Staying good while playing God
Posted
Updated
Pursuit of the relevant human aim comes at a cost - a cost carried principally by the animals. (AAP: Emma Hanswell, file photo)
For many years the main focus in the breeding of farm animals has been on production traits. Examples of such traits include milk yield in dairy cows, the number of eggs laid by laying hens, and growth and feed conversion in meat animals. The results have been staggering.
For example, between the early 1960s and the late 1990s the time needed to produce a slaughter-weight broiler fell from 80 to 40 days, and the required feed consumption halved. Over the same period, milk yield in most dairy cow breeds have more than doubled. These achievements to a large, and still increasing, extent they are the outcome of genetic changes brought about by systematic farm animal breeding.
More recently, modern biotechnologies have also been used by breeders in their work with some farm animals. The technologies in question belong to what is called reproductive biotechnology, which aims to control (and often accelerate) the process of breeding.
One of the more spectacular forms of biotechnology so far has been the kind of animal cloning that took off with the sheep Dolly, born in 1996 in Scotland. Recently the US authorities have allowed the use of cloning in farm animal production.
Although modern animal breeding and recent developments in biotechnology deliver benefits in the form of increased efficiency, they also introduce problems - not least for the animals involved. For example, as an unintended side-effect of the increased growth in broiler chicken the birds now suffer from severe leg problems. And it has become evident that excessive focus on raising milk yields leads to animal health problems.
The genetic correlations between production and health traits are typically unfavourable in the sense that the genes that bring increases in productivity introduce dispositions to disease and other health problems. Even so, carefully designed breeding programmes might allow breeders to improve health and increase production at the same time.
However, because of widespread negative correlations between health and productivity, no breeding goal will at the same time deliver maximum improvements in animal health and welfare and maximum increase in productivity. Thus in farm animal breeding it will always be necessary to balance human benefits and the costs to the animals involved.
Turning to cloned animals, the current success rates of animal cloning are very low (3 to 5 per cent), and of the few animals born, many suffer from impaired health. Here, a wide range of problems include reproduction abnormalities, malformation of organs and immunological dysfunctions.
Breeding and biotechnology appear to give rise to the very same kinds of ethical dilemma that relate to other forms of animal use. In general, the dilemma is one in which there is, on the one hand, a human need, interest or preference, and yet, on the other hand, pursuit of the relevant human aim comes at a cost - a cost carried principally by the animals in terms of welfare problems.
However it is important to be aware that there is more to the ethical discussion concerning breeding and biotech than just weighing human benefits against costs to animals. An example may serve to make that point: some time ago poultry breeders in Israel managed to breed featherless broiler chickens for use in poultry production in countries with a very warm climate.
This may seem to be a very useful and ingenious step to take. The use of these chickens would allow savings to be made in feedstuff and reduce or remove the cost of plucking at slaughter. Even though this is disputed, it can also be argued that there is no problem for the welfare of the birds as long as they are only used in warm areas where they don't need feathers to maintain their body temperature.
However, many people will probably still object to the breeding of featherless chickens, because they see it as a wrong-doing to the animal, or as wrong in itself, to make such dramatic changes to a natural feature of birds. Many people feel that limits should be placed on man's interference with nature.
According to my own view animal welfare is here the key issue. Through intensive agriculture we have, I think, already gone far too far in putting pressure on farm animals. There is no reason to increase the pressure through cloning and other forms of biotechnology. Therefore I have in my function as advisor to the Danish government been involved in initiatives that led to a ban on the use of cloning in farm animal production.
Peter Sandøe is a Professor of Bioethics at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and the director of the Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assesment. This piece was first broadcast on ABC Radio National's Perspective program on September 3, 2008.
Search for news
Comments (64)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
Jason Li:
09 Sep 2008 11:41:40am
When they laid the first railways in China, people thought it was playing god, as it disturbs geographical features that is intimately associated to Chinese mythology (Feng-Shui). Over time people acknowledged that railways are not such bad things after all. I believe we should focus on mitigating the real risks, such as controls and exit-strategies, rather than just relying on the fear of the unknown while invoking metaphysical entities that still yield great influences on people's emotions.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Max Gross:
09 Sep 2008 12:25:59pm
Jason, a chicken is not a train. The problem is human beings treating animals as if they were machines to be used (and abused).
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
renn:
09 Sep 2008 1:00:44pm
Also some one is going to eat the chicken?
It is already a worry eating chickenand other meat. Has it been fed growth hormones and antibiotics.
It's even a worry eating caged tuna as opposed to wild tuna. They are fed pilchards which have been caught at sea, taken to a factory then taken back out to sea to feed the tuna. Makes you wonder how hygienic the process is?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Fratelli:
09 Sep 2008 6:16:58pm
Ah yes...the old 'hormones and antibiotics' line.
If you are buying Australian-owned and grown produce, there is no way growth hormones are used, they were outlawed over 40 years ago.
Its a common myth that such industries are tarnished by public misconceptions.
Antibiotics however are used, but simply to maintain animal health - no differently to humans.
The increased growth cited in the article and well-known to the public is a result of good breeding and improved nutrition.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
BigProblem:
09 Sep 2008 7:32:05pm
Fratelli,
(Other than treatment in acute illness), no, the talk of antibiotics in stock feed is not there to maintain health. It is there purely for increased growth rates. The amount of antibiotics used for this is a sublethal dose to the bacteria etc. -- the perfect breeding ground for the creation of superbugs. This is wrong and extremely detrimental for society.
Back to the main topic, yes, animals are treated as merchandise/objects etc. Their well being is only considered if it is correlated to better production. If pain was better, they would introduce that if no one complain. When an animal is regarded as food, any respect for it drops. Look here, or more to eg China and the Middle East (like kicking dogs, slashing cows for better food). How people treat the unfortunate and the helpless is a measure of themselves.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
renn:
10 Sep 2008 6:43:38am
"buying Australian-owned and grown produce"
It may be australian owned and grown but try buying australian canned tuna in in Australia. It is canned in Thailand. Makes you wonder how hygienic their standards are?
Makes me wonder were Australian canned tuna is sold?
I would be willing to pay more to eat tuna canned in Australia but I dont know where to get it.
I suspect it is exported.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Toby:
10 Sep 2008 9:42:16am
Using antibiotics in chooks that are then consumed by humans is a sure-fire way to create antibiotic-resistant strains of 'superbugs'. I don't see how you can say that this is some kind of wacked out myth perpetuated by the tinfoil hat set.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Bok bok bok:
09 Sep 2008 3:49:25pm
chickens or the egg both go well in a tasty dish, served with a white wine... mmm
the poor chickens are kept disease free and are fed a excellent diet so that people can harvest eggs for delicious meals steal affordable to even pensioners until now...
sadly the restrictions placed upon the farmers are only going to get worse under the Pagan Vegan Human Hating Hysterical Climate Tax Cult pseudo state religion..
I see no unhappy chickens in the picture nor chickens in protest at the obvious satisfying diet and friendly company... bok bok bok
The machines are feeding the chickens so the chickens can feed us eggs... eggs are not produced by unhappy diseased overcrowded chickens with ADT .. go save a baby or infant instead of sneering at the modern efficiency required to give you the energy to live.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Cycle Michael:
10 Sep 2008 5:48:41am
It's a bit hard to see whether the chickens are happy or not in the photo. For a better look, do a google search on "Meet your Meat". This should get you to a video that shows you some of the more graphic realities of high intensity agriculture when it is unregulated (warning - not for the faint hearted or to be viewed over dinner). I gather the videos in this compilation were sourced from areas where high intensity agriculture has become the cheapest option because land is very expensive (Europe and America). At the moment most of Australias beef and sheep derived protein is source from animals that seem to have as good a life as a grazing animal could get. When I'm on holidays, cycling through spectacular countryside, as is my way, I often wonder whether the beasts I ride past appreciate the views they have. If the climate change projections are right then we might just have to start growing our grains and vegetables on this land and put our critters in the shed like everywhere else. Cyclists like me will probably still get to enjoy the view, but it won't be the same without the company.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter:
10 Sep 2008 9:47:10am
"I see no unhappy chickens in the picture nor chickens in protest at the obvious satisfying diet and friendly company. Eggs are not produced by unhappy diseased overcrowded chickens with ADT"
Perhaps you should do a bit more research beyond a quick glance at a stock photo of caged chooks before making such bold claims.
Btw, what does a "chicken in protest" actually look like; do you expect them to be carrying "equal rights for chooks" placards?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
GregS:
10 Sep 2008 10:57:21am
Halving the the time needed to produce a slaughter-weight broiler also reduces the carbon footprint per broiler by about 30%.
Battery-hen eggs have a carbon footprint up to 90% smaller than free-range eggs.
It's better to treat nature as a machine than to personify it on an ad-hoc basis. Personification confuses the whole issues. If we think of it as a machine we can see that being 'cruel' the the chickens is to be 'kind' to the polar bears.
Save the whales, buy battery hen eggs.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
jh:
09 Sep 2008 11:46:54am
Thanks Peter
That is why I am a vegetarian - except that my Isa Browns and Araucana girls provide me with eggs, have a day off when they get a bit tired, and retire in peace when they are all out of googs. I have a big henyard which is our retirement plan for them. Of course Senor Bonaparte (rooster) maintains stately order...
Your whole article is off course predicated on the idea that we owe the animals that provide for us a duty of care - the very least of which is to prevent their suffering. A sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. Anyone out there does not think many (not all) farming practices are cruel these days?? Watch a film called 'Earthlings'.
We can afford to provide animals with a far far better life with a lot less suffering if we were willing to pay more for meat and eat it twice a week. And we would be a lot fitter for it.
It is the universal consumer and they really are to blame - so people, please get discerning about where and how your meat is produced. If we demand cruelty free meat, the industry will provide it. If we buy it, we agree to it. THe best way to fight cruelty odf any sort is of course first and foremost to see it, and then refuse to participate in it.
Happy eating! It's eggs and spinach for lunch!Agree (3) Alert moderator
-
Jon Shannow:
09 Sep 2008 3:09:30pm
Why do all of these type of sermons always end with the words: 'Of course, we will have to pay more'
Ask somebody who is on the median wage if he thinks they want meat that is humanly processed. Most people would say yes. Then ask them if they are willing to pay more. 'Where do I get the money?' or 'What?!? Do you know how mcuh meat has risen in recent times?'
If I hear one more inner city dweller on $150,00 per year suggest the 'average' person on the street, pay more for well...everything... without taking into account the persons circumstances I will scream!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
jh:
09 Sep 2008 3:53:35pm
Actually - I live in country NSW, and I am on the national average. As I said, if we eat less meat we could pay a little more and still have more money in our pockets.
How do I know? I did it. Now scream away if you like - but don;t assume you know who is speaking.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Prof S:
09 Sep 2008 3:23:35pm
Careful what you say jh, your Isa Browns you refer to are infact a patented hybrids that have been systematically selected as they are egg laying machines! Their genetic flaw is that they are prone to reproductive system failure and prolapsed cloaccas, they are also known to be more cannibalistic than other breeds.
Although animal welfare is important, what is critical is the loss of domestic animal diversity (in the sense of genetic diversity) and we as a species who is dependent on this diminishing diversity are setting oursleves up for the knock down. Due to our civilisation's naivety, we are losing biodiversity on all fronts, with dire consequenses to own very own existence.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Patch:
09 Sep 2008 11:54:45am
Im looking forward to the day when simple meat can be grown in a vat without an animal brain or nervous system attached to it. That'll be good.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jim Bendfeldt:
09 Sep 2008 2:57:01pm
What.....Soylent Green? Heaven help us if we ever fully lose control over the inputs going into processed food.
Mind you half of the inputs into certain processed meats such as chicken nuggets, fish cakes, sausages, 'Devon', etc. comprise of animal body parts that most people wouldn't want to know about.
In a more perfect world, carnivorous humans would raise their own food animals, and then humanely slaughter them themselves as required (but dad, that was my pet rabbit). That would be enough to put a lot of people off meat altogether.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
mark:
09 Sep 2008 3:56:05pm
i eat chicken, absolutely love chicken, when i was about 5, i used to help my grandfather pick out a chicken, hold it's head on the old stump up in the back of the yard and my grandfather would chop it's head off, i'd let go, great fun!, still till this day i haven't had chicken as good as that... hasn't stopped me eating chicken, and i'm sure being a beef lover it would be great to see a cow turned into a nice fat T-bone... we're human if the caveman didnt slaughter the first cow/sheep/chicken we'd still be throwing stones at eachother, without meat our brains wouldn't have become as large as they are... simple if you love meat you'll respect what the animal went through for you, i do mainly because of the old days picking out a chook and watching it do the headless dance across the yard...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jim Bendfeldt:
09 Sep 2008 4:09:27pm
Mark, I bet the headless chooks you chased around the yard hadn't been de-beaked, pumped full of hormones and antibiotics, nor been caged up for most of their lives and fattened up on grain and body parts of other animals.
I'm not saying you shouldn't eat meat, but trying to address the processes in use today.
If you want a chicken that tastes like the ones you chased as a child, I suggest you go out and buy an organic one. Under organic certification requirements, at least some care has been taken to raise that chicken, and it hasn't been pumped full of chemicals, growth hormones and antibiotics.
Suck it and see!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Prof S:
09 Sep 2008 9:03:27pm
Sorry Mark, you have been mislead by the beef industry into thinking that human brain development was a result of early humans slaughtering cows/sheep/chicken!! It is well known that early homosapien increased its protein consumption levels by learning to pick up a rock and smash the skull of its fellow species. Cannibalism is the dark reality for our present day existence, and nowadays we apply the same levels of ruthlessness not to our fellow species but to our domestic monocultured food species.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mark:
10 Sep 2008 8:43:28am
sorry Prof S, it is proven, if we never went from eating fruit, vegies and berries we'd still be living in caves, the brain is 90% protein, much like muscle, without meat with the protein our brains would not have developed large enough to solve complex problems to the extent that they have
Prof S, and what about farming and how it turned the human race from nomad to farmer? are you suggesting we thought hey we've smashed a few of our fellow humans heads in, lets farm!, no impossible, we went from nomad to farmer because they found it easier to raise and keep animals rather than having to hunt and sometimes going days without food, we started farming to secure food for the future generations, this is because once we started eating animals we found we were wiping out entire species, so save a few animals for breeding and eat the offspringAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
NT boy:
09 Sep 2008 12:12:42pm
Genetic modification is all around us already. be it the canola seeds developed for canola oil or chickens that are fully grown within weeks of being hatched. I find it dificult to believe we can put the genie back in the bottle.
For my part, I refuse to use margarine made with canola oil and only eat naturally raised meats - you can find it if you are prepared to look, or more importantly if you are not prepared to accept or eat Genetically modified products.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dave:
09 Sep 2008 12:58:47pm
When a scientist inserts a new gene into an organism, they have no idea what systems they are disrupting as a consequence. The insertion could occur within another gene, a transcription factor, a transposon, anything. Imagine drawing a small black rectangle at some random position on the Mona Lisa. There is a possibility that it won't be noticed, it will simply blend in with the original picture. There is also a large possibility that it will wreck the whole thing. Scientists need to do far more research into the genomic structure of organisms they wish to modify before they can claim to know what they are doing.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
NT boy:
09 Sep 2008 2:50:10pm
I agree, and it should be even closely monitored if it is tried . it was the "trial" of GM on canola in Tasmania that caused all canola in Australia and now the world to be contaminated.. GM seeds were "accidentally" sent to a seed dispersement place instead of to a Lab.. So it was dispersed all over the country hence no canola is actually not tainted with some fish gene.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Vivienne:
09 Sep 2008 1:06:06pm
The healthiest and most ethical diet is a vegan one! Not only is there plenty of food available, but it avoids the misery and stress on animals, and on land and resource use needed for livestock industries. Our governments won't advise it because so much of our farming depend on livestock products in our diets, and so do our exports. Investigation into diet alternatives should be every compassionate person's quest, but the results are not commercial! However, the efforts of actually having to cook food are rewarding.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ravensclaw:
09 Sep 2008 1:28:46pm
Vivienne
That is false.
We are Omnivores. Our digestive system and nutritional need requires meat for optimal health. Suggesting otherwise is a lie or naive.
The only difference between banning the human consumption of meat and banning carnivores conuming meat eg tigers; are that the effect on carnivores eg tigers, is obvious and immediate.
For those wanting to rant and disagree know this! Long term vegans require processed food to emulate the positive effects of meat eg B12 supplements. Even then the health benefits are less than optimal.
I have observed many children with stunted development caused by being forced to eat a vegan lifestyle. It is child abuse!
CheersAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
jh:
09 Sep 2008 2:11:11pm
Raven
I make the same offer to you I make to everyone. When you can kick my arse on a road cycle over 100km, then you can tell me I need to eat meat.
Until then - nice try but no cigar...
I confess though I am an ovo-vegetarian. Since going to this diet my iron levels have increased, and after a bunch of tests it has been determined I received mare than enough protein.
But then I eat nuts like no-ones business. Oh and for the record vegans eat processed food true, ut that's beside the point, everyone does!
Do you eat your meat raw?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
JayR:
09 Sep 2008 2:21:32pm
And there lies the difference between a true vegan and a vegetarian. While im a vego-friendly omnivore myself (eating less meat than most do) I also fail to see any Vegans stick long term to a vegan diet, let alone not need all kinds of supplements or have other diet related health issues.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
abno:
09 Sep 2008 2:47:30pm
I'm with you ravensclaw. Humans are omnivores.
Look at our teeth, they define our optimal diet in both diversity and proportion.
To the guilt ridden who don't want to hurt the poor animal I ask; why it's ok to eat the foetus of a plant?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gimila:
09 Sep 2008 2:57:24pm
That is largely false (you're right, we're omnivores - as in we can eat plants and animals).
Being omnivores has given us the ability to survive a wide range of conditions and environments. The fact that we evolved eating meat (well most cultures, the contribution of meat to the diet varies massively across different cultures) is really beside the point. And if you don't want to support the mass-production animal-based farming then you really have the options to cut down on consumption (vegan being an extreme version of this) and/or change to a lower impact version (free range for example).
I'm a vegan and the only supplements I take are B12 (occasionally). I don't particularly watch my diet but I eat very well and all health/blood checks I've had have been good - and better than the average for my age group. I used to give blood regularly (stopped from moving address, and should start again). Meanwhile a large proportion of the population are popping vitamins and supplements on top of a diet that is significantly higher in fats and animal products to the recommended levels.
All the information I've seen wrt studies on vegetarian and vegan children have shown no evidence of "stunted development" - you might like to provide references or alert the authorities if you know of verifiable abuse. On the other hand, you might also like to compare with the general population trends of obesity and high cholesterol in children fed a largely fast food and meat based diet.
Regarding GM, I'm pro-science (background in the biological sciences) but find myself opposing GM foods because I believe that they are not being sufficiently tested and most of the commercial application of GM is not to the benefit to consumers (i.e. herbicide resistance, pesticide production in the food etc). Additionally there is a recent study that failed to show any improvement in production of GM crops in the UK. I'd be happy to see greater testing and more core-science but distrust the commercial interest and ethics of companies such as Monsanto.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
just eat it:
09 Sep 2008 1:33:53pm
eat the meat - realise that we are the top of the food chain and therefore have the right to eat other animals for our sustanance. If this was not meant to be then cows would have landed on the moon, fish would be able to figure out how not to get caught on a hook and we would be entertaining monkeys in the circus.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter69:
09 Sep 2008 2:31:44pm
I don't know of any other animal at the top of the food chain that has a population that covers the Earth one end to the other??
Or do I know of any other animal causing extinction rates, pollution, poisoning the rivers and oceans and all the lands at the rate that we are. Sad fact is you will probably have or have children and are leaving them nothing.
Unless as a Human you have some compassion for all sentient beings, then you are barely human!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
EMP:
09 Sep 2008 1:25:01pm
I don't think that as a society we're really informed about what the industry and the practice of eating meat is like. I think we just do it because that's what we've been taught to do, even though eating meat, especially the way it is currently produced, is socially, environmentally and ethically undesirable. It is a waste of resources (eg land, food, water, time, etc) that would be better off being used for humans in need, it's a major contributor to global warming, and it's completely unnecessary for a healthy diet - not to mention that animals, as living beings, deserve better. There are so many other good reasons to abandon eating meat altogether, but they're just not widely known, which is a real shame.
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." Albert EinsteinAgree (2) Alert moderator
-
renn:
10 Sep 2008 7:01:10am
"waste of resources (eg land, food, water, time, etc) that would be better off being used for humans in need, it's a major contributor to global warming, and it's completely unnecessary "
An article I read this week staes there are 26 million feral pigs in Australia.
More wild pigs than humans. I'm sure they are contributing to CO2 in the air and drinking lots of water.
That is to name one feral animal. There are camels, dogs, cats (big ones at that, believe me),rabbits and more.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
SpaceChimp:
09 Sep 2008 2:30:27pm
I'm a vegetarian, but frankly think it's pretty poor for people on both sides to preach to the other on what is essentially a personal choice, especially when the reasons are the beaten-to-death environment and carbon neutral argument, or the equally dreary evolution, top-of-the-foodchain argument.
People can eat what they want, or choose not to eat what they want...get over it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pen Pal:
09 Sep 2008 2:49:58pm
I am a meat & chicken eater, but I am concerned about the process the two animals go through to get onto my plate.
I abhore animal cruelty, but my abstenance from eating a balanced diet is not going to fix the problem - this is what we have elected representatives for - to ensure the best is done for all living things.
I just trust that Professor Peter Sandee is engaged by Government to meet my wishes and I respect the absolute right of individuals being vegans. I only hope my rights are respected in return.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Shaz91:
09 Sep 2008 5:44:18pm
It's unfortunate that you seem to think that "someone else" will solve the world's problems while you carry on with your life as normal. If you're concerned about the process the animals go through, then stop paying supermarkets to do that very process on your behalf. Take steps to find out where your food is coming from and don't rely on politicians to fix things for you. Of course you have the right to eat whatever you want, but you can't keep doing the same things and expecting the result to be different.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pen Pal:
10 Sep 2008 8:21:58am
Shaz91 - How disappointing that you haven't read what I've written - talk about somebody shooting from the hip!
I can fix my own problems thank you and I certainly won't wait for politicians to help me, but can you tell me, short of not eating meat or chicken, how I am to slaughter animals in such a humanely and domestic way that will allow me to store the remainder in a domestic 'fridge?
Let's get real here - what I am saying is that there needs to be laws and supervision by the "authorities" to ensure there is no suffering by the animals.
Please don't tell me I need other people to manage my life for me, but I do realise I am a member of a very big community, which by its very nature needs some rules for governance.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Brad:
09 Sep 2008 3:06:10pm
Nobody has the right to tell me what I should and shouldn't eat. If I choose a vegetarian/vegan diet, that would be my choice. If I choose to eat meat (which I do) as part of a balanced diet, that's also my choice. Provided the animals are farmed humanely and not full of pesticides (which is why I choose organic where possible). I have no moral qualms about eating a nice juicy steak.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Shaz91:
09 Sep 2008 5:33:10pm
But by eating meat and animal products, you are telling others what they can't eat - specifically, the massive amounts of land and water used to produce animal products for westerners stops less fortunate humans from being able to eat much at all. Do some research. I am sure the impoverished starving millions out there don't appreciate having their lifestyle dictated by you either.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
chalkie:
10 Sep 2008 9:24:29am
Not in Australia - we export more than we produce. It is an issue of overpopulation, not food type unless you think Australians bear responsibility for other nations' porr fertility practices over senturies int he past?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
bemused:
09 Sep 2008 3:28:46pm
Why do humans seem to currently have a guilt complex over every single thing we do?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Joe:
09 Sep 2008 6:17:38pm
Its because we are in a phase of social evolution - as a species we are becoming aware of our impacts on our environment. We are probably the first species to ever achieve this. The evoluition of guilt as an emotion plays a critical role in this evolution.
Celebrate your guilt bemused - it is the gift that will save our species!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
bemused:
10 Sep 2008 11:08:28am
I'd say common sense would be infinitely more useful than guilt. If only it was actually common.
Failing that, i imagine logic would also be infinitely more useful.
Making decisions based on emotion is not a new thing. And it is not a good thing either. If anything, we're slipping backwards on this one. This is not a "new" thing, nor is it good.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
bemused:
09 Sep 2008 3:42:49pm
And while we're talking about this, as was made reference to -selective breeding is a form of genetic modification and one which people quite often choose to ignore. How do you think we have so many different breeds of dogs, cats, everything really...
Or do people want to pretend that every single plant and animal in the world was always and will always be what it is now without human intervention? Mutation, people, it happens constantly with or without our involvement. Are all these mutations good? Well, that depends entirely who you ask. Do we always know what the effect will be? No. If we knew that much about genetics then we could probably start working on preventing genetic disorders. Would that be a good thing? I suppose we'd have people for and against it. If we could prevent muscular distrophy would that be worth "playing god" even if we weren't 100% certain of possible side effects 20 generations on?
Because, at the end of the day, they are all one and the same thing. No matter what, people are going to change their environment one way or another. Different doesn't have to be bad, it's just different. And people aren't the only creatures on this earth that do it either.
And not to put to sharp a point on it - if enough people cared then it wouldn't be ecconomical and wouldn't happen. Evidently a large enough portion of the population isn't concerned enough to make it matter.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
MO:
09 Sep 2008 4:16:26pm
Bemused. You have hit the nail on the head.
Anthropomorphism is running riot and the guilt ridden way these discussions take place is interesting to say the least.
I shudder to think of the outcry when it's proven that plants have feelings and emotions (as some think). What will our poor vegans eat then?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
jh:
09 Sep 2008 6:04:42pm
Vegetarianism is hardly new MO. The Hindus Jainists and many (not all) Buddhists have been practising it for 1000's of years. To ridicule their deep concern to prevent unnecessary suffering by not eating animals borders on bigotry.
Vegetarianism is a culture, and an increasingly persuasive one. If you don't give a damn about the suffering inflicted on other creatures for your greed, please yourself, but don't be telling people who choose differently they are anthropomorphising. I know chooks are not people, I just happen to think they have the right not to be made to suffer their whole lives (see Singer's writing for a description of what defines suffering) especially when they were brought into the world to provide us with meat and eggs.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ravensclaw:
10 Sep 2008 12:15:27am
jh
LOL
Whenever western society discovered another base society, that newly discovered society has ALWAYS included meat products in their diets.
It is of course acknowledged that religion has strongly influenced most societies the west encountered, and that vegetarianism has a strong influence on that religion.
Cynicism on capitalism and associating meat consumption with greed are not very strong efforts to out-think someone.
While I acknowledge animals can suffer under some farming models, that is a poor reason to ban the consumption of meat, or even accuse it of being a(n) evil, unethical, unsustainable and/or murderous lifestyle choice.
Do you feel guilty about castrating a fruit tree? Do you feel guilty about making a vegetable suffer by depriving it of its root system? Is the boiling or microwaving of a living vegetable torture and murder? Is repeating this genocide? Is having a livlihood farming such peaceful benevolent living creatures a case of unacceptable greed?
Plants are sentient and complex lifeforms. Just ask anyone who talks to roses. Surely plants deserve a better fate then being peeled, chopped, boiled, steamed, radiated, dried, pickled, juiced, stripped etc by the vile human species.
CheersAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
ravensclaw:
09 Sep 2008 4:33:29pm
Some facts about animal products
Breast Milk is essential for babies. The longer the better. The benefits are for the baby's immune system, digestive system, brain, bone and muscle development. In fact real breast milk is an alround necessity for a baby's wellbeing, that formula or alternative foods can't emulate.
Fish is a fantastic brain food.
Some vitamins cannot be digested without the assistance of animal consumption. Even processed vegan food still has some difficulty. The classic example is Vitamin B12.
There are essential Amino Acids that cannot be properly replicated by processed vegan food.
Children eating a healthy omnivore diet have stronger and denser bones than there vegan counterpart. The same can be said for muscle development and endurance. Vegan children are at greater risk of injury playing contact sport due to the above.
People with low(er) bone density are at greater risk of bone disease later in life.
Vegans who accidently eat or drink animal product can get very ill. Omnivores have no such problem with either plant or animal.
CheersAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
jh:
09 Sep 2008 5:58:25pm
I think you are talking out your ear - references? Which studies and from where please?
As for the benefits of eating animal products - no argument - but the notion that you cant get adequate proteins, calcium, fats and iron anywhere else is simply not true.
I can get protein from a child's thigh muscle, but I can also get it from nuts, pulses and eggs (free range of course!).
I Bet I can outride, outrun and outthink you to boot.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ravensclaw:
09 Sep 2008 11:43:50pm
jh said: "talking out your ear"!
How so?
My comments on breast milk is common knowledge. Breast milk is critically important to a baby's development.
Fish oil is excellent brain food. Fish Oil naturally comes from fish. - Common Knowledge.
Am I wrong about B12? No! A very careful vegan diet is required to obsorb B12. Even then it is not that effective. - Not so common knowledge, but dieticians can confirm.
Are there essential amino acids that can only come naturally from animal products? - Common knowledge.
Do long term vegans have the same bone density as people with a more balanced diet? Are vegan children even more susceptible to lower bone densities? - Talk to a fully qualified non retarded doctor for confirmation.
Are there many vegans that play professional contact sports? Now why is that?
Are people with lower bone density more susceptible to bone breakages? - Common knowledge
Does long term veganism change a person's digestive system? In turn should a long term vegan accidently eat an animal product, will they often get a very sick tummy?
Jh - Eggs, like milk or fish oil is an animal product. It therefore comes under the category of "animal exploitation" even if it is free range, organic or from a commune.
I am aware there are some processed vegan foods that try to overcome disadvantages of veganism. None of them can perfectly emulate the benefits of actually eating a meat product, and some of them are very poor substitutes OR require a very specific diet for any benefit.
None of these statements are wrong.
Anti Capitalist Cynicism is a poor motive for a lifestyle choice, as is trendy psuedo science. Whilst I respect a persons right to make a lifestyle choice for themselves in a free society, it is wrong for vegans to force that upon others ie vulnerable dependants eg children and elderly.
This statement is not wrong either!
CheersAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
jh:
10 Sep 2008 11:05:57am
Hey Raven's
Where in any of my posts did I advocate banning meat or animal products??
Breast milk - agreed (I'm a new parent - and yes, the kids live on a vegetarian diet)
Eggs - no probs (although some vegans have a problem with me for eating them)
Amino acids required for humans ONLY available in meat - well, hate to use a meat based term Ravens, but well, Bollocks. Absolute bollocks.
Do creatures die because I live? Like the caterpillars on my broccoli ?? (burn their villages and kill their women I say......). You bet. Never said otherwise. But this article was about sparing animals unnecessary suffering. There is room for meat production and a little bit of compassion.
There are vegans with poor bone density from an inadequate diet, agreed. Plenty of meat eaters with the same problem Raven's.
As for Steve's comment below - would reply but that would confer on the comment a legitimacy it doesn't deserve. You lot have assumed I am anti-capitalist and anti meat. I am neither, but you can't deny that a) Australians eat far more meat than is good for them and b) if we to reduce demand we would be better able to treat the animals we farm more humanely. I am always bemused at the hostility vegetarians encounter - usually due the assumptions that are made about their beliefs which are erroneous. Re-read my posts, I never advocated banning meat, I only say it is perfectly possible to live a healthy lifestyle as a vegetarian without meat. And it is.
Get your bike and I'll meat you at the top of the hill!
CHeersAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Steve Mount:
10 Sep 2008 5:17:46am
JH, gee, you're good, a real hero, no doubt about it. On this occasion I'll forgive you your perfection, but it's something you'll need to work on. Meanwhile, try to be obvective, not subjective, and get hold of this : Unless you're a specialised life form that can derive nutrition from fumeroles deep in the ocean, then you must conform to a simple fact : To maintain a life, you must take a life, and no, you are not an exeption.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
SpaceChimp:
09 Sep 2008 6:08:26pm
Definitely, I've been ill from accidentally eating meat and I take B12 shots due to pernicious anemia - it's a pain in the butt.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Margaret:
09 Sep 2008 7:45:03pm
Vegans and Vegetarians both ignore a few things which are quite important. If animals werent farmed, they would become extinct. Preserving rare breeds of farm animals is already a very alternative green activity, and all farm animals would be extinct if there was no point in farming them. For vegetarians who get their food off a shop shelf, they can easily ignore the farmers question. To quote The Who What About The Boy? We need female animals for milk and eggs, with one male to around 50 females, and the excess males have to be slaughtered. JH may have a retirement plan for his chooks, but I wonder whether he will stick to it and put all the boys in there too. Most vegetarians who eat eggs and milk products (and often chicken and fish, which is bewildering) can only do so because there are people who are prepared to eat the boys and keep the industry viable.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
jh:
09 Sep 2008 9:34:15pm
I never said people shouldn't eat meat (although I choose not to). I suggested we eat less of it so that animals need not suffer so terribly and we stop suffering such high rates of some diseases as well... I am well acquianted with realities of food production. Ever killed, skinned and eaten wild goats yourself? Well I have. These days I don't need to.
I have no problem with acccepting we live in a world where animals eat other animals. I object to the gluttony that surrounds meat eating and the suffering inflicted on animals that are factory farmed.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
renn:
10 Sep 2008 7:30:01am
The young roosters are the first to be eaten usually. They have no other function.
Vegetarians and meat eaters get their " food off a shop shelf"
The difference being the vegan goes to the nut section and the meat eater the butcher.
My sister in law raised her three children as vegetarians.
Surprising, the first one is tall and slightly over weight (I always thought vegetarians were skinny) , the second is a genius, and the third is not.
They are fine. I eat half the amount of red meat that I used to and find it hard and a strain on the body if I eat more. Love tuna, it makes you feel so good, especially fresh tuna steak covered in olive oil and garlic and parsley then onto the barbie, yum. That got the taste buds going didnt it? The ultimate!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Steve Mount:
10 Sep 2008 4:41:22am
This is why I always have a sad chuckle at those who protest against animal hunting, and in particular, duck shooting, as cruel and inhumane. A wild duck lives as it should, as nature intended, and runs the risk of being taken by a predator, or indeed shot by a hunter, but it gets at least a chance to run its course of life, including the reproduction cycle. Intensively farmed animals, and in particular chickens, are born to die in very short order, with no other function but to end up in a take-away somewhere, after living in a universe the size of a shed, in a world the size of a cocky cage, and its fate is 100% assured. And hunting is inhumane? For these reasons I don't eat chickens. They are bland and tasteless anyway. Given the contrast, I'd rather take my chances as a wild duck anyday, than be born as a meat chicken.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
henalf:
10 Sep 2008 7:37:14am
It is not a matter of playing god,but purely about making money.With an ever increasing world population,the money makers find ever increasing ways to feed them. If they the " great unwashed can afford to eat".There is no answer to this until, we realise that an way to limit world population is the way.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ravensclaw:
10 Sep 2008 8:15:56am
henalf
I was waiting for someone to bring up this sloganism.
If you want to restrict food consumption to control population you will achieve conflict and poverty. Oddly, but accurately impoverished people tend to have more children.
The best and most succesful way to lower birth rates is to increase the living standard of society. Wealthy countries (communities) have very low birth rates. Poor countries/communities have very high birthrates.
The best way to increase the living standards of a nation/community is through capitalism. Socialism has repeatedly proven itself to be a basketcase way of raising living standards.
Peacefully stabilising world population is the first step in controlling world population. Wars or breaching civil liberties or dud socio/economic modedls will not peacefully stabilise world population, but in fact may do the opposite.
CheersAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Milly :
10 Sep 2008 7:53:45am
People CHOOSE to be omnivores. Physiologically, we are much more akin to herbivores. According to WHO, there is more than adequate protein and nutrients from plant sources. In fact, our western animal-product diets are full of animal fats, and so much protein being consumed could be contributing to modern diseases. As a vegan, I can assure you that the diet is healthy, tasty and full of nutrient. Taking B12 is a substitute for lack of organic vegetables. There are many people in the world who have little or no meat but are healthy. Our livestock industries don't want us to know these things!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ravensclaw:
10 Sep 2008 8:20:24am
Milly
People can choose to be vegans or exclusive meat eaters too. Your point is irrelevant.
A healthy balanced diet of meat and plant product is the optimal choice.
"Healthy" is always relative.
What does vegan psuedo science constantly try to hide? Surely there is some greedy commercial interest there!
CheersAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Mark:
10 Sep 2008 8:37:18am
While I do think that we eat far too much meat, the notion that we were 'meant' to be vegetarian, or a 'mostly herbivores' is flawed. Clearly we are omnivores, demonstrated by the types of teeth we have in our mouth. Furthermore, there are races, such as the Inuit, who healthily existed on predominantly seal meat. That is the nature of the omnivore's diet - it's highly adaptable.
Yet it is clear we need to take a good look at how we produce our food. Never before have we eaten so much processed, high-sugar and high-fat food, and never before have we had so many diet-related health problems. Also, there is increasing evidence that animals are much smarter than we have given them credit for. Search for a national geographic article on a parrot that was taught English, made up a new word to describe the flavour of apples, and started to teach other parrots how to speak, even reprimanding them when they mispronounced words. Or the dog that could identify an object in a picture, then go and fetch it.
I'm all for changing the way we produce our food - it reflects upon us as moral creatures, it challenges our place in the world and it has serious impacts on our health.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Liz:
10 Sep 2008 10:20:42am
Eating meat, chicken and eggs is not the problem. This is surely a matter of choice. Human decency in the way we produce these foods for consumption should not be a matter of choice. Some contributors have suggested that it is a matter of money as to whether we accept the cruelty to animals because it is more economic to produce cruelly. This is what I cannot accept.l I am a pensioner and since knowing how caged eggs are produced I cannot buy them and I cannot understand how anyone can.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
