Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

I now cannot fathom eating the flesh of a once living sentient being. Period. I would gag if I tried to.

That answers my question.

Of course, I disagree with and oppose abuse* of animals. I grew up farming, and raised and slaughtered hogs and cattle (which were treated well while living, and were killed instantly with a properly-placed shot to the head).

That's ENTIRELY different than factory farming, where chickens are debeaked and crammed into tiny cages that don't even allow them to move around, or calves are removed from their mothers at birth and restrained in small crates so their flesh will be proper veal. Again, even though your type of raising/killing animals is a world apart from factory farming, I still wouldn't eat it.

* I think "abuse", like beauty, lies a lot in the eye of the beholder. I'm OK with testing medicine of unproven efficacy on rats and monkeys, as long as it is scientifically supportive of development for human use. I rate human needs higher than animal comforts.

I'm not okay with it at all. Do some research on the PLETHORA of medicines/products that were approved for human use after being tested on animals and deemed safe for humans, only to be yanked off the market because of horrible side effects--including death. Thalidomide is, by far, the best known but there are many others. The reason is and will always remain that non-human and human animals do not share the same physiology. Think about ibuprofen and acetaminophen--great for humans, deadly for pets.

[bsniadajewski]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

Yet how are we going to test new medicines then. We can't test them on human, at least not ethically and unwillingly (on the part of the human subjects). The best recourse, IMO, is to test on other animal species (primates) with similar physiologies. It's somewhat difficult to test these hypothetical medicines virtually, without harming any animals in the process. What would you suggest then?

[SteveRiley]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

(Predatory) animals have been doing this for millions of years without any worries. I don't think we should worry too much about sentience in the foods that we eat (or choose not to).

That humans possess point teeth pretty much shows what kind of diet we're evolved to consume.

DYK -- two things:

(1) Although Thompkins's and Bird's book/movie The Secret Life of Plants is typically discounted by biologists, during the last couple years Scientific American has published some very interesting articles about signaling mechanisms between plants and their symbiants and among plants themselves. Singaling doesn't imply sentience, though. Oshun's remark (and my follow-on) surely are meant to be humorous. Your response indicates otherwise. Are there, in fact, people who make this comparison in all seriousness? If so, such people make a truly vapid argument: either we avoid plants, too, and therefore all die, or we gorge ourselves with reckless abandon.

(2) I've heard the claim that vegetarians are healthier. Given our evoluationary heritage, I rather doubt that -- the vegetarians I know struggle to obtain sufficient protein. Yes, we've all read the Wikipedia article on vegetarianism; however, a lower BMI does not automatically mean greater health (says the skinny omnivore). How do you do it?

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

I now cannot fathom eating the flesh of a once living sentient being. Period. I would gag if I tried to.

That answers my question.

Of course, I disagree with and oppose abuse* of animals. I grew up farming, and raised and slaughtered hogs and cattle (which were treated well while living, and were killed instantly with a properly-placed shot to the head).

* I think "abuse", like beauty, lies a lot in the eye of the beholder. I'm OK with testing medicine of unproven efficacy on rats and monkeys, as long as it is scientifically supportive of development for human use. I rate human needs higher than animal comforts.

+1

One could say also that, e.g., an African lion wouldn't care if that gazelle he just killed was sentient or not. To him, it's lunch. (Predatory) animals have been doing this for millions of years without any worries. I don't think we should worry too much about sentience in the foods that we eat (or choose not to).

Sorry, but you're missing my point, which is that factory farming is horrifically cruel to animals, everything from how they're housed to how they're slaughtered. For ME, as I've stated, I would never eat meat again even if the animals were raised kindly and killed humanely, but that's beside the point. Factory farming=cruelty to animals. Period. End of discussion.

Referring to no one in particular HERE, I'm always astonished at how people who consider themselves animal lovers somehow decide that CERTAIN animals are ours to torture and kill, while others are to be pampered and loved. Doesn't make a lot of sense. The day in 1988 when I had my epiphany, i.e., that I was a f*cking hypocrite, calling myself an animal lover yet participating [albeit passively] in cruelty to animals, was the day I declared I could no longer eat dead animals. And I've never looked back. Nor would I.

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

Yet how are we going to test new medicines then. We can't test them on human, at least not ethically and unwillingly (on the part of the human subjects). The best recourse, IMO, is to test on other animal species (primates) with similar physiologies. It's somewhat difficult to test these hypothetical medicines virtually, without harming any animals in the process. What would you suggest then?

We're in the 21st century. We have technology available to us that is not only more humane than testing on animals (because it doesn't), but also yields BETTER results. Seriously, do some research on the issue and you'll find that there are many alternatives to animal testing. One of their biggest roadblocks is that corporations who use live animals get LOTS and LOTS of funding, and they don't want to kiss that goodbye.

You know, in the '80s when I was preparing for medical school, 100% of med schools in the US had "dog labs" (med students using live animals to learn on, including operating on them). Among many horrible aspects of that was that the animals' vocal cords would be cut--so the humans hurting them wouldn't have to listen to them cry out in pain. People like me started complaining about it. Our argument was that it was unnecessary, and that other alternatives existed and could be used instead. Do you know how many US med schools do *NOT* have dog labs today? Approximate 98%. That includes all the top med schools you can name. And I don't think anyone would argue that today's medical school graduates are not well trained.

[dibl]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

I'm always astonished at how people who consider themselves animal lovers somehow decide that CERTAIN animals are ours to torture and kill, while others are to be pampered and loved. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

If logical consistency were a prerequisite of human sentimentality, we would certainly be living in a different world!

@Steve, in the back yard of my house grows a honey locust tree -- probably 30 inches in diameter at the stump. This tree has some of the world's most diabolical thorns growing on the trunk and the lower branches, up to about 10 feet high. Then, above that level, there are no thorns whatsoever. How does that tree know that humans and large animals that could damage it cannot reach above 10 feet?

[bsniadajewski]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

Not only that, but we've been doing that (in almost all societies) since before the dawn of civilization, even when we were hunters and gatherers (and still are somewhat).

[SteveRiley]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

If logical consistency were a prerequisite of human sentimentality, we would certainly be living in a different world!

I suspect a large portion of people would hold that logic and sentiment are antonyms. Of course, perhaps that's exactly what you mean

How does that tree know that humans and large animals that could damage it cannot reach above 10 feet?

I don't know how a tree would "know," because my knowledge of biology is too basic. I suspect articles in this journal and courses from this university department would provide the answer...I'm glad I have a concert to perform later, otherwise I know how I'd be spending the remainder of my Saturday!

[de_koraco]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

That's ENTIRELY different than factory farming, where chickens are debeaked and crammed into tiny cages that don't even allow them to move around, or calves are removed from their mothers at birth and restrained in small crates so their flesh will be proper veal.

That's a little extreme. Debeaking, gestation crates and similar techniques are not the "industry standard". A much bigger problem today, as a whole, is improper hygiene on dairy and pig farms, where animals walk in excrement due to not being allowed to go outside. But even in dairy farming, which has long held the record as the worst offender in animal cruelty, the conditions have improved drastically in the last 20 years. Regulations for factory farming in the West these days are pretty strict, and while the treatment of animals is still questionable, it's a far cry from PETAs horror stories - not that they don't happen, but they're the exception rather than the rule. I've had the opportunity to visit a large number of farms in my country, where regulations are nowhere near as strict as in proper countries, and while the animals aren't exactly happy, they mostly live in decent conditions.

I'm not saying your choices are wrong, vegetarian or vegan diets are certainly cleaner from a moral standpoint, but it's not like the whole industry farming thing is non-stop torment for the animals. Rather than relying on anecdotal evidence, it's quite enough to study the legal documents pertaining to farm animal breeding and upkeep.

[dibl]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

I'm glad I have a concert to perform later, otherwise I know how I'd be spending the remainder of my Saturday!

OCD Forever!

[woodsmoke]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

Quinoa is a very good thing.

woodsmoke

[Qqmike]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

I believe it's pretty clear that health benefits accrue to vegans/vegetarians. And in the biggie areas: heart disease (and hypertension), T 2 diabetes, and cancer. So quality of life is high as one ages. Do they live longer than people who eat meat? That may be the question, along with degrees. For example, people who are 90% vegan may live as long as a pure vegan. Ninety percent would mean that you allow 10% of your calories for animal products. That's 200 cal/day on a 2000-cal diet (which actually sounds like a lot to me). How about 80%? Open questions.

There's a heck of a lot of research on this, and many mainstream, legit people have compiled it, these two guys coming to mind:

Joel Fuhrman, MD, for example:
http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Live-Amazi...3565675&sr=8-1
and
Neal Barnard, MD, a good read being:
http://www.amazon.com/Neal-Barnards-...3565722&sr=8-1

There's a lot of issues involved. Animal proteins play hell on the kidneys and other organs, put one hell of a toxic load on the body. Cheese has hormonal effects, in addition to the fat and animal protein. (Many) fish is loaded with concentrated toxins. As for protein, getting enough is easy as pie on vegan diets, plant-food diets providing 30-40 grams/1000 calories. Lot of outdated myths about our need for animal protein (read the links). Just gotta watch B12 (supplementation a good idea, especially as one ages even if non-vegan), and maybe Vitamin D supplementation being a good idea for both vegans and non-vegans. And under vegan, weight loss is a piece of cake. In fact, you may have to add in some extra fats or high-calorie foods (raw nuts, seeds, flaxseeds, and avocados, for example) if you have a problem maintaining your ideal weight.

I've been experimenting with 80-90% vegan, allowing occasional [toxic] "treats" such as pizza (w/various toppings), green chile cheeseburgers (I know, I know ...), maybe a little carne adovada (pork marinated in red chile), pork and chicken adobo, and such (all free-range, natural, hormone/chemical free and on and on, from trusted stores). Generally speaking, you feel really good on a vegan diet. Then when having a non-vegan food, you sure as sh* feel it (in a heavy, bad way). And you can learn new habits. I don't always order pizza this way but am surprised at how good it actually is: thin crust, no cheese, veggie toppings. Yeah, it's not the same as a heavy, greasy though somewhat tasty (food-addicted that we are) "the works" pizza, but it is pizza, and it is surprisingly very good and does not throw you off-weight or feeling tired (or sick!).

Whatever your leanings are or whether you were raised on meat and potatoes (as I was), I guarantee you that reading through the Furhman book will cause you to drastically reduce your consumption of animal products.

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

That's ENTIRELY different than factory farming, where chickens are debeaked and crammed into tiny cages that don't even allow them to move around, or calves are removed from their mothers at birth and restrained in small crates so their flesh will be proper veal.

That's a little extreme. Debeaking, gestation crates and similar techniques are not the "industry standard". A much bigger problem today, as a whole, is improper hygiene on dairy and pig farms, where animals walk in excrement due to not being allowed to go outside. But even in dairy farming, which has long held the record as the worst offender in animal cruelty, the conditions have improved drastically in the last 20 years. Regulations for factory farming in the West these days are pretty strict, and while the treatment of animals is still questionable, it's a far cry from PETAs horror stories - not that they don't happen, but they're the exception rather than the rule. I've had the opportunity to visit a large number of farms in my country, where regulations are nowhere near as strict as in proper countries, and while the animals aren't exactly happy, they mostly live in decent conditions.

I'm not saying your choices are wrong, vegetarian or vegan diets are certainly cleaner from a moral standpoint, but it's not like the whole industry farming thing is non-stop torment for the animals. Rather than relying on anecdotal evidence, it's quite enough to study the legal documents pertaining to farm animal breeding and upkeep.

I'm sorry, de_koraco, I don't know which country you're in. You've indicated that you've visited a large number of farms--but how many of those were factory farms, as opposed to "natural" farms (for lack of a better term)? As for Peta, their [and other animal welfare groups'] undercover videos say EVERYTHING that needs to be said about factory farms. No anecdotal evidence involved, just pure unadulterated FACTS caught on film. Here in the US, there are proposed laws that would make it a *FELONY* to take undercover video at places like factory farms, labs that test on animals, slaughterhouses, etc. Would you like to guess who's pushing so hard for these laws to be passed? Yep, the people doing the abuse. If they had nothing to hide, if they were actually treating the animals humanely, why would they need laws making it a felony to take undercover video in their facilities?

Qqmike, you make many excellent points. My mother was an omnivore her entire life, until I returned to California and moved in with her. She's now been vegetarian for over 5 years--by her own choice--and cannot believe she ever ate dead animals. A little research on her part was all it took for her to understand why I gave up eating/wearing sentient beings in '88. One of the [largely rhetorical] questions I asked her early on was, "are you willing to kill, butcher, cook, and eat Panther [one of her cats]?" She was horrified at the thought. But I kept pressing her: "WHY? WHY wouldn't you eat your cat, but you're okay with eating OTHER animals that have exactly the same capacity to feel pain and fear and love as Panther does?" Of course she couldn't provide an intelligent response, because there is none. Like I said before, it makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding the health benefits, nutrient needs, etc. Personally, because I'm in it due to the animal abuse issue, the health benefits are secondary to me; if they're there, great, if not, whatever! Besides, my body is so bizarre...a few years ago I suddenly became really ill. Couldn't eat, couldn't keep anything down, was vomiting like crazy and had terrible nausea. My doctors ran tests--all of which came back negative--and did a lot of scratching their heads. One day my hematologist said, almost on a whim, "let's do a HIDA scan" (to check gallbladder functionality). He knew I had been veggie for many years, and neither of us expected the result we got. My gallbladder was completely infiltrated with cholesterol. Cholesterol! Although high cholesterol runs in my family, and I was first diagnosed with it at 18, I didn't expect THAT! (The gallbladder had to come out.)

In my experience, a veg*n diet done correctly provides every nutritional need a person has. By the way, I personally LOVE greasy, satisfying foods. But instead of relying on animal products to provide that texture, I use olive oil. Tastes great, feels satisfying, and it's good for you!

If anyone's interested in some veg*n ideas, please see this Squidoo lens I wrote a while back. One huge misconception about veg*n diets is that they're bland, boring, unsatisfying, and involve nothing but [raw] bean sprouts and carrots. Wrong!

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

(Predatory) animals have been doing this for millions of years without any worries. I don't think we should worry too much about sentience in the foods that we eat (or choose not to).

That humans possess point teeth pretty much shows what kind of diet we're evolved to consume.

Really? Please tell us about the last time you took down a live animal with your bare hands and ripped into its raw flesh with your canine teeth, okay?

DYK -- two things:

(1) Although Thompkins's and Bird's book/movie The Secret Life of Plants is typically discounted by biologists, during the last couple years Scientific American has published some very interesting articles about signaling mechanisms between plants and their symbiants and among plants themselves. Singaling doesn't imply sentience, though. Oshun's remark (and my follow-on) surely are meant to be humorous. Your response indicates otherwise. Are there, in fact, people who make this comparison in all seriousness? If so, such people make a truly vapid argument: either we avoid plants, too, and therefore all die, or we gorge ourselves with reckless abandon.

Yes, people say it in all seriousness. I've heard it so many times in the past 23+ years I can't even estimate how many times it's happened. I'm never sure if these folks are trying to be cute/clever or if they actually equate plants with sentient beings but, yes, they're absolutely serious.

(2) I've heard the claim that vegetarians are healthier. Given our evoluationary heritage, I rather doubt that -- the vegetarians I know struggle to obtain sufficient protein. Yes, we've all read the Wikipedia article on vegetarianism; however, a lower BMI does not automatically mean greater health (says the skinny omnivore). How do you do it?

First off, most people have a very inflated view of how much protein they need. The average American consumes more protein than there's any need to. So the basic answer is, it's VERY easy to get sufficient protein. I'm at 23 years and counting and have never had a diet-related deficiency of any kind. I've been chronically anemic for the last 3-4 years, but that has nothing to do with diet. Protein is super easy to get--soy milk, beans, veggie burgers/hot dogs/sausage, nuts and nut butters, spinach, broccoli, potatoes, many other vegetables, tofu, bagels, certain types of bread...the list just goes on and on. Ditto for calcium sources, iron sources, and so on.

[SteveRiley]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

There's a heck of a lot of research on this, and many mainstream, legit people
Joel Fuhrman, MD
Neal Barnard, MD

reading through the Furhman book will cause you to drastically reduce your consumption of animal products.

Widely published and quoted, yes. But mainstream? That's debatable. Both these guys lurk around the fringes of alternative medicine (a detestable phrase*, really), reject evidence-based approaches, and promise that diabetes can be "reversed" or even cured -- which is actually not possible currently. Their basics are sound -- healthy eating is, after all, healthy. But they overstate their claims with some dubious science.

Really? Please tell us about the last time you took down a live animal with your bare hands and ripped into its raw flesh with your canine teeth, okay?

Commerce provides a mechanism to outsource the nasty parts of my carnivorous nature. I see no need to hunt my own dinner when I can pay someone else to do that for me. Doesn't change the evolutionary basis for my possession of incisors and, yes, canines.

So the basic answer is, it's VERY easy to get sufficient protein.

I'd agree it's probably easier in the 21st century to be a vegetarian/vegan than ever before in human history. Meat is an extremely economic means of acquiring calories when you compare the caloric cost of that acquisition to the gain. Vegetables, historically less so: farming and harvesting are far costlier, energy-wise, than hunting. But since I can now have my veggies delivered right to my very own front door, I guess there's no need to go take down a live animal with my bare hands rip a bunch of plant stalks out of my own yard. Yeah, evolution is a good thing.

______

* "alt-med" is detestable because it actually doesn't exist. There is medicine that works, and medicine that doesn't. Medicine that works is, by definition, medicine; there's nothing "alternative" about it. Medicine that doesn't work is not medicine, regardless of what adjectives one places in front of it.