This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Food for Thought: 2 videos

Food for Thought: 2 videos - Comments

dandelion fluff's Avatar Comment 1 by dandelion fluff

Exactly.

Factory farms and slaughterhouses are all about profit and the animals in them are only commodities, and this is what it leads to. I've seen enough videos from enough sources to be convinced that this is pretty standard. (I could only watch about a quarter of this one.)

I don't expect people to become vegetarians necessarily (though that's what I did), but at least to join an effort to ban these types of outfits. And yes, if that's ever successful, the meat will be much more expensive. But it's a matter of simple decency.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:12:59 UTC | #891547

78rpm's Avatar Comment 2 by 78rpm

I watched the first one---knew I wouldn't be able to bear the second one. Just as an aside, I see that he continues to reward the pig with a piece of food after each stunt. Food rewards are typical for training all animals except one---the dog. A dog will work for a pat on the head and verbal praise.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:46:00 UTC | #891552

mjwemdee's Avatar Comment 3 by mjwemdee

I wish MY dog was as accomplished....

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:57:11 UTC | #891555

Cook@Tahiti's Avatar Comment 4 by Cook@Tahiti

Interesting point.

Comment 2 by 78rpm :

I watched the first one---knew I wouldn't be able to bear the second one. Just as an aside, I see that he continues to reward the pig with a piece of food after each stunt. Food rewards are typical for training all animals except one---the dog. A dog will work for a pat on the head and verbal praise.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:03:26 UTC | #891557

TobySaunders's Avatar Comment 5 by TobySaunders

Animal products should be illegal: as Richard Dawkins has said, he is not socially bold enough to be vegan & so, he like most people, should be prevented by the law.

Being vegan is no difficult unless you are bound to culture & even then, once you understand the degree to which animal products, like pork especially, are unethical, doing the right thing is as easy as not paying for child-porn or child-flesh.

Pigs are like three or four year old humans who have been developmentally stopped at that age: would you pay for children in that condition to be kept in a shed, shocked with a taser, & have their throats slit while they're still alive & experiencing their murder? Some would, but you should not, for the same reason you shouldn't use pork; consciousness should be respected.

---in closing, Sam Harris has claimed he has had trouble being vegetarian: he must have done something wrong though... the compounds in animal flesh are found in vegan foods but it's a matter of knowing what you're eating & how much to eat (not too difficult) & then avoiding leather & the like is easy enough too.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:11:18 UTC | #891558

Sketchy's Avatar Comment 6 by Sketchy

Comment 1 by dandelion fluff

I don't expect people to become vegetarians necessarily (though that's what I did), but at least to join an effort to ban these types of outfits.

This kind of stuff is already illegal, surely? These people are just criminals, and you want to put criminals away. Vegetarianism is a good thing, but it’s a separate issue really.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:14:55 UTC | #891559

-TheCodeCrack-'s Avatar Comment 7 by -TheCodeCrack-

@comment 5

I never heard Richard say that animal products should be illegal?

No Ugg boots for tiny tim? No drinking milk? No consuming of an old chicken?

I've watched a nature doco or two. I've seen what lions have done to zebras (and continue to do). I'll be faxing those lions a letter stating my dissatisfaction, and make sure the entire letter is in bold! Who's with me?

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:30:10 UTC | #891561

-TheCodeCrack-'s Avatar Comment 8 by -TheCodeCrack-

BTW, I am an animal lover!

I don't want animals to experience cruelty. I am ok with their lifespan being shortened by (10% for example), so I can eat them; as long as their death is painless, and their lives are of an acceptable quality (you know, large enough area to roam, not stressed, reasonably comfortable), all the kinds of things that humans can provide for them, where nature can't.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:36:06 UTC | #891562

Jessica Wise's Avatar Comment 9 by Jessica Wise

I am no longer a vegetarian, although I was for several years. However, I now buy 90% of my meat from local sources that I know has been well-fed, well-treated and killed with less cruelty. It's true that the meat costs a fair bit more. However, it's also much more delicious, nutritious, and I don't have the same crisis of conscience every time I roast a chicken.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:50:35 UTC | #891563

ukvillafan's Avatar Comment 10 by ukvillafan

          [Comment 7](/videos/643898-food-for-thought-2-videos/comments?page=1#comment_891561) by  [-TheCodeCrack-](/profiles/4580)          :


                 @comment 5I never heard Richard say that animal products should be illegal?No Ugg boots for tiny tim? No drinking milk? No consuming of an old chicken?I've watched a nature doco or two. I've seen what lions have done to zebras (and continue to do). I'll be faxing those lions a letter stating my dissatisfaction, and make sure the entire letter is in bold! Who's with me?

There is, as you know, no possible connection between the behaviour of animals in the wild and what humans do to animals - for a varierty of reasons. One of the defining characteristics of the human is the ability to think and make choices. I am an animal lover too - I just choose to put that into practice by not killing them or promoting the killing or exploitation of them.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:52:30 UTC | #891564

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 11 by Red Dog

Comment 5 by TobySaunders :

Animal products should be illegal: as Richard Dawkins has said, he is not socially bold enough to be vegan & so, he like most people, should be prevented by the law.

Being vegan is no difficult unless you are bound to culture & even then, once you understand the degree to which animal products, like pork especially, are unethical, doing the right thing is as easy as not paying for child-porn or child-flesh.

Pigs are like three or four year old humans who have been developmentally stopped at that age: would you pay for children in that condition to be kept in a shed, shocked with a taser, & have their throats slit while they're still alive & experiencing their murder? Some would, but you should not, for the same reason you shouldn't use pork; consciousness should be respected.

---in closing, Sam Harris has claimed he has had trouble being vegetarian: he must have done something wrong though... the compounds in animal flesh are found in vegan foods but it's a matter of knowing what you're eating & how much to eat (not too difficult) & then avoiding leather & the like is easy enough too.

I admire your commitment but did it ever occur to you that everyone doesn't have the same metabolism, taste preferences, or willingness to invest time in understanding and preparing food that you do? I think your comment typifies what is wrong with much of the Vegan movement. They become overly preachy and they take such an extreme position that turns off the average person who would otherwise be empathetic to the abysmal conditions that animals in factory farms go through.

Personally, I'm for the most part a vegetarian but not a vegan. I like pizza and pizza without real cheese just doesn't work for me. And while I almost never eat meat I eat fish once in a while because I like the taste and don't want to rely on soy and other vegetarian alternatives for all of my protein.

For me the choice was equal parts an ethical one and a health one. Ethics aside I would never want to eat meat that comes from a factory farm with all the chemicals, drugs, and waste that ends up with the meat. And while I'm not saying that the fish I eat live wonderful lives I think in general they suffer less than the animals in the video we saw above.

My point is that people who advocate for animal rights (which I agree with) would make much more progress if they were reasonable and encouraged people to make incremental steps rather than branding everyone who isn't a 100% Vegan a murderer.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:53:28 UTC | #891565

paulmcuk's Avatar Comment 12 by paulmcuk

We are posting these 2 videos here without further comment.

You could at least comment as to their relevance to this website.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:04:57 UTC | #891570

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 13 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - sockpuppet of banned user

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:09:32 UTC | #891572

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 14 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - sockpuppet of banned user

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:14:42 UTC | #891574

ukvillafan's Avatar Comment 15 by ukvillafan

          [Comment 9](/videos/643898-food-for-thought-2-videos/comments?page=1#comment_891563) by  [Jessica Wise](/profiles/170192)          :


                 I am no longer a vegetarian, although I was for several years.  However, I now buy 90% of my meat from local sources that I know has been well-fed, well-treated and killed with less cruelty.  It's true that the meat costs a fair bit more.  However, it's also much more delicious, nutritious, and I don't have the same crisis of conscience every time I roast a chicken.

With all due respect, if you do not have a crisis of conscience at such times it is difficult to know upon what basis you went vegetarian in the first place. Your implication is that conscience was one of the factors in going veggie and I'm curious as to the process that led to the change of mind.

Unless you have visited the places you buy your meat from and seen the conditions first hand for all the animals that are slaughtered to produce your food, there is no way you can evidence that the animals were all "well-fed" and/or "well-treated". The animals way well be slaughtered with "less cruelty", although I note you use the comparative term, but that's no more than saying being shot in the head is less cruel than having your throat slit. Both are still intrinsically cruel, particularly when it is done to you alongside others of your ilk in circumstances where fear and the stench of death proliferate.

I'm not entirely sure that the claim that free-range organic meat is more nutritious has been proven by way of scientific testing. Although it seems intuitive that it must be if solely on the basis that the hormones and additional rubbish pumped into non-organic meat will not be present.

If you want to eat meat that's fine - but it seems to me that your rationale might need a little fine-tuning - not that we encourage that turn of phrase here!

I can appreciate this might come across as a bit challenging - but you are by no means the first person I'm aware of who has said - 'I used to be a vegetarian but' and I have yet to come across anyone who can explain the move from a rational perspective if part of the original reason for going veggie was related to the issue of cruelty.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:17:19 UTC | #891575

Caper's Avatar Comment 16 by Caper

Comment 2 by 78rpm

I watched the first one---knew I wouldn't be able to bear the second one. Just as an aside, I see that he continues to reward the pig with a piece of food after each stunt. Food rewards are typical for training all animals except one---the dog. A dog will work for a pat on the head and verbal praise.

Not all other animals need the reward of food. I once trained our cat to offer his paw to shake hands for a scratch under the chin. In fact he would walk up to me and offer his paw without me even thinking about it. Maybe he had ME trained - LOL.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:18:18 UTC | #891576

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 17 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - sockpuppet of banned user

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:23:22 UTC | #891577

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 18 by Premiseless

"Bend it like Bacon."

This pig would be a millionaire if pigs ruled the world. Instead his owner draws the paycheck.

Many humans meantime end up in the slaughterhouses of their own species. Those with relevant paperwork pick up the spoils of war. Dead meat pays someones wages, rather than the simple historical food for survival.

In human circles (see the animal agenda further down) , how did we get to a point where papers are more important than life and current rational opinion? Why does rational thought still bow to old ideas? It is like comparing historical religious dogma to a library book on evolution. One carries the vote of the powerful cliques of the world and the other receives a dewey index. Everyone in power fears upsetting the hierarchy of dogmatic thought. All of us therefore are slaves to the irrationalities of past paperwork. Even new governments use the same structures! This is the problem for new humans on the block. The moulds of old politics runs the casino and new politics is simply a player with money to lose, long before they ever get lucky.

It's all chaos.

The meat agenda is another I exercise ambivalence about due this chaotic mix. I have no voice that makes global sense! Worshiping imaginary %ges, plus human food needs, have me tongue tied. Ancient tribes needed seasonal food for survival. Many people will be caught in a similar situation. Today we are often indoctrinated with a diet from young we long struggle to escape even if we want to. There are reasons to abstain and reasons to continue due all sorts of inherent realities. Cruel breeding of animals seems inexcusable. I saw a program about one man who'd invested vast sums in turkey warehousing, He needed many years of profit to pay back his overheads. Meantime the supermarkets were squeezing his profits. Ethics increasingly demanded he self sacrifice his business or do as it willed. What should he do?? Suppose you are a farmer who breeds and raises animals in natural surroundings? If your role is deemed wrong due everyone saying veganism is now law, you stop breeding, the animal population reduces, nature probably produces more forest and meantime the farmer and others probably suffer a lifetime catastrophe. Or you choose to self sacrifice whilst others go on profiting. We are in the realms of self harm for the benefit of noone. Unless there is group structure and global inclusions where everyone has a stake in some form of good life, who is supposed to pay the price of remedial action for all the harm humans have integrated into their presence on Earth? We are all increasingly wired to situations that the cartels force profit margins out of. They refuse to suffer! Situations that benefit the markets % mark on paper or silicone chip and ignore ethics rule us. The top down ambitions are crude and cruel. They show little or no duty for the world we are in. They function from a position of rape and exploitation. And they make billions from it whilst the common person has to follow whatever they enslave us to. Unless everyone is engaged, how can they be expected to be responsible? Unless everyone is provided realistic solutions how can they anticipate value from becoming a token sacrifice? Why should any sufferer be the dead romantics in books on the shelves of the rich? Why should such slaves be the token guilty conscience of people not willing to follow suit? And is there a way the rich can engage such ambitions? The problem from both ends seems that there are no infrastructures that support global solutions that can and will succeed. If there were maybe some would kick start? But if the momentum ceases or stalls, the same rule applies - why token sacrifice? It needs massive cooperation and resolve. It needs a global agenda that is real and achievable. Otherwise the momentum we already have will simply eat up whatever lies in its path. The chaos that exists will replicate.

And like you hear time and again - life's too short! It says get on with your own agenda and forget the big picture! Can you afford not too? It's like the worlds combined intellect is an unconscious drugged up drunken fool! Any animal would run holistic rings round it. It's tragic we have the power!

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:33:09 UTC | #891579

ukvillafan's Avatar Comment 19 by ukvillafan

          [Comment 11](/videos/643898-food-for-thought-2-videos/comments?page=1#comment_891565) by  [Red Dog](/profiles/126865)          :


                 > [Comment 5](/videos/643898-food-for-thought-2-videos/comments?page=1#comment_891558) by   [TobySaunders](/profiles/112776) :> >   Animal products should be illegal: as Richard Dawkins has said, he is not socially bold enough to be vegan & so, he like most people, should be prevented by the law.> > Being vegan is no difficult unless you are bound to culture & even then, once you understand the degree to which animal products, like pork especially, are unethical, doing the right thing is as easy as not paying for child-porn or child-flesh.> > Pigs are like three or four year old humans who have been developmentally stopped at that age: would you pay for children in that condition to be kept in a shed, shocked with a taser, & have their throats slit while they're still alive & experiencing their murder? Some would, but you should not, for the same reason you shouldn't use pork; consciousness should be respected.> > ---in closing, Sam Harris has claimed he has had trouble being vegetarian: he must have done something wrong though... the compounds in animal flesh are found in vegan foods but it's a matter of knowing what you're eating & how much to eat (not too difficult) & then avoiding leather & the like is easy enough too.> I admire your commitment but did it ever occur to you that everyone doesn't have the same metabolism, taste preferences, or willingness to invest time in understanding and preparing food that you do?  I think your comment typifies what is wrong with much of the Vegan movement. They become overly preachy and they take such an extreme position that turns off the average person who would otherwise be empathetic to the abysmal conditions that animals in factory farms go through.Personally, I'm for the most part a vegetarian but not a vegan. I like pizza and pizza without real cheese just doesn't work for me. And while I almost never eat meat I eat fish once in a while because I like the taste and don't want to rely on soy and other vegetarian alternatives for all of my protein.For me the choice was equal parts an ethical one and a health one. Ethics aside I would never want to eat meat that comes from a factory farm with all the chemicals, drugs, and waste that ends up with the meat. And while I'm not saying that the fish I eat live wonderful lives I think in general they suffer less than the animals in the video we saw above.My point is that people who advocate for animal rights (which I agree with) would make much more progress if they were reasonable and encouraged people to make  incremental steps rather than branding everyone who isn't a 100% Vegan a murderer.

Most of us do not 'brand' (interesting choice of term) non-vegans as murderers. Most of us are reasonable people. If being confronted by 'unreasonableness' puts people off considering the cruelty of meat production, I don't think that the blame for that should rest with animal rights activists but with those people who allow such activism to blind then to reality.

And whilst you 'for the most part' might eat vegetarian food, I'm not sure you can say that you are 'for the most part' a vegetarian if you still feel it is OK to eat fish. The two states ('vegetarian' and 'fish eater') are mutually exclusive. It is the 'I'm a vegetarian but I eat fish' brigade that mean I have to explain to restaurants when I say I'm vegan that 'No, I do not eat fish' !

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:37:11 UTC | #891580

stuhillman's Avatar Comment 20 by stuhillman

I too wonder what relevance to this site are discussions on vegetarianism and the slaughter of animals for food.

These things are worth considering for our world-view but there is no requirement for followers of this site to be vegetarian any more than is being white middle-class.

Evolution and natural selection has made the human animal successful partly by being omnivorous. We got here because our ancestors were very good at killing and eating other animals high in protein whenever they could.

We have now developed the ability to do the slaughtering in an ethical and humane manner and this is what, in my opinion, we should be focusing on.

Being a vegetarian, keeping slim on a low-fat diet, only eating “bio” fruits and vegetables etc., is the province of the inhabitants of the rich industrial and post-industrial westernized countries. Our ancestors didn’t have that luxury and most of the earth’s population today don’t either.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:42:11 UTC | #891581

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 21 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - sockpuppet of banned user

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:43:29 UTC | #891582

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 22 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - sockpuppet of banned user

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:56:22 UTC | #891586

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 23 by Red Dog

Comment 19 by ukvillafan :

Comment 11 by Red Dog
Most of us do not 'brand' (interesting choice of term) non-vegans as murderers. Most of us are >reasonable people.

We are quibbling over some minor terms here. All I'm saying is that I've personally had experiences with many Vegans, both online and in person who come across as very strident and dogmatic and IMO that kind of attitude is counter productive. Specifically, the initial comment I was replying to was IMO an example of someone who wasn't being very reasonable. Saying that it was easy to be a Vegan. Its not easy for a lot of people.

However, I do accept your criticism that I was a bit overly broad in my initial comment. I agree most Vegans are reasonable people.

If being confronted by 'unreasonableness' puts people off considering the cruelty of meat production, I don't think that the blame for that should rest with animal rights activists but with those people who allow such activism to blind then to reality.

I guess the question is do you care more about being right (even if that means you are strident and put off most people who don't agree with you) or do you care more about actually changing people's minds? It seems to me if you really want to reduce the amount of animal suffering you should care more about changing minds, then about ideological purity. Even getting someone to eat less meat means less demand for animals to suffer needlessly.

And whilst you 'for the most part' might eat vegetarian food, I'm not sure you can say that you are 'for the most part' a vegetarian if you still feel it is OK to eat fish. The two states ('vegetarian' and 'fish eater') are mutually exclusive. It is the 'I'm a vegetarian but I eat fish' brigade that mean I have to explain to restaurants when I say I'm vegan that 'No, I do not eat fish' !

Again quibbling over terms. I said "for the most part" but OK if it matters to you I am absolutely NOT a vegetarian. I'm just someone who doesn't eat meat and who tries to eat vegetarian for the majority of my meals.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:56:59 UTC | #891587

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 24 by Red Dog

As to why is this video on this site, part of the mission statement of this site is: "to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering. " There is nothing in the mission statement that says we are only interested in preventing human suffering. Dawkins has written some excellent articles (e.g. in The Devil's Chaplain) that point out the irrationality of being concerned only with the suffering of humans and not with other animals as well.

It also seems to me to be a very natural result of a non-religious point of view to care about suffering of animals other then humans. Religions put humans as some fundamentally different category from all animals. They say We have a soul and We were created in God's imagine. A scientific point of view shows that we are just one more animal and that we differ in our DNA from our closest relative in a relatively small number of genes. I was always for animal rights but in the last few years as I've come to understand evolution better by reading many of Dawkins' books they have reinforced the logic of that position.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:03:13 UTC | #891590

DerekMorr's Avatar Comment 25 by DerekMorr

Richard interviewed Peter Singer for his "Genius of Charles Darwin" film. Unfortunately, the interview didn't make the film, but it's been posted on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU

That video was what started me on the path to veganism a few years ago. It was refreshing and eye-opening to see a calm, dispassionate, rational discussion of animal welfare and vegetarianism by two highly educated individuals. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend watching it.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:15:37 UTC | #891591

stuhillman's Avatar Comment 26 by stuhillman

Well, T4, I agree that the subject is worth considering but my question was, “why this site.” There are many other subjects worthy of consideration such as assisted suicide and the right to die at a place and time of one’s own choosing, for example, and – except in a religious context – they might not be appropriate here.

As far as reasons for being carnivores go it is simply a fact that we ended up here because our ancestors were able to maximize their food intake and to take advantage of whatever came along. Our bodies are conditioned to eat meat.

If you choose to be a vegetarian it’s just that, your choice. You can choose because you are rich and come armed, I hope, with enough nutritional know-how to make your body function properly – a result of advanced medical knowledge unavailable to our ancestors.

And don’t jump back at me and tell me you are not rich. I’ve lived and worked in some of the worst places in Africa and know the difference between rich and poor.

If you don’t see that, take a trip to Ethiopia – a lecture tour, perhaps, on the advantages of vegetarianism to mothers who have buried their children for lack of any sort of food, meat or otherwise

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:23:05 UTC | #891593

dandelion fluff's Avatar Comment 27 by dandelion fluff

Comment 6 by Sketchy

Comment 1 by dandelion fluff

I don't expect people to become vegetarians necessarily (though that's what I did), but at least to join an effort to ban these types of outfits

.

This kind of stuff is already illegal, surely? These people are just criminals, and you want to put criminals away. Vegetarianism is a good thing, but it’s a separate issue really.

Well, some of it. Battery cages are not illegal. Leaving carcasses in them probably is. Swinging chickens around on a line is.

In any case, I think it should be a priority both to have the laws enforced and to improve the laws. Right now the industry seems to pretty much do what it wants, and whenever they get caught, they've been labelling those cases as the exceptions. But that is as believable as when the RCC says child abuse is only a matter of a few bad priests.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:24:51 UTC | #891594

quarecuss's Avatar Comment 28 by quarecuss

The first video was demeaning but the second one? What does it do to us? Ideally we omnivores should hunt/kill/butcher the animal we will consume or, at the very least, one of the animals, or at the bare minimum, watch our favourite meat provider being killed, not just in a video but right there in the place of slaughter, as it is happening, so we hear the squealing, see the death throes, feel the fear and watch the bloodletting. If we can still eat the animal after that experience then at least we have some perspective on our dependence on other sentient beings.
As a child, watching pig killing on a neighbour's farm was horrifying but instructive. It taught one to "say grace" before meals not ingratiatingly to some phantom god but in respect and thanks to the animal and over the years it makes one eat less meat and never waste it. It may not do this for everyone (it certainly didn't do it for the butchers in the second video) but perhaps every child of a certain age should see, at least once, what happens before that burger or slice arrives on the plate.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:30:13 UTC | #891596

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 29 by Red Dog

Comment 28 by quarecuss :

The first video was demeaning but the second one? What does it do to us? Ideally we omnivores should hunt/kill/butcher the animal we will consume or, at the very least, one of the animals, or at the bare minimum, watch our favourite meat provider being killed, not just in a video but right there in the place of slaughter, as it is happening, so we hear the squealing, see the death throes, feel the fear and watch the bloodletting. If we can still eat the animal after that experience then at least we have some perspective on our dependence on other sentient beings. As a child, watching pig killing on a neighbour's farm was horrifying but instructive. It taught one to "say grace" before meals not ingratiatingly to some phantom god but in respect and thanks to the animal and over the years it makes one eat less meat and never waste it. It may not do this for everyone (it certainly didn't do it for the butchers in the second video) but perhaps every child of a certain age should see, at least once, what happens before that burger or slice arrives on the plate.

Its not at all just the butchering that is the problem. In fact as bad as the butchering is I think its a fairly minor part of the ethical issue. The real issue is the horrible way animals on factory farms are treated. Chickens have their beaks cut off because they are in such close quarters and under such constant stress they would peck each other to death. They have to be pumped up with antibiotics (which we humans then eat) because the abysmal conditions they live in would normally lead them to get sick and spread the disease through the population. Here is just one article on the subject. And here is a slide show. Google "factory farms animal cruelty" and you can find many more.

As for "saying grace" that seems like a left over from religious rituals and frankly if I've lived a life of constant torture knowing that someone said a prayer before they ate my dead flesh wouldn't be all that much comfort.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:44:11 UTC | #891599

dandelion fluff's Avatar Comment 30 by dandelion fluff

Comment 20 by stuhillman

I too wonder what relevance to this site are discussions on vegetarianism and the slaughter of animals for food.

That's been answered quite well already.

These things are worth considering for our world-view but there is no requirement for followers of this site to be vegetarian any more than is being white middle-class.

You don't seem to like the fact that we are even discussing it. That's a completely different question than imagining that Prof Dawkins is going to suddenly declare all members must be vegetarian or vegan. So what was your point?

Evolution and natural selection has made the human animal successful partly by being omnivorous. We got here because our ancestors were very good at killing and eating other animals high in protein whenever they could.

Yes. Maybe, if we are going to keep eating meat, we should go back to killing and eating them in the same way as we used to? Hunting wild ones that have lived a free life up until then, and killing our own for ourselves?

We have now developed the ability to do the slaughtering in an ethical and humane manner and this is what, in my opinion, we should be focusing on.

We have the technical ability but we certainly don't have the political ability -- unless a lot of us get together and form a movement. These videos are a step in that direction.

Being a vegetarian, keeping slim on a low-fat diet, only eating “bio” fruits and vegetables etc., is the province of the inhabitants of the rich industrial and post-industrial westernized countries. Our ancestors didn’t have that luxury and most of the earth’s population today don’t either.

I'm not so much "low fat" with all my nuts and oils. And grains and beans need not be expensive. Nor is quinoa or soy (both complete proteins), especially compared with humanely raised and slaughtered meat, not that stuff you buy in the supermarket.

I am not asserting that everyone should be vegan. I am vegetarian and working on being vegan but I am the only one in my family, and I don't browbeat them. And some people have said that they tried to be vegetarian and just couldn't for the sake of their health, and I can't dispute them. But I think we need to make some real changes in the meat and dairy industries. This changes will be gradual if they happen at all; that's a political reality. So there will be time to adjust. But the status quo, just for the sake of the cheapest meat possible, is not acceptable.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:56:20 UTC | #891602