How can you not be disgusted if you watch an animal being slaughtered in a video like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDdVQ5YL7UQ&NR=1

Yes, it does happen in nature, but then it's done out of necessity, so I still see a distinction. Overall, it's not an easy issue, as evidenced by the walls of texts.

Angeldust wrote:

Now, I personally don't believe it's wrong to kill animals as long as it's quickest, least painful way. Also I believe a lot of it comes down to motive. I don't believe in killing (or hunting) for sport, because your motive is wrong. It's for selfish enjoyment. And because I believe selfishness is wrong, then therefore killing for sport is wrong.

what do you say when the motive is wrong, but the action is still (in some sense) necessary though? When i was in Japan, this problem was presented to me, and i'm still not entirely sure what to think...

Naturally, i feel a sense of disgust when someone talks to me about hunting, specifically those rich businessmen types who go on holiday and kill animals for sport. I was speaking to someone about this, and he said, maybe you personally dislike these people, but in some places at some times of year, the population of these animals gets out of hand. They then cause all sorts of problems for human populations nearby, and pose threats to other species in the area. by using ecology research, and killing a certain number of these animals, we can keep the populations balanced and stable. So, there's very strict quotas imposed on how many animals can be killed. Also, if only people from that area kill them, there will be far too much meat for the local population to consume, so that meat will just go to waste. So they advertise, and people come for a holiday, shoot whatever it is, and take the meat back with them to eat with their families.

So, despite abhorring the motive, is this really wrong? To me, not in any obvious logical way... i dunno...

A young deer in the woods having fun splashing in a mud puddle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUa3d0sDzuI

I would eat Jodie Foster

IceCream wrote:

Personally, i think that animal welfare is extremely important. But i don't think there's any reasonable argument for supporting animal rights...

Well, we're at at disagreement then. If it were required, I find it hard to believe that viable alternatives for vivisection and medicines containing animal products couldn't be found. At any rate, the overwhelming majority of vivisection today is simply unnecessary. I personally forgo vaccines that contain eggs etc, although I probably would take a medication tested on animals if I thought it would save my life.

Even if you feel that vivisection and animal products in medicine can be justified, I still don't see how you can justify meat and other animal products (unless the animal products were produced in some obscure, hypothetical situation like I mentioned earlier).

thecite wrote:

IceCream wrote:

Personally, i think that animal welfare is extremely important. But i don't think there's any reasonable argument for supporting animal rights...

Well, we're at at disagreement then. If it were required, I find it hard to believe that viable alternatives for vivisection and medicines containing animal products couldn't be found. At any rate, the overwhelming majority of vivisection today is simply unnecessary. I personally forgo vaccines that contain eggs etc, although I probably would take a medication tested on animals if I thought it would save my life.

Even if you feel that vivisection and animal products in medicine can be justified, I still don't see how you can justify meat and other animal products (unless the animal products were produced in some obscure, hypothetical situation like I mentioned earlier).

In the future, they certainly will be found. It's not just animal rights activists who dislike testing on animals, research scientists aren't generally evil the way they're depicted by PETA, etc. It's difficult and depressing for many of them to do the experiments. And research is going on to find other solutions... we're just nowhere near it being finished. And please remember, in order to find other solutions, animals will also be used in this process a lot of the time.
It's also as a consequence of a lot of the previous experimentation that we know so much about animals in general, and how to treat them humanely.

I'm not sure which vivisection you think is absolutely unnecessary, especially now testing things like make-up and shampoo and other things like that are prohibited. In order to be able to do experiments like that, you have to have a strong research proposal that is going to be beneficial in some way. These things are regulated!

I'm not saying it's "justified" or "right", and on a personal level, no matter how interesting the results might be, or how beneficial, i couldn't spend my own life doing that, it would be emotionally crushing. But i can't go as far as to say that it shouldn't be done either, not with science at the place it is right now.

As i said before, eggs are like, whatever. It has no absolutely no logical direct connection to whether or not the animal is later eaten, so it's beside the point. If you can justify eating crops made with a process which is indirectly responsible for the deaths of animals, there is no logically justifiable reason to not eat eggs. You don't need an idealised farm, only a free range one where the chickens aren't suffering.

btw, what is your position on the problems i mentioned with hunting above?

i think the basic point is that many of these problems aren't as simple as they seem, each case has to be taken on it's own merits and looked at with an open minded view rather than just going based on your emotions all the time. Because your emotions are going to conflict a lot of the time, and you're going to end up in difficult situations. Then i think the best way is to try to find some balance between positions rather than going to extremes...

Interesting evolutionary take on altruism

Wild animal control is a complicated issue, but generally there are non-lethal alternatives, it's simply that they're more costly and time consuming, and hence culling is adopted for convenience. Where the culling is in the animal's interest, say it's a drought and they're dying from starvation, then I think it can be justifiable.

thecite wrote:

Wild animal control is a complicated issue, but generally there are non-lethal alternatives, it's simply that they're more costly and time consuming, and hence culling is adopted for convenience. Where the culling is in the animal's interest, say it's a drought and they're dying from starvation, then I think it can be justifiable.

Essentially, apart from introducing more predators, these strategies will all involve lowering the carrying capacity of the environment in some way. In order to lower the carrying capacity, you need to make sure those animals don't have enough food in some way, or not able to breed as much for another reason (starve them or shoot them, is there so much difference? Besides which, this is somehow difficult. How do you stop deer eating things if they're free to roam?). Remember, sterilisation won't work if the carrying capacity of the environment stays the same, because those left to breed will again breed until the carrying capacity of that environment is filled. It's definately not just a simple problem, where culling is the reason chosen for convenience sake...

Last edited by IceCream (2011 March 26, 8:35 am)

IceCream wrote:

If there was no demand for meat, but still a demand for eggs, there would be no killing of the animal and their offspring. There is no direct relation between the two...

Well yes, there probably would be, as it's an economic burden to keep them alive and in good condition. But as I said, if they weren't killed, and were allowed to live out their entire lives in comfort, then I don't really see any problem with that.

Last edited by thecite (2011 March 26, 8:49 am)

thecite wrote:

IceCream wrote:

If there was no demand for meat, but still a demand for eggs, there would be no killing of the animal and their offspring. There is no direct relation between the two...

Well yes, there probably would be, as it's an economic burden to keep them alive and in good condition.

it might be more expensive, but probably not inviable. Again, it could then be down to consumers to choose to pay more for eggs from a farm that let the chickens live out their whole life. Besides which, if the meat wasn't in demand, chickens would be bred on the basis of the length of time they can lay a good amount of eggs, rather than the amount they can lay in a short space of time. It wouldn't take long to start producing hens whose peak laying period was a great deal extended.

... actually, i was wrong. Looking at it, it seems most farms produce either meat or eggs, but not both. brb.

Last edited by IceCream (2011 March 26, 9:20 am)