Is Free Range Poultry really the kinder option?

[Ly&Pigs]

Originally Posted by Stephanae

Have you not lost their respect, perhaps, because you seem to acknowledge the ultimate moral superiority of vegans but haven't taken "the full leap" yet out of weakness, because you're not ready? If you, as I have, stated that you ate meat for a reason and didn't ever plan to change, would you still have their respect? And if other meat eaters here who don't plan to change can't have any respect and should just leave, what next? How are vegetarians very much less morally superior? Are they next?

I have a lot of respect for choosing to be vegan. I have no respect for thinking that you're morally superior because you've chosen to be vegan, and absolutely everyone else is "rationalizing" and couldn't possibly have any honest reason for her choices.

I don't think anyone is morally superior over anyone else. We all have our own morals, beliefs and values. I am talking about respect as a whole. I am respected because I am me, because I possess a great amount of cavy knowledge, especially in the diet and nutrition area and I am respected for the work I do here on the forum. If someone doesn't respect the fact that I still eat some forms of meat (mainly poultry, fish and a small amount of beef), then that is their choice and I respect them for it.

Now you are implying that I am "weak" because I have not chosen the vegetarian lifestyle? Your logic makes no sense to me. I am certainly not weak. I do not need or have to justify to you why I have not chosen to walk the path of a vegetarian. I can say that I don't buy or wear leather, I don't buy products that have been tested on animals and I am an animal advocate, rescuer and an animal lover. I don't feel like I am a hypocrite because I love animals and still eat some forms of meat.

[hydrohoki]

Originally Posted by kathrynj

Eating meat is contributing to the destruction of our environment.

Playing devil's advocate:
Driving a car, using plastics and paving your sidewalks all are destroying the environment. Where do you draw the line?

[thalestral]

Originally Posted by hydrohoki

Playing devil's advocate:
Driving a car, using plastics and paving your sidewalks all are destroying the environment. Where do you draw the line?

Where you can? I don't drive a car because I don't need to right now. I don't eat meat because it is easy not to. I don't have any say over the pavements unfortunately.

It is impossible to be 100% vegan but that doesn't mean you are unable to do what is practical and possible in the meantime

[steve_and_pigs]

Originally Posted by salana

Consumption of meat for food is good for some humans. Grass-eating domesticated herbivores (ideally) convert a food humans cannot digest (we don't have the teeth or guts to eat grass) into one or more foods we can digest.

Thanks Salana. Makes me think of the Mongolian nomads that survive by eating camel milk and roots. What a life!

I doubt stephanae is posting from arid high plains. I'm trying to figure out her "death is good" stuff, to be grossly simplistic for brevity.

[hydrohoki]

Does anyone know if anyone (without an agenda) has compared the environmental impact of say eating a free range chicken from the US to eating vegetables brought in from Kenya? It might be interesting. I guess I could probably but something together if it hasn't already been done.

Again, I'm not on either "side." I'm just a scientist who works on environmental issues. I'm just seeing how people think.

[steve_and_pigs]

Originally Posted by hydrohoki

Does anyone know if anyone (without an agenda) has compared the environmental impact of say eating a free range chicken from the US to eating vegetables brought in from Kenya? It might be interesting. I guess I could probably but something together if it hasn't already been done.

Again, I'm not on either "side." I'm just a scientist who works on environmental issues. I'm just seeing how people think.

Oh, don't get everyone started on the term "free range" again.

Start a new thread somwhere! You are way to consistent this this thread's title.

[kathrynj]

Originally Posted by hydrohoki

Playing devil's advocate:
Driving a car, using plastics and paving your sidewalks all are destroying the environment. Where do you draw the line?

Exactly, you draw the line where it is under your control.

I control my food, so I choose to be vegetarian, mostly vegan, but I am weak and struggling with it.

I had a freind who didn't work, he was on a disability pension, he had a car, but he rarely ever used it, he walked for miles and miles, he walked to the shops every day, rain hail or shine, in illness and in health.

Unfortunately a car is a neccessary evil for me, as a full time working single mum, time is my enemy and my life is busy. I do however try to use premium petrol with the least emmissions as possible, and follow the guidelines for least petrol consumption.

I have no control over paving the sidewalk, however I personally do prefer it to be a smooth path, as I am often walking with a pushchair and children.

I do not see an equal comparison between meat, cars and sidewalks.

[Stephanae]

Originally Posted by thalestral

Y'know I was all for respecting your views up until now, I even found them quite interesting

This does sadden me because I appreciated very much the things you've said on this thread. I know I should not have used the words fanatical crap, so please let me try to explain. I don't know if it will help or not, but I'll try. First, you probably know which articles I'm talking about, but just in case you don't, they are in the vegetarian forum on a sticky thread, here

http://www.guineapigcages.com/forum/...-advocacy.html

I skimmed these articles before I ever posted anything and at first I was struck by very cool statements like this one:

The number one thing that we do wrong—and I am speaking from many years of doing this myself—is that we place personal purity ahead of being as effective as possible for animals. We lose sight of the fact that veganism is not an end in and of itself but rather a means of ending cruelty to animals. Being vegan is not about being perfect and causing no cruelty at all—it’s about decreasing suffering as effectively as possible.

I thought, very nice, it's all about working with animal advocates, no matter what they think about eating. When I reread it because of the things Susan was saying to me, I was struck by statements like this:

Helping just one more person to go vegan will save twice as many animals.

Another advantage of taking part in gatherings is that people are likely to ask you about what you’re eating, especially if they know you’re a vegetarian. This is your perfect chance to get a bit of information into their heads and maybe even into their hands.

. . . when we go out, we should always wear a button or a T-shirt and bring some literature.

These statements don't mean that this is fanaticism, but these articles are not all about helping animals by encouraging people to take whatever steps they're willing to take as I first thought they were. They're not about reaching across differences and taking any and every opportunity to help animals in any way you can. They're about helping animals by converting people to veganism, or at the very least vegetarianism:

. . . we all know people whose reason for not going vegan is that they “can’t” give up cheese or ice cream. But instead of making it easier for them to help animals, we often make it more difficult. Instead of encouraging them to stop eating all other animal products besides cheese or ice cream, we preach to them about the oppression of dairy cows.

I'm not a Mormon but I live in Utah and I know a missionary manual when I see one. Proselytizing does not, however, in and of itself represent a fanatical viewpoint, so I'm sorry for my statement.

I think, though, that even by the standards of these articles, Susan has failed to advocate for animal rights. Even if vegans have the one truth and all other arguments are merely rationalizations as she and Kathrynj believe, doesn't telling me that they're right, and I only believe what I believe because I'm not truly in touch with my conscience, fail to bridge any kind of gap? Doesn't it ensure that we'll never come to any kind of understanding, and she'll never be able to influence me toward veganism? In particular, if I were the type of person who needed social support to do the right thing for animals, doesn't telling me I can't be an activist or give animals what they need if I continue to believe it's okay to eat them fail on all levels to advocate for animals?

As Stephen said, being understood is not an entitlement. Being respected for or in spite of your beliefs is also not an entitlement. I have stated before that I understand Susan's desire not to understand me. Having Susan and Kathrynj think that my beliefs are contradictory or hypocritical because (in my opinion) they can't look at the internal logic of my beliefs without imposing their own values and assumptions on them doesn't bother me. Having Susan and Kathrynj believe that all my beliefs are rationalizations irks me a little, but that doesn't mean I don't understand their position. Even having Susan tell me that I can't be an activist if I believe what I believe doesn't exactly bother me; it just seems to contradict the message of this forum as I understand it.

And I'm sorry to keep saying Susan, Susan, Susan. Although she's accused me of a number of things I find fairly harsh, I don't feel any rancor towards her for it. She's entitled to believe what she believes. I respect her choices. It's just that when I tried to present general hypotheticals, I was told to stop trying to speak for all vegans and vegetarians, so I'm trying to make my references clear.

Originally Posted by hydrohoki

I think Steph means and I could be wrong, that it isn't that death doesn't harm but it serves a purpose. I think she's trying to say that if it's part of the circle of life than she can be ok with it but she wants it to be done in the most pain free way possible?

That's very close to what I'm saying. Thank you, hydrohoki. Just to expand upon it a little, I'm saying that death serves a good purpose and that the good for the overall planet outweighs the harm to the individual life lost. In fact, we're all anti-breeding here, so compare it to birth. Birth serves a good purpose in many circumstances, but in overpopulated species, birth does more harm than good.

Wild species don't often have overpopulation problems. Obviously, it's not because they use birth control, it's because the death rate exceeds the birth rate. Nature's way is for many, many living things to die without living out their natural life spans. It's the way nature checks a population. Humans seem to think that the proper way to check a population is to limit the numbers of things that are born instead. My argument here is that while the human way is necessary for many of the species we've tinkered with, we shouldn't think our way is ultimately superior to nature's way. If you believe in natural selection at all, the human way is directly contrary to the betterment of a species.

This brings up another thing I don't quite understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many of the people on this forum, including some of the vegans believe in human euthanasia. Both humane euthanasia and the occasional humane slaughter of an animal for food is usually the killing of an otherwise healthy animal. Both are a form of checking the populations of those animals (assuming that you're not supporting the meat industry with the choice of the animal you kill for food). Why is it better to kill the animal and then dispose of it (I would say waste its death) than it is to kill the animal and then eat it (I would say honor its death)?

Originally Posted by Char-x

Stephanea - Thanks for trying to explain you're point to me politely. I see what you are trying to say, I don't agree that death is good by any means but I will respect that oppinion since you seem determined to stick to it.

Thank you Char-x. I respect your opinion, too and appreciate very much that you've conversed with me in a respectful manner. I am rather determined to stick to my opinion, but that doesn't mean we don't agree about a lot of things when it comes to animals.

Originally Posted by Char-x

We have big flat molars at the back to chew vegetation and the so called canine teeth look more like those of our vegetarian cousins the gorrila - who use them to tear at touch fruit skins etc. To me I truely believe humans are natually meant for a vegetarian diet, but of course the ancestors had to go to meat.

It's interesting to me that you compare us to gorillas. That's the way I base my opinions of what humans should do, too. I compare us to our nearest biological cousins, chimpanzees. The Western Lowland Gorilla's diet is approximately 3% meat (mostly termites and caterpillars). The Mountain Gorilla's diet is approximately 2% meat (mostly ants, snails, and grubs). The chimpanzees diet is approximately 5% meat, which includes termites, monkeys, pigs, and antelope.

Because humans have become so far removed from our natural diets, I think the best thing we can hope to do is model ourselves after our primate cousins and eat somewhere between 2% and 5% meat. Or no meat. No meat is okay, too, because there are some species of primate that are entirely vegetarian.

Originally Posted by stephenlawrence

Stephanie, if this forum doesn't allow you to explain yourself to a degree that others can understand, then perhaps you should have this conversation somewhere else. Simple statements like "death is good" don't tell us anything. That could mean that you think randomly killing things is good. Of course, you have explained that you support "death to support life". I can appreciate that, but some are going to find that to be a self-serving statement if you can't give further detail, especially those that come to their conclusions by reasoning through them. I'm guessing your feelings are related to the way the natural world works, but I have to guess.

I guess I haven't really understood the things you are asking. I feel like I've explained all my secular reasons to the best of my ability. I'm going to try and respond to this on your next post because it has more specific questions that I can understand.

Originally Posted by stephenlawrence

I said the argument that they have is valid (from a logical perspective). Is that moral superiority? I don't think morals and ethics are that simple. If I harm no animals, but do other questionable things, am I morally superior to a a meat eater? Perhaps not. I did not say morally superior. You said that.

I know you didn't say morally superior. Once again, I apologize. My response to you was getting mixed in again with my response to Susan. I agree with you that their argument is logically valid. I also agree with you on the following:

Originally Posted by stephenlawrence

I don't have a moral position on my eating of meat. I eat meat because that is how I know how to eat. I was raised eating meat, so my eating habits resolve around meat. . . . I don't think all human behavior is backed by moral reasons. Do smokers have moral reasons for their smoking? Do we go to the movies for moral reasons? A meat eater does not necessarily have any specific moral reason for it. We also do things because we find them enjoyable, or because they are a behavioral habit.

Honestly, what I was asking you is if your position is okay with people like Susan because of the fact that you don't actually have a moral reason for eating meat, while mine is not okay because I do. You probably don't know what is okay or not okay for Susan so addressing the question to you was not fair.

Originally Posted by stephenlawrence

If you have enough pasture land (which I don't), you don't have to buy chicken feed at all. They also eat a lot of table scraps. Of course, plant table scraps could be composted instead, but my chickens turn it into fertalizer a lot quicker I don't feed them chicken or eggs. That would make me sick.

Chickens make wonderful garbage disposals . I did feed mine chicken, eggs, and egg shells. Egg shells are good for layers, and chickens are naturally inclined to eat what they are naturally inclined to eat. I've already freely admitted that imposing my human values on their social order is wrong. Who am I to impose values on their eating habits?

Originally Posted by stephenlawrence

I recently visited a farming village in vietnam. Those goats had it made! They had a whole mountain to graze on. The villages occasionally slaughtered their goats. The pigs and chickens were more often eaten, but still at a minimum when compared to plant eating. The natural balance does produce "way" more plants than animals.

I mentioned earlier modeling our eating after chimpanzees or gorillas, but these folk seem like another good model for us. They seem to still have some sense of connection to the planet.

Originally Posted by stephenlawrence

I thought of another way you can try and make yourself understood. Can you explain how the consumption of meat for food is good for the world.

I hope I don't have to try to explain why the consumption of meat by nonhuman animal species is good for the planet and why carnivores and omnivores are important to the ecosystems in which they live. In the same way, I believe that humans are already too far removed from our ecosystems and that we should again try to figure out what our places are in them and accept our roles. The closest I can come to figuring out what our places should be within an ecosystem is to model our eating habits after some of our primate cousins or human societies like the Vietnamese farming society you mentioned earlier.

I believe that being an omnivore within an ecosystem doesn't make us bad any more than it makes a chimpanzee bad. Although a life may end, the planet benefits from almost all death. Except ours. We need to let the planet benefit from our deaths as well.

I'm not sure if I can explain my position better than that unless you have specific questions.

Originally Posted by salana

What we need to do is get a lot of meat-eaters to vocally boycott the meat industry itself. Meat has such a low profit margin that we could really effect some change with a relatively low percentage of consumers being loud, annoying, and stingy with their money.

Hmmm. Meat eaters could actually be useful in helping animals? That's nice to hear.

Originally Posted by kathrynj

We are on a journey, and I believe that unless you keep your blinkers on this journey of animal welfare, cruelty free, etc, will end up with veganism. What else could be the outcome? TO be totally cruelty free? Anything else IS a rationalisation, though you won't understand that till near the end of your journey perhaps.

Let me see if I have this straight. Your beliefs are self-evident and true. My beliefs are not okay and are rationalizations. The only reason I don't see this is that I'm not as close to the end of my journey as you are.

Do I have all that right so far? If so . . .

But you don't agree that you think your beliefs are morally superior. I'm sorry, but I can't quite follow you. What is your definition of morally superior?

Tell me one more thing: I don't doubt that you believe your position is so true that taking the journey will always end in the same place. But can you see how telling me that my deeply held beliefs are only rationalizations (which means to me that you think I haven't honestly and truly examined my own conscience) might be a factor in preventing me from ever setting my foot on the path?

And one more thing: Susan has told me that my attitudes mean I can't be an activist. Do you also believe that I can do nothing to help animals unless I change my beliefs? Do you agree that anything I might do to reduce animal suffering is meaningless if I continue to "rationalize" my meat eating?

Originally Posted by Ly&Pigs

Now you are implying that I am "weak" because I have not chosen the vegetarian lifestyle? Your logic makes no sense to me. I am certainly not weak. I do not need or have to justify to you why I have not chosen to walk the path of a vegetarian. I can say that I don't buy or wear leather, I don't buy products that have been tested on animals and I am an animal advocate, rescuer and an animal lover. I don't feel like I am a hypocrite because I love animals and still eat some forms of meat.

I'm very sorry, Ly. I was not in a good frame of mind and phrased that very, very badly. I really don't believe there's any possibility that you are weak. And of course you don't have to justify to me why you haven't chosen to walk any path over any other. What I'm trying to ask you is this: Two vegans on this forum have told me that any position on eating meat is a rationalization. You kind of seem to be agreeing with them when you say you are just not ready to take the final leap. So it kind of seems like you are acknowledging that they're ultimately right, but that you're just not there yet. Your position seems to be okay with them. My position that I eat meat for a reason that fits in well with my morality doesn't seem to be okay with them. So I was asking if your position is okay because you agree that they are right, but mine is not okay because I not only acknowledge that I eat meat but I say I do it because I believe in doing it. I do see that you've earned their respect over time in other areas and I know you can't truly speak for them, but you do know them better than I do.

[hydrohoki]

Originally Posted by kathrynj

I have no control over paving the sidewalk, however I personally do prefer it to be a smooth path, as I am often walking with a pushchair and children.

I do not see an equal comparison between meat, cars and sidewalks.

Ok I'm getting off topic here so these are my last comments on this topic but I can't help but to address this. Kathrynj, you aren't the only one who said things along this line, yours is just the easiest to quote.

Cars are polluting the air, increasing the carbon in the atmosphere causing global impacts as well as leaving contamination on the roads. Between all these paved surfaces (including sidewalks) we are causing contamination of our water and increased flooding and erosion because we now have excess stormwater. It's all connected to the food you eat.

And just like this site works to help guinea pigs and you work to raise awareness of eating meat, these issues also can be dealt with the same way. My point here is that we do have control over all of these things even sidewalks. We have to choose our battles. Some of us are fighting different battles than others.

[kathrynj]

Originally Posted by Stephanae

That's very close to what I'm saying. Thank you, hydrohoki. Just to expand upon it a little, I'm saying that death serves a good purpose and that the good for the overall planet outweighs the harm to the individual life lost. In fact, we're all anti-breeding here, so compare it to birth. Birth serves a good purpose in many circumstances, but in overpopulated species, birth does more harm than good.

Wild species don't often have overpopulation problems. Obviously, it's not because they use birth control, it's because the death rate exceeds the birth rate. Nature's way is for many, many living things to die without living out their natural life spans. It's the way nature checks a population. Humans seem to think that the proper way to check a population is to limit the numbers of things that are born instead. My argument here is that while the human way is necessary for many of the species we've tinkered with, we shouldn't think our way is ultimately superior to nature's way. If you believe in natural selection at all, the human way is directly contrary to the betterment of a species.

I don't want to get into a conversation about the betterment of any species, suffice to say, If I am understanding this paragraph of yours, death of one individual is good because it is the natural way that an overpopulation is checked? The overpopulation is a direct result of our interferance, that to me doesn't then assume we have the right to go out as a predator and pick out of that abundance. Overpopulation aside, meat farming in itself is far from a NATURAL thing.

See I don't see where you are coming from, and this idea of superiority, I don't subscribe to.

This brings up another thing I don't quite understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many of the people on this forum, including some of the vegans believe in human euthanasia. Both humane euthanasia and the occasional humane slaughter of an animal for food is usually the killing of an otherwise healthy animal. Both are a form of checking the populations of those animals (assuming that you're not supporting the meat industry with the choice of the animal you kill for food). Why is it better to kill the animal and then dispose of it (I would say waste its death) than it is to kill the animal and then eat it (I would say honor its death)?

HUMAN euthanasia? I don't believe I have ever given ANY beliefs either way on this forum or on any forum for that matter. But what you are suggesting, when are we so in need of food that we must slaghter a healthy animal to sustain our life? We are not, checking populations! Why is consuming an animals dead carcass not wasteful? What is so wasteful about burying and honoring an animal into the earth so that they may become food for the earth itself?

If I honor something , I generally don't eat it. But you know, I am funny like that.

[Susan9608]

This thread is supposed to be dealing with free range vs. non free range farming. I'm not quite sure how it got so derailed ... but I suppose it's beyond saving now.

With regard to advocacy ... yes, everyone has to choose the level of advocacy that they are comfortable with and everyone has to choose what areas of their lives they are comfortable being advocates in. When talking about free-range farming, though, I don't think it's such a stretch to assume that we're all talking about advocacy on the same issue.

You - the collective you - could be human rights advocates ... alternative life style advocates ... workers rights advocates ... advocates of one of a thousands different causes ... but here in THIS thread the assumption, at least on my end, was that we were talking about advocacy in the form of boycotting factory farming/meat industry.

Obviously assuming that fact wasn't the best idea ... and that's something I'll certainly keep in mind in the future.

However, I do stand by what I said in regards to if you're eating meat, you're not advocating for farm animals. With very rare exceptions, terms like "free range" and "free roaming" mean very, very little. Most of the labels aren't subjected to any government regulation, and the little regulation the USDA applies is easily manipulated. For instance, "free range" animals are required to have access to the outdoors. So theoretically, a farmer could open up the door to the henhouse with thousands of chickens inside, but close it before any of them had a chance to get out, and he could *still* be considered free-range.

Is that any kinder? Any better? Aren't those animals still subjected to the same mutilation, long arduous trips to the slaughter house, and genetic manipulation as their "closed-range" counter parts? Of course they are. So really ... who benefits?

The label "organic" only means that the animals must not have been given any anti-biotics or any growth hormones. It has no bearing on the way the animals are treated.

So ... in the end, with all these different labels with inconsistent regulations, how do you decide what's most humane? And since *none* of these labels apply to the very worst cruelty involved in the animals for food industry (transport, slaughter, and bodily mutilation, such as debeaking, tail docking, ear notching, and dehorning) it remains totally unregulated.

I think stephenlawerence had an excellent point that for most people the act of doing most things is not a moral choice. Most people don't sit down to a big steak and think, "I'm making a moral choice to eat meat." The majority of people eat meat because it's a learned life style, because they're ignorant about what really happens to create their meat, and because they don't know of any alternatives.

And for some people, becoming vegan isn't necessarily a moral choice either. Some people do it for their health. I suppose that could be considered a personal moral choice ... but that seems like a bit of a stretch.

I wouldn't say veganism is the only moral choice, but it is *a* moral choice. Vegetarianism is another moral choice. And advocacy is about moral choices.

I *know* how hard it is to give up eating meat (and cheese and sour cream and ice cream and ice cream and ice cream and ice cream and did i mention ice cream?), and I have tremendous respect for people like Ly, who are slowing eating less and less meat. I consider that a great success. While she may still eat some meat, I think she makes the *moral* choice to eat less, rather than hiding behind labels that might make her conscience feel better while not really helping the animals all that much.

That's my opinion on the matter.

Of course everything has to die at some point. Wasn't it some Star Trek movie (Wrath of Khan, maybe?) that said, "Death takes place in the shadow of new light" or something like that? But there is - to me - an inherent and important ethical difference between dying of natural causes and being killed, especially if you're being murdered just to become dinner for someone else.

Many people, including myself, have said things at various times on the forum about how we need to let people die; we need to quit keeping the living dead alive. And I believe that's true. I believe those people with terminal, incapacitating illnesses and those without the capacity for quality of life should be allowed a death with dignity, rather than a prolonged artificial life.

But again, that's different then purposely cutting down the healthiest and strongest members of a society of any species, just to eat them for dinner.

(We'll just leave the killing of plants out of it, since that will rehash the whole deal about plants being alive in the same sense that animals are alive.)

No one can lead a totally blameless life; we all know that. But that doesn't mean we should give up or that we should be okay with causing suffering and/or death just because we can or just because we honor it afterwards.

Obviously, there are philosophical differences here. And that's fine. We don't all have to agree - we all *won't* agree, that much is evident. So perhaps it's just time to move on.

ETA:

Just have to touch on this ... human euthanasia is not legal in this country, at least not that I'm aware of (outside of capital punishment, which is a totally different issue and something I'm totally, totally against), but I think - from my medical perspective - that the driving force behind the idea of human euthanasia is more about allowing terminally ill human beings to have a dignified and pain-free death, than about a population control measure.