Hunting Whales for Research is Bull!
Off the coast of New England is one of the greatest adventures that you could ever believe possible. Twenty or more miles off shore in the words of Scotty from Star Trek fame, “There be whales here.” I’ve only had the pleasure to have seen them once in my life and it was something to see that changes you for life. To see such a large creature up close and they are as much curious about us as we are of them was simply mind blowing. To see an animal bigger than a Greyhound bus that comes alongside the tourist boat and turns over so its eye can see all the folks on the boat simply takes your breath away. When the little whales act up and show off it makes you think that God is amazing to create such a wonderful thing. I watched as the little ones breached time and time again or faced head down and slapped their tail in the water at the surface so close that I got wet with the ocean water.
No disrespect to my friends in Japan but there is a game of cards here in America that we call Bull$hit. It’s a game where you have to catch your opponent in a lie and scream out that you know that they are bluffing. For Japan to claim that they need kill whales for the sake of scientific research is simply Bovine By Product. Pick up the cards Japan because you are busted!
Two of the worlds largest producers of man made chemicals that resemble substances found in nature are the United States and Japan. Same thing goes for medical research from products found in nature that are synthesized into pharmaceutical products. Any real scientist worth their weight in the journal producing high fives of the Japanese chemist world are not the reason this hunt for whales is going on.
Japan Hunts the Humpback. Now Comes the Backlash. By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: November 25, 2007Vessels from the groups Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace tail and harass the whaling fleet, while strong protests are lodged by environmental groups, many marine biologists, and officials from the United States, Australia and other countries. But this year those complaints have intensified, largely because Japan has added a new animal to its planned harvest of more than 1,400 whales from seven species — the humpback, Megaptera novaeangliae.Japan hopes to kill 50 of these endangered whales, which have long held a place in the public’s imagination with their other-worldly songs, habit of rocketing their 30-plus tons out of the sea and migrations of up to 10,000 miles a year. Melville once described the humpback as “the most gamesome and lighthearted of all the whales.”Whaling nearly wiped it out, reducing the humpback’s numbers to perhaps a 1,000 by the mid-1960s. Today, estimates put the total at roughly 30,000. They are considered at high risk of extinction by the World Conservation Union.
“Humpbacks are some of the most wonderful and mysterious creatures in the ocean, with the longest vocalization produced by any animal, including humans, with their bouts of song that last up to 23 hours,” said David Rothenberg, a professor of philosophy and music at the New Jersey Institute of Technology and author of a forthcoming book on whale songs and science.
“We still do not know why they need to sing so extensively, and we ought to leave these whales alone for enough years to find out,” he said.
Once a top target of whalers because they swim close to shore, the humpback is now the centerpiece of another enterprise, whale watching, which by some measures is a billion-dollar-a-year business, making it larger in inflation-adjusted dollars than commercial whaling was even at its peak. - New York Times
If you think that just 50 Humpback Whales are going to be hunted then think again. This is one nations sanctioned open season hunting of an entire species including Humpback’s that will reap ten or twenty or one thousand times the “Scientific” (Bull $hit) research harvesting. There is no chemical product or scientific product that this hunt is undertaking other than the fact that some people in Japan and Asia are willing to forsake a species existence to simply eat whale meat.
This is an old link but if they are offering it to school kids for lunch what does that tell you about the “Research” (Bull $hit) behind the expansion of whale hunting Japan…
REUTERS
7:53 a.m. February 14, 2006TOKYO – Whale meat is back on the menu in a growing number of Japanese elementary and junior high schools, Kyodo news service reported on Tuesday.
The board of education in Wakayama prefecture in western Japan, an area known as the birthplace of organised whaling in the country, is promoting the drive to put whale on school menus.
Advertisement The board provided some 1,657 kilograms of whale meat for more than 100 elementary and junior high schools in Kyoto, Osaka and Nara prefectures and Tokyo in January of this year alone, Kyodo said, citing local officials.
The amount for January was about double the amount for all of 2005.
‘We want (schoolchildren) to know Japan’s traditional dietary culture through whale meat which was popular in the past,’ it quoted a board of education official as saying.
Japan abandoned commercial whaling in 1986, in line with an international moratorium, but began catching whales again the following year for what it calls scientific research. - Reuters
I’m thinking that George, I’m busy with Iraq, to much on my plate, screw you Whale Watching Liberal nut jobs, does not think this is important. Whereas this just might come under diplomacy and the State Department you can pretty much chalk whale hunting up to persona non grata status. Diplomacy and Bush even with nations we consider a close friend is the ultimate in oxymoron definitions. Especially, since the whale oil market died off a hundred years ago!
If he is to busy then I think our nations Senators and Congressional Representatives should care. If you live in the Pacific Northwest then you should care about whale hunting. If you live in New England and the Atlantic coastline then you should care about whale hunting. If you live along the coast of California down into the south of Mexico then you should care about whale hunting.
All of the whales killed by the fleets from Japan at one time or another were off the shores of your neighborhood. These are animals that travel ten thousand miles in migratory patterns every single year. This is wrong on so many levels that it is not even funny. Whale watching is a billion dollar American industry and we like our worlds whales! Peaceful creatures with elevated intelligence should not be hunted or killed for any scientific research (Bull $hit) purposes.
Get involved and get with it to stop the hunt before it expands to open season by Japan for all whales. You can Google search Green Peace and offer what help you think you can.
No offense to my many Japanese readers but have your whaling industry buy a couple hundred thousand acres of land in Wyoming or North Dakota or Texas and start a damn cattle ranch. Leave all of the Whales alone!
Save the Whales!
Get angry, get mad, get involved and save the peaceful creatures that just happen to live in the ocean. Get your kids involved and write or email your representatives in Congress. In doing so you are saving an industry that has adapted over the centuries from hunting the graceful giant to praising them and earning a living by offering whale watching tours.
Papamoka
November 26th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Mat; please articulate for me your reasoning behind this statement:
“No offense to my many Japanese readers but have your whaling industry buy a couple hundred thousand acres of land in Wyoming or North Dakota or Texas and start a damn cattle ranch. Leave all of the Whales alone!”
It seems that the assumption engendering this statement is that there exists some objective characteristic, of moral relevance, between the whale population and all the other non-human animals that human animals exploit, which places the whale population within our moral community, thus inspiring our collective outrage. What special characteristic do you believe the whale population to have, which other species of animals lack? And, is this characteristic morally relevant when deciding that humans have a direct moral obligation to the whale population not to hunt, kill, and eat them?
You mention “elevated intelligence,” however, adult horses, dogs, cows, and pigs undeniably have higher levels of both intelligence and reasoning abilities than does an infant of a month or even a year old (also, the mentally handicapped, some members of the elderly population, etc.). Will you allow these species (i.e., dogs, horses, pigs, cows) into your community of moral concern, and in so doing, grant them protection from human exploitation? What of primates? Many ape groups socially construct instrumental knowledge, which is then passed on through generations; monkeys have been taught human languages; and, the majority of ape groups implement tools, further displaying their intelligence and reasoning abilities. Where is your outrage over our society’s expectance of this species as scientific tools?
Many bird groups have been witnessed implementing tools, both in and out of the lab environment, to obtain food and shelter, and yet, Thanksgiving just passed where hundreds of thousands of turkeys were made to suffer indescribable harms for the satisfaction of the gluttonous masses. Did you eat turkey this year, Mat?
Or, is the characteristic that you believe the whale population to have, instrumental in nature (e.g. you enjoy whale watching, thus we should not hunt this species into extinction because then you won’t get to “whale watch” anymore)? If yes, is your outrage truly legitimate? If the whale population is merely a means to your chosen ends, then can you make any sound moral appeals to their protection save for my appeals not have all pencils replaced by pens because I find pencils to be a more suitable writing instrument?
Quote:
“There is no chemical product or scientific product that this hunt is undertaking other than the fact that some people in Japan and Asia are willing to forsake a species existence to simply eat whale meat.”
Does this statement not accurately describe the motivation behind the vast majority of animal exploitation by the human species (i.e., simple to eat their carcasses)?
Just think about your outrage and what has instigated it – does it not demand a re-evaluation of treating all animals as things, or merely human property?
Go Vegan!
November 27th, 2007 at 9:30 am
You know, Alex has a point. This is why I am going to remove all mouse and rat traps and cancel my Orkin appointments. If you don’t think rats are smart you haven’t seen Willard or met Ben but clearly the king of the hill is the cockroach. How in good conscience can anyone kill a species that has survived the last 350 million years? Then there is the termite. How can we kill an animal that is just trying to survive by eating your house. After all, they were here first. How about those little microscopic things that live on our skin? Do we really need to take showers and wash them down the drain? Of course the real problem is microbes. From Live Science:
“Microbes might be tiny and hard to see, but they account for a large percentage of Earth’s biodiversity. They have been living on the planet for 3.8 billion years compared to 200,000 for humans, and for most of the Earth’s existence, they have been the only form of life around.
In fact, all life on Earth today, including trees and fish and people, is thought to have evolved from the earliest microbes.
The term “microbe” describes bacteria, archaea, single-celled eukaryotic organisms such as amoebas, slime molds and parameciums, and even viruses by some broad definitions. (Viruses are disputed because they are considered non-living and cannot replicate on their own, but the field of microbiology usually includes the study of viruses.) Most microbes are unicellular, meaning one cell comprises each individual.”
Arrrrrrgh, all life evolved from microbes? This means that anything you eat, even vegetables, is killing millions of our relatives.
I’m so hungry…..If I eat anything I am killing a living being and if I don’t eat I am killing me, which is a living being. What’s a thinking, caring, responsible, living being to do?
Remember, do NOT spay or neuter your dog or cat.
Would you want it done to you? Oh nuts, now I’ve gone OT.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
It is unnecessary to allow rats and mice to roam freely in your home manapp99, there are humane traps, which allow you to capture and relocate them. This process gives due consideration to the animals capacity to suffer and feel extreme pain – of course, the ethical thing to do – while giving consideration to your needs as well.
You mention “Live Science,” well, a consensus amongst those scientists whom study insect species, including cockroaches and termites, has concluded that they are not sentient, or lack the necessary body chemistry to suffer. However, the research is limited in this area; thus, I tend to air on the side of caution – again, what any ethical person should do – when attempting to remove an insect from my home, which may have the capacity to suffer from extreme pain. But, if your home is being infested by termites then yes, perhaps you should have the “Orkin Man” visit. If your home is being infested by cockroaches, well, you may want to address your own cleanliness issues – is it really the cockroaches’ fault that you are a filthy human being manapp99?
Where a consensus lacks in regards to insects, the issue of microbes is far clearer. Microbes are not sentient (i.e., do not suffer pain); as such they have no interests that a person with a conscience should consider.
Your dog and cat should be spayed and neutered as an effective mechanism to avoid greater harms (i.e., hundreds of thousands of stray animals that will have their lives taken as a result of the actions of the so-called rational human species). Fortunately, the process of spaying and neutering is one that takes into consideration the animal’s capacity to suffer – as opposed to castration without pain medicine, as it occurs daily on farms across the United States – which is ethical, and something that should not be dismissed by someone attempting to falsely portray the well though out position of a conscientious Vegan.
So, “what’s a thinking, caring, responsible, living being to do” mannapp99, try not to use humor when attempting to disregard an issue as important as allowing the equal consideration of interests to living beings who have the capacity to both suffer and feel pleasure. If you want to have a real conversation about this issue, that is okay as well mannapp99?
Go Vegan!
November 28th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Alex, first things first. If I catch a mouse in my nice warm house and relocate him/her to the frigid Colorado mountain outdoors am I not causing said mouse to suffer? Perhaps he/she will even die a slow grueling death due to lack of food now that the ground is snow covered as opposed to the quick painless death of having his/her neck broken in my mouse trap.
Second, as far as the roaches go, this was a hypothetical as living at altitude we have no roaches here. I submit however that whereas you may be correct about a cockroach not feeling pain, you have to admit that when one causes premature death to any living being for what ever reason they are intruding upon that beings right to exist. That right should be equal to ours. Correct? You seem to allow for the mass extremination of termites if the shelter you have built by selfishly cutting down trees. Just because they don’t feel pain? What about the pain of loss of a few million relatives? If there are any survivors of course.
You seem to base your argument on the ability to feel pain so I feel wholly justified in eating meat from an animal that was put down with a 22 caliber bullet to the brain. Without ever having been through the experience I am asured that death is instantaneous and they feel no pain. If I find that it took two bullets to kill the same animal then I will ask for a different steak.
Last, if your to be a responsible vegan, are you making sure that your vegetables are given a dose of Aspirin before they are harvested? Check out this from an Arizona State University study:
“From: Arizona State University
Study Shows Aspirin Blocks “Plant Pain”
It’s not news anymore that plants may “cry in pain” when attacked or damaged by a hungry herbivore, but now we know that there is a way to stop all this vegetable “suffering” right in your medicine cabinet — with simple aspirin.
Plants may not feel the pain of an injury as animals do, but they do have their own “alarm” reaction to tissue damage and, in an effect curiously similar to that in animals, this reaction can be short-circuited by aspirin and other similar drugs, according to a study recently published in The Journal of Biological Chemistry.”
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1998/A/199800488.html
P.S. I asked my dog if he would agree to be neutered if I gave him an aspirin and he began to lick his balls. I took this to mean no.
P.S.S.
Just because a post MAY contain humor, do not take this as an indication that this is not a real conversation. No joke, I believe that being a vegan is ridiculous however I don’t care if you do. If you came to my house for dinner I would cook you vegetables in deference to your diet. If I came to yours, would you cook me a steak?
One more…P.S.S.S.
Why is vegan spelled vegan when vegetable is spelled vegetable? Just curious.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:15 am
In regards to mice/rats, such animals must have the capacity to survive in the wild, regardless of weather conditions. What follows from your argument manapp99 is that the entire population of these animals shelter in homes, etc. during the winter, which is clearly false. If your assumption were true then there would be no more wild mouse/rat populations, which is an indefensible position. These animals may find shelter in your home during both the winter and summer months, however, this is a result of convenience not necessity. You also claim that “mouse traps” quickly and painlessly kill the animal, which assumes that this occurs in every situation (or even most of the situations); this is also false. What evidence do you have to support this? I rationally assess this situation and come to the conclusion that even if one’s neck is broken quickly, they suffer, no matter how brief that may be; how that suffering may manifest itself I don’t know, but to have one’s neck broken is not something a sentient being would not suffer from - you make a claim of having this knowledge, which you cannot possible support manapp99. However, of what possible moral relevance can an animals “quick and painless death” have when considering a situation where said animal does not need to be killed - an animal that can simply be removed from the situation? You need to justify why you are killing the animal in spite of other options - options that give consideration to the animals interests (e.g., not to suffer, to continue living).
Sentience is a pre-requisite to interests, e.g., a rock does not suffer when kicked down the street, so, it does not have an interest in not being kicked down the street - an interest that ethical persons should consider. This rock certainly does not have an interest in continued existence. As such, if an insect is indeed not sentient then our sphere of moral concern should not include the species. However, I am not advocating extermination. I stated that the evidence is unclear in regards to the sentience (or lack thereof) of cockroaches and termites, so, I take necessary precautions; I don’t needlessly kill insects simply because I can. This said, as most of the evidence says that these bug species’ are not sentient and lack interests, if they are damaging your home, you being sentient and having interests, then you should do what you believe needs to be done. If it was proven that insects are sentient then I would state emphatically that we should take their interests in not suffering seriously and our methods, etc. should be reconsidered.
Your comments about selfishly cutting down trees, etc. simply make the point that we as a species should take better care of our environment. I agree. The human species should employ rationality in our assessment of how we will use scarce resources.
I would say “no” to your desire to eat meat from an animal that was killed by a “bullet to the brain” for two reasons: one, your statement assumes that in every situation of this kind the suffering of the animal would be zero, which is patently untrue - further, you have been assured that this process doesn’t inflict pain, should I take that statement seriously; assured by whom, how do they know what it is like to have a bullet to the brain and die painlessly, how are they telling you this if they are dead? - and two, the only way to ensure that an equal consideration of interests is given to all sentient beings is by protecting this with a basic right not to be treated as mere means to another species’ ends; so, as the animal that you falsely believe you can kill painlessly for its flesh is sentient, and thus, is accorded a basic right not be the means to your ends (something must die to satisfy your enjoyment of flesh), no, it is not ethical to kill the animal.
Plants are undeniably not sentient. A wide consensus in the field does not say plants “may not be sentient” (as the article says plants MAY be sentient), this consensus says that plants are not sentient. This is so for two reasons. One, the capacity to suffer is an evolutionary development, which allows for the species to identify harmful situations and escape when necessary. Scientists have concluded that as plant species do not have the natural capabilities to escape harmful situations they would not have evolved to feel pain. And two, biologists understand plant chemistry, etc. and conclude that the necessary components (a central nervous system controlled by a brain, nerve endings capable of registering “pain responses,” etc.) are absent in plants, so, they are not capable of feeling pain. So, the “alarm reaction” in plants is not a pain response - a result of suffering - but merely a reflex, similar to a tree bowing when pressure is placed on it by natural or unnatural processes. (I don’t know how plant chemistry works, so, I don’t know why Asprin does what the article says it does.)
Again, if it were proven that plant’s are sentient then an ethical response is to re-evaluate our treatment of plants. I would do this.
I read my dog your statement about you asking your dog about being neutered, and my dog licked himself - I took this to mean that he thought your statement was stupid. I agree.
No, I would not cook you a steak at my house. But, I would cook you an equally tasty Vegan meal and we could discuss why you think that being Vegan is “ridiculous.” What does that even mean?
I don’t understand the question posed in “P.S.S.S.”
November 28th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Oh yes, Go Vegan!
November 28th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
http://www.chefmd.com/recipe_display.php?id=27
Alex-You may like to try this recipe.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Thank you Lisa.
As the recipe states, a substitution of the beef broth for vegetable broth - and a removal of the feta cheese to be replaced with a Vegan variety - will make the dish Vegan.
Go Vegan!
November 29th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Alex you can’t have it both ways. You state I cannot know if a bullet to the brain means a painless death yet say that vegetables do not experience pain. How do you know? Have you ever had one of your ears picked why still alive? Have you had your tomatoes pulled from your body with no anesthesia?
The mice that summered in my garage do not have survival skills and do not desire to be relocated to the great outdoors. I am thinking maybe the animal shelter where they might get adopted by a nice scientific research company.
My dog does not want to reliquish his testicles. Aspirin or not.
Humane mousetraps???
Here is one account:
“Is there really a humane mouse trap? We put the little boxes pictured above all around the house and caught nothing. Next, we decided to try “humane” glue traps. Right, humane. Heather came running out of the bathroom lastnight screaming “we caught a mouse!!” she said “it’s SCREAMING!!!!” I could hear it from the livingroom. It was horrible. Before I went to bed, the mouse had writhed around enough to tear it’s face on the adhesive. I turned on Masters of Horror, took some Tylenol, and left Mark to deal with the mouse.
Here’s the story he told me this morning..
“I never want to use those traps again. I took the lil thing out in my shop and sat it on the workbench. I was planning to remove it from the trap then let it loose down near the lake. That didn’t work.. every time I tugged on him he’d SCREAM and writhe in pain. I felt awful! I put it back down on the workbench and he followed me with his eyes as i came back in the house. I grabbed the box of franzia, and headed back out in the shop. The mouse just stared at me while I got relaxed enough to be ok with whatever I figured out to do.”
I will not tell you some of the sadistic quick fixes that he contemplated, nor how he killed it. I will just say that he killed the adheared mouse in the quickest, least painful or gorey way I could have imagined.”
http://mydumpingground.blogspot.com/2005/12/is-there-really-humane-mouse-trap-we.html
Clearly insects have a desire to survive or they would not have evolved all these millions of years for that specific reason. Same can be said for plants. If they had no desire to survive they would simply die off instead of evolving to conditions.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Oh and since my team, the meat eaters do not have a slogan I will settle for:
Go Broncos!
November 29th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Quote:
Alex you can’t have it both ways. You state I cannot know if a bullet to the brain means a painless death yet say that vegetables do not experience pain. How do you know? Have you ever had one of your ears picked why still alive? Have you had your tomatoes pulled from your body with no anesthesia?
I don’t understand this statement, mannapp99?
To claim that you have evidence supporting the argument that a “bullet to the brain means a painless death,” fails logically. Someone who has died from a bullet to the brain cannot provide you with said evidence; and, as the animal in question is sentient, i.e., can suffer as proven through rational, scientific processes, it is illogical to claim that such an action causes no suffering, even if this suffering is momentary.
Indeed, I personally do not know whether it causes me suffering to have “my tomatoes pulled,” however, the same rational, scientific processes that provide evidence of a cows sentience for example, has provided unchallengeable evidence about the plants inability to feel pain (i.e., plants are not sentient).
So mannapp99, you still need to prove why my acceptance of sentient animals into my sphere of moral concern is not sound as I do not allow plants (which are not sentient) into my sphere of moral concern.
Quote:
The mice that summered in my garage do not have survival skills and do not desire to be relocated to the great outdoors.
Again, to claim that a wild animal who has taken residence in your home as a matter of convenience lacks the survival skills to live outdoors, is clearly false. Further, you admit that the mice who summered in your garage do not “desire to be relocated to the great outdoors,” which assumes that said mice have interests (the pleasure they get from being indoors, for example), so, you have to defend why you believe it to be ethical to unnecessarily kill an animal that is the type of being that can experience pleasure – that has desires (as you stated), an interest in not suffering, etc.
Quote
I am thinking maybe the animal shelter where they might get adopted by a nice scientific research company.
This statement must be defended, as its callousness is apparent. Interestingly, in the preceding statement you state that the mice have a desire to not be placed outdoors, again, which assumes that this animal is the type of being that can suffer if its desires aren’t fulfilled, which make’s your callous attitude towards this animal somewhat of an illumination of your character.
Your statements regarding the flawed humane mouse traps proves nothing accept that those traps being considered are not humane at all, thus they should not be considered “humane mouse traps.” I fail to understand your point? I assure you mannapp99 if you are concerned simply look a little deeper and you will find truly humane mouse traps. Try this one:
http://www.abundantearth.com/store/mousetrap1.html
Also, this one (it work’s, my family uses it):
http://www.themousedepot.com/
Insects have a desire to survive as proven by their evolutionary success, and the same goes for plants – okay. But, as my ethical concerns are derived from a beings capacity to suffer pain (and experience happiness in the absence of pain), i.e., sentience, a plants non-sentience means that said plants do not have ethically relevant interests (e.g. in not suffering pain), so, plants are not included in mine - an ethical person - sphere of moral concern. This rule applies to viruses, microbes, and some insect species. How can I explain this more clearly for you mannapp99?
Mannapp99, when you consider the notion of “equality,” what characteristics, etc. determines entrance into your sphere of concern, i.e., the value of “equality” applies to all within this sphere of concern. To whom does “equality” apply?
“Meat Eaters” do have a slogan: Eat Corpses!
Go Vegan!
November 30th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Alex, if you will google plants+pain you will find many who think they do indeed feel pain and are not happy about it. Check it out here:
http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/AG-Baluska-Volkmann/plantneuro/pdf/NeuroPlantTZ-Biologia.pdf
We find that even Aristotle and Darwin believe that plants have the ability to feel and discern pain.
From the article:
“Plant Brain: Each root apex harbours a unit of nervous system of plants. The number of root apices in the plant body is high and all brain-units are interconnected via vascular strands (plant nerves) with their polarly-transported auxin (plant neurotransmitter), to form a serial (parallel) nervous system of plants. The computational and informational capacity of this nervous system based on interconnected parallel units is predicted to be higher than that of the diffuse nervous system of lower animals, or the central nervous system of higher animals/humans.”
I personally don’t know having never been a plant however this is like the “do fish feel pain” argument. If we do not know, should we not err on the side of caution and not eat plants or fish until it is settled?
I consider all creatures equal. I also understand that all creatures need sustinance to survive and that survival is seemingly hardwired into each and every creature. For the same reason that creatures kill other creatures to survive, man kills other creatures as well. Be they plant, insect or animal. I do not see this as a bad thing only a necessary thing. You may say that it is not necessary to kill a cow to live and I would agree. However it is necessary to kill something to survive. It would be great if we simply did not need to eat, I suppose, however no sense arguing what cannot be. The main difference between you and me as I see it is that I accept death as being relevent to my continued existance and do not differentiate between who or what has to die for this to happen. You appear to want to kill to survive but want to have a clean concience and therefore allow killing of species that you claim do not care if we kill them or not. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this as there is no absolute proof that plants feel or don’t feel as there is no absolute proof as to whether or not death by a bullet to the brain caused pain. Haven’t been there or done that. Nor have you. You go ahead and eat vegies and I will continue to have a balanced diet that includes meat. I promise to not try and interfere with your slaughter of plants however I suspect you will continue your crusade to convert meat eaters as you think it is the moral high ground.
Go corpse eaters!
November 30th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Fish do indeed feel pain. A recent experiment induced a pain response in a lake trout’s lip, which was followed by an erratic response – a response associated with discomfort. Pain medication was then administered to the fish and the animals’ behavior returned to normal, i.e., the discomfort was relieved. (I don’t support the experiment; however, it was necessary to dispel the myth that fish do not feel pain.) So, fish are sentient and are included in my sphere of concern.
Mannapp99, the article you cite illuminates the evolutionary processes that have allowed plant species to survive (i.e., advanced cell development, which allows for the efficacious transmission of oxygen, processing energy, the ability to obtain environmental information, etc.); however, nowhere in the article does it claim that plants feel (or discern) pain. Darwin did not claim that plants feel pain, he argued in support of the preceding statements. Further, Aristotle regarded animals as “automatons” (i.e., “living” machines), incapable of suffering in a morally significant manner; and, Aristotle was incorrect.
If it were proven mannapp99, that you could survive without inflicting suffering on a sentient being, would you discontinue exploiting animals for the purpose of food? If not, why do you regard the pleasure you receive from consuming a sentient being to be of more importance than the suffering necessary to take that beings life and provide you with food?
I never claimed that plants do not “care if we kill them,” I claimed that plants are incapable of caring if we kill them. If a being is not sentient it does not suffer. If that being does not suffer it is irrational to claim that it has an interest in one action, or another – it does not suffer from either selected action, thus it does not consciously differentiate between the happiness or suffering that accompanies the outcome. If it does not suffer from either outcome then it has no interests in pursuing one action or another. So, yes, a living being must die for my diet, however, said living being does not suffer from my actions; your diet mannapp99, is only satisfied at the expense of the suffering of another being.
Now, you “consider all creatures equal,” so, for what reason do you select to inflict suffering on one such being that happens to be capable of suffering, when you could consume things that do not suffer? Is the species barrier between human animals and non-human animals of moral significance to you?
Do your interests, e.g., you take pleasure in eating meat, trump the animals (who you claim to be equal to you) interest in not suffering or in not being treated as a means to your ends? Is this equality? I don’t believe you think this, so, what do you mean by equality?
Mannapp99, do you only eat meat from an animal that was killed “quickly and painlessly from a bullet to the brain”? If not, why do you continue to highlight the issue? If you only eat meat from animals killed in this manner, why do you do so? Why would you regard the quick and painless death of an animal for the purposes of satisfying your desire to consume its flesh, as morally significant? I believe that you do not actually care and that you are attempting to avoid answering my questions…
We cannot end the conversation mannapp99, as your argument raises many important and interesting questions. Further, you seem to deride me for “taking the moral high ground,” the assumption being that you disagree, thus why do you believe that your position is more morally sound then mine?
I appreciate the conversation.
Go Vegan!