A completely misguided and simplistic article written by an admitted activist and consequently not a dispassionate piece of reasoning. It displays a childish view of animals similar to that of Dr. Dolittle or Charlottes Web. The author fails to take into account some basic logical points.

1) Killing animals humanely for the purposes of eating is completely different from causing death and inflicting pain for the sake of obtaining pleasure from cruelty. Similarly, killing an innocent child is not the same as turning off life support for a terminally ill person. This is correctly recognised in the Law but apparently not in the field of Political Philosophy.

2) Why stop with animals? In the 1970's some people considered plants to have a form of awareness as well, so where does that leave us ? No food at all. The authors logic could easily lead to this conclusion.

3) Humans are omnivores and it has long been established that getting the appropriate nutrition from plants only is much more difficult and dangerous for developing humans. Never force your child into vegetarianism, you risk brain dysfunction and reduced growth from low protein intake.

4) Statements like "Cows show excitement when they've learnt something new and form lifelong relationships." is full of unwarranted assumptions and leaps of logic. Can cows form 'relationships'??. An association between two animals does not imply a 'relationship' particularly in human terms. Excited? You seem to want imply they become excited in a human way like a child at a Christmas party. There is no evidence for this.

5. Animals, as 'intelligent' as the author claims they are, still kill each other and often in the cruelest possible ways. What does this imply?

The article deliberately confuses killing for eating and cruelty. They are separate,different and for the most part, unrelated things.

A thought provoking article. I have always thought that the solution to most of our political problems would be to give kangaroos the vote (to be administered, of course, by the farmers on whose land they live). There would have to be a re-distribution of electoral boundaries, to accommodate the great increase in the number of electors, but I am sure the National Party would not mind. There would be a shortage of meat, to be sure, but this could be alleviated by sending the animal activists to the abbatoirs.

>>There would be a shortage of meat, to be sure, but this could be alleviated by sending the animal activists to the abbatoirs.<<

And call the product Soylent Greens. You'd make a killing.

Cheers,

Tony

Some good points made there Nicholas. Yes pigs and other farms animals are not much different to dogs, and dogs are regularly eaten in much of Asia. The Western infatuation with dogs is illogical and based on culture from ancient times when they cohabited as 'watchdogs'.

I am outraged by the leniency of dog laws, where vicious breeds are allowed to be kept in towns when they are a menace to humans. Anyone who has suffered even a minor dog bite, let alone a mauling will attest that it's a traumatic experience. I think any dog that bites humans should be humanely put down.

Banning all farm animals for human consumption would be going too far though, I think. Sustainable agriculture requires some grazing animals for 'lay pasture' periods between cropping; also steep country cant be cropped. Milk is essential in many peoples' diets too. My experience of working on farms is that there's a huge difference between 'best practice' and incompetent animal husbandry; perhaps farmers of animals should have licenses.

I do agree that we can get by with much less meat in our diets. And humane means of raising and slaughtering animals is essential. Hence the short ban on beef exports to Indonesia was justified and forced the industry to improve its game.

Western hypocrisy is legion and it's always always a pleasure seeing it exposed. I only wonder we bother with ethics at all, which is purely academic. Have to keep up appearances I s'pose, even if we're only deluding ourselves we're humane.

Thanks for your comments @Atman:

1) While animals killed for food and clothing are not killed for the pleasure of the cruelty, they are killed for pleasure – people enjoy the taste of animal products and enjoy wearing animal products – there is no necessity (see my 3rd point below). So it is killing for pleasure (or more accurately, paying someone else to kill for your pleasure). Killing what could be a healthy animal well before they would otherwise live to is very different to turning off life support for a terminally ill person (or other animal).
2) Plants are not sentient – they have no central nervous system and do not feel pain. My argument about sentience does not include plants.
3) From the American Dietetic Association (I link to this in my article): ‘It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.’
4) I am a Sociologist, not an animal behaviourist; the points on cows were drawn from scientific studies, which I have linked to in the article. Here is a direct quote from the article I link to:
‘Cows have been known to form lifelong friendships, and one recent study found that they actually show excitement when they've learned something new "as if they're saying, 'Eureka, I found out how to solve the problem,' " said Donald Broom, a professor at the University of Cambridge.’
5) Yes, other animals kill each other, but first of all, this is out of necessity, which is not the case for humans (see points 1 and 3). Secondly, I don’t think the actions of other animals have anything to do with we should do ethically as humans, other animals do all kinds of things that most people agree is wrong – I don’t think it is a relevant point.