Global Warming

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Blake
Maybe if you create a lamb with no brain - in fact just a self-replicating mass of muscle protein, then I'd agree it causes no harm.

Anything less than this morally indefensible.

Edit: Oh ****, you said self-replicating. That means it could qualify as a type of life again. Sigh. Murder.

[Elok]

Lorizael pretty much covered it, but I'd like to add: do you believe plants are unable to sense damage done to them? I'm pretty sure they can. I've read about plants releasing toxins into their leaves when they feel beetles chewing on them. And that qualifies as a form of pain, I'd say. True, the leaves grow back, but then more animals are born to replace the ones we kill too.

If that doesn't work for you, is it acceptable to eat lizard-tail? Just anesthetize the lizard, cut off the tail and let it go. It'll grow back and the lizard will go on like it did before. What about worms? Is it ethical to eat earthworms, since you can cut them in two and both halves will live on? Or does the part you cut off count as a whole new animal which you're eating all in one piece? And the starfish. Won't someone please think of the starfish?

[Blake]

Originally posted by Lorizael


This time I'm cutting out the part where you think that because your version of morality is obvious, it's right.

Good idea. It's easier to obfuscate issues when you ignore what is obvious.

[Elok]

If I hit a deer with my car by accident, is it okay to have venison for dinner that night? If my dog gets neutered (purely in the interests of population control!), and I'm really desperate for protein, can I eat the "leftovers," seeing as the dog has no more use for them? How about when animals miscarry? I bet fetal pigs are yummy, and if they're already dead...there are so many opportunities for ethical meat we're missing out on.

[Kuciwalker]

I was with you at the deer, but...

[Elok]

Hey, if it's a choice between dog nuts and some lamb-textured Soylent crap grown in a petri dish like Blake suggested, my first question is how said dog nuts are cooked and seasoned, is all I'm saying. It's a toss-up.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Blake
Good idea. It's easier to obfuscate issues when you ignore what is obvious.

Before you came to your current beliefs on morality, did you think they were obvious?

[Blake]

Originally posted by Elok
If I hit a deer with my car by accident, is it okay to have venison for dinner that night? If my dog gets neutered (purely in the interests of population control!), and I'm really desperate for protein, can I eat the "leftovers," seeing as the dog has no more use for them? How about when animals miscarry? I bet fetal pigs are yummy, and if they're already dead...there are so many opportunities for ethical meat we're missing out on.

I'd say yes yes and yes.

Does the deer need it's body anymore?

Does the dog need it's balls anymore?

Does the mother needs it's fetus anymore?


But I'd be wary; that you don't start to deliberately hit deer by accident.
That's the kind of thing which you forgive yourself for but then seriously ask yourself how you can avoid it happening in the future. You also need to move the corpse off the road to avoid the possibility of another motorists damaging their car. If you feel you need the meat more than whatever creatures would've scavenged the corpse (the question here maybe is; what is the deer population like? Is it overpopulated?) then I'd say it's quite reasonable that you make use of the corpse.

I'm not going to make an absolute statement like "Roadkill is fair game! Start your engines!"

You should pay particular attention to issues like that of the deer population. If taking the deer's corpse will disrupt the BALANCE of the local ecosystem, you should be wary of doing so.

Do not start your engine and go running down deer, instead if you hit a deer, engage your brain.
Understand?

The Middle Way is not difficult to understand. It involves staying away from extreme forms of action and thought. You think about things deeply, from every angle you can, you then make a decision. Such a decision should be qualified;
This is Good and I shall proceed boldly, I am uncertain I shall proceed with caution, this is Bad I shall abstain from it.

That is the way of positive action. It doesn't matter what other people think, as long as you've thought about it deeply, you've assessed your own ignorance on the topic (a confidence in your rightness).

You make that decision, because if you don't, you will be forever thinking about it, and not able to do it, and not able to think about OTHER things. And it's IMPORTANT to get to thinking about other things! If you stay stuck on one issue there are many you wont ever confront and you'll be ignorant forever. (Nibanna, here I come never!)

Veganism for me involves an acknowledgment of uncertainty. There are things I'm genuinely uncertain about, like what meat is "kosher". I'm a lot less uncertain about certain kinds of plant foods, and so I proceed boldly to eat those foods I'm not particularly uncertain about. There's no need for me to cautiously eat meat, because I can boldly eat plant. Plants which are harvested at the end of their natural lifecycle, and fruit, are particularly "kosher", you kill nothing by eating a forgotten body and fruit is DESIGNED to be eaten! What plant would begrudge having it's fruit eaten.


This has covered food a lot. I'm going to say what food is in Buddhism:
Food is medicine for the Body

You should consume food, because otherwise the body will die. Your motivations for consuming food should not be ones of flavor, but welfare of the body.

It's worth noting that the best thing you can do for a human body, is consume a true vegetarian diet. It's better medicine - there are fewer health problems.

You can see what happens when people let taste alone guide them. They eat processed foods like McDonalds, which is "good" tasting, but terrible medicine, it causes no ends of problems for the body.

You take whatever medicine is available, but it's better to use responsible medicine, that which is better for your body and causes less harm to the environment in manufacture.

It's a good idea to get closely enough in touch with your body that you can feel beyond the tastebuds and actually feel the effect which medicine (food) has one the rest of your system. Then the bad medicine will actually "taste" bad (stomach says: Hey! Hey!! Not in the mouth!!!), and the good medicine tastes good and there is no sense of deprivation.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Before you came to your current beliefs on morality, did you think they were obvious?

Do unto others?
Do what makes sense?

Sure.

I've just expanded "others" to be more inclusive and my sense is better through experience and mindfulness.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Krill
*shrug* Humans can not survive without other animals. They can survive without us. I'd say that animals are on some levels our superiors.

theoretically people could survive without animals. It would require sophisticated artificial environments which there is little incentive to develop.

In the long run the animals won't survive without humans or some other intelligent species because this planet will eventually become uninhabitable even to bacteria without artificial intervention.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Geronimo
theoretically people could survive without animals. It would require sophisticated artificial environments which there is little incentive to develop.

In the long run the animals won't survive without humans or some other intelligent species because this planet will eventually become uninhabitable even to bacteria without artificial intervention.

stop making sense

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Geronimo


theoretically people could survive without animals....

Just try going without your intestinal bacterial flora.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Just try going without your intestinal bacterial flora.

There are two approaches that would likely make that possible. Sophisticated food processing in which case we would live but basically everything would probably taste like soylant green fare or that goo in the matrix movies - OR- modification of humans to secrete the appropriate enzymes into our digestive tracts. Neither solution would likely require extremely far fetched technology.

For the record the intestinal bacterial flora aren't animals.

[David Floyd]

I suspect that cutting a limb off would be distressing to the lamb

Liberals

Lookit. We eat meat because 1)we evolved to eat meat - we're omnivores, 2)ever hear of a food chain? we're on top, 3)it's healthy for us - yeah, you can argue that red meat isn't, but no one's gonna tell me that fish and chicken aren't healthy, and 4)it just tastes good.

Applying the standard you are applying - under what conditions would you allow yourself to be eaten - is silly. Animals aren't humans - they don't have rights. They aren't sentient.

Do unto others?
Do what makes sense?

Sure.

I've just expanded "others" to be more inclusive and my sense is better through experience and mindfulness.

And what experience, if I may ask, prompted you to include animals in the Golden Rule, and equate, say, cows with humans?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Applying the standard you are applying - under what conditions would you allow yourself to be eaten - is silly. Animals aren't humans - they don't have rights. They aren't sentient.

If you're going to act like an arrogant *****, at least get your terms right. Animals may not be sapient, but they are sentient.