China drafting rules for humane slaughter of livestock 6

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   caniscandida Posted 6:33 am
   18 Dec 2007

   step by step ...Well, I guess this is progress, and we should be grateful for that.
   Still, bringing China up to the frightfully low standards of the US would hardly be a happy ending!

   Permalink

2. 

   amc89 Posted 7:03 am
   18 Dec 2007

   still bleak situation for animals in ChinaIt's frightening that so many food and fur factory farms are setting up operations in China given their horrible record on animal welfare. The hog and poultry industries in China have exploded in recent years, as have mink and fox fur farming. Undercover investigations show horrific conditions.  
   The dangers with poultry factory farming is that disease spreads so quickly when animals are kept in such close confinement.  Bird flu outbreaks are going to become more and more common in Asia and around the world as intensive poultry farming increases. And if the bird flu virus starts to be passed from humans to humans, this becomes a human rights issue as well.
   I agree these new proposals are a step in the right direction, though I'm sceptical any regulations would be properly enforced by the government. I still would hope that companies in the west boycott all animal products from China.  

   Permalink

3. 

   wiscidea Posted 8:54 am
   18 Dec 2007

   "animals"I would like to point out that most discussions regarding our fellow creatures' rights usually refer to them as "animals" as though they belong to a class clearly separate from human beings. This might actually further abuse of these creatures. Why? It reinforces the notion that there can be a distinct set of standards applied only to them and not to human beings... that it is okay to do things to them that we would never do to fellow humans... though the current government in the U.S. shows there are exceptions ... so let me rephrase that... do things to them that most moral and sane people would never do to fellow humans.
   When we discuss "animal rights", we are usually discussing "non-human animal rights". Consider this... use of the term "non-human animal" instead of "animal" could trigger a change in perspective. It would reinforce the fact that the creatures we abuse and consume are not so different from us. They are animals. We are animals. We all suffer emotionally and feel pain. All animals are entitled to the same rights.
   I think it is time for more effort to go into demolishing the wall constructed between non-human animals and human beings. It is time to examine our culture and our traditions and weed out elements the suggest non-human animals belong to a class by themselves.
   Sort of awkward, but I hope someone understands this and can perhaps clearly restate it.

   Permalink

4. 

   trent Posted 3:08 pm
   18 Dec 2007

   rights?I would just like to clarify something.  While I'm sure animal welfare organizations would applaud these sort of rules, they really do nothing as far as the animals' rights are concerned.  As long as animals are property they cannot have any meaningful rights.  While it is certainly good that these animals will suffer a bit less, they will still be killed solely because we like the taste of their flesh.
   Also to expand on wiscidea's post, we need to start seeing the connection amongst all forms of oppression and discrimination, and develop a coherent ethical system which includes all sentient beings in our moral community.
   See http://www.abolitionistapproach.com for someone who can express this far more eloquently than me.

   Permalink

5. 

   caniscandida Posted 7:04 pm
   18 Dec 2007

   "We are all Michael Vick"Thanks for sending that, Trent.  Gary L. Francione, professor of philosophy and law at Rutgers University (which has lately built up one of this country's leading philosophy departments), is the author of the essays at abolitionistapproach.com; and those essays are very well written indeed.  Like a good Platonist, of the sort that believe the Republic to be the pinnacle of what Plato was up to, he is not comfortable distinguishing between content and style: there is only content, really, and style that seems to convey a less than perfect content must not be tolerated.
   E.g., Francione is absolutely right, that it looks like a kind of "moral schizophrenia" for PETA, the HSUS and other promoters of animal welfare to make zealous public condemnations of Michael Vick for being engaged in dog-fighting, while making little or no fuss about other professional athletes, e.g. Michael Jordan, who may advertise for restaurants at which meat is served.  The point is that it is kind of crazy for us to be very worked up over the suffering and death of several dozen dogs, while we ignore the no less horrible suffering and death of billions of equally sentient animals caught up in the meat industry.  And yes, he is absolutely right about that.
   Now, whether he is right to criticize PETA, the HSUS etc. for finding the Michael Vick story to be a good occasion to engage the general public about animal welfare issues, but to start with just the dogs, is another story.
   WiscIdea,
   
   good for you!, for joining with Michael Pollan's Confucianists, and insisting on "the rectification of names"!
   Yes indeed, we are all "animals."  And non-human animals are in no way less like us, and less meriting a certain minimal moral regard from us, just because we conventionally call them "animals."

   Permalink

6. 

   CyberBrook Posted 8:11 am
   20 Dec 2007

   humane?
   
   Talk about rectify names: I'm not even sure what humane means anymore! Clearly, we have the capacity for good and evil, so it's seems humane to engage in both.
   In any event, the kindest and most just way of eating, as well as the most healthy and eco-sustainable, is Eco-Eating (check it out at http://www.brook.com/veg).
   
   

   Permalink