Slaughtering and eating cats (NSFW?)

[FBM]

FBM, a bird's nest and the ISS are not comparable.

Sliding scale of complexity. Very comparable. Human and worm DNA are comparable, no?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

FBM, a bird's nest and the ISS are not comparable.

Sliding scale of complexity. Very comparable. Human and worm DNA are comparable, no?

We don't instinctively build ISS. Even the Great Barrier Reef is basically a repetition of minute structures, without planning or design. A truck load of paint falling off a cliff doesn't create a painting.

[lordpasternack]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPOEEsj7Dxo&NR=1[/youtube]

That still doesn't compare to some of the calculated longterm inhumanity that livestock and other sentient animals kept for human consumption are subjected to - and even though we are animals, we do have the consciousness and intellect to rise above nature. We do it all the time. And we don't need to eat the flesh of sentient creatures. We just dont.

And to respond to what Charlou said earlier - I believe caring for animals is good for us, and I believe that the way some livestock are treated, and killing and eating sentient animals, is not caring for animals.

Is eating meat good for us? Sure, in the same respect that eating anything edible is good for us. It contains nutrients that our bodies can use. Is eating babies good for us? Is eating aborted foetuses good for us? Is eating placenta good for us? Probably, again... But the simple fact of the matter is that you really can get any nutrients you care to mention from sources other than the flesh of sentient beings. And if you do eat animals, you can consciously choose the animals who are probably less likely to suffer in various ways. Earthworms are perfectly edible if soaked in water overnight, by the way.

[FBM]

FBM, a bird's nest and the ISS are not comparable.

Sliding scale of complexity. Very comparable. Human and worm DNA are comparable, no?

We don't instinctively build ISS. Even the Great Barrier Reef is basically a repetition of minute structures, without planning or design. A truck load of paint falling off a cliff doesn't create a painting.

We don't instinctively build nests in trees, either. So what? We do what we evolved to do. One such behavior is thinking and acting on those thoughts. We do it better than other animals, but that doesn't make it unnatural or supernatural. It's still evolved behavior, whether it's biological or cultural evolution.

youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPOEEsj7Dxo&NR=1[/youtube]

That still doesn't compare to some of the calculated longterm inhumanity that livestock and other sentient animals kept for human consumption are subjected to - and even though we are animals, we do have the consciousness and intellect to rise above nature. We do it all the time. And we don't need to eat the flesh of sentient creatures. We just dont.

And to respond to what Charlou said earlier - I believe caring for animals is good for us, and I believe that the way some livestock are treated, and killing and eating sentient animals, is not caring for animals.

Is eating meat good for us? Sure, in the same respect that eating anything edible is good for us. It contains nutrients that our bodies can use. Is eating babies good for us? Is eating aborted foetuses good for us? Is eating placenta good for us? Probably, again... But the simple fact of the matter is that you really can get any nutrients you care to mention from sources other than the flesh of sentient beings. And if you do eat animals, you can consciously choose the animals who are probably less likely to suffer in various ways. Earthworms are perfectly edible if soaked in water overnight, by the way.

If you want to imagine that natural beings can evolve to become supernatural beings, that's your choice and I won't argue with you about it. But I won't believe it, either. We'll "rise above nature" when we can defy gravity and fly/float around without wings or machinery and the like. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, we're just as much a part of nature as the clouds and the animals that eat each other.

[Robert_S]

That still doesn't compare to some of the calculated longterm inhumanity that livestock and other sentient animals kept for human consumption are subjected to - and even though we are animals, we do have the consciousness and intellect to rise above nature. We do it all the time. And we don't need to eat the flesh of sentient creatures. We just dont.

Or, to express the same thing in a way that doesn't get us tangled up in the nature-artificial confusion:

Isn't it time for our natural empathy and cleverness to change the way we eat?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Instinct versus deliberate, planned actions. That's the difference. It doesn't make us holy, but it set those species who do it apart from all others. One way we're different. And humans are the tops at that game.

[FBM]

Instinct versus deliberate, planned actions. That's the difference. It doesn't make us holy, but it set those species who do it apart from all others. One way we're different. And humans are the tops at that game.

Every species has some unique behavior. Does that make all species unnatural? Supernatural? The fact that human behavior is the most complex does in no way separate it from nature. It's evolved behavior just like birds building nests and cats killing birds. We instinctively think, and we instinctively act on our thoughts. If not for our evolved cerebral cortex, we'd still be swinging in the trees. Nothing unnatural about the evolution of the cerebrum, is there? And nothing unnatural about its biochemical activity? And nothing unnatural about the behavioral responses to that activity? I don't see a ghost in the machine. If you do, that's cool with me, but I'm not buying it until I can see it demonstrated.

[lordpasternack]

That still doesn't compare to some of the calculated longterm inhumanity that livestock and other sentient animals kept for human consumption are subjected to - and even though we are animals, we do have the consciousness and intellect to rise above nature. We do it all the time. And we don't need to eat the flesh of sentient creatures. We just dont.

Or, to express the same thing in a way that doesn't get us tangled up in the nature-artificial confusion:

Isn't it time for our natural empathy and cleverness to change the way we eat?

Yes, and I can't wait to see the day when we create synthetic meat, that doesn't involve any kind of systematic suffering of any sentient beings. Some Luddites will probably protest that, though, thinking it's "playing god" or something.

Sorry, I'm just one of those sentimental bastards who watches animal documentaries and always wills the gazelle to get away, except when the cheetah is starving and has a cub. And I got pangs of righteous indignation when on a bus, passing a group of magpies who appeared to be beating up a magpie that was on the ground. (Magpies, like other corvids, are intelligent birds. They pass the famous mirror test. And cats and dogs don't, incidentally.)

Why does nature have to be so red in tooth and claw - the bastard!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Instinct versus deliberate, planned actions. That's the difference. It doesn't make us holy, but it set those species who do it apart from all others. One way we're different. And humans are the tops at that game.

Every species has some unique behavior. Does that make all species unnatural? Supernatural? The fact that human behavior is the most complex does in no way separate it from nature. It's evolved behavior just like birds building nests and cats killing birds. We instinctively think, and we instinctively act on our thoughts. If not for our evolved cerebral cortex, we'd still be swinging in the trees. Nothing unnatural about the evolution of the cerebrum, is there? And nothing unnatural about its biochemical activity? And nothing unnatural about the behavioral responses to that activity? I don't see a ghost in the machine. If you do, that's cool with me, but I'm not buying it until I can see it demonstrated.

Okay, you won't differentiate between instinct and reasoned behavior. Finishes this for me, that.

[FBM]

Instinct versus deliberate, planned actions. That's the difference. It doesn't make us holy, but it set those species who do it apart from all others. One way we're different. And humans are the tops at that game.

Every species has some unique behavior. Does that make all species unnatural? Supernatural? The fact that human behavior is the most complex does in no way separate it from nature. It's evolved behavior just like birds building nests and cats killing birds. We instinctively think, and we instinctively act on our thoughts. If not for our evolved cerebral cortex, we'd still be swinging in the trees. Nothing unnatural about the evolution of the cerebrum, is there? And nothing unnatural about its biochemical activity? And nothing unnatural about the behavioral responses to that activity? I don't see a ghost in the machine. If you do, that's cool with me, but I'm not buying it until I can see it demonstrated.

Okay, you won't differentiate between instinct and reasoned behavior. Finishes this for me, that.

Reasoned behavior is a by-product of instinct. We behave by feeling much more often than we reason things out. If we reasoned out everything we did, it would take forever to get even simple things done. Rational behavior is the exception, not the rule, and not independent of instinct.

[Robert_S]

Maybe we should split the thread?

[Animavore]

Animals must want to be eaten otherwise they wouldn't have evolved to be tasty.

EDIT:

[lordpasternack]

Animals must want to be eaten otherwise they wouldn't have evolved to be tasty.

EDIT:

[klr]

...

AKA "California Cheeseburger"

Silliness ends here. Serious discussion resumes ...

[Animavore]

What wonderful foresight from Douglas Adams absolutely getting into the mind of animals and extracting their views. Spot on.