Is Free Range Poultry really the kinder option?

[salana]

Death (of plants or animals) is a necessity for all living things (again meaning both plants and animals).

While I respect, and agree with to some extent, your opinion, I do feel the need to split hairs. Some food items can be consumed without causing the death of any organism. Such as:

Seeded fruits and vegetables (you know, plants that have evolved to encourage you to eat the fruit and throw away the seed or poop it out a day later)
Honey (although if you take too much the bees could starve)
Unfertilized eggs

And of course, many organisms do not kill other organisms in order to survive. Many parasites and bacteria live off of another organism's blood, food supply, and/or waste. It is an unsuccessful parasite or virus that kills its host (at least not before it can spread throughout the world). When was the last time you heard of a cow dying directly from vampire bat bites? Many fungi, animals, and bacteria live off of waste and carrion--organisms that are already dead.

So, I would say that humans, even vegan humans, cause a lot more death of other organisms than the following species (and many more):
Vampire bats
Fruit bats
Helicobacter pylori (the ulcer bacterium)
Vultures
Mushrooms
Roundworms, pinworms, hookworms, etc.
Leeches
Bees
Dung beetles
and many more...

But I have to say that no organism causes as much suffering to other organisms as humans do.

[thalestral]

Honey cultivation does result in many deaths:

Bees
Why honey is not vegan

Other than that I agree And of course knowing that we must cause harm does not prevent us from deliberately choosing to cause the least amount of harm possible.

[salana]

Yes, the practice of factory farming of honey is exploitative and harmful. So is the practice of factory farming of eggs. But in and of itself, eating honey or unfertilized eggs is not killing an organism. The same for milk.

I forgot to mention that most plants do not kill other organisms for food, of course.

[thalestral]

Honey is still a product of the death of animals just as milk is, so I figure that would be included in causing death through diet, especially unnecessary death. Also, bees die in small scale honey production too.

I think what is more important though is the difference between being able to cause harm, and choosing to avoid harm wherever possible so meting that humans at least do have going for them!

[Stephanae]

Thanks for your wonderful points, Salana. You are, of course, right if you look at your facts in isolation, such as that eating fruit doesn't cause the fruit-bearing organism's death. I tend to look at a broader picture of an ecosystem in which my view is still true. For example, while roundworms might feed off of a carnivore without killing it, the roundworms will not survive if the carnivore doesn't kill food to eat. Some species may be several steps removed from the kill, but the death is still required somewhere in the ecosystem.

One reasons humans are remarkable is that we can choose our position on the food chain. I have a lot of respect for people who've chosen vegetarianism, for this reason. I've chosen differently for some of the reasons I've mentioned and some additional ones that are religious/spiritual and thus forbidden topics.

By the way, plants need things to die to enrich their soil and feed them (although it's true that very few plants kill directly). It's all cyclical.

Originally Posted by salana

But I have to say that no organism causes as much suffering to other organisms as humans do.

I can't say I definitively agree with this statement. I've watched my cats torment mice. A large number of animal species have seemingly cruel social orders (like the chicken's pecking order). There're many critters out there with horrifyingly violent reproductive cycles. At least one exists where the mothers don't give birth--the babies eat their way out of her.

What I do believe is that humans have a choice about whether to cause suffering (just as they have a choice about where they want to be on the food chain). The difference for me here is that I believe choosing to cause suffering is always bad. Period. Bad for both victim and perpetrator, for that matter.

[Susan9608]

Further, by the same argument, aren't people more important than animals?

People ARE animals.

This fact - that so many people seem to either forget or be oblivious of - is the main factor that separates plants from other animals. It's not that animals are "important" while plants are "unimportant." It's about respecting that common bond between us ... why should human beings, as one species of animal, be protected from abuses and atrocities, but pigs, as another species of animal, be totally open to them?

Most animals form some kind of bond, within their own species ... and many species - not just humans - form bonds across species. Dogs, for instance - how many dogs do you hear about who risk their own lives to save their masters? Or cats who travel great distances to get back to their families? Or dolphins who save a drowning human being?

Non human animals also have the ability to experience pain and fear. Has anyone ever proven that a plant has those capabilities. Plants lack the organized central nervous system, neurotransmitters, and receptors to even send pain signals, much less have a "brain" that can experience something as complex as emotions.

Do you deny that other species of animals love? My cat, who greets me at the door every day ... who follows me from room to room ... who allows no one but me to pick him up ... do you deny that he loves me?

I just don't understand how anyone can compare plants to animals, no matter how "gentle" their spinach may be. How often does that spinach show you affection? Actually, how often does the spinach do *anything* except sit in the dirt and just grow? it has no real survival instinct ... no sense of fear ... nothing ... nothing at all.

[hydrohoki]

Pure satire that fits this discussion:

"Have you ever thought of the feelings of the poor vegetables that you so brutally kill? You don't think they have feelings? How would you feel if all you're doing is happily growing away with your feet stuck in the ground and some drooling vegan comes along and RIPS you out by your roots and starts chewing on you? These poor vegetables have absolutely no chance of surviving! They can't run, they can't hide, they're stuck waiting for their inevitable destiny!

What do you think these poor vegetables get fed? MANURE!!! That's right! They are stuck eating animal excrement! You think they like that??? You think they wouldn't rather dig into a nice rare steak occasionally? That's not the worst of it either. People take other vegetable remains and let it rot and then feed that to the poor vegetables. and then they act as if the vegetables like eating decomposed remains of their friends!

Imagine if you had to eat the mouldering remains of someone you just pollinated! Disgusting!!! You vegans are just plain cruel! I bet you're the type to sadistically pull the petals off of a beautiful flower one by one while chanting, she loves me, she loves me not, she loves me..."

[Stephanae]

Hi, Susan,

I want to say first of all that I was never trying to argue that humans are more important than animals. That's not what I believe. And I definitely was never trying to argue that animals shouldn't be protected from abuses and atrocities. I tried to make that very clear. What I was saying in the sentence of mine that you quoted was only that an argument like this one:

Originally Posted by Susan9608

Non human animals also have the ability to experience pain and fear. Has anyone ever proven that a plant has those capabilities. Plants lack the organized central nervous system, neurotransmitters, and receptors to even send pain signals, much less have a "brain" that can experience something as complex as emotions.

is very similar to an argument like "people are worth more than other animals because they're smarter." What difference does it make whether plants have nervous systems or whether they feel or whether they love? What difference does it make if cats love but houseflies don't? What difference does it make if pigs are smarter than chickens? What difference does it make if humans have more complex emotions than iguanas?

I don't think I am like the speaker in hydrohoki's amusing satire. And I understand that most of the people on this forum probably hear things similar to his satire frequently (only by people who aren't trying to be satirical). I think the difference is that most people who say such things are mocking, or discounting the importance of your causes, or justifying turning a blind eye to cruelty. I think most of them are trying to justify a belief that humans are all that matters.

I am not doing any of those things. I'm expressing a belief that the answer to my questions above is "no difference at all." I believe all life is equally valuable. You believe in a bond among animals of all kinds. I respect that. I believe in a bond among all life of all kinds, and the elements and minerals and other natural things that sustain it.

Originally Posted by Susan9608

I just don't understand how anyone can compare plants to animals, no matter how "gentle" their spinach may be. How often does that spinach show you affection? Actually, how often does the spinach do *anything* except sit in the dirt and just grow? it has no real survival instinct ... no sense of fear ... nothing ... nothing at all.

Do you want to understand? I tried to explain some of why I make the comparison already. If you want to understand more, I'd be happy to try and explain more. But I have a strong feeling you don't want to understand. That's okay, too. I think I understand your viewpoint. I also thing we have lots of common ground. None of what I said stops me from being a strong proponent of animal welfare, just as my belief that human life is not more valuable than plant life doesn't stop me from believing that it's not okay for people to beat (or eat) their children.

[Susan9608]

Do you want to understand?

Not especially - and I'll tell you why. I think you're exactly like that satire in that you're reasoning, no matter how well thought out it seems and how logical and how peaceful and loving and kumbaya it all seems, it simply rationalizes how it's okay to eat other animals. It's a cop out ... the easy way out. A nice way to avoid taking a hard stance. "Well, MY beliefs say it's okay to eat meat because I respect ALL life."

And if it's okay to eat cows or pigs - no matter how much you respect them and their right to not suffer - then hey, why not eat your children? As long as they have a swift and painless death? What's the difference?

Plants may be alive, but they aren't alive the way animals are alive. Is there not a fundamental difference between mowing your lawn and cutting off your cat's tail?

To say that you "respect" all life and value no life more than another, makes your concept of life nebulous and indistinct ... plus, I happen to find it a little sicken that to justify your "values" you'll just go ahead and eat it all, since you value it all so much.

Seems like rationalization to me. But that's just my opinion. I happen to think that there is a very distinct difference between the life of plants and hte life of animals ... but hell, I'm weird enough to see a huge difference between tearing into a head of lettuce and bashing in the head of a dog.

whatever.

I respect all life so much that perhaps I'll just put myself on tpn and lipids forever, then I'll never have to eat anything.

[Stephanae]

Originally Posted by Susan9608

And if it's okay to eat cows or pigs - no matter how much you respect them and their right to not suffer - then hey, why not eat your children? As long as they have a swift and painless death? What's the difference?

In fact, there is no real difference on a purely moral level for me. Many animals cannibalize their children. That's part of nature's cycle, too. I don't think humans should eat their children because it's not our social model. If we had a different social model where we controlled our excess population by eating extra children or ate our dead rather than burying them, it might be okay. I can conceive of such a model, but I don't want it. I haven't been socialized that way.

So really, the difference is in me, not in the life itself. I don't like to eat things I love. And I don't like to eat other humans. I haven't learned a social model where it's okay to do that. I have ingrained taboos.

But knowing I don't like to eat the things I love is part of why I understand your viewpoint so well. Because yes, I do think plants and animals are different (both life, but very different), and I can see how animals are more lovable. I'm sorry my viewpoint sickens you. I can see why you would think it's a rationalization, but these things I've been discussing are actually quite sacred to me. But like I said before, it's okay that you don't want to understand. It's even okay that you are judging me to be like the person in the satire without wanting to understand. I respect your decision.

[Calliso]

Originally Posted by Stephanae

In fact, there is no real difference on a purely moral level for me. Many animals cannibalize their children. That's part of nature's cycle, too. I don't think humans should eat their children because it's not our social model. If we had a different social model where we controlled our excess population by eating extra children or ate our dead rather than burying them, it might be okay. I can conceive of such a model, but I don't want it. I haven't been socialized that way.

So really, the difference is in me, not in the life itself. I don't like to eat things I love. And I don't like to eat other humans. I haven't learned a social model where it's okay to do that. I have ingrained taboos.

But knowing I don't like to eat the things I love is part of why I understand your viewpoint so well. Because yes, I do think plants and animals are different (both life, but very different), and I can see how animals are more lovable. I'm sorry my viewpoint sickens you. I can see why you would think it's a rationalization, but these things I've been discussing are actually quite sacred to me. But like I said before, it's okay that you don't want to understand. It's even okay that you are judging me to be like the person in the satire without wanting to understand. I respect your decision.

Well I understand and your respect your opinion personally. I even agree with a lot of what you say here. Especially on how in someway we basically live off the deathes of other organisms even if we donlt kill them directly ourselves. I also donlt think your viewpoint is anything like the one in the satire and donlt see how people could think it is. I think people just need to carefully read and consider other peoples opinions before they jump to conclusions about them. I understand though how it is easy to leap to conclusions especially when someone feels strongly about something. For instance you have to understand that many people here are vegans and vegetarian and the very idea of people eating meat does sicken them. But anyway I guess I am saying that we need to be careful before leaping to conclusions and judging people.

[HowietheGreat]

People are the most cruel creatures because we have the ability to understand and acknowledge the results of our actions with empathy and apathy. There is a Hindu scripture that states that there is an observation that life in a rock is life that sleeps, life in a plant is life that feels, life in a animal is life that knows and life in a human is life that knows that it knows. Their cruelty is an example of our need to personify them. Our cruelty is a acknowledged action that led to suffering that we most likely knew would occur and we did it anyway without care. We are capable of more complex logic and reasoning and are thus held at a higher standard. We operate beyond the limits of instinct.

[Percy's Mom]

I'm going to adopt a pet herb garden. And perhaps a gentle spinach plant.

[Stephanae]

Originally Posted by Calliso

Well I understand and your respect your opinion personally. I even agree with a lot of what you say here. Especially on how in someway we basically live off the deathes of other organisms even if we donlt kill them directly ourselves. I also donlt think your viewpoint is anything like the one in the satire and donlt see how people could think it is. I think people just need to carefully read and consider other peoples opinions before they jump to conclusions about them. I understand though how it is easy to leap to conclusions especially when someone feels strongly about something. For instance you have to understand that many people here are vegans and vegetarian and the very idea of people eating meat does sicken them. But anyway I guess I am saying that we need to be careful before leaping to conclusions and judging people.

Thank you Calliso! I assure you that I do understand that many people here are vegans and vegetarians and the very idea of people eating meat sickens them. I wasn't joking or being sarcastic or being fake when I said I understood Susan's viewpoint and respected her decision to judge me without wanting to understand. Judging me, or categorizing me, makes perfect sense for her, as far as I'm concerned. In the same way that I believe that all life is life, I can see how people who believe strongly in animal rights would feel like all reasons for eating meat are basically the same. And I can see how, in a way, they are right. If you believe strongly in not eating meat, then it really doesn't make any difference why someone eats meat. Why would you want to understand?

That being said, I am very grateful for your supportive words. It means a lot to me to know that my reasons for not being a vegetarian are respected and make a difference in the value of my opinions for some of the people here.

[Stephanae]

Originally Posted by HowietheGreat

People are the most cruel creatures because we have the ability to understand and acknowledge the results of our actions with empathy and apathy. There is a Hindu scripture that states that there is an observation that life in a rock is life that sleeps, life in a plant is life that feels, life in a animal is life that knows and life in a human is life that knows that it knows. Their cruelty is an example of our need to personify them. Our cruelty is a acknowledged action that led to suffering that we most likely knew would occur and we did it anyway without care. We are capable of more complex logic and reasoning and are thus held at a higher standard. We operate beyond the limits of instinct.

Thank you so much Howie. This is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. You may be treading on the rules of this forum a bit by quoting Hindu scripture, but I thank you anyway. The most brilliant part is that the idea of humans being held at a "higher standard" could be used to support any of the arguments here. The only real difference is where you believe that