I felt bad about the extent to which I've derailed foe's thread so I'm creating this thread to relocate the animal rights discussion that was going on there. I do have more to say on the subject but for now I just wanted to start this thread to make sure no further damage is done to that one. (Sorry foe )

Luckily there has been an explosion of animal ethics/rights books in the past decade, before this there were only a few noteworthy mentions. However, I still recommend reading about animal ethics in the larger context of environmental ethics, as many animal ethics books are still quite narrow and don't do a good job of conveying the relationship between the two.

Well, if you want a discussion, how about starting with this? make sure you watch the video.

http://www.care2.com/causes/should-anim ... id=4666836

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

You will find some discussion of this in "environmental ethics" books.

But when you say "convey the relationship" that implies that there is a relationship to be conveyed. While it is true that sometimes "animal ethics" folks and "environmental" folks will find themselves of the same side in some particular battle they just as often (or even more often) find themselves on opposite sides of another. That's because their basis is close to entirely different.

The "animal ethics" folks begin with considering the issues from the point of view of individual actually living organisms. Collective entities such as species or even entire ecosystems are not actual living beings and so not of concern except to the extent that an individual animal "gotta have a habitat to carry on" << from a children's environmental song >>

The "environmental" folks begin with consideration of the entire ecosystem and from that point of view the life of any individual organism in it isn't important. They are concerned with the health, integrity, well being, etc. of the community of life but that is not the same things as being concerned about the particular fate of any living being in it.

It is a problem for these communities to devise means out how they might be able to work together on some issues while recognizing that they will be opposed on others. The demand (usually coming from the animal ethics side) that "you have to join our religion" isn't going to work.

Thanks for the replies everyone. Sorry for making a thread and basically just abandoning it; I do have things to say but I'm really busy at the moment so it will have to wait.



Could you recommend some things worth reading? I've never really read much that isn't simply propaganda and would really like to get a better handle on these issues.



There's a very important relationship between the two and I think your dichotomisation is far too simplistic; how can the animal ethics folks ignore the impact that environmental issues have on countless individuals? And are all environmentalists motivated simply by the desire to protect human habitats, or do they care about those we share it with? Who is doing more for animal welfare: the vegan that drives a big car, keeps the heating on high and doesn't bother to recycle, or the guy who lives in the woods, foraging and hunting for food but nether touching anything that has any relation to a fossil fuel?

I'm not an expert, but that is one thing that really bothers me about Vegans, the whole embracing of petroleum fossil fuels, I mean don't they know there used to be cute little dolphins swimming in the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore they create a divide between meat eaters and people who like just a little bit of meat wherever they go, so much so that you can't order a slice of pizza with both meat and vegetables, it has to be one or the other.

I personally try to use natural and naturally renewable products whenever possible, the way I see it creates economic incentive to manage natural resources, it is a tricky proposition, because these days you really don't know how things were done. For example, I wanted to build a live edge head board for my bed, I went with a slab from a dead fall walnut, however while looking for some lumber there are any number of places that will sell old growth rain forest products. OK so by purchasing large slabs you put an incentive on growing large trees, but that's not the way it works, because they aren't replacing them. Then you look at rain forest and it looks like they are wontonly destroying it, but then you look a little deeper and it turns out people in the amazon had been terraforming the amazon for eons, slashing and burning creates terra preta, "black earth", and the rain forest only really exists where they had slashed and burned in the first place, it's just that they are doing it on an industrial scale, and there are unintended side effects and consequences like extinctions. On the other end you have farm raised trees, is mono cropping a good idea, it's hard to say, but returns on forest investment are some of the fastest growing assets, and you can get into them at any stage from investing in the land to, buying out ready to harvest timber to let it mature for that premium in large trees.

Edited for spelling ipad doesn't like wontonly.

I am not totally vegan (although I have had spells of it) but I am vegetarian and I will not knowingly use any animal products in my clothes or in life in general except for a little non-rBST cheese and local free-range eggs. I generate most of my own power, grow most of my own food, and try to buy locally when I cannot grow it. I cut my own firewood and try to do it sustainably. My one concession, forced upon my by the need to have health insurance, is that my commute is longer than I would like it to be, but I do go into work only 100 days a year.

I do not think I could separate any parts of this lifestyle. To me being environmentally conscious goes hand in hand with being aware of the sentient nature of all other creatures and trying to avoid harm to them.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

What would happen, if no animals would eat other animals?

_________________
Offending ad removed

You can start with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) for environmental ethics and Peter Singer's Animal Liberation (1975) for animal ethics. They form the foundation of modern discourse in their respective fields, so they're important to at least have an awareness of. To this extent you'll be fine reading each of them in an afternoon.

For secondary source introductions you can look into:
Animals & Ethics, 3E (2009) by Taylor
Ethics & Animals: An Introduction (2011) by Gruen
Environmental Ethics, 5E (2012) by Des Jardins

If you have someone to work with you, then you can look into some of these primary source anthologies:
Animal Rights: Current Debates & New Directions (2005) by Nussbaum & Sunstein
The Animal Ethics Reader, 2E (2008) by Armstrong & Botzler
Environmental Ethics, 6E (2011) by Pojman
Environmental Ethics: The Big Questions (2010) by Keller

Simple. All animals would be herbivores.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

And have huge population crashes when they overeat their food source. Predators play a vital role in maintaining the health of herbivores as species, and sometimes as individuals by culling the sick.

You may need to change where you buy your pizza but you raise some good points. Speaking as a vegan I agree that the separation that exists between those that eat meat and those that don't is not completely helpful. It does serve the purpose of raising awareness of animal friendly lifestyles, but it definitely alienates a lot of people as well. I wish people would understand that if they want to make a difference then eating almost no meat is almost as good as eating no meat and that many veggies/vegans will happily support anyone who wants to reduce the amount of animal products they consume, even if they aren't willing to go cold turkey.

As for the issue of vegans who embrace fossil fuels, I think that has to be viewed in the same way. Someone who calls themselves a vegan should probably be making an effort to reduce their carbon footprint, but the fact that we still do some things that are harmful shouldn't be viewed as a sign of hypocrisy that invalidates our cause. It is hypocritical, but the point is that we're making an effort to reduce the negative impact our lives have on others. It's a step in the right direction and if our standards are a bit lax that just makes it all the easier to join us.

Thanks this really helps.

Only along the current evolutionary path. Had evolution taken a different course which resulted in the absence of carnivores then almost cetainly it would have taken care of the problem along the way.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

I don't know, there are a number Vegans I wouldn't walk down the same side of the street as. They seem to have this personal world where they are superior, but then they make some of the worst most energy inefficient and polluting business decisions.

That's a pretty bold assertion. Evolution doesn't care about population crashes, or try to solve such problems.

It's not implausible that there could be a sort of prisoners' dilemma where each individual produces as many offspring as possible, and there are periodic population crashes. If there's a reason why that setup couldn't evolve in the absence of predators, it would be a pretty interesting fact (and maybe there is: I'm not a biologist).

I'll note that I'm not saying this to try and prove a point: I doubt the fact that non-human animals eat each other has any bearing on whether humans ought to eat meat. It's probably entirely irrelevant.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Both of my sisters are supporters of animal rights. One is vegan, the other vegetarian. I have great respect for their choices in this area. I have even considered becoming vegetarian myself, but I just don't share their views when it comes to the relationship between humans and animals.

In the animal rights debate, I hold three axioms that guide my decisions. If you don't accept these axioms then you won't agree with my views. It is that simple.

1. Human beings are distinct from, and more important than, all other forms of life.
2. Life itself is distinct from, and more important than, all non-living things.
3. All finite resources are of value.

This means that I think that living things, being more important than non-living things, have dominion over the things of this planet. Ants can feel free to move soil around. Plant roots can split rocks apart. Beavers can dam up rivers. They all have a right to manipulate their environment.

I think that humans have the same rights, but also have a right to manipulate the living things of this world. We can cut down forests for timber, herd cattle for food, and to breed dogs to be our pets.

However, humans are also capable of restraint (at least, I hope we are) and so should be willing and able to limit their manipulation of the world. All finite resources have value, so we should not use them as if they are worthless. Animals are a natural resource, one that is even more important than oil or precious metals. It is insane to hunt a species to extinction or to torture animals for our amusement. To accept that we are more important than an animal does not mean that animal has no importance.

We must not exploit the world beyond its ability to handle it, and we should treat plants and animals with more respect than we do our coal and iron resources. But as long as we are not wasteful, and what we are doing is not unnecessarily cruel - such as leading to extinction or causing unneeded suffering - then I do think we have a right to use plants and animals for food and other products.


Perhaps life would find a way to sustain a world without carnivores, but humans and other intelligent life would likely not exist. In an episode of "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman" they discussed what intelligent alien life would be like. The general consensus is that aliens capable of the intelligence necessary for space travel would almost have to be carnivores for a number of reasons.

First, plants simply don't give as much nutrients as animals do. A pound of beef has far more value than a pound of grass. If humans needed to eat grass to power our brains we would be eating all the time.

Second, how much value a does a good brain have for each of these animals? When your food is a plant, you don't need a very good brain to find one and eat it. But when your food can run away, you need to be smart to figure out how you can catch it.

And if you look at the most intelligent species on earth, you find they are all either carnivores or omnivores. Dolphins, octopi, chimpanzees, and humans all eat more than just plants.

_________________
"You have to walk before you can run. Black 1 was a walking move.
I blushed inwardly to recall the ignorant thoughts that had gone through
my mind before, when I had not realized the true worth of Black 1."
-Kageyama Toshiro on proper moves

I agree with this entirely. Morality, being a human construct, doesn't apply to other animals, and something being natural, in the sense of found in nature, does not mean it is good or moral, or the opposite.

I think Vegan and Vegetarian life styles make more sense the closer you get to the equator. Many people wouldn't have problems with being vegan, if they had an avocado tree in their backyard, on the flip side northern regions have large sparsely populated spaces, and short growing seasons... Don't get me wrong most northerners if they can get their hands on some fresh vegetables during the winter will chow down, but even in these modern days of railroads, things are only so fresh at the super market ya know, and I don't even live that far north. I also love sprouts and rotten grapes and grain and other preserved or sprouted things, but really, the tropic agriculture belt will only support so many people, before you have to start thinking about ways to get nutrient out of vast swaths of temperate grassland. Furthermore look at California they can barely water their cactus, I know they have done there best to ruin paradise running a giant freeway through it, but their agricultural sector doesn't need any help converting the rest of it to dust.

Ok, let me get my soap box...

I think vegan and vegetarian lifestyles are just fine, even if I personally do not embrace them. To me, people are meant to be omnivores, which includes eating meat. Isn't that the introduction of meat, its preservation and cooking which contributed a great part to our evolution and brain development?

Anyhow... what sometimes gets my goat is not the chosen lifestyle, not even the fact that Bambi has to die for me to have a steak. I like Bambi, but I like steaks too.

If clams have to die so people can survive, so be it, its the circle of life, and we as a race need meat to survive.

But what I find disgusting is when people trivialize the issue. Oh, its just clams, who cares. Well, I think we should care. We might have to commute to work, we might even have to drive big old trucks, but we don't need to do it with a "who cares" attitude. Or when they marginalize such issues. One deer will not make a difference, no? Unless this is how everybody thinks. And what's the point of the US to impose stricter environmental controls if China is polluting like hell? No point doing anything, lets have a party.

And another thing that bugs me is needlessness. We have to kill some animals to live. And with the technology being what it is, we have to impact the environment to survive, by sheer mass of numbers if nothing else. But when people do it for fun, "lets kill the frog, see how it splatters" or the whole idea of recreational hunting - I find that appalling. I know some animal populations have to be thinned out, but we do not need to make a sport out of it, glorify it, teach our kids how cool it is to shoot Bambi right there, behind the ear, yay! See it wiggle in agony on the ground? Good shot!

I think that killing anything is sad. And when you do it, it is sad. Sometimes you have to do it, that's life, but if you enjoy it, there is something wrong with you, mentally.

Needless killing, or killing for vanity, is really really bad. Take the elephants and rhino poaching - so people can buy expensive ivory and horn figurines. Killing of tigers to ground their private parts into "potency powders" of absolutely no medicinal value, and then selling it for a fortune. Stuff like that.

But the worst thing is tormenting animals. I watched once how shark fins are gathered for the beloved shark fin soups. And then the live sharks are dropped back into the water, fin-less and bleeding, left to die and be eaten alive. It is not necessary, and this really makes me angry. At least, if you really really must have the frigging shark fin soup, have the decency to kill the shark quickly and maybe use the other parts for something else, so it is not a total brutal waste.

All this is *important*, I think. At least, to me it is.
But its a personal choice, and we all make it for ourselves.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!