I’m actually really surprised that you’ve never heard of him. You should pick up Infinite Jest. It’s a beast of a book, but snarky, hilarious and incredibly dense. The first few pages are tough while your adjusting to his style, but once you catch on, I think you’ll really enjoy it. I was pretty upset when I saw this yesterday. I was expecting more good stuff out of him. Also check out “The Girl with Curious Hair”

You could argue, based on some of the things he brought up in that, that plants also suffer, or at least prefer certain things and not others. Plant a seed at a spot where shade prevails on one side of it and sunlight the other. It will grow towards the light side, and if you switch the side, it will gradually move its way over. Also, Stacey has a plant that cowers when you touch it.

I was thinking the same thing, Ev. Though, I suppose the retort would be the plants don’t have anything resembling any nervous system we know of.

Who cares even if they do?

I don’t get it when people apply morals to animals. Morals are social structures that arise so societies can function as a whole without being torn apart by our basest instincts. One could say dolphins have their own morals, as they have families, work together, don’t harm one another, and help each other, and sometimes humans out. But they also eat poor helpless fish alive.

I think it’s just an overall desire to cause less suffering in the world.

In almost all areas and subjects of discussion I usually hate the “a pox on both of their houses” type of fence sitters who just are too lazy to pick a side so instead just choose to be annoyed by both sides equally regardless of any amount of evidence presented by either side. But this type of discussion is the one area where I’m “that guy”. I don’t know who I find more annoying and deserving of a good cock punch. The moralistic “ANIMALS HAVE FEEELINGS TOOOOOO!! WAAAAH!!!” hippie types or the neanderthal “HEHEHE I EAT MEAT AND LOTS OF MEAT!!” type intentional douchebag.

I think this is where I’m supposed to mention a book I’m reading… Dominion by Matthew Scully. Actually, It’s Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, but who’s taking notes anyway?

I found out about the book in the comments of an online Michael Pollan article… someone claimed this guy was more factual and concise while Pollan, he condemned, is more romantic and whimsical… but I digress.

While the author writes from a non-secular point of view upon which most of his points (I’ve read so far) are based, his foremost argument is that our treatment of animals is a moral question. It’s not if we should eat animals, not by any means, as both he and Pollan both continue to eat meat to the best of my miniscule research (possibly not for Scully, I didn’t look into him that much), but the how of our meat consumption…

By this I mean the incredibly inhumane, barbaric methods by which we keep and slaughter livestock, and the implications this has on us. I mean, someone wise and quotable once said something about how you could measure the decency of a populace by seeing how they treat their elderly/prisoners/mimes, or some other relatively helpless and singularly-useful subclass… I’d look it up, but you wouldn’t care anyway.

As omnivores, we’ve only gotten to where we are by consuming animals (if only as part of our diet), but it’s only in say the last hundred or hundred-and-fifty years that we’ve subjected animals to such brutality and cruelty. There’s really no reason to castrate animals without anesthesia. There’s no reason to fit three hens in a wire cage the size of a shoebox, and to cut their beaks off so that they can’t peck each other to death. There’s no reason to kill 1000 cattle per hour at the risk of “missing” one and skinning and quartering it alive. This is all done for monetary purposes, because those in charge have convinced themselves that animals are actually just meat machines that can be liquified, both literally and in terms of wealth.

Since reading a few Pollan books and finally making good on my adolescent promises to act on my beliefs once I “moved out and started buying my own food,” I’ve given up meat (with very few transgressions) since around May or June. I miss it, because it was delicious, but I have also found it to be surprisingly easy to cope. I’ve told John and Luke that I’d be willing to eat meat that I knew was pastured, or could somehow be sure of humane treatment, and to their credit both have done much of the leg-work to that end for me. Ultimately, however, I’m lazy, and it’s just been easier not to eat meat than to go out of my way to get “good” stuff.

That being said, my problem isn’t with eating meat. I’d be willing to, under the previously mentioned circumstances. It’d be fun to eat wings again. But I’m not willing to buy into the present system by which meat finds its way to my plate. I think we’re too far removed from the actual kill, which, I think, makes this whole conversation possible to begin with. My challenge to you is this: would you be so cavalier if it were you that had to do the killing?

It’s possible you would. For all I know some of you may have gone hunting, or go hunting. Someone here might be the son or daughter of a butcher. If so, you’ve passed my litmus test for eating meat. Congratulations. But it’s incredibly easy for us as a whole to say that the “Animals have feelings, too,” argument is bullshit when you’re not able to witness the atrocities of the slaughterhouse. From everything I’ve heard, it is absolute Hell. Perhaps worst of all, it’s an unnecessary one.

So, maybe most of us just get the question wrong… maybe it’s not “Should we eat meat?” but instead, “Should we eat meat produced under these conditions?” Even if this essay o’mine hasn’t played on your heart-strings enough to change your mind, consider the global impact: Vegetarians driving Hummers contribute less to Greenhouse gasses than meat-eating Prius owners.

Wasn’t that a recent post?

When you say “those in charge,” you realize you mean all of us, including me and (to a lesser extent) you?

People at the top don’t decide these things, people who pay for it as a mass do. That right there is an (at least implicit) approval of the system. True opinions may change if people were to see the horrors of a slaughterhouse, but last I checked, one of the most viewed videos on youtube is one where a helpless baby calf is nearly eaten alive by lions, before being nearly eaten alive by a crocodile.

I think the main thing is that people wouldn’t want to kill the animal themselves.

And while this could possibly hint at an aversion to killing and causing suffering, most people probably wouldn’t want to clean out their own septic tank either, so it may just be an aversion to gross things.

• being eaten alive
• starving to death
• prolonged exposure
• untreated disease

So I’m not terribly convinced what we do is any worse.

I think your logic is flawed here.

Yes, while we are all shareholders in corporations simply by buying from them, it is overall the CEOs of the CAFOs that largely make the decisions. By purchasing the product, we reward them for their choices. Ultimately, food is a product subject to inelastic demand, so CAFOs exist more as a means for industry heads to maximize profit in light of this comparatively static amount of “units sold” per quarter or whatever time scale they use.

CAFOs have become the norm because we as a populace have not held them to any higher standard, with this I can agree, but there are also big corporations, interests, and lobbies that place undue restrictions on smaller, pastoral farms that try to usurp their power. Omnivore’s Dilemma time. Get it from your local library.

On your other point, seeing a baby calf almost being eaten by lions, who are then almost eaten by crocodiles, is viewable not as a means of gore or morbid voyeurism, but because that shit was happening in nature. You see how crazy the food cycle is for yourself, and it’s pretty amazing. I would venture to say that if you were to get a video of a CAFO killing floor, it would be a lot more disturbing. I don’t think identifying one as interesting and the other barbaric is a double standard when you take into consideration that one is a natural part of the life cycle of animals.

Thirdly, your atrocities scale is again flawed because it excludes the idea of natural order. Being eaten alive is necessary (when it happens) because it begets other life… like that South Park episode we all love with the Furry Woodland Creatures and the poor orphaned mountain lion cubs. It’s for a deliberate purpose, and happens on a far smaller scale, so to speak. Globally, yes, a lot of things are eaten alive every day by other things, but on CAFOs, literally thousands of creatures are destroyed en masse by methods completely arbitrary and optional. You don’t have to do it that way, it just makes most “economic sense.” (Though this does not even begin to touch the environmental and nutritional downsides to the issue, which are legion.)

While starving to death, prolonged exposure, and untreated disease may not be as wonderful as a pneumatic bolt to the brain stem so that you’re not conscious (hopefully) when they hang you by your feet and slit your throat, they’re a great deal more natural ways to go for animals. Untreated disease playing a role in Natural Selection and all, it seems like an acceptable loss if only as a necessary one. This point is not optional.

But even the starving to death and prolonged exposure things serve a purpose, as the poor creatures that succumb to these fates are ultimately the carrion on which other animals live, thus again becoming part of the natural food chain and life cycle.

Again the ultimate point is that the way we do it isn’t the way it necessarily MUST be done, and that’s what is so unforgivable about it.

And, also, not buying meat at all is precisely how I chose to opt-out of the process, and I’m always wary of what I do buy because I realize it likely has a negative impact of which I’m not yet aware. The way in which I seek to exercise my control of the meat industry is to boycott it until things change.

Sammy said:

There’s no reason to kill 1000 cattle per hour at the risk of “missing” one and skinning and quartering it alive. This is all done for monetary purposes, because those in charge have convinced themselves that animals are actually just meat machines that can be liquified, both literally and in terms of wealth.

No reason? I can think of about 6.6 billion reasons, actually. Economics absolutely play a role in determining how meat (or anything for that matter) is processed, and while you are correct in your assertion that the meat producing industry has been optimized for maximum profit, you neglect to consider the underlying demand that makes this profit possible to begin with.

LONG gone are the days of rustic simplicity. Our (human) society has grown so large and complex that the morally “right” methods that you would agree to adhere to are literally incapable of sustaining the masses. Of course, I don’t have figures or other data to back this up, but it seems logical to me given how many people are starving to death around the world that the meat producing industry could actually stand to EXPAND.

I’m not trying to skirt the moral issue here. Believe me, I have been struggling with my political and moral views quite a lot recently. But the one thing that I seem to always come back to is the fact that the majority of society’s ills stem from the size and complexity of society itself. As resources become more and more scarce (yes, I am referring to cattle and other edible animals as resources), morality flies further out the window. Is this unfortunate? Absolutely. Is there another way? I don’t know.

P.S.

If cows had the chance they would eat us too.

I think the one thing this all comes back to is rampant consumerism. I think this is part of what some people in this thread are addressing. But seriously, because people demand everything in our lives to be inexpensive and in large quantities, that drives the market to feed this (no pun intended)desire by making the system such as it is to accomodate maximum volume at the cheapest price. It’s the same reason we’re in the whole market meltdown right now. Because the truth that nobody in power dares speak is that our entire country’s desire for what they want, on demand, in large volumes, and for as little cost as possible as led us right off a cliff. Dietarily with regard to the subject at hand, but financially as well. It’s sadly all tied together. I think there’s been some steps in the right direction with regard to there being more options at the supermarket for free range, or cage free, or organic or cruelty free or whatever. But again this stuff more often than not is prohibitively expensive so we’re right back where we started. It sucks. I don’t have a solution but when I take a minute to think about this stuff it really just depresses the shit out of me, largely because I’m just as guilty as the next person. If not in this particular area then I’m sure I could come up with 5 or 6 others without even thinking where I’m as big a societal jerk as anyone else I could point the finger at.

Jay said:

LONG gone are the days of rustic simplicity. Our (human) society has grown so large and complex that the morally “right” methods that you would agree to adhere to are literally incapable of sustaining the masses. Of course, I don’t have figures or other data to back this up, but it seems logical to me given how many people are starving to death around the world that the meat producing industry could actually stand to EXPAND.

Expanding the meat industry as a means of helping hunger is insane. The amount of food energy as it travels up the food chain lessens with each level. The grain that we feed to cows is considerably cheaper, considerably less harmful, and considerably more nutritious than the meat the cows would give us.

Meat used to be a luxury food and that’s where it should be again, the economics of the issue be damned. There are too many people in the world to support a stable and humane meat industry that feeds everyone cheaply.

Kevin said:

I don’t have a solution but when I take a minute to think about this stuff it really just depresses the shit out of me, largely because I’m just as guilty as the next person. If not in this particular area then I’m sure I could come up with 5 or 6 others without even thinking where I’m as big a societal jerk as anyone else I could point the finger at.

This is exactly how I feel. I wish I could say it would be as simple as just moving out west (or wherever) and living a simpler lifestyle, but I’m afraid it’s just not that easy. And even if I were to do that to somewhat squash my guilt and feel better about myself and my place in the world, it would do next to nothing for the problem at large, and eventually my newfound serene existence would be impinged upon anyway.

John said:

Expanding the meat industry as a means of helping hunger is insane. The amount of food energy as it travels up the food chain lessens with each level.

You are definitely right, but I didn’t phrase my point very well. I said “meat producing” when I should have said “food producing”. The efficient, not necessarily humane, economically optimized food producing industry is a necessary evil given the size and complexity of our society. I don’t think there is any way around it.

John said:

Meat used to be a luxury food and that’s where it should be again, the economics of the issue be damned. There are too many people in the world to support a stable and humane meat industry that feeds everyone cheaply.

It’s all well and good to say where you think something “should be”, but good luck convincing Average Joe that he doesn’t deserve his steak dinner after a hard day’s work. I happen to agree with you, but it’s an unrealistic expectation.

It’s not unrealistic and this cheap-meat thing is a rather recent development, relatively speaking, and the massive growth of the organic/humane food movement, even in the face of a recession, is a testament to people’s desire to go back to that.

The truth of it is, everyone has to draw an arbitrary noun line about how much suffering they’re willing to cause on behalf of their diet. Vegetarians are ok with the suffering endured by cows and chickens for their dairy and eggs, but not ok with out and out murdering them. Vegans aren’t ok with any of that, and some even aren’t ok with any suffering that may be caused to insects (bees, notably). Carnivores who are OK with the death involved in their food need to decide whether or not they’re ok with the suffering caused by the meat industry and, if not, they need to say so with their money and buy more expensive, more humane meat.

But in the end, it is an arbitrary noun line, no matter where you draw it. Like the Buddha said, life is suffering and each and every one of our lives causes it. To get high and mighty about your diet (or, on the contrary, to be totally blase about it) is to somehow convince yourself that you’re doing all you can to cause less suffering or that it doesn’t matter when neither are true.

The true irony is that even the vegan who can’t stand the thought of harming a bee to get honey may be doing more harm buying industrial soy than a carnivore buying small-farm pork. So in the end, I find myself like Kevin right in the middle hating both side of the argument and doing what I can to eat whole, natural, outside-the-industry food. The goal diet would consist largely of seasonal or home-preserved local food and in doing so, I’d make far less a negative impact on the world around me than any haughty vegan.

I don’t feel like proofreading any of that and I’ve been doing this really weird word-replacement thing where I type totally the wrong word (as opposed to just misspelling) so apologies if that makes little sense.

The natural thing is sort of true, except if we removed the unnatural slaughterhouse way, it would just mean everyone would be out killing their own food. And its only half true that corporations place restictions on small farms. While they certainly do all in their power to keep them down, the reason they have that power is because they have an economically superior product. And in a capitalistic economy, if something makes more economic sense, it is not optional, unless you plan to sell at a higher price based on that fact that you do things differently.

And, since this started out about the lobsters, does it matter if a bolt to the brain is less natural than being eaten alive? I don’t think a lobster ponders the moral issues surrounding the idea of an industial food production system while being munched on.

He probably thinks “This hurts!”

Nor do I think anything less than new, money saving innovation will change anything. For one, we as a race are not big fans of giving things up, nor do we, as a group, make decisions that benefit anything but our own wants. Second, consider if we did start only making humane, sustainable meat. It would make it certain that the less affluent couldn’t afford it, and since those that could would never give it up, it would create an incredibly visible class divide, or else it would open up the market to whoever would come in and fill that void.

On the whole, it seems to me that arguing the moral value of such a thing is pointless, because humanity doesn’t make decisions based on that.

I don’t think anyone criticized the brain-stem-puncture method for being unnatural. I mentioned natural foods in my second to last paragraph as just a general statement of purpose in foods, sure, but not pertaining to the method of slaughter. We’re criticizing industrialized food for sacrificing humane treatment of other living creatures for profit, regardless of how natural it is.

On the whole though, Ev, your argument seems to be “Well, that’s the way it is and so it’s fine.” It’s an absurd argument, that change is impossible or undesirable just because it involves mass change. I especially recoil at this notion that because we don’t like to give things up, that we won’t or shouldn’t. Whether it’s burning fossil fuels, using disposable items frivolously, eating till we’re fat, or buying cheap meat, there are things that we, as a race, need to give up sooner or later (and we will because we’ll be forced to). There are already plenty of foods that create a class divide and our kids’ kids won’t mind missing out on the filet mignon buffet any more than you mind your inability to eat beluga caviar whenever you want.

Eventually something will give. I’d rather it be the common sense and conscience of the people before it’s the overwhelming reek of the slaughterfactories in our back yards.

Wouldn’t you know it. I was just reading reddit and there’s a link to this article about how under current regulations, you’re allowed to transport cattle for up to 52 hours without food or water.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/cows-can-be-transported-52-hours.php

John said:

It’s an absurd argument, that change is impossible or undesirable just because it involves mass change. I especially recoil at this notion that because we don’t like to give things up, that we won’t or shouldn’t. Whether it’s burning fossil fuels, using disposable items frivolously, eating till we’re fat, or buying cheap meat, there are things that we, as a race, need to give up sooner or later (and we will because we’ll be forced to).

So what exactly do you think is going to happen? Are we going to make a conscious decision as a race to do the right thing, whatever that may be, or are we going to maintain the status quo until we are “forced to” change? I have yet to see any evidence to lead me to believe that human beings as a group are in any way willing to sacrifice anything that they’ve acquired just for the greater good.

The bottom line, to me, is that any and all moral philosophy is born out of comfort and security. I respect Sammy’s decision to give up meat, but something tells me that if he was having difficulty putting food on the table every night, he wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss that Wendy’s JBC. While I think we have done a decent job at pretending to be moral beings, I really believe that at the core of it all survival is paramount, and when it comes down to it survival and morality are conflicting ideals.

This is also why I think the world as a whole is fucked.

On that, I was going to ask, Jon, for one instance in the history of man where we made a large sacrifice for the greater good. You may see my argument as callous or lazy, but I see it as, while a shitty one, a matter of fact.

Evan said:

While they certainly do all in their power to keep them down, the reason they have that power is because they have an economically superior product. And in a capitalistic economy, if something makes more economic sense, it is not optional, unless you plan to sell at a higher price based on that fact that you do things differently.

But how superior are these products when you weigh all components to providing them? (A question I readily admit not having an answer to.) CAFO meats are so economically superior because Joe Meatdick doesn’t see the additional costs of the product. CAFO meat is really rather high maintenance, but because of the grand scale on which it operates, the average person doesn’t feel the pinch directly by purchasing the product. But, ultimately, we all have to pay for the cesspools of CAFO animal waste that quite literally poisons our environment, both in terms of taxes/money and the moral culpability of environmental damage.

If these mass operations weren’t able to stifle independent, local producers (Meat Trust?), it’s entirely possible that their alleged economic superiority would prove a facade. In order for this to happen, however, people must be willing to vote with their pocketbooks by opting out, cutting down, or otherwise putting the screws to Big Industry.

Jay said:

I respect Sammy’s decision to give up meat, but something tells me that if he was having difficulty putting food on the table every night, he wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss that Wendy’s JBC.

But why do that when getting a bag of rice and a sack of beans would be make better economic sense?

You’re half right. What would work is if all the extra, unwanted effects were incurred by said producers instead of the populace or no one in a monetary form.

I still don’t think the moral issue makes any difference.

And I’m not sure what CAFO stands for.

Sammy said:

Jay said:

I respect Sammy’s decision to give up meat, but something tells me that if he was having difficulty putting food on the table every night, he wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss that Wendy’s JBC.

But why do that when getting a bag of rice and a sack of beans would be make better economic sense?

you’re right. a bag of rice and a sack of beans DO WOULD BE make better economic sense. should i fear for the edumacation of our youth?

Haha…Mandy rules for bringing the levity to this thread which may in fact be one of the most serious and heavy in Scrabbled history, or at least recent memory.

Oh, and Evan totally has me stumped now on the question of when i history has mankind made a mass sacrifice for the greater good. Of course I’m an absolute and complete misanthrope and a nihilist so of course I can’t think of any, but I’d be curious if anyone else comes up with anything.

Sammy said:

But why do that when getting a bag of rice and a sack of beans would be make better economic sense?

That’s true, but it’s skirting the point I was trying to make. What if rice and beans weren’t an option? I understand that this is unreasonable given how the food chain works (no feed, no meat), but that doesn’t really affect the argument. What if it was the rice and beans whose pain we were worried about? The FACT of the matter is, and I really don’t think this is debateable, that morality goes out the window when survival comes into question (link), and that is why I question whether or not it is honorable to live by moral standards or just plain stupid.

Kevin said:

Oh, and Evan totally has me stumped now on the question of when i history has mankind made a mass sacrifice for the greater good. Of course I’m an absolute and complete misanthrope and a nihilist so of course I can’t think of any, but I’d be curious if anyone else comes up with anything.

I’m interested to see if anyone can come up with anything as well. I guess rationing during times of war would sort of fit the bill, but that’s not exactly the same in my opinion.

Jay, that’s the example I kept coming back to as well particularly WW2 when there was a draft and rationing and people volunteering on assembly lines, etc. Although that’s essentially a nationalistic thing and I’m not sure sacrificing for war, however noble the ultimate end goal of that war (in this case stopping Hitler), would really count. Or at least that’s the counter-argument I had in my own head on the subject.

I thought of that too, but it was just our country, and it was sudden, temporary, and had a very visible target.

Well there was that time we all came together as one and everyone bought that USA for Africa song and as a result we stopped hunger and starvation around the world. Man, that was awesome. Good times…..good times.

I’ve been thinking about it since you posed the question and I’ve still got nothing. But there’s gotta be something….?

I think the fact that we can’t come up with anything at all is proof that Evan is more or less right. Morality is such a ridiculously subjective thing. Shit, it’s a subjective thing even within the confines of this country of 300 million people. So given the disparity of belief systems, economics, politics, etc. of all the different people in all the different corners of the world, it’s impossible to address one moral code that would unite people together to some common goal of change.

Unless it was a clear and present danger to all of us, which this issue will likely be at some point. But not now.

When I worked at Target while in high school I donated $10 per paycheck to the United Way. Does that count?

Also, my parents told me I was crazy/an idiot, and that they only give a couple of dollars per year or something like that.

These days the only charity I contribute to is my own.

Oh, and Mandy: You got me. I have no excuse for the error.