@Pericles:

‘Few of these happy people make it their business to lecture others about their choice’

The website Online OPINION is full of various opinions on all kinds of issues. Why is stating my opinion on our relationship with other animals lecturing, while all the other opinion pieces are not. Where is the difference between making an argument and lecturing? Why is my piece considered lecturing, but not all the other articles on this site?

‘Entire industries have been built on the fact that we eat both meat and veg.’

This is (appropriately) a chicken and egg scenario – people eat animal products, but surely it is clear that these industries eg meat and dairy also create and expand the demand for animal products through advertising which constantly reinforces that animal products are natural, normal and necessary. Think of the ‘Read Meat, we were meant to eat it’ ads, for example. So while many people consider animal products natural, normal and necessary (as many people commenting on this article have argued), this can’t be totally separated from the industries who profit from and help to create these beliefs.

‘It has also been a feature of our shared history that we have killed animals for food…’

Yes but lots of things are part of our shared history that most people now accept are wrong and we don’t want to carry on today. Just because we’ve done something in the past, doesn’t mean we should now. Also, our shared history has also meant great inclusiveness in who is included ethically. While in the past philosophers often focussed on white males, the groups who we consider our actions towards has expanded to other genders, ethnicities, and more recently, species. So it all depends which part of our shared history we want to carry on today and which parts we want to leave behind.

‘you have to resort to supplements that are not independently found in nature.’

I don’t take any supplements – some vegans and non-vegans do. Supplements and fortified foods and drinks are consumed by vegans and non-vegans alike – so what?

@Tony Lavis:

‘there's a strong case for getting your nutrition naturally and not from artificially fortified foods or supplements: it tastes a lot better.’

I agree and most of what I eat and drink is not fortified. However, in terms of eating animal products because they taste better, as I explained to @Atman above, if enjoyment is an acceptable excuse for imposing harm and death on someone else, then how can we condemn any actions towards animals? Would you excuse the cockfighting that you identified as ‘a sickening case of animal abuse’ if you knew those doing the cockfighting did so because they enjoyed it?

What is the difference between ‘eating the occasional egg’ and visiting the occasional cockfight? Both can only be justified through trivial reasons eg enjoyment – there is no need to do either. Sure, chickens suffer in cockfighting, but they also suffer in the egg industry, including RSPCA “happy” eggs. The RSPCA’s preferred method of killing the males for the “crime” of not producing eggs is “quick maceration”, which, as I explain in the article, means being blended alive: http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-happens-with-male-chicks-in-the-egg-production-industry_100.html

Yes, I could write an article about how horrible cockfighting is, and of course I agree it is. But what would the point be? Everyone would pat themselves on the back that at least they’re not contributing to the “really bad” forms of animal cruelty, while carrying on consuming products that also cause suffering and death to animals and are also completely unnecessary. Nearly everyone reading the article would already agree with my argument about how cock fighting is bad, whereas most people accept that consuming animal products is fine. I believe that in terms of making a difference in terms of the number of animals slaughtered and otherwise harmed by people, it is much more effective to focus on encouraging people to question their contribution to this suffering and slaughter. I don’t see why joining the chorus of people condemning actions that nearly everyone opposes already is as effective, although obviously many people consuming animal products would rather read that, rather than being challenged.

Nick, the problem remains your flawed philosophy. Whatever makes
you think that "dying of natural causes" is such a pleasant
experience, especially for non humans. But of course you don't
see it that much on telly, so you don't think about it either.

I live with nature around me and see it happening and I assure you,
its not pleasant. Animals too sick to walk, no teeth so they
starve, some disease which slowly kills them, and I mean slowly,
so it can be agonising for hours, days, weeks.

I've seen it all, blind kangaroos, animals with cancerous growths,
animals attacked by crows, eagles, dogs, bits of them missing.

So on my farm, what matters is all about minimising suffering. If
an animal is suffering, its either treated if possible, if not
possible, it is shot. I make the decision to take its life, based
on minimal suffering. To me that is a far more important question.

@Yabby:

‘According to you, they would be better off, never having existed.’

Yes, once we’re brought into existence, we’re glad that we were. But such a realisation only comes about once we’re actually here. Not bringing someone into existence doesn’t harm anyone (because they are not someone yet).

‘I am not claiming that all animal production is humane. What I am claiming is that some is’

I think the concept of “humane” slaughter and animal products generally is accepted far too easily. Here is my opinion on “humane” slaughter, from an article I’ve written on the topic: “Humane slaughter” is an oxymoron – the two words simply do not go together. The word “humane” is associated with compassion – surely being compassionate towards someone would at the very least rule out killing them for profit.

Are you saying the reason you kill sheep has nothing to do with commercial considerations?

Also, I think even if we accept this argument that animal slaughter and animal products are not necessarily but can be humane (which I don’t), I really don’t think many people take it too seriously. Do you really make sure every animal product you consume comes from “humane” production – however you define that? I think most people point to a situation they would be comfortable with, then use that to consume animal products produced in any conditions at all.

‘If there were no livestock here keeping the grass down, the place would simply be enflamed with huge fires’

How about not having grass for animals but growing plant-based foods on the land instead. There are definitely options, if we think outside the box, rather than just carrying on doing what we’ve been doing because that’s the way it has always been: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bp2-bsRaow

‘The meatworks option is far kinder than wild dogs ripping them to bits, slowly.’

But I am not advocating wild dogs ripping farm animals apart – I am advocating a sanctuary situation where they are protected from such predators. It is not one or the other.

@Atman:

1. I’m saying enjoyment is a trivial reason for imposing suffering and death on someone else. If we accept enjoyment is a good enough reason to harm and/or kill an animal, I don’t see how we can condemn practises like cock fighting (see my points to another commenter above) – they could simply say they enjoyed participating in cock fighting (though they have no need to do so), just as you enjoy eating animal products (though you have no need to do so).

2. No I don’t ‘support freedom of meat eaters to continue to do so’ any more than I support the freedom of cock fighters to continue to do so. Laws enforcing veganism would be pointless because 99% of people don’t currently have a problem with animal products. It is not about enforcing anything, it is about changing attitudes. About 99% of people oppose unnecessary suffering to animals, yet about 99% of people unnecessarily consume animal products that cause suffering – so I think there is plenty of potential for a change in attitudes and actions.

3. Yes, I think it is a better choice to not consume animal products than to consume them, just as it is a better choice for me not to go around my neighbourhood kicking dogs because I enjoy it than to do so. But I would advocate people not kick dogs and not consume animal products because doing so means less harm to animals, not because of “moral superiority”. Regarding us killing animals somehow giving life to another, surely a better way to give life to another is not to kill them?

4. As I’ve pointed out, it is very possible for vegan kids to be very healthy – this is confirmed not only by many healthy vegan kids but is also accepted by mainstream health organisations like the American Dietetic Association.

5. If my argument about cows and pigs is so ridiculous, why bother going to flies and tics? And your idea on “edible animals” is very much shaped by society – why are these animals the “edible” ones?

*Not bringing someone into existence doesn’t harm anyone (because they are not someone yet).*

So what you are essentially saying Nick, is that if the planet was
spinning with nothing but cockroaches and ants onboard, it would
not matter.

*“Humane slaughter” is an oxymoron – the two words simply do not go together.*

Oh yes they do. For without population control, there would be much
suffering and starvation. OTOH, who eats me after I die, I really
don't care about. Fact is, I will be recycled, one way or the other.
I would also prefer to die swiftly and without knowing its about to
happen, then suffer to my last breathe, as some claim that its humane.

Farming livestock first of all means costs. My sheep avoid hunger in
summer, by being fed around 100 tonnes of oats etc. Those and other
costs need to be paid for. Even farmers need to pay their bills, just
like normal people. What is evil about that?

*How about not having grass for animals but growing plant-based foods on the land instead.*

Because many Austalian soils are old and clapped out and farmers have
to pay their bills. Doing things which do not pay the bills, means
going broke. Livestock suit some country which is not suitable for
crops.

*But I am not advocating wild dogs ripping farm animals apart*

So why don't you rush out and first of all save the wild camels,
horses, donkeys, buffaloes, goats and other animals roaming around
in our outback, being ripped apart by wild dogs now