I am now a vegetarian. Woo!

[Araciel]

Lol animal rights.

How can animals have rights? They don't talk.

[Big D]

Lol animal rights.

How can animals have rights? They don't talk.

Mute people have rights too, and those who can't communicate at all

My international human rights law professor put it this way: All rights give rise to responsibilities. If animals have rights, does that mean they have legal responsibilities too?

[Bahamut2000X]

Animals talk, they just don't talk in a form we can understand nor can they communicate intelligently.

Though there is that gorilla that knows sign language which can bring up a whole topic on whether it truly understands and communicates with it. Funny how many derailing topics we can make from this simple thread.

[Peegee]

Lol animal rights.

How can animals have rights? They don't talk.

Mute people have rights too, and those who can't communicate at all:p

My international human rights law professor put it this way: All rights give rise to responsibilities. If animals have rights, does that mean they have legal responsibilities too?

That's an interesting argument. I've always understood rights to be something 'given' without any direct cost, but with lots of hidden ones. Something like luxuries were before we had terms like social responsibility.

[Bashini]

In my opinion, veganism is the next step of the ethical evolution of human beings on this planet.

Isn't that kind of an oxymoron in a way?

You know I wonder if there's groups out there that are working on the ethical treatment of plants and various other forms of life we consider "Too below us" to care about and exploit. I mean there's so many people spouting nonsense about animals when there's a whole another 90% of a planet full of life we're ignoring for a small population with a face.

PLANTS ARE NOT CONSCIOUS BEINGS!!! They cannot experience pain, suffering, or have feelings. They have no nervous systems. They do not choose friendships, play or have mates. They have fewer choices then the average bacterium. And even if we are to suppose that plants have 'feelings' then it would still be wiser to eat plants, since fewer would have to 'suffer death' if people ate solely plants then raised meat.

No it is not an oxymoron. Human beings were originally scavengers, so we ate anything we could find. We eventually progressed from scavengers to farmers, which introduced a number of new food groups. In our modern world, the continued use of animal products is actually holding us back rather then advancing, because the production of animal products consumes so many resources as to make it unsustainable. Also, animal production has created a legal way to continue the ancient practice of slavery through the trade of illegal immigrants who constitute a large number of slaughterhouse workers.

But then that would mean animals have the same rights as humans. Which clearly isn't the case.

Besides if we didn't domesticate animals in the first place then there wouldn't be a human civilization to complain about the domestication of animals as being wrong. At least a civilization to the extent we have it today, just imagine if they never had horses for travel, no oxen to help till fields, no meat to eat to get protein (back before we knew anything about how to substitute meat to get protein).

It was not the domestication of animals, which led to the progression of human civilization. Indeed, many stone age human tribes were capable of surgical techniques that the more 'advanced' humans of the middle ages were incapable of. It was the discovery of the domestication of high carbohydrate, high yield, high protein plants (wheat, barley, rice, soy, lentils, ect.), which catapulted human civilization at the end of the Ice Age. These first fields were actually dug by hand, and it was not for another few thousand years that people had domesticated cattle, which were not at first used for meat.

But all of that history is besides the point, the fact remains that we are on a planet with not enough resources for all the human animals to enjoy animal foods. Humans therefore will have die off (about 2/3 of the populace) to eat well, with sustainable methods or simply live off a plant-based diet.

Also, 'rights' are merely commonly agreed upon rules of conduct to be followed by humans. Humans tragically, need a long list of rules to avoid senseless cruelty. Animals should be granted the 'rights' of any other sentient life form, to be allowed to live uninhibited by human development or greed. Humans scientifically do not need to eat meat to survive or dairy or eggs. Humans do not need 'pets.' Medically speaking the use of lab animals has slowed the progression of medical science, because it gives inaccurate data. Indeed the first antibiotics would have been used a good thirty years before the use of pennisillin was invented, because they tested the substance on guinea pigs, who are fatally allergic to mold.

[leeza]Please do not double post. Use the edit/delete button. ~ Leeza[/leeza]

[Big D]

Lol animal rights.

How can animals have rights? They don't talk.

Mute people have rights too, and those who can't communicate at all

My international human rights law professor put it this was: All rights give rise to responsibilities. If animals have rights, does that mean they have legal responsibilities too?

That's an interesting argument. I've always understood rights to be something 'given' without any direct cost, but with lots of hidden ones. Something like luxuries were before we had terms like social responsibility.

Every single right, from fundamental human rights recognised internationally to the additional rights conferred or defined by nations, impose certain duties or obligations on the person bearing that right. Free speech? You've got a duty not to defame, or to publish illegal publications. Freedom of movement and association? You incur the duty to respect others' property rights, i.e. you can't stroll into a stranger's living room and claim it's your right to do so. And so on, for every right that exists. It only seems to be in America that there's this notion of 'freedom without responsibility'.

[Bahamut2000X]

Disclaimer: The following post is riddled with sarcasm. If you take offense easily then please leave now.

PLANTS ARE NOT CONSCIOUS BEINGS!!! They cannot experience pain, suffering, or have feelings. They have no nervous systems.

Now I'm far from an expert on this as biology isn't my expertise, but last I heard there was no concrete proof either way. There's an entire study of science that's working on figuring out if plants have these emotions or not. I would like to see your proof of why plants aren't conscious, who knows maybe in the next year they make a discovery that trees are really as intelligent as humans. Stating they have no nervous system based on animals makes them unable to feel the same things is a pretty blatant statement, especially since they are from an entire kingdom of species from animals and their entire body structures is vastly different.

Regardless plants are still alive. So why is it that one form of life should be regarded as better and kept alive while the other is allowed to be slaughtered?

Under that logic if the entire Amazon Forest (and for sake of this dilemma we'll say all the animal life was evacuated before hand) were set on fire to kill the plant life it would be perfectly fine because it's just emotionless plants by our definition of emotions, yet to set a gerbil on fire would be morally wrong because it has the physiology more similar to us. So where do you draw the line between where it's fine to kill one life for another.

And even if we are to suppose that plants have 'feelings' then it would still be wiser to eat plants, since fewer would have to 'suffer death' if people ate solely plants then raised meat.

A cow has enough meat to feed a good deal people. To equal that much food in plant life it would take dozens of plants harvested. Simple math here.

In our modern world, the continued use of animal products is actually holding us back rather then advancing, because the production of animal products consumes so many resources as to make it unsustainable.

Care to back this one with some empirical data? Cause I honestly don't believe this.

Raising animals is holding back civilization? Really now? It couldn't be something much simpler such as a flawed education system or a society that can still promote superstitious religions and actually work to hold back science or numerous other problems in the world. But it's gotta be a source of our food that's holding it all back....riiiight.

Also, animal production has created a legal way to continue the ancient practice of slavery through the trade of illegal immigrants who constitute a large number of slaughterhouse workers.

Legal? Last I checked slavery was illegal in pretty much every nation, namely the big ones where holding back civilization would be occurring.
But surely if we had no more slaughtering of animals that would solve the slavery issue, not like we have sex slaves or a majority of the slave population working fields and mines anyways. I mean the slavers surely aren't smart enough to just stick their slaves in another money operation if slaughter houses went out of business anyways right?

It was not the domestication of animals, which led to the progression of human civilization. Indeed, many stone age human tribes were capable of surgical techniques that the more 'advanced' humans of the middle ages were incapable of. It was the discovery of the domestication of high carbohydrate, high yield, high protein plants (wheat, barley, rice, soy, lentils, ect.), which catapulted human civilization at the end of the Ice Age. These first fields were actually dug by hand, and it was not for another few thousand years that people had domesticated cattle, which were not at first used for meat.

While your correct that working on harvesting plant life would help society grow by being able to stop chasing around herds of animals, you left out the fact they still didn't have substitutes for meat back then and would still need the protein that animals offered. Let alone the fact that progress would have been a lot slower if people didn't have horses to use for travel since all good vehicles required animal labor, it would have taken a LOT longer for people to travel and for ideas and goods to be exchanged. Not to mention there's only so far people can go on working on fields with human power alone before mechanical production, hence the simple fact that a few ox can till a field faster then humans.

Although you still make is sound like domestication is bad for the animals. It's not like people abused the animals, if they did then they wouldn't have very good workers if they beat or malnourished them. While I'm sure it did happen in some cases, the majority didn't. Better yet the animals were given safety, shelter, and more food then they would have gotten in the wild. I hardly see how that's a bad thing when all we ask of them is to pull around a few things. If not for us then all animals would sleep out in the rain and would be prone to predators attacking them.

Long post, but you just gave me so much to work with. Time for a rest while I let my brain get off overdrive.

[fire_of_avalon]

I am concerned with the factory farming methods we use to harvest most of out meat, but I believe meat is food. Result? I eat less meat.

It seems like a lot of people forget that's an option.

This. And I avoid eating meat at restaurants when the people who work there can't tell me where the meat comes from. And I'm really picky about the meat I buy. If I can find out where it's from and that place pastures the animals and treats 'em well, I can spare a little extra cash.

The difference between eating a plant and an animal, to me, is that one is sentient, and one is not.

I have an excellent example to show what I mean.

In my left hand I have a gerbil. In my right hand I have a potted plant.

If I set fire to the gerbil, what will be your reaction?

What if I set fire to the plant? What if I set fire to a tree? Rip a sapling off the ground? Cover a plant in darkness?

Why is it morally neutral to mistreat plants? Cognitive Dissonance? I think so.

I actually would freak over both. It kills me when people treat plants like that.

I guess ill say this now..

Some things are to be expected.. inevitable, one might say.

When you are living with millions of people on small pieces of land, it is impossible to keep nature the same way it is.

Animals are stored in small spaces so there is more meat to eat and cheaper, woods get cut to make place for houses..

The fact just is, that we are too overpopulated in most countries to be succesful vegetarians. Already woods are being cut by the football field to make place for coffeebean farms..

The thing about ranch meat is, is that the animals are kept in places where there is space. But with the way we just keep building and the population grows, those things will become more expensive and will eventually disappear.

I dont like it.. but thats just the way economics work.

Completely false. The amount of land required to raise animals is far, fair higher than the amount of land required to grow crops for Humans. Crop farming is far more space-efficient than husbandry.

Well, this is true and false. The current livestock industry thrives on grain which must be grown which does mean more land is used to raise livestock than to raise crops. Agriculture itself is pretty horrible too, though. Another HUGE reason for this, though, is the fact that not only do people eat those products, but we also waste food like nobody's business. See all the crap restaurants throw away that ends up in a landfill - organic matter that doesn't do any good to anyone. Just rots.

Pasturing animals, though, and using only what you need, takes up less land than industrial agriculture. Of course, the same rules about waste DO apply to agricultural products too.

This is one of my pet issues, waste of food I mean. No reason for people to waste food if they think before they eat.

Lol animal rights.

How can animals have rights? They don't talk.

Mute people have rights too, and those who can't communicate at all

My international human rights law professor put it this way: All rights give rise to responsibilities. If animals have rights, does that mean they have legal responsibilities too?

Slightly off topic, but children don't have legal responsibilities (aside from not committing violent crimes, I suppose.) But children have rights.

[Big D]

Slightly off topic, but children don't have legal responsibilities (aside from not committing violent crimes, I suppose.) But children have rights.

Kids don't have the right to go wherever, do whatever, and say whatever they like - so their rights are subject to the same responsibilities as adults' rights. There are simply fewer judicial measures to penalise them for non-compliance... Of course, I'm dealing with the legal concepts of rights and responsibilities here, which might be rather different from the common understanding of those ideas.

[Roto13]

Anasia ruined it for everyone.

Oh dear... seal meat is the best.

Also, I have nothin against veggies...hell, people eat all kinds of weird stuff, so if they don't like meat, all the more for me.

I don't have anything against vegetarians, I have something against pricks, and there's a correlation there.

[Bashini]

Yes, I understand sarcasm quite well, and I have a decent sense of humor. The topic of AR, vegetarianism/veganism, ect. are very emotional topics on all sides, because it calls into question centuries old human-centric view points.

Plant Neurology is a very new science. Depending on how conservative the biologist is, will depend upon the answer. I do not agree with senseless burning of forests or the clearing of so much land to feed livestock or to create biofuels. I find the degradation or destruction of any living thing reprehensible.

As someone mentioned above most meat (especially in North America) comes from factory farms, where cows, chickens and pigs are fed on corn/soy diets. The feeding and watering of these animals takes more resources then if the humans ate the product directly. Pasturing helps, but currently with the high human populace on the planet it is not sustainable or affordable. I have yet to read a reasonable solution to this problem on either side.

I did not imply the ending of all animal industries would solve all the problems of humanity. Humans after all are the problem. We are animals who no longer fit within the environment we evolved from. We are too successful, and thus we have overpopulated and wreak havoc through out the world. I would like to believe humans will learn to self-regulate better and clean up their act. However, I am not much of an optimist.

The problem with the domestication of animals is that we have taken away many of their basic instincts that allow them to survive on their own. We cannot truly communicate our intentions to one another, so the relationship will always be one of animal=asset and humans=master. I absolutely detest this relationship, and with our current technology we no longer need animals for the purpose of transportation or food. Companion animals are nice, but they end up being commodities. Any creature that can feel and act of its own will is not a 'commodity' in my book.

I am not going to 'make' anyone be a vegan or veggie or omni or cani. Hell, I live with an omnivore. I am woman enough to admit that veganism does not have the answers to all the problems in the world or to animal rights.

[Raistlin]

As someone mentioned above most meat (especially in North America) comes from factory farms, where cows, chickens and pigs are fed on corn/soy diets. The feeding and watering of these animals takes more resources then if the humans ate the product directly. Pasturing helps, but currently with the high human populace on the planet it is not sustainable or affordable.

Source? And as suspected, you don't take into account that we already have a huge food surplus in the more developed countries. If we add more resources, those aren't going to automatically go to the ones who need them; it's more of a problem with distribution than production.

The problem with the domestication of animals is that we have taken away many of their basic instincts that allow them to survive on their own. We cannot truly communicate our intentions to one another, so the relationship will always be one of animal=asset and humans=master. I absolutely detest this relationship, and with our current technology we no longer need animals for the purpose of transportation or food. Companion animals are nice, but they end up being commodities. Any creature that can feel and act of its own will is not a 'commodity' in my book.

Um, so? Ok, you're personally against it, but how can you justify it being evil, especially if the animals themselves aren't capable of caring one way or another? You seem to have this idea of what you feel is objectively better for animals, which is nonsense.

Also, 'rights' are merely commonly agreed upon rules of conduct to be followed by humans. Humans tragically, need a long list of rules to avoid senseless cruelty. Animals should be granted the 'rights' of any other sentient life form, to be allowed to live uninhibited by human development or greed.

Why?

Medically speaking the use of lab animals has slowed the progression of medical science, because it gives inaccurate data.

This is really laughable.

[Vivisteiner]

plants do not have emotions or feelings. If they did it would make no sense evolutionarily. nor is there evidence.

[Quindiana Jones]

plants do not have emotions or feelings. <---------------------------------->If they did it would make no sense evolutionarily. nor is there evidence.

Could you please fill in that gap. Thank you.

[Big D]

Plants certainly don't feel pain, nor can they think. However, plants do react to damage - they have various systemic responses to harm, including chemical processes and whatnot. There are some that react by releasing unpleasant-tasting toxins into their leaves, and then 'communicate' a warning to their neighbours with airborne chemical signals. They react to damage, and then try to protect themselves - in animals, those responses would be considered 'suffering' and 'self-preservation'.

Not sure where I'm going with this. I'm definitely not arguing for 'plant rights' or 'tree sentience' or anything. I guess I'm just responding to the notion that 'plants don't feel anything so we can do what we want to them without moral compunctions'. They sure don't 'suffer' in a way we can relate to, but arguably they do experience a kind of suffering.

Perhaps the technology is near that'll allow us to synthesise a nutritionally perfect food, using no animal or plant products but providing a completely balanced diet. That'd be cool, and depending on the production costs and energy demands, it could be a great move in environmental terms too. But unless or until such a food is developed, the continued harvesting of animals and plants remains a necessity.