PDA

View Full Version : Extinction of cattle?



Pages : [1] 2

uma
02-02--2006, 01:15 PM
I have always wondered about this. Now a lot of vegans I know would ideally like most of the population to become vegan also in order to stop the suffering of the animals. This is all well and good, but what if it actually happened? All the farmers would cull all their cattle to make way for vegetation. This would keep our country self sufficient, sure but what about all the cattle which would become almost extinct? How do other vegans allow for this possibility in the way that they live their lives? It obviousely will not happen but it could be a possibility. With the beliefs I have of reincanation this is not a problem for me but i know many vegans who don't hold this belief.
Views?
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

stardust
02-02--2006, 01:22 PM
let's just say hypothetically that the majority of the population went vegan, it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be gradual, so i don't reakon they would end up culling any cattle, they would just stop breeding so many because there wouldn't be the demand for them anymore.

peace and love
stardust
xxx

Atomik
02-02--2006, 01:22 PM
I've always considered it to be such a mind-numbingly stupid question that I've never taken it seriously. The world's not about to go vegan over night. In fact, it's not likely to go vegan for hundreds of years. I think the cows are safe for now.

However, this does illustrate one of the large problems facing veganism (and vegetarianism) when trying to present themselves as credible moral positions. They're not. They are not, and can not be, moral absolutes. We will never change the world through our actions. Veganism and vegetariansim are best undestood as personal moral statements - moral comfort zones - that allow us to shape our lives in a fashion that we find ethically acceptable. They're not models for large-scale social change - and if we attempt to represent them as such, then we'll fail.

Anusha
02-02--2006, 01:27 PM
I'm not sure about this one Uma... wild cattle are all but extinct in this country except for a couple of rare herds in captivity in large estates..since man domesticated the cow thousands of years ago for his own exploitative reasons many could argue the ethics of this.

I dont and never will agree to domesticating animals for food... and so if as a race we were all to stop using domesticated cattle a few would be preserved in some wildlife park no doubt...

uma
02-02--2006, 01:27 PM
They're not models for large-scale social change - and if we attempt to represent them as such, then we'll fail.

Exactely. But a lot of the people I have spoken to and had contact with, tend to live their lives in the best way they deem possible, but also how they would ideally like society to be. This then poses the question of how they feel about the concequeces of their actions.
This question isn't a structural one, i know that the world won't go vegan overnight, but with following a vegan diet you are actively advocating it to people therefore allowing for this possibility.
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

uma
02-02--2006, 01:30 PM
I dont and never will agree to domesticating animals for food... and so if as a race we were all to stop using domesticated cattle a few would be preserved in some wildlife park no doubt...

But would you feel alright with that? The fact that thousands of cattles were killed because of a choice that you personally contributed to? ( I mean this generally).
Are you saying that you would happily eat a wild animal?
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

Atomik
02-02--2006, 01:32 PM
Exactely. But a lot of the people I have spoken to and had contact with, tend to live their lives in the best way they deem possible, but also how they would ideally like society to be. This then poses the question of how they feel about the concequeces of their actions. Yes, but those consequences are radically different in the context of social change emerging over hundreds of years rather than over night.


This question isn't a structural one, i know that the world won't go vegan overnight, but with following a vegan diet you are actively advocating it to people therefore allowing for this possibility.No, because your argument is predicated upon the assumption that this will happen over night. If such a vast and unlikely social change takes place, it will be extremely slow. How can we possibly know what the situation will be in hundreds of years? I seriously doubt cattle would become extinct. But even if they did.... so what? What, exactly, is the problem with that?

Anusha
02-02--2006, 01:34 PM
But would you feel alright with that? The fact that thousands of cattles were killed because of a choice that you personally contributed to? ( I mean this generally).
Are you saying that you would happily eat a wild animal?
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

i'm a vegetarian Uma....so i wouldnt agree with the killing of any animal wether for food or any other reason.

as stardust rightly pointed out....humans will never become vegetarian en mass so it would be a gradual process of less intensive breeding...no animal would need to be killed?

and i dont remember mentioning that i would eat a wild animal Uma?

uma
02-02--2006, 01:35 PM
How can we possibly know what the situation will be in hundreds of years? I seriously doubt cattle would become extinct. But even if they did.... so what? What, exactly, is the problem with that?


Personally, I don't have much of a problem with this, but I am questioning other vegans whether they do. I hear so many people talking and enforcing vegan views upon those around them, seemingly without them taking note of the concequesces of the actions. Sure it could take hundreds of years, but this would still be contributing to killing cattle-therefore going against the whole point of veganism in the first place.
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

Atomik
02-02--2006, 01:38 PM
Sure it could take hundreds of years, but this would still be contributing to killing cattle -therefore going against the whole point of veganism in the first place.That's rubbish! You're not killing anything!!! Cattle would die a natural death. You'd just not be breeding replacements to kill.

uma
02-02--2006, 01:40 PM
i'm a vegetarian Uma....so i wouldnt agree with the killing of any animal wether for food or any other reason.

as stardust rightly pointed out....humans will never become vegetarian en mass so it would be a gradual process of less intensive breeding...no animal would need to be killed?

and i dont remember mentioning that i would eat a wild animal Uma?

Sorry Pabsy, I may have interpreted you wrongly. When you said, " I dont and never will agree to domesticating animals for food", I wondered whether this meant you might eat a wild animal. Which was why I asked, I wasn't presumming, just interested:)
As much as it would be lovely I don't think that 'less intensive' breeding techniques would be wildly employed, as the farmers profits would go down if they did this, they would need to free up more land and resources in order to make way for new farming tachniques, in order to generate more profit.
Saying that it would take a long time is fair enough but I feel that that is a cop-out in a way of this thought argument. Im not saying this is happening now, im just asking people to imagine IF it did occur, and what people feelings are about it.
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

uma
02-02--2006, 01:41 PM
That's rubbish! You're not killing anything!!! Cattle would die a natural death. You'd just not be breeding replacements to kill.

As I pointed out in my previous post I don't think this would be the case. I think a number of cattle would be killed to free up resources. Farmers are not going to put time effort and money into a dying market are they?
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

Atomik
02-02--2006, 01:42 PM
Saying that it would take a long time is fair enough but I feel that that is a cop-out in a way of this thought argument. A cop out of what, though?!? You're not killing anything. You're just not breeding replacements.

Atomik
02-02--2006, 01:43 PM
As I pointed out in my previous post I don't think this would be the case. I think a number of cattle would be killed to free up resources. Farmers are not going to put time effort and money into a dying market are they?Again, you're predicating your argument upon the assumption of a rapid transition to a post-animal model of farming. We're talking hundreds of years here - cattle aren't going to just suddenly become unprofitable within the lifetime of one farmer.

Anusha
02-02--2006, 01:46 PM
Sorry Pabsy, I may have interpreted you wrongly. When you said, " I dont and never will agree to domesticating animals for food", I wondered whether this meant you might eat a wild animal. Which was why I asked, I wasn't presumming, just interested:)
As much as it would be lovely I don't think that 'less intensive' breeding techniques would be wildly employed, as the farmers profits would go down if they did this, they would need to free up more land and resources in order to make way for new farming tachniques, in order to generate more profit.
Saying that it would take a long time is fair enough but I feel that that is a cop-out in a way of this thought argument. Im not saying this is happening now, im just asking people to imagine IF it did occur, and what people feelings are about it.
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

no problem Uma...i just didnt want anyone to think i would ever eat meat...missunderstandings often occur...:)

i disagree with you though about less intensive breeding..sure there would have to be a change in the way we farm..and livestock farmers not making a profit would sell their stock to make room for arable farming...but then again...knowing our government they would probably ne heavily subsidised in the interim..

uma
02-02--2006, 01:48 PM
no problem Uma...i just didnt want anyone to think i would ever eat meat...missunderstandings often occur...:)

i disagree with you though about less intensive breeding..sure there would have to be a change in the way we farm..and livestock farmers not making a profit would sell their stock to make room for arable farming...but then again...knowing our government they would probably ne heavily subsidised in the interim..

Thats a good point. I know that asking these 'what if' questions are always hard, but I think its important for both vegans and vegetarians to think about these concequeces of their choices now and what it means for the future.
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

uma
02-02--2006, 01:49 PM
A cop out of what, though?!? .

The thought argument I am prepossing.

Atomik
02-02--2006, 01:54 PM
The thought argument I am prepossing.
And again, as I've already said, there won't be some sudden transition. We're talking about a very slow process. Farmers are never goiing to be in the position of suddenly needing to kill their cattle.

uma
02-02--2006, 01:55 PM
I Know that may be how it could turn out. But heres also a POSSIBILITY that what I am saying will also happen, therefore this must be considered.

Anusha
02-02--2006, 02:02 PM
I have to agree with Dok on this one... there just isnt any possibility of a total and instant lack of demand for cattle in the food chain. but i can see where youre coming from Uma....

Atomik
02-02--2006, 02:04 PM
I Know that may be how it could turn out. But heres also a POSSIBILITY that what I am saying will also happen, therefore this must be considered.Yes, but anything's possible. We can't consider every possibility. That leaves us with considering what's likely. And I think it's very unlikely that farmers will ever need to kill cattle because of vegans.

Whirler
02-02--2006, 02:16 PM
I think its important for both vegans and vegetarians to think about these concequeces of their choices now and what it means for the future.For most veggies & vegans it's a direct protest against the farming industry. So why should we have to think about the consequences of our choices? Modern farming is so obviously not good so isn't that up the farmers to look at the consequences of their actions?

And you're not being realistic regarding veganism. There's no point raising a hypothetical question when it's not based in any kind of reality. The farming industry in this country is already in decline, it has nothing to do with diet, it's do with economics and it always will be. Industries never just stop.

But let's say that veganism happened overnight and cattle had to be destroyed. What's the difference between that happening at that point and cattle being killed for food currently?

Starling
02-02--2006, 05:02 PM
But let's say that veganism happened overnight and cattle had to be destroyed. What's the difference between that happening at that point and cattle being killed for food currently?


That's what i was thinking. Even if it did happen over night, and the farmers killed all their cattle to make space for crops, at least that would be the end of the killing! I'd be quite happy with that result.

uma
03-02--2006, 12:06 PM
But let's say that veganism happened overnight and cattle had to be destroyed. What's the difference between that happening at that point and cattle being killed for food currently?


The difference would be that they would be killed because of the vegans actions, this is my point, however unrealistic and am interested in others' opinions.
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

Atomik
03-02--2006, 12:12 PM
The difference would be that they would be killed because of the vegans actions, this is my point, however unrealistic and am interested in others' opinions.But having established that the scenario in question is entirely unrealistic, what's the point of venturing opinions? All we'd be doing is perpetuating a silly pro-meat-eating argument that veganism/vegetariansim will somehow lead to the deaths of animals. The scenario you suggest is completely disconnected from reality. We might as well venture our opinions on "would we eat meat if all the vegetables vanished overnight".

uma
03-02--2006, 12:37 PM
Hmm I understand where you are coming from but I don't fully agree that the analogy you have provided is similar. In this case there would be a causal relation, but in the your analogy there wouldn't be.
As much as it may appear disconnected from relaity now, we know that anything is possible, even if we don't think it to be so. And instead of a lot of vegan/veges pulling the wool (no pun intended) over their eyes and answering with 'it'll never happen' I would like them to imagine this thought argument and see how they feel. Im not saying its going to happen, but im very interested in how other vegans especially could account for themselves given this thought argument.
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

Atomik
03-02--2006, 12:52 PM
Hmm I understand where you are coming from but I don't fully agree that the analogy you have provided is similar. In this case there would be a causal relation, but in the your analogy there wouldn't be.Well no you are being pedantic! The issue here is the likelihood of any given scenario, in which context the existence (or lack of) a causal relationship is irrelevant.


As much as it may appear disconnected from relaity now, we know that anything is possible, even if we don't think it to be so.That's a nonsensical argument. If you proceed from such a position, then you'd effectively be requiring vegetarians and vegans to consider an infinite number of possibilities on the basis that they "might just happen". In the real world, we concern ourselves with the likely consequences of our actions.


And instead of a lot of vegan/veges pulling the wool (no pun intended) over their eyes and answering with 'it'll never happen'Errrrmmm.... hardly! It won't ever happen. That's a position that can be rationally explained and supported with evidence, whereas your argument is based on a fictional scenario that is utterly disconnected from reality.


....I would like them to imagine this thought argument and see how they feel. Im not saying its going to happen, but im very interested in how other vegans especially could account for themselves given this thought argument.If you're asking this question with the full understanding that it's not based on any likely reality, then it's more a philosophical question than a question of ethics. It certainly isn't something that vegetarians or vegans should need to concern themselves with. That's an important distinction, because it changes the nature of the question from one that vegetarians and vegans should be morally obliged to address, to one that's simply a philosophical diversion.

And to be clear, in your fictional scenario, I'd be quite happy to see every cow in the land executed if it brought an end to the on-going cycle of abuse. But I'd also be happy to eat meat if I was abducted by Martians tomorrow and taken away to the land where only cows grow on trees and vegetables are made of flesh.

Perthite
03-02--2006, 01:11 PM
yeah, like, why cull cows when you can just deep freeze them til they've run out? it's not like farmers use specific areas of land, the cows would dwindle out slowly over the generations going into smaller fields while the bigger fields are used for veg. waste not want not etc!

Anusha
03-02--2006, 02:18 PM
I have always wondered about this. Now a lot of vegans I know would ideally like most of the population to become vegan also in order to stop the suffering of the animals. This is all well and good, but what if it actually happened? All the farmers would cull all their cattle to make way for vegetation. This would keep our country self sufficient, sure but what about all the cattle which would become almost extinct? How do other vegans allow for this possibility in the way that they live their lives? It obviousely will not happen but it could be a possibility. With the beliefs I have of reincanation this is not a problem for me but i know many vegans who don't hold this belief.
Views?
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

I went back to your original statement to explore this a bit more.... (a lunch break thing..:angel: ...)

Yes in an ideal world no animal should suffer for the benefit of humans... i use the term benefit loosly as people can survive happily without any animal products.. but i think vegetarianism and veganism are personal ideals and i have yet to meet one that preaches that the rest of the world shouldnt make their own choices. so to hold them accountable for the 'what if' scenario is perhaps a little harsh....

secondly by your own admission here you say that 'It obviously will not happen....'

I think that most of the posters here are in agrement though... if all the cows had to be culled in one go..not only would all the killing be over in one hit...but further pain and suffering would be avoided forever... it is of course not going to happen as you rightly say...and a gradual diet trend away from meat eating wouldnt result in the mass cull of cattle.

Earth Whirler perhaps expressed it best though..:)

you cannot expect a non meat eater to be held responsible for the excess food supplies of ex meat eaters... that would be like saying that if the world suddenly became non-smokers... the people who have never smoked are moraly liable for the loss of income of the tobacco magnates and the subsequent extinction of the tobacco plant...?

uma
03-02--2006, 05:11 PM
Well no you are being pedantic! The issue here is the likelihood of any given scenario, in which context the existence (or lack of) a causal relationship is irrelevant.



Ok, the causal relationship IS important this is what im getting at. People stopping eating cattle will eventually decrease the amount of demand, at whatever level, resulting in some cattle being killed for no purpose. If you think about the amount of calves that have to be produced in order for the milk yeild to stay at a high production level-then these calves would be killed not for meat, but for no reason whatsoever.
I do realise that this might seem like a purely philisophical point, and I agree that I am presenting it in such a way. But I DO feel its important for every vege and more so vegans, to think about it and treat it, however hypothetically, as an ethical issue. As it IS a conceivable possibility.
For example, me deciding to buy a car and use it in the city when it wasn't essential, would be contributing to the world's massive crisis which will entail because of global warming. Small action, yes. The result, seemingly quite far off, but yet I still think its a moral issue that needs addressing. I allow this isn't identical to my argument but its as close as I can get one.

And thank you for (finally) answering my question :harhar:

In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

uma
03-02--2006, 05:13 PM
you cannot expect a non meat eater to be held responsible for the excess food supplies of ex meat eaters... that would be like saying that if the world suddenly became non-smokers... the people who have never smoked are moraly liable for the loss of income of the tobacco magnates and the subsequent extinction of the tobacco plant...?

But they can be held to be responsible by the reasoning of vegans. Vegans are vegans as they don't want any causal-ness in the chain of suffering, right? Well what i'm saying is that by doing this in the long term, theres a possibility of them actually adding to it. I do know what you mean by your example, and im sort of in agreement but i still feel that this question differs in nature.
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

uma
03-02--2006, 05:15 PM
it's not like farmers use specific areas of land,

Forgive me Paddy, but do you know anything about farming and the field rotations that farmers use?

In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

Atomik
03-02--2006, 05:44 PM
Ok, the causal relationship IS important this is what im getting at. I never said it wasn't. You raised the issue of causality specifically in relation to the relevance of my analogy - and seeing as my analogy had nothing to do with causality, the discussion of causality in that context was irrelevant.


People stopping eating cattle will eventually decrease the amount of demand, at whatever level, resulting in some cattle being killed for no purpose.No it won't. You're fundamentally misunderstanding the dynamics of the situation. A reduction in demand over a period of time will simply result in farmers no longer replacing stock. Plus, in case you hadn't realised, what the hell do you think happens to all those cows anyway? Do you think dairy farmers allow Daisy to live to a ripe old age once her udders have dried up?


But I DO feel its important for every vege and more so vegans, to think about it and treat it, however hypothetically, as an ethical issue. As it IS a conceivable possibility.It's not a conceivable possibility. It's a ridiculously hypothetical and unlikely scenario that's entirely disconnected from the real world. Even were you correct, it still wouldn't result in the death of an additional cow - they're all destined for the slaughterhouse anyway! The only context in which this question has any relevance is as a mildly interesting philosophical diversion. All you're actually achieving by perpetuating this notion is to lend credence to a ludicrous argument which meat-eaters regularly use to berate vegetarians and vegans.

uma
03-02--2006, 05:50 PM
It's not a conceivable possibility. The only context in which this question has any relevance is as a mildly interesting philosophical diversion.

I guess we are going to have to agree to dissagree about this point, as i feel we could both argue till we are blue in the face without making headway one way or the other.

Also I am more than aware what happens to dairy cattle, hence my choice to be vegan-whats your excuse?:harhar:

In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

Starling
03-02--2006, 05:50 PM
I actually think it would be better if it happened over night, as i think less cattle would die that way. We're veg*ns... we don't agree with cattle being killed for food. So why would it make any difference to us if they were culled. The only difference is that they would be the last to be killed, and there'd be no slaughtering/culling beyond that, which is what we'd love to see.

uma
03-02--2006, 05:53 PM
I actually think it would be better if it happened over night, as i think less cattle would die that way. We're veg*ns... we don't agree with cattle being killed for food. So why would it make any difference to us if they were culled. The only difference is that they would be the last to be killed, and there'd be no slaughtering/culling beyond that, which is what we'd love to see.

So in your opinion, you would rather them be dead than have any sort of life at all? (sorry playing devil's advocate here:whistle: )
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

Atomik
03-02--2006, 05:53 PM
I guess we are going to have to agree to dissagree about this point, as i feel we could both argue till we are blue in the face without making headway one way or the other.Well if you could back your position up with a single fact or rational argument, I'd be happy to agree to disagree.


Also I am more than aware what happens to dairy cattle, hence my choice to be vegan-whats your excuse?:harhar: I was vegan when you were in nappies, so I think I probably know more about it than you do, actually. Remind me again how you're not self righteous? :harhar:

uma
03-02--2006, 05:57 PM
I was vegan when you were in nappies, so I think I probably know more about it than you do, actually. Remind me again how you're not self righteous? :harhar:


Yeah and what happened to that? hmmmm? the craving for cheese get the better of you...slacker...:whistle: :harhar:
And i'm not self-righteous, unless by that you mean that you know im more morally correct than you as I am vegan NOW rather than a looooog time ago:wiggle:

In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

Atomik
03-02--2006, 06:03 PM
Yeah and what happened to that? hmmmm? the craving for cheese get the better of you...slacker...:whistle: :harhar: No. Actually, it was a health issue, Miss "I'll Stop Being Vegan If I Get Diagnosed With Celiacs". Remind me again how you don't judge people? :harhar:



And i'm not self-righteous, unless by that you mean that you know im more morally correct than you as I am vegan NOWWhoops.... careful! That self-righteous halo's slipping again. Still, excellent attempt to drag the conversation away from the argument that you were losing. ;)

uma
03-02--2006, 06:06 PM
No. Actually, it was a health issue, Miss "I'll Stop Being Vegan If I Get Diagnosed With Celiacs". Remind me again how you don't judge people? :harhar:




Thank you very much, stu dearest, I actually ate a celiac diet and was vegan for over 2 and a half months..... so there :harhar:
Anyway stop dragging this post off topic:whistle: :duel:
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

Starling
03-02--2006, 06:15 PM
So in your opinion, you would rather them be dead than have any sort of life at all? (sorry playing devil's advocate here:whistle: )
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

I'm not sure what you mean??

Slaughtered, culled, or happily live out their days - happily live out their days

Slaughtered or culled (equal numbers) - Slaughtered

10 million slaughtered or 10,000 culled - 10,000 culled

Therefore, veg*nism gradually or over night - Over night

Atomik
03-02--2006, 06:43 PM
So in your opinion, you would rather them be dead than have any sort of life at all? (sorry playing devil's advocate here:whistle: )But again, your argument is based on complete fantasy! Dairy cattle are still killed. It's not as though they're left to live to a ripe old age! Any cow born today within the meat or dairy industry will be killed before its time - so what's the difference? Sorry, but your argument just doesn't make any kind of sense.

Whirler
03-02--2006, 07:19 PM
Uma - what's your stance on all of this? You're happy to make us think about the issue but you haven't actually stated your opinion other than to support your original question. It sounds like you believe that a vegan lifestyle will lead to the culling of cattle (and the rest of the edible animal kingdom) so how much responsibility do you accept for that and what are you going to do about it?

You never answered my earlier question:
For most veggies & vegans it's a direct protest against the farming industry. So why should we have to think about the consequences of our choices? Modern farming is so obviously not good so isn't that up the farmers to look at the consequences of their actions?Or commented on this:
And you're not being realistic regarding veganism. There's no point raising a hypothetical question when it's not based in any kind of reality. The farming industry in this country is already in decline, it has nothing to do with diet, it's do with economics and it always will be. Industries never just stop.You've said it's hypothetical, yet you say it's obviously not going to happen overnight. You say we should think about our actions and yet you're saying we should think about it in an entirely unrealistic manner. You seem to be confusing your question and it's becoming your argument instead.

People have followed vegetarian and vegan lifestyles for thousands of years across the planet - what makes you think that we could all suddenly adopt that lifestyle at the drop of a hat? What kind of evidence would you use to support that it would happen? It simply wouldn't happen. If you think it would then you have no understanding of human nature whatsoever. Your analogy about using a car doesn't hold up at all. I know you've said it's not the same, but actually it's completely irrelevant. You're talking about something that can scientifically be proven and predicted. And it's physically happening now. It's only a moral issue because it has a direct effect on the environment. There's absolutely no proof that vegans will inherit the earth.

Dibdabs
03-02--2006, 10:32 PM
Just organising my own thoughts here.

So.. IF everyone in the world gradually person by person became vegan then gradually farmers would breed animals less and less. I'm trying to think of the process that these animals would go through. would it gradually result in an extinction? There might reach a point where if say half the world are vegan.. A few farmers may decide thats enough, there isn't enough market for meat and dairy products now..So they'd sell their animals? or kill their animals? I expect they'd sell them. Once a little over half of the western world was vegan, peer pressure would almost certainly kick in and there would be a sudden surge of lots of people becoming vegan..There would be an acceleration of people becomeing vegan? Its during this acceleration that perhaps there would be a large scale slaughtering of farm animals? because the slow process of selling and breeding less would not have time to take place and so there would be an excess of unwanted animals..by which time perhaps these animals will become endangered species..Perhaps western society has learnt about making animals endangered and will not let it get to the point where these animals are in danger of becoming extinct...So by that time there will be charities in place keeping these animals alive in animal parks of some sort. But these animals cant stay there forever..these animals will not be able to be slowly introduced back into the wild?
I'm reading a book by maria montessori which says due to humans prolonged childhood and double embryonic life they are able to adapt to almost all conditions and will learn from their environment. She says animals are different..they are born with inbred instincts they do not take a long time over adapting to whatever environment they are in their instincts are almost all in place at birth and so introducing these domesticated animals back into the wild would be near impossible. So that would give us two options...allow all the domesticated animals to die or protect them and feed them through charity.

Personally I am not against people eating meat. I am against people eating animals that have not be cared for or treated with respect..I believe every animal deserves the same amount of respect as every human being deserves. I think I would feel comfortable eating an animal that I knew had been properly looked after and loved. I think quantity of meat eaten needs to be reduced (farmers breed less animals and grow more vegetables) and farming attitudes needs to change (get rid of battery farming! and treat animals with respect)...If this happens then maybe the delicate balance will be somewhat restored. Ideally yes we'd hunt wild animals and be hunted ourselves..that would perhaps be a real balance...but thats no longer possible and so we have to work with what we have. So how do we reach an ideal situation for where we are? umm.. I think, for me, continuing down the path of vegetarianism/veganism is the way to go...get as much information out there as is possible about the way animals are so often treated in the farming industry..just get as much information out there so that people can decide for themselves. Hopefully and ideally then gradually the amount of people eating meat will decrease to the point were farmers will have to question why this is happening and then have to change their methods in order to keep their market. Sadly once a certain amount of people are vegan and peer pressure starts to kick in people dont realise why they are becoming vegan fully , they just go with the flow and when the farming industry looks into the reasons behind the reduction of people eating meat truths will be distorted..These distortions in truth are what makes the extinction of these farmed animals a real possibility.

But I suppose anything is a real possibility. For now, vegetarianism feels right for me and so it is the path I will continue to follow.

Thanks Uma:D ..It was good for me to think about that. Me writing that has ben helpful to me even if it sounds dull, obvious and pointless to everyone else.

Much love from Deborah xxxx

Starling
03-02--2006, 11:30 PM
I'm reading a book by maria montessori which says due to humans prolonged childhood and double embryonic life they are able to adapt to almost all conditions and will learn from their environment. She says animals are different..they are born with inbred instincts they do not take a long time over adapting to whatever environment they are in their instincts are almost all in place at birth and so introducing these domesticated animals back into the wild would be near impossible.

Strange, i watched a video at uni this week about rat behaviour. They released some lab rats into the wild to see how they behaved and if they survived. It only took them a couple of days to adapt and they eventually formed a structured community with a dominant male etc. After the first day or so they had already began to hop around their environment like their wild relatives. They figured out what to eat based on natural instincts, and trial and error in some cases.

Weren't all animals wild at some point? Obviously it'd depend where the cattle's new habitat was, it'd have to be like their natural environment before domestication.

Dibdabs
03-02--2006, 11:36 PM
Oh really? thats interesting. What I'm reading is probably a little dated. It would be fantastic if farm animals could be re-introduced into the wild:)

Milo
03-02--2006, 11:57 PM
Obviously it'd depend where the cattle's new habitat was, it'd have to be like their natural environment before domestication.

I really don't think so. Farm animals by breeding are so very far removed from their wild ancestors - rare breeds farms are the only answer, I suspect.



I do realise that this might seem like a purely philisophical point,

No, uma, it isn't even one of those.

- and I agree that I am presenting it in such a way.

You think so?

But I DO feel its important for every vege and more so vegans, to think about it and treat it, however hypothetically, as an ethical issue. As it IS a conceivable possibility.

If so, then it is also an inconceivable impracticality and I humbly suggest that, (and NO offence intended), you have become firmly(?) stuck in a quagmire of Buddhist-type texts from which, despite nearly 3 pages of enlightening answers, you seem at present to be unwilling to extricate yourself.

uma
06-02--2006, 12:27 PM
If so, then it is also an inconceivable impracticality and I humbly suggest that, (and NO offence intended), you have become firmly(?) stuck in a quagmire of Buddhist-type texts from which, despite nearly 3 pages of enlightening answers, you seem at present to be unwilling to extricate yourself.


Offense most definately taken. I feel that this is very unfair in stereotyping me whilst knowing very little about me and not really having contributed in this discussion to come in and make those points seems deeply unfair. If you are wanting to dicuss this then fair enough but making sweeping generilizations helps no body.
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

uma
06-02--2006, 12:30 PM
Uma - what's your stance on all of this? You're happy to make us think about the issue but you haven't actually stated your opinion other than to support your original question.


I believe I stated my stance at the very beginning. I don't have a problem if this were to happen as my belief in reincarnation makes this unproblematic. If there were a choice between an animal suffering and not suffering then id choose the not suffering any day, even if this resulted in the culling of the animals.
I do believe I did answer your other questions, if you look back a bit, but i might be wrong. Ill check when ive more time and get back to you.
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

uma
06-02--2006, 12:31 PM
Thanks Uma:D ..It was good for me to think about that. Me writing that has ben helpful to me even if it sounds dull, obvious and pointless to everyone else.



Thank you for sharing your interesting thoughts Deborah! That was my intention with this thread, to see what others felt and thought about the issue. It wasn't intended as an attack on anyone but it seems to have got a few backs up for some reason. Im just interested in the thought argument behind it all..... But thank you!
In Dharma,
Uma
x x x

Atomik
06-02--2006, 12:36 PM
Offense most definately taken.But he's basically correct. You've painted yourself into a corner. The flaws in your argument have been explained at great length, and yet you refuse to back down out of what I can only assume is sheer stubbornness.

Atomik
06-02--2006, 12:37 PM
It wasn't intended as an attack on anyone but it seems to have got a few backs up for some reason.I don't think your original post has got any backs up. If anything has, I suspect it's your inflexibility.

uma
06-02--2006, 12:42 PM
But he's basically correct. You've painted yourself into a corner. The flaws in your argument have been explained at great length, and yet you refuse to back down out of what I can only assume is sheer stubbornness.

I disagree, he made a point about Buddhist doctrines which I hadn't mentioned anywhere-the only thing i had mentioned was reincarnation, and that could have come from a variety of places. I think its unfair to bring something like that into the discussion when it doesn't contribute at all.

Atomik
06-02--2006, 12:47 PM
he made a point about Buddhist doctrines which I hadn't mentioned anywhereThat's why I said 'basically' correct. The main thrust of his point was accurate, but I can't comment on the degree to which your position is being influenced specifically by Buddhism.

Milo
06-02--2006, 02:16 PM
Offense most definately taken.

Well, I'm sorry.

I feel that this is very unfair in stereotyping me

I have? How? All I said / implied was that your stance appeared to be fixed. Firmly fixed. And that it appeared to me, (based on the curious line you were taking and your In Dharma signature), to be in the style of Buddhist texts / discussions.

the whilst knowing very little about me

Indeed (next to), nothing, but that's no reason for me to hold back, surely.

and not really having contributed in this discussion

It wasn't much of one, was it. It had been going nowhere for quite some time, but only you seemed to be unable to see that.

to come in and make those points seems deeply unfair.

Sorry (really), but it isn't unfair. Anyone can reply in any way they wish to any postings. Within reason. And on this thread your reasoning escapes me. I suggest that it isn't reasoning.

If you are wanting to dicuss this then fair enough

Thankyou and the same to you.

but making sweeping generilizations helps no body.

It can do - I take your point, but the topic's gone nowhere, has it.

Dibdabs
06-02--2006, 07:17 PM
I dont think the discussion has gone nowhere..its made me explore my thoughts a bit anyway.

So she's inflexible? So to some people whats been said is pointless?
So what??

I think its important to realise that all the intentions here seem good. That the aim of the post was to make people think..which it has done.

If Uma refuses to back down and people choose to get frustrated about it, is that umas problem or the people choosing to get frustrated?

The energy I got from Uma at the beginning of the thread is that she was attempting to explore herself a subject she wasn't certain about through other people and not trying to state any truth. And I think her aim has been achieved.

Atomik
06-02--2006, 07:25 PM
So she's inflexible? So to some people whats been said is pointless? So what??Well, the aim of a discussion forum is to discuss. If we don't learn from other people, then there's no much point, is there?


I think its important to realise that all the intentions here seem good. That the aim of the post was to make people think..which it has done.I don't think anyone disputes that - which is why we're pointing out Nomy's error as pleasantly as we're able.


If Uma refuses to back down and people choose to get frustrated about it, is that umas problem or the people choosing to get frustrated? I, personally, am not frustrated, so there's not any problem at all. However, to suggest that an individual holds no responsibility for the reactions that their behaviour generates is a little simplistic, don't you think?


The energy I got from Uma at the beginning of the thread is that she was attempting to explore herself a subject she wasn't certain about through other people and not trying to state any truth. And I think her aim has been achieved.Well the 'energy' I got from her subsequently was that she was refusing to explore the topic in any direction that didn't accord with her preconceived opinion. Just about everyone on this thread has pointed out the flaw in her original supposition, and yet she still stubbornly clings to it. That way enlightenment does not lie ;)

pretty polly
06-02--2006, 07:27 PM
well said dok :cool:

Milo
06-02--2006, 07:34 PM
..........Personally I am not against people eating meat. I am against people eating animals that have not be cared for or treated with respect....
Personally, I am against people eating meat, wherever / whenever there's an alternative.

And as for respect, what is respectful about raising an animal, even in the most wonderful conditions, and killing it unnecessarily? (Scuse me, Mr Bullock, but with all due respect :rolleyes: , I'm now going to kill you for no good reason).

Atomik
06-02--2006, 07:36 PM
And as for respect, what is respectful about raising an animal, even in the most wonderful conditions, and killing it unnecessarily?Much as I agree with you, that subject is waaaaay off topic and should really be the subject of a new thread. Keep it on topic please guys. :cool: