The amount of suffering humans cause upon animals is so disgusting and so widespread. People have no idea. I really do not think we can acheive peace in this world if we continue to treat animals with this kind of violence. I want to point out that there is no difference between clubbing an adorable seal to death and making a cow suffer in a factory farm separated from its family until it faces a cruel and horrific death.
garysays
I’d figure that the seal clubbing was, by comparison, quick and painless.
stomvsays
and perhaps its one brought on by my Roman Catholic upbringing.
<
p>
I believe that (domesticated) animals are property. They should not be treated like humans because, well, they’re less important on an individual basis. The species X is important, but an individual of species X isn’t particularly important — and that’s in sharp contrast to human beings, all of whom are important.
<
p>
Animals for food, animals for clothing, animals for really comfy seats in your SUV? That’s all A-OK with me. Kicking a dog, braining a baby seal, or feeding uncooked rice to a pigeon? Not OK. Why? Unnecessarily harsh violence to animals is not acceptible. An individual animal is less important than an individual human, but still important nonetheless. If the condition of human beings is improved by causing harm to animals, I’m OK with it — but this harm should be minimized, in terms of quantity and pain inflicted. I’d be thrilled if the painful injuries or death to thousands of animals resulted in significant improvement in quality of life to a single human. Research to prevent blindness? Great. Research for cosmetics? Not so great.
<
p>
Where do we draw the line? Well, thats a nuance and it’s just not obvious. How “factory” does a farm have to be before it’s behavior is considered unethical and unnecessarily cruel? I’m fairly sure that there are plenty of large sources (and plenty of small ones too) within the animal supply chain that are over the line. How significant an improvement of life does the research have to promise in order to justify causing pain and suffering to fruit flies, mice, pigs, chimps, or any other animal? Again, it’s a fine line that I’m not in a position to answer.
<
p>
So, what to do? Spay or neuter your pets, and encourage others to do so. Eat more vegetables. Try some tofu. Consider buying your meat from folks like River Rock Farm, a local farm that clearly treats its animals better during their lives than agribusiness’ feedlot farms. Contribute to folks like The Conservation Fund, who take donations and use them to buy land or easements of particular environmental importance.
<
p>
You can make a positive difference in man’s relationship with animals without tying yourself to a tree, or a baby seal for that matter. You can do this while recognizing that animals aren’t as important as human beings, but are important nonetheless, and worthy of our consideration and care.
what’s the diff between “animals for really comfy seats” and research for cosmetics? Both result in the death of animals for something that’s obviously an unnecessary luxury. And while death for leather may be less painful than death for eye makeup, neither is likely to be all that pleasant.
<
p>
Also, if you accept that it’s appropriate to use animals for clothing, where do you draw the line (or do you draw one at all)? Is fur OK, even though it’s a luxury that can easily be replaced by synthetic stuff that may not look or feel quite as nice but that keeps you just as warm? And if fur is OK, isn’t the reason they club the seals to avoid damaging the pelt so it can be used for fur? (I could be wrong about that, but that’s what I remember.)
This was big back while I was living in Canada, and it seems to be a lot like the debate about killing deer ’round these parts, or kangaroos in Australia.
<
p>
In each case, there are just too many of them, but they’re too goshdarn cute to be killed. The seal hunt in Canada is an attempt to control the population, which has grown rapidly in recent years, leading to an overburdening of their environment. Plus, there is the angle of the seal hunt being a traditional Inuit activity, and we get into questions of one culture imposing its values on those of an endangered worldview.
<
p>
Things may have changed, but in these cases there’s often a preference in letting cute animals starve and rot rather than have their numbers killed by a longtime predator (us).
your source for stomach-turning political discourse!
Isn’t that against the law already?
The amount of suffering humans cause upon animals is so disgusting and so widespread. People have no idea. I really do not think we can acheive peace in this world if we continue to treat animals with this kind of violence. I want to point out that there is no difference between clubbing an adorable seal to death and making a cow suffer in a factory farm separated from its family until it faces a cruel and horrific death.
I’d figure that the seal clubbing was, by comparison, quick and painless.
and perhaps its one brought on by my Roman Catholic upbringing.
<
p>
I believe that (domesticated) animals are property. They should not be treated like humans because, well, they’re less important on an individual basis. The species X is important, but an individual of species X isn’t particularly important — and that’s in sharp contrast to human beings, all of whom are important.
<
p>
Animals for food, animals for clothing, animals for really comfy seats in your SUV? That’s all A-OK with me. Kicking a dog, braining a baby seal, or feeding uncooked rice to a pigeon? Not OK. Why? Unnecessarily harsh violence to animals is not acceptible. An individual animal is less important than an individual human, but still important nonetheless. If the condition of human beings is improved by causing harm to animals, I’m OK with it — but this harm should be minimized, in terms of quantity and pain inflicted. I’d be thrilled if the painful injuries or death to thousands of animals resulted in significant improvement in quality of life to a single human. Research to prevent blindness? Great. Research for cosmetics? Not so great.
<
p>
Where do we draw the line? Well, thats a nuance and it’s just not obvious. How “factory” does a farm have to be before it’s behavior is considered unethical and unnecessarily cruel? I’m fairly sure that there are plenty of large sources (and plenty of small ones too) within the animal supply chain that are over the line. How significant an improvement of life does the research have to promise in order to justify causing pain and suffering to fruit flies, mice, pigs, chimps, or any other animal? Again, it’s a fine line that I’m not in a position to answer.
<
p>
So, what to do? Spay or neuter your pets, and encourage others to do so. Eat more vegetables. Try some tofu. Consider buying your meat from folks like River Rock Farm, a local farm that clearly treats its animals better during their lives than agribusiness’ feedlot farms. Contribute to folks like The Conservation Fund, who take donations and use them to buy land or easements of particular environmental importance.
<
p>
You can make a positive difference in man’s relationship with animals without tying yourself to a tree, or a baby seal for that matter. You can do this while recognizing that animals aren’t as important as human beings, but are important nonetheless, and worthy of our consideration and care.
what’s the diff between “animals for really comfy seats” and research for cosmetics? Both result in the death of animals for something that’s obviously an unnecessary luxury. And while death for leather may be less painful than death for eye makeup, neither is likely to be all that pleasant.
<
p>
Also, if you accept that it’s appropriate to use animals for clothing, where do you draw the line (or do you draw one at all)? Is fur OK, even though it’s a luxury that can easily be replaced by synthetic stuff that may not look or feel quite as nice but that keeps you just as warm? And if fur is OK, isn’t the reason they club the seals to avoid damaging the pelt so it can be used for fur? (I could be wrong about that, but that’s what I remember.)
Take your pick:
<
p>
<
p>
or
<
p>
That is suppposed to be a joke.
<
p>
On the serious side, coming from a mostly “Buddhist” perspective, I’d agree with Stomv on most (but not all) points.
This was big back while I was living in Canada, and it seems to be a lot like the debate about killing deer ’round these parts, or kangaroos in Australia.
<
p>
In each case, there are just too many of them, but they’re too goshdarn cute to be killed. The seal hunt in Canada is an attempt to control the population, which has grown rapidly in recent years, leading to an overburdening of their environment. Plus, there is the angle of the seal hunt being a traditional Inuit activity, and we get into questions of one culture imposing its values on those of an endangered worldview.
<
p>
Things may have changed, but in these cases there’s often a preference in letting cute animals starve and rot rather than have their numbers killed by a longtime predator (us).