Pain

[Rival]

I've been having a discussion with @ChristineM about wearing fur.

I wonder if some ideologies are seeking too much to avoid pain and suffering. I agree that any kind of farming is generally not pleasant and most people despair of killing animals for food or other reasons, but have ways of mitigating this. Historically we saw that killing as a sacrifice and raised the animal to something holy.

Are were trying to avoid the realities of life by trying to get rid of pain and suffering? Why does it disturb us so, given we've been doing it for so long? Is it that we are now sheltered from the outside world so much when we see it we're horrified?

I'm not heartless, but farming is normal; hunting and eating animals has been normal for all of human history.

Are we stuck in an ideology that makes us too disturbed by reality?

 

[MikeF]

I've been having a discussion with @ChristineM about wearing fur.

I wonder if some ideologies are seeking too much to avoid pain and suffering. I agree that any kind of farming is generally not pleasant and most people despair of killing animals for food or other reasons, but have ways of mitigating this. Historically we saw that killing as a sacrifice and raised the animal to something holy.

Are were trying to avoid the realities of life by trying to get rid of pain and suffering? Why does it disturb us so, given we've been doing it for so long? Is it that we are now sheltered from the outside world so much when we see it we're horrified?

I'm not heartless, but farming is normal; hunting and eating animals has been normal for all of human history.

Are we stuck in an ideology that makes us too disturbed by reality?

Perhaps it is that we have the luxury to be more empathetic. Our survival is less tenuous and we have the space to empathetically appreciate "There but for the grace of god or fate go I".

If raising animals for food in conditions that are miserable for the animals is no longer necessary for our survival, are we justified in inflicting such misery simply for our convenience or to maintain traditional cuisine? Some folks are questioning that.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Are you able to take an animal's life on your own and butcher it for food or skin it for its fur?

I think people are generally too far separated from the reality of causing pain and killing of animals for food. It's easy to go the the butcher case of your locals store and buy a steak or some boneless skinless chicken breast. Heck, most people don't even think that an animal died so they could make that purchase. It's just food to them.

If there were no slaughterhouses and butcher shops, would you be able to raise animal, kill it, butcher it, and eat it? Or would you be able to go in the woods and kill an animal and do the same?

 

[Rival]

Perhaps it is that we have the luxury to be more empathetic. Our survival is less tenuous and we have the space to empathetically appreciate "There but for the grace of god or fate go I".

If raising animals for food in conditions that are miserable for the animals is no longer necessary for our survival, are we justified in inflicting such misery simply for our convenience or to maintain traditional cuisine? Some folks are questioning that.

They are not in misery though. There are well-run outdoor farms, and many of them.

 

[Koldo]

I've been having a discussion with @ChristineM about wearing fur.

I wonder if some ideologies are seeking too much to avoid pain and suffering. I agree that any kind of farming is generally not pleasant and most people despair of killing animals for food or other reasons, but have ways of mitigating this. Historically we saw that killing as a sacrifice and raised the animal to something holy.

Are were trying to avoid the realities of life by trying to get rid of pain and suffering? Why does it disturb us so, given we've been doing it for so long? Is it that we are now sheltered from the outside world so much when we see it we're horrified?

I'm not heartless, but farming is normal; hunting and eating animals has been normal for all of human history.

Are we stuck in an ideology that makes us too disturbed by reality?

As I see it, we have been moving away from 'Might makes right'.

Historically, it was socially acceptable to enslave people, particularly when they belonged to a different tribe or ethnicity. But then it no longer was.
Historically, it was socially acceptable for a husband to do almost everything he wanted with his wife. But then it no longer was.
Historically, it was socially acceptable for parents to do almost everything they wanted with their children. But then it no longer was.
Historically, it was socially acceptable for people to do almost everything they wanted with their pets. But then it no longer was.
I think it is only a matter of time before the same goes with eating animals.

 

[Rival]

Are you able to take an animal's life on your own and butcher it for food or skin it for its fur?

I think people are generally too far separate from the reality of causing pain and killing of animals for food. It's easy to go the the butcher case of your locals store and buy a steak or some boneless skinless chicken breast. Heck, most people don't even think that an animal died so they could make that purpose. It's just food to them.

If there were no slaughterhouses and butcher shops, would you be able to raise animal, kill it, butcher it, and eat it? Or would you be able to go in the woods and kill an animal and do the same?

Probably.

My dad worked on a pig farm and I helped him pick up dead piglets and put them all in a bucket. The mothers had crushed them accidentally. I've seen enough of the reality to understand it.

Growing up rurally hits different.

 

[Rival]

I think it is only a matter of time before the same goes with eating animals.

Except eating animals is a biological reality for us. We can't moralise our way out of that fact. Nor should we be making synthetics.

 

[Koldo]

Except eating animals is a biological reality for us. We can't moralise our way out of that fact. Nor should we be making synthetics.

What do you mean by 'biological reality'?

 

[Rival]

What do you mean by 'biological reality'?

We need nutrients we can only get from animal products. Flesh is also the most nutrient dense food going.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Probably.

My dad worked on a pig farm and I helped him pick up dead piglets and put them all in a bucket. The mothers had crushed them accidentally. I've seen enough of the reality to understand it.

Growing up rurally hits different.

You've seen and handled death, but it appears you have not taken a life. I think there is a pretty big difference between the two.

 

[Rival]

You've seen and handled death, but it appears you have not taken a life. I think there is a pretty big difference between the two.

Shrug.

I would certainly try and that's more than many are willing to do, I'd wager.

 

[Koldo]

We need nutrients we can only get from animal products.

Such as?

Flesh is also the most nutrient dense food going.

Convenience has little bearing on this conversation though.

 

[Rival]

Such as?

Vitamin A in its active form is only properly taken from animals.

Haeme iron (more easily absored and therefore useful).

B12.

Omega 3 in its best form is only found in animals.

Vitamin D3. Incredibly beneficial for those living in cold climates with little sun exposure.


We often talk about nutrients without realising that there are many forms of them and sometimes those found in animal sources are much better absorbed and therefore used by the human body.


Convenience has lots of bearing on this conversation.

 

[MikeF]

They are not in misery though.

Perhaps I am mistaken then.

Certainly cattle in my area seem happy and content with plenty of room to roam and graze, chickens not so much. Poultry industry is big and the majority are not free-ranging with the cattle. I've never been in one of these chicken factory farms, I've only seen the miserable looking birds in tight wire cages stacked 8' high on an 18 wheel truck heading to the processing plant.

As to world wide practice and to what percentage of animals can be said to be suffering and what percentage not, I haven't a clue. When you say that animals are not in misery is it your understanding that no food industry animals are suffering today?

 

[Left Coast]

I've been having a discussion with @ChristineM about wearing fur.

I wonder if some ideologies are seeking too much to avoid pain and suffering. I agree that any kind of farming is generally not pleasant and most people despair of killing animals for food or other reasons, but have ways of mitigating this. Historically we saw that killing as a sacrifice and raised the animal to something holy.

Are were trying to avoid the realities of life by trying to get rid of pain and suffering? Why does it disturb us so, given we've been doing it for so long? Is it that we are now sheltered from the outside world so much when we see it we're horrified?

I'm not heartless, but farming is normal; hunting and eating animals has been normal for all of human history.

Are we stuck in an ideology that makes us too disturbed by reality?

If we can meet our needs without causing harm, why wouldn't we do so? It seems obvious that it's good to reduce unnecessary pain and suffering, right?

 

[Rival]

Perhaps I am mistaken then.

Certainly cattle in my area seem happy and content with plenty of room to roam and graze, chickens not so much. Poultry industry is big and the majority are not free-ranging with the cattle. I've never been in one of these chicken factory farms, I've only seen the miserable looking birds in tight wire cages stacked 8' high on an 18 wheel truck heading to the processing plant.

As to world wide practice and to what percentage of animals can be said to be suffering and what percentage not, I haven't a clue. When you say that animals are not in misery is it your understanding that no food industry animals are suffering today?

No, my understanding is local. The UK has very stringent laws and we do very well and animal husbandry.

 

[Rival]

If we can meet our needs without causing harm, why wouldn't we do so? It seems obvious that it's good to reduce unnecessary pain and suffering, right?

What if we can't?

 

[Left Coast]

What if we can't?

...but we can. Unless you're some sort of Inuit living in a place where your only way to keep warm and have clothing is to kill local wildlife and use their fur, you have access to clothing made from plants or synthetic fibers. Fur is an aesthetic choice only.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are we stuck in an ideology that makes us too disturbed by reality?

We're very privileged in that we aren't exposed to it and we don't need things like meat and fur to survive, especially in many places today where we can actually have the previously unthinkable and unimaginable luxury of picking and choosing what to eat more or less every day.
And we have other materials to shelter us from the elements. Again it's a privilege of our societies that we don't have to kill for the leather and fur, and live in such a remarkable time that we point out leather actually is better for the environment because it naturally is biodegradable and lasts significantly longer than other materials. Our ancestors had that, wool, fur, cotton and that was mostly it amd they certainly didn't have a full closer to choose from unless they were lavishly rich (and even then they just didn't have it like we do today).
I think this has just put as a point where we're becoming more hesitant to inflict pain and suffering when we don't have to, which is far, far less than whatbwas necessary for our ancestors to do in order to survive.

 

[Quintessence]

I'l have to think on this one @Rival - this is an interesting topic.

At this juncture, I think it is simply worth noting that indigenous/animistic cultures - who see "person" or ethical subjects to apply well beyond merely humans - did not eschew killing non-human persons to satisfy vital needs. They also didn't suffer from the extreme disconnect modern, domesticated humans have with these killings and their necessity. Humans must kill other persons to live, full stop. There is no avoiding this. Contemporary reconstructions of indigenous religion, like that of my own path of Pagan Druidry, often make consideration of this a centerpiece of ritual. It very much honors how normal it is to kill to live instead of transforming it into a taboo. But non-indigenous religions that aren't grounded in nature won't take that angle. Neither will many modern, domesticated humans. It is what it is.