Apparently the animals that die on factory farms are actually eaten by people.

Any one who can call this planet small doesn't have much empathy with it. A rather common affliction with academics & lawyers. Articles like this meaningless waffle, are a good reason to bar lawyers from election to parliament.

I suggest we drop the pair half way between Sydney & Lord Howe Island, in a row boat, with a couple of pairs of oars. If they survive they will have a better idea of the planet, & perhaps how to live on it.

While I have some concern for animal welfare, I also eat meat, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The two behaviours I DO find repugnant are those that are too squeamish to do it themselves and only ever outsource it and the keeping of animals for pets. How anyone can cage an animal that can fly is mystifying. Then there is the opportunity cost lost in being able to help humanity (bravo J Burnside) and the pollution involved in feeding them. AGW all so indulgent westerners can have a dog for a "pet" ? I wonder if Mr Wilberforce had a dog and looked after it lovingly, much like some slave owners did ?

The author needs to visit a developing country and live with it's peoples to see how they interact with animals for a better understanding of human development and animal husbandry.

We raise, kill and eat our own chickens and guinea pigs. Every time one is killed, I say thank you before I swing the axe.

and I must admit I do rather agree with the sentiments of "Hasbeen" in suggesting Parliament would be better off if those in the Law profession where barred.

funny to see than when the rubber meets the road most really believe humans are not just animals. Imagine a lifeguard seeing both a child and a dog drowning. Most would rescue the child (as long as not the son of a lawyer) first. RSPCA was once a respected organisation. Now they have been hijacked or at least infiltrated by earth worshippers which normally put humans at the bottom of the chain. That is why killing an animal is a crime to them but killing the unborn just disposing of one more evil human.

It quite easy to separate out moral rules for humans and rules for other animals just as a dog is not a cat so a human is not a dog. I dear say the authors make this distinction at some point the question is where do they make it and could we very agree where the line is.
I say any non human form of life is fair game, we should try to minimise their suffering and should practices good animal husbandry and not take native animals from the wide for food, if we can setup viable farm production methods.
Where do the authors draw the line is it merely animals they will not eat? How have they drawn that line, would they eat a sea fern if it tasted good?
Humans are omnivores that’s how we evolved in our natural environment there is nothing natural about not eating meat for a human. Just like bears eat mainly roots and berries so should we but we should turn our noses up at salmon when their running.

BTW I propose a new rule for OLO along the lines of Godwin’s law. As soon as Runner makes a comment in support of a line of thought then that argument becomes invalid.

A rather disturbing example of what happens when you become a vegetarian...

"Pythagoras... was a strict vegetarian... [he] also founded a religion based on the transmigration of souls."

I do understand, of course, that if you believe that animals contain the souls of dead people, it would be a little difficult to contemplate eating meat. But the startling aspect of Pythagoras' philosophy was that he believed that human souls were also capable of transmigrating into... vegetables.

All you vegetarians out there, please take note. And don't say I didn't warn you.

If eating animals is moral, then so is eating humans.

One who eats meat may refuse to practice cannibalism for a number of reasons, but morality is not among those.

---

Dear Pericles,

Some of those who claim to know about soul-transmigration acknowledge that a soul can live in vegetables, but claim that in this case it would not be a single bunch of carrots, but perhaps the whole carrot species at once, or a sub-species thereof, hence eating a single carrot, or even juicing a whole pack of them, would only feel as a needle-prick. Making a species extinct, however, would be an act of murder.

Also, I heard the claim that animals do not necessarily "contain" a soul at all given times, but souls may rather "enter" an animal for a brief period, usually a second or two, then leave.

Incidentally, the Jewish approach is that an animal-soul is elevated when eaten by man and that the best thing that could possibly happen to a [kosher] animal's soul is to be sacrificed in the temple in Jerusalem, assuring it a good human/Jewish birth next time around.

Please do not hold me on any of those claims - I have no conscious pre-human memories to either support or refute them.

'If eating animals is moral, then so is eating humans. '

Certainly the philosophy of many of the pagan tribes and indigeneous people of many lands.

runner,

"Certainly the philosophy of many of the pagan tribes and indigeneous people of many lands."

And also some of your bedfellows, the Catholics. (transubstantiation)

David

Dear Runner,

<<Certainly the philosophy of many of the pagan tribes and indigeneous people of many lands.>>

Comparing the number of men/women eaten in a year with the number of animals eaten in a day, surely you will agree with me that there is no current epidemic of cannibalism.

The same cannot be said about animal-flesh eating.

A fairly worthy article, and certainly with good intent. However, from some of the comments here it is easy to understand why some, if not many, seek the company of animals (and of nature at large) in preference to that of the most unpredictable and most untrustworthy of animals - the human animal.

All animals deserve respect, and to place human life above that of animals is an arrogance. But, such is the beast - what else could one expect from an animal that has spent so much physical and mental energy for so many centuries, even millennia, seeking to conquer and enslave (notionally as well as literally) so many of its own species for so many questionable purposes; as well as endeavouring to exploit, or else exterminate, so many other Earth species in its insatiable drive to conquer nature itself and attain unassailable dominion over all. Such grandeur, such determination, such arrogant belief in self-importance.

It may yet be possible to live in harmony with nature, but only if there were to be a paradigm shift in human motivation - however, given the momentum of global industrial development, this is a rapidly diminishing, if not entirely vain possibility. Of course, modern humanity scoffs at living in harmony with anything other than its own ego, so we can only enjoy nature for as long as it lasts - which appears not to be for too many more generations.

Any animal so intent on achieving its own downfall, if not total elimination, with such fervour and such disregard deserves nothing less than to achieve the most resounding success in this endeavour.

Saltpetre,

Now that I have had a chance to read the article, it would be difficult to argue against the notion that it is fair and balanced, containing information many would not have had before.

Your comment was excellent and my personal opinion is that I agree that the word ‘dominion’ which has been reinforced by the Christian Bible and enforced by Christianity and other religions has been and will be problematical to the long term survival of humanity and everything else.

David

Wow, this site, & particularly this thread, highlights just how far the average city type has come from reality. I wonder if any of them know what is in that packet/tin, they buy at the supermarket?

How I'd love to see a one month survival course at age 21 be a right of passage for all people. Something like the survival course the army put some through at Port Clinton, on the Queensland coast.

So many today could not survive, particularly with their philosophy, if there was not an entire civilisation to support them, & protect them, mostly from themselves.

Just a month on the beach with a rifle, axe, knife & a fishing line would see so many grow up, or die.

Should overcome the population bomb, & the housing crisis, all in one.

Of course that would mean our governments would ultimately run by resourceful practical people. What a change that would be.

It would be a pity to find a bare cupboard in academia, but still a great improvement.

What would the world be like if higher education consisted of real people, teaching real skills, of real use in the world? Yes I know, but even old hasbeens are allowed to dream sometimes.

Hasbeen,

“I wonder if any of them know what is in that packet/tin, they buy at the supermarket?”

Presumably you mean the packet/tin and labelling in supermarkets produced by book learnin’.

The thing about the labels is it can be established what is in the container. That way, people who are discerning with what they eat can choose the product that suits them.

But you are correct in that not everyone does that. More’s the pity.

If the time arrives where we are all on the beach with our book learnin’ produced fishing line, gun and axe, then we will have to adapt. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.

And, good luck with your dreams. :)

David

What a complete mystery life must be to you, Yuyutsu. So many claims, so little time to choose.

>>Some of those who claim to know about soul-transmigration acknowledge that... Also, I heard the claim that... Incidentally, the Jewish approach is that...<<

A fair log of claims, that.

It is comforting that you cannot bring yourself to share these particular insights, though

>>Please do not hold me on any of those claims...<<

But surely, this must cause you to wonder, just a little?

>>I have no conscious pre-human memories to either support or refute them<<

Do you suppose that such a lack of awareness is common amongst those recycled souls?

If so, you have to ask yourself what is the point of such a re-appearance - without a memory, what would your re-souled bunch of carrots make of their lot in life?

But if souls do normally have such memories, yours is clearly not of the pre-loved variety, and must be fresh-minted, brand spanking new...

Which raises many further questions, such as how many "new souls" are constructed each day? who produces them and decides how many of each variety there should be? But, most important of all, how was the decision arrived at that Yuyutsu's shiny new soul should find residence in a human being, as opposed to, say, a stalk of broccoli?

I must go, I'm afraid, I have to profoundly apologize to a small, inoffensive leek, whose soul is about to do the whole go-round thing again. No wonder I heard it sigh when I cut its head off.

"Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was, 'Oh no, not again'. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the Universe than we do now." Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Dear Pericles,

<<Do you suppose that such a lack of awareness is common amongst those recycled souls?>>

Thank God that's the case. We've got enough to do even without worrying about such things.

<<If so, you have to ask yourself what is the point of such a re-appearance - without a memory, what would your re-souled bunch of carrots make of their lot in life?>>

No, I don't HAVE to ask myself anything.

Besides, this question is meaningless: a carrot has no life, it's you and I who live as humans, carrots or whatever.

<<Which raises many further questions,>>

I must admit that I was fascinated by those questions when I was still young and foolish. What a waste of time!

Wonderful, Pericles, but surely we are not meant to burden ourselves with such profound questions as who or what might ensure, for example, that a Muslim soul would not erroneously be recycled into a Christian, Hindu, Hebrew or other faith environment? Or indeed, for shame, into a non-faith environment? (Then again, who's to say some 'mixing it up' might not actually be on the agenda?)

Of course a carrot, broccoli, leek or banana could not be accused of belonging to any particular 'faith' category? No, surely fruit and veg (and meat, milk, insects, etc) would be meant to be free of any imbued or imbedded contamination - lest perchance to induce any subconscious discomfort or ill-ease to any innocent consumer (who would of course have no way of knowing the particular 'inner' leanings of their intended food choice).

It is possible that soul recycling would be precisely along union lines - Christian to this queue, Muslim to that one, and so on down the line. But, naturally, with population increase in various categories, the supply of recyclables would inevitably get stretched from time to time, necessitating the incubation of 'virgin' souls - and the 'registry' of new doctrine categories would be kept pretty busy arranging necessary patents.

Also unfortunately, these days in particular, some recycle bins would be overflowing, with nowhere to go - with even, heaven forbid, some poor souls ending up in 'lost luggage', or, worse still, having to be exiled to the 'badlands', poor devils.

A kaleidoscope of souls - miraculous; only the human mind (and the Creator of course) may be capable of anything as exotic, don't you reckon?

A thought: sterilized, homogenized 'recycling'? Could save a lot of bother? (One for the suggestion box?) But then, variety is the 'spice', is it not? (Life is indeed not meant to be 'easy' - unfortunately.)

To quote the Man in Shack, Saltpetre, "I have no opinion. How can I have?"

But...

"A kaleidoscope of souls - miraculous; only the human mind (and the Creator of course) may be capable of anything as exotic, don't you reckon?" Is an interesting, if not profound, line of thought. Not so much a soupçon of souls as a soup?

Are soulled carrots the key to happiness?

I'm yet to be convinced.

>>a carrot has no life<<

Bit harsh dude. Just because carrots prefer more of an underground scene doesn't mean they have no life.

Cheers,

Tony

Enjoyed many of the comments on this thread. Nothing like a bit of light reading.
As to recycling souls, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Christian, Muslim and Jewish souls didn't recycle. I've been told by folk in these categories that the point of their lives was to ensure going to their particular heaven and to avoid their particular hell. Therefore, seeing the disturbing growth of numbers in both Christianity and Islam the recycle bin is not in danger of overflowing just yet!