Ok, consider this:

Historically, humans could not afford to raise cattle or chicken just to eat them; they milked them or tricked them into laying eggs. Then when the animals got too old to produce efficiently and it was not economically viable to feed and care for them, they were entered into the food chain. (Goats and pigs were another issue because they converted poor vegetation and organic waste into protein, respectively). Contrary to popular myth, most beef and chicken eaten in the world today are retired dairy cows and layers, respectively.

In India, retired cattle are turned loose by an already impoverished farmer (losing a chance to earn a few buck from the knacker). In rural India, cattle compete with wild herbivores for meagre resources. (With the rise of mega-dairies, things will have to change in India). So is it less cruel to abandon farm animals and more cruel to eat them? Is it more acceptable to just incinerate retired production animals and not use their flesh for protein? The answers lie mainly in each individual human’s philosophical and/or religious worldview. I am reminding you to include economics and ecology while considering the issue. You are focused on the animal as the individual unit. I am stepping back and looking at a bigger picture.

Sustainability should ideally include the concept of not descending on Andes-grown quinoa like horses on wild oats. Where I live, one can try to be a vegetarian or follow the 100-mile radius diet but not both simultaneously.

Sentience-based approach, although noble and guilt-inducing, neglects those species, breeds that we don’t directly cause pain but nevertheless extinguish by logging or building dams or building parking lots (again, complex issues). It also excludes the non-charismatic, lower order animals from receiving any necessary attention.

To me, it all comes down to whether we as a species truly consider members of another species to be our equal in every sense of the word. I have come to the conclusion that we do not. If you are honest, you will agree with me. Two words: euthanasia and guinea-pigs. You can euthanize your dog (ironically, on the basis of sentience) but not your great-grandmother. Even meat-eaters will be up in arms if you express the latter wish. Vegetarians and animal rights advocates, despite the bad economy and high unemployment rate, are hardly lining up to usurp the guinea pigs’ day jobs. Our soapboxes should not be so high that the speaker’s head is amidst the rings of Saturn. After all, his/her feet are firmly planted on this earth.

Nayagan, from my perspective your comment is totally on point. I do think there is a unique horror, however, to American-style factory farming. I’m sure my rationale is not logical, ethical, or well-reasoned, but as an omnivore I am especially perturbed by how my meat is raised/killed, and the subsequent effects. It is brutal to murder other animals, period. However, the added torture that is life as a farm animal in the U.S. seems especially disgusting to me.

14 · DesiInNJ said

12 · tevadi said

So my one line pitch is ‘animals have five senses just like us, the only difference between us and them is intelligence, they feel pain and suffering like us, so if you like to learn then you should read up on vegetarianism.

Plants are living organisms too. Talk to a passionate botanist.

As Veggie Might said, Plants do not feel pain, they do not have nervous system or brain to register anything. DNA wise, Humans are not too far removed from animals, but significantly different than plants. Anyway arguments about everything discussed here has been fully discussed at various internet forums. Thus I said, if you are interested then read up, if you don’t care, you don’t care, nothing I can do about it.

I see no connection between feminine hygiene products and arguments concerning animal welfare

ironically, peter singer has an excellent description of the cosmetics and associated industries, and the impact of their testing on animals, in “animal liberation”.

VM: please come up with right analogies and coherent arguements if you want to engage me in a discussion with you.

maybe you don’t believe in a moral framework based on sentience, but that doesn’t make arguments founded on that principle wrong or incoherent. my understanding of the energy and resource efficiency of carnivores makes it seem like even a pure human welfare argument on the grounds of feeding the most people sustainably favors vegetarianism.

also, what is a philosophical foundation for animal welfare that is not based on sentience? the only other one that i can see is that treating animals poorly is detrimental to human character. the latter does allow for socially accepted forms of animal abuse to be deemed not detrimental to our humanity – which is why horse racing is on the front page of the ny times, which vick serves 2 years in jail for dogfighting.