less apetising... My old flatmate used to keep a few chickens, though, and they were pretty well looked after and used to lay sometimes.
I did know that about cheese. Apparantly although there are synthetic rennets they are more expensive and so are used less. And yes, I have heard about gelatine...
> By the way, I just read something that said that 80% of U.S.D.A. chicken inspectors no longer eat chicken. Humm...cluck, cluck :)
Heh heh, yeah. Someone I know used to work stuffing chickens into plastic packs. He doesn't eat chicken any more, and several people who he showed his work to don't eat chicken anymore either.
Glad to meet another :-)
Posted by Cass on November 27, 2004, at 2:47:30
In reply to Re: Whoops--again- AlexandraK, posted by Gabbix2 on November 27, 2004, at 2:28:58
Fortunately, foie gras has been outlawed in California
Posted by alexandra_k on November 27, 2004, at 2:53:10
In reply to Re: foie gras, posted by Cass on November 27, 2004, at 2:47:30
They are like frankfurter (hotdog) sausages.
Apparantly that kind of sausage typically has a really low meat content and is mostly soy any rate. You can't even taste the difference IMHO
Posted by Cass on November 27, 2004, at 3:12:41
In reply to Veganism, posted by Poetess on November 27, 2004, at 1:44:10
Gabbix, I'd love to join you for an olive oiled baked potato sometime! I'd love it if you could join us Alexandra!
Poetess, I echo your sentiments about flax. I sometimes soak flax seeds and put them in smoothies, and sometimes I dehydrate a flax seed mixture to make crackers.
Walnuts, hemp seeds and dark leafy greens are also good sources of omega 3 fatty acids. There is also a green called purslane which is supposed to be rich in omega 3 fatty acid, but I've never seen it in stores.
Posted by AdaGrace on November 27, 2004, at 6:33:42
In reply to Re: I like meat » AdaGrace, posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2004, at 18:54:22
You're not going to explain to me how hotdogs are made are you????
Posted by AdaGrace on November 27, 2004, at 6:59:12
In reply to Any vegans out there?, posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2004, at 17:40:22
My husband is a farmer and raises chicken for egg production.
First of all. They are in pens the size appropriate for the number of chicken of each breed. We do not free range our chickens because out in the country here there are too many cyotes that would love to have them for dinner, not to mention the stray dogs we deal with too.
Second. We raise them for egg production and not for meat. Which means that we do not insert anything into them other than antibiotics if they get sick.
Third, and this one is important. I was unaware of the inserting stuff into poultry. My husband however says that there are "meat" chickens bred only for production of meat. Which means they get fatter quicker than other breeds. Cornish Cross is one of them. They are a fat squatty bird that grows very fast. He also told me that these chicken are raised in very small individual pens and are not allowed to move. Therefore they eat, poop, and then get fat from no exercise. I realize that his information is not essentially the truth for all meat production plants, but I believe it might be a tad bit true in some cases. I don't know what Tyson does. Neither does he, since he doesn't work there.
Fourth, and this one is the bad one, he raises chicken for egg production and then incubates the eggs and sells baby chicks. This means the more eggs produced, the more chicks to hatch and the more money to make (by the way, we don't make didley). This means that in order for the chickens to lay more eggs, they have to be fed a high protein diet of "egg laying feed". He also leaves the lights on in the chicken barn during the winter months longer than the daylight hours. This also helps produce more eggs. Now. Because of this, they get "worn" our before their time. A chicken that would normally live 5+ years and produce an egg every other day, becomes a egg a day producer that eventually doesn't lay squat after 2 years. It doesn't kill them, but imagine a woman past her prime at 25 living on the prairie in the 1800's. This is the part I find cruel. He doesn't beat the chickens, he doesn't pump them up with hormones, and they are allowed to roam in their "rooms", they just are turned into chicken "putas" and become old before their time.
My husband is a small farmer farming with family and not a corporate farmer who is only after the money. There are small farmers who raise animals for food for themselves and others who don't use hormones and such for added productivity. People who like this idea can try to find these farmers and get meat the way it is supposed to be w/out all the additives. There are even farmers who package and produce their own meat and dairy products for comercial consumption. They are governed by heath departments for safety, and the government doesn't like it because they are not in control, but it seems to be catching on in our area of the midwest anyway. However, it is expensive. For 4 KC strip steaks you might pay as much as 3 times what you would in the grocery store, but at least you know the meat is good for you. There is lower fat and colesterol from corn fed hormone free beef and chicken than what you can get in the grocery store and so it's better for you.
#5. However, there is no humane way to kill an animal. Killing is killing. IF you are against that then I don't blame you for not eating meat.
Something to think about, I am not against your ideas or points of view, in fact I agree with most of them. It's just that my lifestyle is different. My diet, when I eat healthy that is, consists of chicken, fish, deer, and sometimes beef.But, actually, my original post was not referring to beef, chicken, or any other animal meat.
It was reffering to something different. Hardy Har Har.
AdaGrace (riding the fence once again)
Posted by AdaGrace on November 27, 2004, at 7:19:37
In reply to Any vegans out there?, posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2004, at 17:40:22
Also wanted to mention that when I say free range and that we don't do it, I mean free range as in 25 birds out in the open on a acre of land. Free range would not work for us becuase of the wild animals that would kill them. Our poultry is in pens, but they aren't laying on top of each other they can run around and yes, they do peck each other, it happens when they are molting. There is some medicine that they can be given to help with it, but it's something they do. Free range chickens would do it to I imagine. Have you ever seen chickens in a chicken barn? I used to gather eggs for hubby and would occassionally drop one. Chickens are cannibals. They eat their own eggs if given a chance, and would eat a dead chicken if given a chance. I was amazed the first time I dropped an egg and was almost flocked to death when the chickens scrambled over to eat it. Apparently they don't peck at a egg, but if one breaks they go after it like it's candy to a kid.
By the way, we do occassionally let a few guineas out to free range because they can fly into the trees and get away from predators. They are wonderful for getting rid of bugs and ticks in the yard. They are noisy, but fun to watch.
Okay, I hope you don't hate me now because I live on a farm and raise animals. We really are NOT a factory farm and it's not like what people imagine it to be always.
We have 8 baby calves we are raising now. They are getting bigger and ready to sell, but I want to talk hubby into keeping one so we can have some decent beef for a change. But he says we need the money and it costs a fortune to butcher a cow these days.
Ada, farm girl at heart, Grace
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 27, 2004, at 7:28:29
In reply to Re: Fattening Chickens and Egg Laying » alexandra_k, posted by AdaGrace on November 27, 2004, at 6:59:12
> #5. However, there is no humane way to kill an animal. Killing is killing. IF you are against that then I don't blame you for not eating meat.
Killing is *not* killing. Would it be for you?
Don't people take their pets to the veterinarian to be euthanized because it's a "humane" way to kill them?
Death may be death, but there are certainly different levels of cruelty involved in killing. Killing an animal quickly after it's been raised (or allowed to live) in a humane way is much different than a lifetime of misery only to be hung by the feet and bled, or suffocation (however long that takes) after being tossed on a conveyer belt and thrown into a garbage bag on top of hundreds of others (as is the case for unwanted male chicks on the factory farm.)
I won't get into the lives and deaths of other factory raised animals because it's too gruesome but I cannot put a painful, sloppy killing after a miserable life in the same category as a quick death, after a comfortable one and I can't fathom how anyone could.
Posted by AdaGrace on November 27, 2004, at 7:47:02
In reply to Re: Fattening Chickens *trigger* » AdaGrace, posted by Gabbix2 on November 27, 2004, at 7:28:29
Maybe you are right, but I do not want to get into a heated arguement here, I am not going to go down that road. All I know is how my husband had to kill his chickens when they got a disease, and it was not the way the state vet wanted to do it. I won't explain further. I disagree with many ways animals are treated, but I also know the other side of some of the instances and I just simply cannot get on the bandwagon here on either side.
Euthanasia is not something that I feel is economically feesable for some farmers. Yet, until everyone walks in everyone's shoes, there is always a different viewpoint.
I don't want to argue here. Just wanted to voice my own experience and the experience of small farmers who are governed by everything they do. They are told how much money they can make on their product, they are told what to do with the animal excrement, they are told what crop to plant where, and then when they do everything right, and have a good year of production, their product isn't worth diddly. Ohhhhhhhhhh please stop AdaGrace........please stop.......
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 27, 2004, at 8:43:05
In reply to Re: Whoops--again- AlexandraK, posted by Gabbix2 on November 27, 2004, at 2:28:58
> Chickens are also force fed, your friend was correct
I did a google search on that, and found no instance of even a claim of that, let alone evidence supporting the claim. Nor for turkeys, either. I suppose it could be done, though. Wild chickens, the jungle fowl of Asia, must be force-fed if captured from the wild, as they will not eat in captivity. But I don't think that's what's being talked about here.
Just being my usual geeky self.
Apparently, the whole force-feeding thing is thousands of years old. The reason was that the birds' fat was prized for cooking (called schmaltz). The liver was also prized as a delicacy (high in nutrients), and the fatter the goose/duck, the better the liver.
Of course, this whole thing has gotten out of hand when the whole purpose is to produce the fattest possible liver, but even the idea that stomachs routinely burst with "modern" force-feeding is not substantiated by necropsies done on dead ducks. Poor sanitation, combined with esophageal injuries which become infected are the primary causes of death, as is the fat liver itself. The fat liver, called steatosis, is a direct result of too much carb intake. The same thing happens to humans, sometimes. It is a serious illness, but the point here is to make the duck really sick, while keeping it alive long enough to "harvest" the liver.
I don't mean to support the practise. It is abhorrent. I just want to remain factual.
Lar
Posted by Poetess on November 27, 2004, at 11:57:08
In reply to Re: Whoops--again- AlexandraK » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on November 27, 2004, at 8:43:05
Do any of you know about Fruitrarians? The discussion about killing reminded me of them.
This, to me is not killing to eat taken to an interesting level. Fruitarians only eat fruits and nuts. The philosophy of many of them is to kill as little as possible for food, including plants (grains, etc). They say that eating fruit helps the plants. The ripe fruit would either rot and drop off the plant or burst anyway. Animals who eat the fruit and aid in spreading new trees by spitting out larger seeds, the animals thrive from eating them and then poop, which fertilzes the ground for the plants. I'm not sure how one can stay healthy eating like this and keep battling those who wish to exploit the environment. I find theirs and interesting perspective, however.
Many traditions believe that all life is life. That killing a plant and eating it and killing an animal and eating it are the same thing, since everything (including things like rocks in some cultures) has a soul and everything is connected. The idea of one life being more evolved or more important than another doesn't, so the ideas that you shouldn't kill an animal and eat it doesn't exist. That there is a natural balance in life and everything does what it's supposed to do. Except for humans, since we think too much and have lost connnection with the rest of nature :)
Another thing that I have been thinking about is what some Buddhists (and others) say about eating meat. Fear is the last thing that any animal feels before they die. When we eat their flesh, we are consuming their fear or adrenaline. The adrenaline or fear-energy is in the meat. We eat adrenaline-laced or fear-energy laced meat and absorb that energy. Even when animals are "tricked" into not knowing they are going to be slaughtered, I can't imagine that they are so stupid that they don't know something is up and would begin at least a minor freak-out/ major confusion.
Just some thoughts...have to stop now, my brain is spasming :)
Poetess
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 27, 2004, at 12:04:58
In reply to Re: Fattening Chickens *trigger* » Gabbix2, posted by AdaGrace on November 27, 2004, at 7:47:02
> Euthanasia is not something that I feel is economically feesable for some farmers. Yet, until everyone walks in everyone's shoes, there is always a different viewpoint.
I wasn't saying that I thought farmers should have to use euthanasia, but you had said there is *no* humane way to kill an animal, and
I was pointing out that I think there must be
or euthanasia would not be considered more humane than other methods of killing.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.