Originally Posted by Weatherlight
valanhb>>>Are you seriously saying that we currently do not grow enough food to feed the world's human hungry?
TTMom>>>It certainly has not been proven that there are any amino acids that humans need in meat. In fact, humans evolved primarily as frugivores, and anatomy shows it. If you'd like a "trustworthy" (as in conservative and biased IMO) source: http://www.eatright.org/Public/Gover...s/92_17084.cfm If you can ever find the name of any protein/amino acid required for human health, I can tell you where to get it from nonanimal sources and/or what the human body synthesizes it from.
Some humans are omnivores, some are carnivores...hell, some horses are omnivores. That doesn't make it healthy, and it certainly doesn't make it right. It's just a description of what is. Deliberately inflicting unnecessary suffering is never right, even if it happens.
We need to "treat them horribly" to obtain their flesh far more than we need to enslave and kill them.
There are "good sheep shearers" just like there could be "good slave owners," but they aren't the norm. Pointing to a few exceptions at small family farms doesn't justify any of the exploitation or overall immense suffering involved in the industry.
So do your farms grow organic produce? I was rather surprised at seeing nutrition comparisons between organic and "conventional" foods.
I'm not particularly concerned about plants--rather, I'm concerned about how they affect sentient beings (whether there are animals living in/on them for example). Stress isn't an indicator of sentience; individual cells, bacteria, and plants are living, but this tells us nothing about whether they can feel anything or have any sort of consciousness. Plants are completely devoid of nervous sytems. There is evidence that plants have defensive processes, but none that they're sentient. Evidence of sight is also strangely absent...
I'd like to know more details about that particular "scientific" experiment. There was a lot of noise about this guy who detected electricity from plants that he claimed signified different emotions. Actual scientists trying to reproduce his experiments didn't get any such results (because they weren't "in tune" with the plants or some such). And he later said yogurt was sentient o.O
I did mention that I'm concerned about plants, although not for themselves; destroying trees and such can harm wildlife, farming produces environmental damage, and so on. If you're at all concerned with any of this, why don't you go vegetarian? Seeing as it takes 10 - 20 pounds of soy, corn, wheat, or whatnot to produce a pound of beef, you'd save a lot more plants by not eating animal products. Here's something interesting by a human who doesn't seem to give a crap about nonhuman animals: http://www.earthsave.org/environment/foodchoices.htm
I have a valid reason for not being concerned about equality for plants--they don't have any interests to be concerned about. What's your excuse for nonhuman animals? Or do you think pigs, chickens, and cattle don't have nervous systems either? And I suppose there's no reason pigs wouldn't but cats would, so it shouldn't bother you in the least if anyone boils a cat alive, other than if it were someone's property and the owner didn't want his/her property damaged. Cat juice is rumored (although proven false) to cure arthritis, which has been a problem of mine for years. Hmm.
My goal in life is not to never harm anyone--that would be impossible. Directly or indirectly, from the money I use on myself rather than spending on others to even the roads I use that were produced with animal products, I use or support harm in some way. But when it comes to easy (and these days very slight) changes in my life compared to firstly the suffering and death of not only sentient but very sensitive and intelligent beings, secondly environmental damage, and thirdly my own health, I can't think of a single rational reason to refuse to do it.
squirtle>>>If you do buy only free range, it doesn't bother you at all that the mother and young are separated early (in the case of dairy cows and calves, usually at a day or few), the males are dehorned and castrated without anesthesia, they're slaughtered at a fraction of their lifespan, and so on? The mothers frequently go nuts, perhaps just as much as when a young male is castrated, and I'd consider that a pretty good indicator of what the mom animal feels about it.
I think we all need to take a step back, and get back to the intellectual side of discussion. Please.