Not in hog heaven 10

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   GreenEngineer Posted 2:10 am
   14 Mar 2007

   check out the author's nameNiman, as in Ranch.

   Permalink

2. 

   Emily O Posted 12:42 pm
   15 Mar 2007

   Yeah...Although I'm pretty sure that factory farms are inherently at odds with humane treatment of animals and environmental responsibility.

   Permalink

3. 

   caniscandida Posted 5:13 pm
   15 Mar 2007

   "we ask them"?I very much approve of Nicolette Hahn Niman's project to ban gestation cages for pigs, and wish her all success.  And, given the unrelenting carnivorous habit of very many human beings, however regrettable, I am glad that there are people like those at Niman Ranch who make an effort to treat their animals well throughout their lives, and I am glad that there are thoughtful meat-eaters who refuse to eat meat from any other source than a place like Niman Ranch.
   But I am afraid it is necessary to quibble with this sentence:
   
   <<
   
   Because we ask the ultimate sacrifice of these creatures, it is incumbent on us to ensure that they have decent lives.
   
   >>
   The gist of it is impeccable.  But just to be clear, we are not literally asking the animals to lay down their lives for us; and when they are slaughtered, it is not as though they have given us permission to take their lives.  They are captives, utterly helpless and vulnerable.  They are not like free young Americans who are recruited into a volunteer army, knowing they will be shipped off to Iraq.
   To be sure, Native American wisdom famously preserves the belief that when a hunter shoots and kills an animal, the animal has allowed itself to be killed, as an act of kindness to the hunter and his people; and as the hunter recovers the animal's body, he ought to say a prayer of thanks to the animal's spirit.  Well, I don't know, it could be true, I guess ...  But nevertheless, animals raised on a ranch for slaughter do not seem to be in that position.
   
   Chickens are our cousins!
   
   So are other sensitive animals!
   
   Enough is enough!
   
   No more factory farms!

   Permalink

4. 

   spaceshaper Posted 9:16 pm
   15 Mar 2007

   On voluntary self-sacrificeCanis, thank you for catching this example of the sorry empathic delusions we so desperately construct in denial of the crude reality of mass-production of captive animals for slaughter. A number of years ago, during a severe drought in Texas which forced the premature slaughter and unprofitable disposal of tens of thousands of beef cattle, a kind-faced rancher interviewed on the teevee was almost in tears. "We're devastated. These animals are just like our children to us."
   
   The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

   Permalink

5. 

   Jason D Scorse Posted 2:02 am
   16 Mar 2007

   You're right, language is important...a more accurate description of using animals for food would be:
   1. For those we force to make the ultimate sacrifice...
   or if we want to cut right to the chase..
   2. For the animals we kill to satisfy our taste for their flesh...
   Euphemisms are the enemy of reason and transparency.
   J.S.
   
   I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

   Permalink

6. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 2:12 am
   16 Mar 2007

   We Eat Too Much Meat
   
   Look, there's got to be a happy medium.  I like meat.  I just stayed up until 2 am last night roasting a 4 pound duck.  It was free range.  It was additive free.  It was delicious.
   But I don't like eating pounds and pounds of meat (oh, ok, once every few months I'll bar-b-q a T-bone).
   I love Indian food.  Indians use meat, but they make good advantage of it, putting it into curries and other dishes to squeeze the flavor out into starches.  
   We can "eat" meat, without gobbling pounds of it a time.   That means we can reduce the production and imprisonment of animals and maybe move back to small farm ranches and local butchers serving it up fresh.
   
   The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com

   Permalink

7. 

   Jason D Scorse Posted 2:38 am
   16 Mar 2007

   jabailo...sounds to good to me- it's what I've been advocating for a while- meat should be produced with very high environmental and animal welfare standards, which would raise the price, but people who chose to eat meat should be willing to pay it- if not, then there's a problem
   J.S.
   
   I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

   Permalink

8. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 2:54 am
   16 Mar 2007

   My two centsI tend to agree with everything said here and would like to add that to implement such changes, we need to avoid the polarizing effects of extremists in the debate.
   If all farmers were held to the same standards, it would create a level playing field and they would lose no profit. The consumers would pick up the tab for these improvements, eat less meat as a result of higher prices and all would be well. The poor, as usual always get the shaft, but that problem needs to be dealt with as well by those groups who have taken up that cause and of course by government.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

9. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 3:05 am
   16 Mar 2007

   WellThere definantly is some arguement about the energy that goes into feeding cattle.
   Something like only 10% or less of the energy originally availible in the vegetables fed to the animal, is delivered inside the meat.
   You'd have 10x more food if you just ate the vegetables instead of the meat.
   
   Or said another way, spend 10x less energy.

   Permalink

10. 

    Jason D Scorse Posted 4:57 am
    16 Mar 2007

    BioD...you're obviously correct about the regressive nature of such an environmental cost. However, since the poor in America suffer disproportionately from diet-related diseases linked to animal products, a higher price of meat and dairy might actually have the unintended consequences of improving the health of those in lower income brackets if the higher meat prices led them to switch more towards plant-based diets. This stands in contrast to other environmental taxes, like a gas tax, which simply would take money of the poor's pockets without any concurrent direct gains to their welfare (unless they were compensated in some other way through tax breaks).
    J.S.
    
    I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

    Permalink