Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,997 posts)
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 11:27 AM Jan 2015

All Forms of Life Are Sacred.

By Chris Hedges

http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/reportuploads/hedgespig_798_399_284_99@2x.jpg


There will be no justice as long as man will stand with a knife or with a gun and destroy those who are weaker than he is.”



(Page 3)

“The idea that ... animals (are) of lesser moral value is dangerous,” he added. “It creates hierarchies that can also be used within human communities. Once you are sentient, or are subjectively aware, you have one moral right—the right not to be used as a resource. It does not mean you get treated equally for all purposes, but it does mean you are not treated as a slave or as a commodity. A slave is excluded from the moral community. A slave has no inherent value. A slave has only external value. A slave is a thing. This is what we have done to animals. Animals are property. Animal welfare laws cannot work because they are based on balancing the interests of humans and nonhumans. As long as animals are chattel property the animal owners win. As long as animals are chattel property the standard of animal welfare will always be tied to what we need to exploit them because we will generally protect animal interests only to the extent that we get an economic benefit from doing so. Animal welfare reform, for this reason, has usually worked to make animal exploitation more economically efficient. The reason why you have the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958, which requires that large animals be stunned before they are shackled and hoisted, is because if you have a 2,000-pound animal hanging upside down the cow hits workers. Workers are injured. You have carcass damage. If you look at the arguments put forward for chicken producers to switch to controlled atmosphere killing, essentially gassing, from the electrical stunning method, still widely used, those arguments—made by groups such as PETA and HSUS—are based on economic efficiency. Animal advocates are (in effect) arguing that if you gas the chickens it cuts down on carcass damage. This does not move animals out of the property paradigm. It further enmeshes them in it. It is only about efficient exploitation.”

................

“I worry that we have raised a generation that has not been taught to think morally,” Francione said. “Yes, my generation often thought about morality superficially. I do not want to romanticize the past. But events such as the Vietnam War forced us to ask what were we doing as a nation. We feared getting drafted, of course, but the war helped us see. It forced us to think about moral issues. But morality today has been reduced to a matter of mere opinion. This is dangerously wrong. The morality of unjustified and unjustifiable exploitation is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of moral fact.”

“There is an intimate relationship between human rights and animal rights,” said Francione, who teaches a course on human rights and animal rights with Charlton at Rutgers University. “You cannot think about this in isolation. Sexism, racism and classism are about turning others into objects. How can we talk intelligently about nonviolence when we are putting the products of violence into our mouths? We are wearing the products of violence. This is about justice. It is about justice for nonhumans, for women, for Palestinians, for African-Americans and for prisoners. Pornography represents the commodification of women. When you use pornography there is no longer a person there. There is a body part that you fetishize. The person has become a thing. You are consuming that thing. This is not all that different from going to the store and buying chicken in a Styrofoam package. The chicken is not (seen as) an animal. It is a product in Styrofoam covered with cellophane. All commodification is connected, and it’s all wrong.”


This is about Justice:
& much more:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/all_forms_of_life_are_sacred_20150104
http://www.reducetarian.com/
70 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
All Forms of Life Are Sacred. (Original Post) kpete Jan 2015 OP
I'm not sure you can say that about asian carp... snooper2 Jan 2015 #1
Or crapping on a good post. Octafish Jan 2015 #28
traditions are sacred! snooper2 Jan 2015 #31
*all* forms of life? plants? bacteria? viruses? fungi? unblock Jan 2015 #2
The Earth is a Sentient Living Organism kpete Jan 2015 #3
+1 Zorra Jan 2015 #17
thank you for that beautiful image niyad Jan 2015 #30
from NASA kpete Jan 2015 #34
Sentient? Alive? I don't think so. aikoaiko Jan 2015 #25
No, the Earth is a drifting hunk of rock... SidDithers Jan 2015 #48
I see no evidence that the earth as a whole is sentient Shivering Jemmy Jan 2015 #51
Rats and cockroaches are not on my sacred list. hobbit709 Jan 2015 #4
Neither are spiders, stinging insects (except honeybees), poisonous snakes, huge snakes, Art_from_Ark Jan 2015 #61
I agree with everything, but one point. MoonRiver Jan 2015 #5
I am with you MoonRiver kpete Jan 2015 #9
This: chervilant Jan 2015 #6
Well said! MoonRiver Jan 2015 #7
Thanks so much! chervilant Jan 2015 #19
Me too! MoonRiver Jan 2015 #23
I agree as well, but with a sad and ironic twist GliderGuider Jan 2015 #43
Finding alternative forms of protein chervilant Jan 2015 #47
If it was just protein replacement I'd have been OK GliderGuider Jan 2015 #50
Have you read Ann Louise Gittleman? chervilant Jan 2015 #59
I agree with this, and for reasons of kindness, but in addition, if another argument is needed, ellenrr Jan 2015 #54
Its an interesting argument el_bryanto Jan 2015 #8
"All forms of life are sacred?" Archae Jan 2015 #10
I have no problem with your chicken sandwich kpete Jan 2015 #16
+1. We are part of nature, not above it. Adrahil Jan 2015 #67
And plants? jeff47 Jan 2015 #11
I think the article clearly referred to "sentient beings." MoonRiver Jan 2015 #12
And sentience is.....? jeff47 Jan 2015 #18
Typical meat eater rationalizations. MoonRiver Jan 2015 #24
Keep telling yourself that. That way you can ignore the questions. jeff47 Jan 2015 #38
Interesting tangent, chervilant Jan 2015 #29
And ripping apart creatures while they're alive isn't exactly "humane" jeff47 Jan 2015 #39
Most of the veggies I grow chervilant Jan 2015 #44
You chew your food. jeff47 Jan 2015 #46
OMG!! chervilant Jan 2015 #58
Yep. jeff47 Jan 2015 #64
Sentient being a word created and defined by human beings The2ndWheel Jan 2015 #22
Have you ever had a relationship with a cow, pig or chicken? MoonRiver Jan 2015 #26
Which is fine The2ndWheel Jan 2015 #32
Thank you for being reasonable. It's rare in these type of discussions. MoonRiver Jan 2015 #56
How about the eyes of a potato? n/t benz380 Jan 2015 #33
How is your inability to relate to a cabbage any different jeff47 Jan 2015 #41
I don't really know what my husband or children are experiencing. MoonRiver Jan 2015 #55
Then what was your point of bringing up cows, pigs and chickens? (nt) jeff47 Jan 2015 #65
Because I have interactions with them similar to what I have with my pets. MoonRiver Jan 2015 #68
lines and boundaries kpete Jan 2015 #37
It would be easy if there was moral fact The2ndWheel Jan 2015 #13
George Carlin on the sanctity of life. iandhr Jan 2015 #14
+1000 "save the crabs". lumberjack_jeff Jan 2015 #45
An inconvenient truth for many. Zorra Jan 2015 #15
Zorra kpete Jan 2015 #20
My dear kpete... Zorra Jan 2015 #21
I hope you know that there are DUers chervilant Jan 2015 #35
My dear chervilant, Zorra Jan 2015 #49
Chris Hedges is, of course, correct. Octafish Jan 2015 #27
Nature, and especially human nature, is messy. hunter Jan 2015 #36
I have killed animals--deer, game birds, fish-- Jackpine Radical Jan 2015 #40
loved this kpete Jan 2015 #42
re informational perspective...I've killed for biological information HereSince1628 Jan 2015 #62
Well, except for mosquitoes. Fuck them. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #52
Not to mention any critter whose name ends in "tick." Jackpine Radical Jan 2015 #63
William Kunstler had become an advocate for the animals before he died. nt ellenrr Jan 2015 #53
Tell that to the ants I sprayed in my garage this morning. Throd Jan 2015 #57
There goes BioFuel, along with enslaving corn and wheat. One_Life_To_Give Jan 2015 #60
I'll take mine medium-rare, please! Adrahil Jan 2015 #66
River of Time seveneyes Jan 2015 #69
Unless they are a Democratic voter for over 30 years... NightOwwl Jan 2015 #70
 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
31. traditions are sacred!
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:51 PM
Jan 2015

Have you ever tried any asian carp?

They actually aren't too bad! They HAVE to be done on the grill though-

kpete

(71,997 posts)
3. The Earth is a Sentient Living Organism
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 11:51 AM
Jan 2015


“Viewed from the distance of the moon, the astonishing thing about the earth, catching the breath, is that it is alive. The photographs show the dry, pounded surface of the moon in the foreground, dry as an old bone. Aloft, floating free beneath the moist, gleaming, membrane of bright blue sky, is the rising earth, the only exuberant thing in this part of the cosmos. If you could look long enough, you would see the swirling of the great drifts of white cloud, covering and uncovering the half-hidden masses of land. If you had been looking for a very long, geologic time, you could have seen the continents themselves in motion, drifting apart on their crustal plates, held afloat by the fire beneath. It has the organized, self-contained look of a live creature, full of information, marvelously skilled in handling the sun.”

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/05/earth-sentient-living-organism.html
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~few/lewisthomas/membrane.html

aikoaiko

(34,172 posts)
25. Sentient? Alive? I don't think so.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:37 PM
Jan 2015

Changes does not imply being alive or sentient.

I will admit that it is a poetic and useful metaphor.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
61. Neither are spiders, stinging insects (except honeybees), poisonous snakes, huge snakes,
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 08:22 PM
Jan 2015

head lice, ring worms, and E. coli bacteria on my list.

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
5. I agree with everything, but one point.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 11:53 AM
Jan 2015

Animal rights groups use the argument that brutal, versus somewhat merciful, killing of farm animals is economically bad, to the killers, because that is the ONLY argument that will resonate with the brutes.

All animal rights groups care deeply about the welfare of animals. Most promote a vegan lifestyle, for both ethical and health reasons. But they have to start somewhere. And money is the bottom line for animal killers.

kpete

(71,997 posts)
9. I am with you MoonRiver
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:00 PM
Jan 2015

I know animal rights activists who care deeply about the welfare of animals.

and here is a real trailblazer:






peace,
kp

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
6. This:
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 11:55 AM
Jan 2015
Pornography represents the commodification of women. When you use pornography there is no longer a person there. There is a body part that you fetishize. The person has become a thing. You are consuming that thing.


Our species clearly does this with all the animals and sea creatures that we consume. We distance ourselves from the grim reality of abuse inherent in the mass production of the animals we consume. We watch animal pornography that depicts animals as happy, pampered, respected beings. Then, we narrow our focus to the body parts we consume.

And, the same folks who would go all misty about animal rescue vignettes will sit down to a steak dinner without a scintilla of hypocrisy...
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
43. I agree as well, but with a sad and ironic twist
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 01:26 PM
Jan 2015

I became fully conscious of what we're doing to the animals we use for food about a decade ago. It was a horrifying awakening.

A year ago I realized that my particular body physiology does not, can not thrive on a carbohydrate-based diet... If there is one thing even more horrifying than awakening to the abuse of domesticated food animals, this would be it.

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
47. Finding alternative forms of protein
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 02:34 PM
Jan 2015

has been a challenge for me as well. I am so glad being a vegan works for me. I feel much better.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
50. If it was just protein replacement I'd have been OK
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 02:51 PM
Jan 2015

Finding a caloric replacement for starch that didn't involve animal fats was the real stumbling block. I just can't consume that much olive and coconut oil on a daily basis!

I'm glad going vegan worked for you. Ironically, I feel much better after a year on a high-fat, low-carb diet. Peoples' bodies each have their own unique physiology. Ethical belief systems, on the other hand, take no physiological prisoners.

Or something.

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
59. Have you read Ann Louise Gittleman?
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 08:09 PM
Jan 2015

I lost the last of almost ninety pounds following her eating plan. (It's NOT a diet.) I went from a size 24 to a size 10. At that time, eating protein and avoiding simple carbs (anything white, especially) worked for me. I'm older now, and I cannot digest meat like I used to. After much research, I decided being a Vegan is the best way for me to stay healthy in my twilight years.

I agree that each of us has our own unique physiology. That's why I tell my omnivore friends that I don't sanction their consumption of meat (although, I do find it rather distressing that Big-Agri abuses livestock from birth to processing for the grocery store).

ellenrr

(3,864 posts)
54. I agree with this, and for reasons of kindness, but in addition, if another argument is needed,
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 03:35 PM
Jan 2015

meat-eating (factory farms), and dairy farms are one of the prime reasons why we have created unalterable climate destruction:
http://ecowatch.com/2013/01/21/factory-farming-global-warming/

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
8. Its an interesting argument
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:00 PM
Jan 2015

If I understand it correctly, it suggests that by believing that Humans and Animals are distinctly different types of life forms, with different legal qualifications, we open animals up to enslavement and murder and even genocide. So we should see Animals and Humans as the same type of creatures and treat them as such legally.

I am guessing that from an ethical standpoint we don't look to the tiger for morality - presumably we should look at the prospect of eating another animal in the same way we would look at eating another human being. Animals don't look at things this way, clearly, but we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

It seems like a slippery argument.

Bryant

Archae

(46,337 posts)
10. "All forms of life are sacred?"
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:08 PM
Jan 2015

What do you eat?

Air?

Sunlight?

This is why many vegans end up looking like a bunch of loons, all life is *NOT* "sacred."
Look up the Guinea Worm.

In fact, the term "sacred" is a leftover from ancient hysterical religions to say &quot Fill in the blank) is better than (fill in the blank)."

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the kitchen to make a sandwich.
A chicken sandwich.

kpete

(71,997 posts)
16. I have no problem with your chicken sandwich
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:16 PM
Jan 2015

personally, I reduce my meat intake to occasional, local, sustainable & respectful

I respect the food chain

I am not ignorant to it.


I respect loons too.


peace,
kp

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
67. +1. We are part of nature, not above it.
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:33 PM
Jan 2015

Creatures in nature consume other livings things.

Even vegans eat the products of other living things.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't promote sustainable, humane farming techniques, as I'm sure you'd agree.

BBQ for lunch!

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
11. And plants?
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:09 PM
Jan 2015

Do they count as sacred too, or are plants of lesser moral value? How 'bout bacteria? Viruses? Prions? Where's the line between "sacred" and "food"/"pest"?

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
12. I think the article clearly referred to "sentient beings."
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:10 PM
Jan 2015

If you don't know what that means, Google is your friend.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
18. And sentience is.....?
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:24 PM
Jan 2015

We keep having to redefine our concept of 'sentient' as we do more research. Is it tool use? Definition of self? Nervous system? and so on.

Additionally, the article is positing that all farm animals are sentient. That is debatable, depending on the animal and the definition of sentience you want to use.

If we wish to use a broad enough definition of sentience to cover all farm animals, then that definition would appear to drift into covering plants too.

There's also people positing that "meta creatures" exist, where the individual creatures are really just part of a single, larger creature. Such as when the OP claimed the Earth is a sentient creature in a later post. Which would mean to actually apply the standards in the OP, only photosynthetic and chemosynthetic creatures are moral. The rest are viewing others as slaves/food.

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
24. Typical meat eater rationalizations.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:35 PM
Jan 2015

Not only is the killing of sentient, yes even chickens, farm animals cruel, it is extremely unhealthy, especially if one eats non-organically raised animals.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
38. Keep telling yourself that. That way you can ignore the questions.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 01:06 PM
Jan 2015

Ok, if we call chickens sentient, why don't we call plants sentient?

While plants don't have a central nervous system, some plants do appear to plan - they don't blindly react to stimuli. Put them in a climate and light-controlled environment, and simulate spring in December. They won't react the same as if it was really spring.

Plants also have chemical reactions we experience as pain. We have two kinds of pain: the initial "ow" that tells us to move, and then that dull ache that starts a little later. That dull ache is caused by chemicals we release in response to injury. Plants release the same chemicals in response to injury. And other parts of the plant react to that injury - rip off part of a plant and another part will try to grow to replace the lost tissues. But it won't be some random part of the plant - it will grow in a manner to minimize the effects of the injury.

So we can't logically restrict "sentience" to the animal kingdom if we're only talking about "thinking" and "feeling pain" as the criteria. There's lots of plants that we've shown would meet that criteria....and there's "dumber" plants that would not.

Drawing lines in biology is not trivial. We can't even agree on what is alive, because we keep finding things that appear alive that are outside the old definition.

That isn't a "meat eater rationalization". That is doing more than a superficial look at drawing the line. "I can see that critter moving" is not a logical place to put the line.

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
29. Interesting tangent,
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:45 PM
Jan 2015

but I think you miss the point of this OP. Hedges seems focused on hierarchy, the social construct that those who are most powerful (usually a measure of material wealth) use to subjugate those who are least powerful (again, a measure of lack of material wealth). We use the same hierarchy to "justify" using (and abusing) livestock, fish, and pets.

Have you seen "Food, Inc."? Some of the worst abuses occur in the processing of livestock so that their body parts can be prettily presented in a rather 'sterile' manner. Our species' "sentience" goes out the window when we speak of abuse.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
39. And ripping apart creatures while they're alive isn't exactly "humane"
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 01:12 PM
Jan 2015

but it's what we do to plants. Because we have a hierarchy that defines them as 'lesser' than animals. We can't personify them because our existence is so different from their existence.

If we're going to argue that it's bad to treat some creatures as "food", then the criteria shouldn't just be "I can imagine what it's thinking".

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
44. Most of the veggies I grow
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 02:25 PM
Jan 2015

in my garden do not have to be "ripped apart." I can harvest without destroying the plants. Plus, I treat my garden with respect and gratitude, simply because reverence for this universe is an integral part of my experience here.



But, you go ahead and continue this farcical argument, since you seem to be enjoying it so much.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
46. You chew your food.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 02:34 PM
Jan 2015

So yes, you do rip your veggies apart while they're still alive.

Unless you cook them first, in which case you're boiling/baking/frying/etc them while they're alive.

But, you go ahead and continue this farcical argument, since you seem to be enjoying it so much.

The farcical argument is that life is gentle and nurturing. But that's a lot more comfortable than taking a look at the atrocities various creatures visit upon other creatures. Eating each other is actually relatively mild.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
64. Yep.
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:26 PM
Jan 2015

Chemical warfare, torture, genocide and toxic waste dumping are extremely common in nature. It's really not the gentle, respectful place that many pretend it to be.

The2ndWheel

(7,947 posts)
22. Sentient being a word created and defined by human beings
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:32 PM
Jan 2015

Not exactly objective. That's always the problem when questions concerning moral behavior arise. We have to eat something, so even vegan means killing. We just don't really think of it as killing. We've justified it. The same way anyone can justify anything. Why? Human created and defined words.

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
26. Have you ever had a relationship with a cow, pig or chicken?
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:39 PM
Jan 2015

Have you ever looked into their eyes, interacted with them in a kind way, or felt/experienced their love for you? If so, you would understand the term sentient.

I've had those interactions, and I can tell you, looking at a head of cabbage is not the same.

The2ndWheel

(7,947 posts)
32. Which is fine
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:53 PM
Jan 2015

Agriculture has been a fairly destructive force. You don't have factory farms without it. All I'm saying is we all have to eat something to continue to exist. You've drawn a line here, someone else draws a line there. It all depends on the person, and where they are, and when they are.

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
56. Thank you for being reasonable. It's rare in these type of discussions.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 07:36 PM
Jan 2015

And yes, I do draw a line at eating sentient beings.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
41. How is your inability to relate to a cabbage any different
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 01:15 PM
Jan 2015

than a "city folk's" inability to have a relationship with a cow, pig or chicken?

In both cases, the human doesn't understand what the creature is experiencing.

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
55. I don't really know what my husband or children are experiencing.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 07:35 PM
Jan 2015

Sentient beings interact with each other and do demonstrate emotions such as fear and love. But I am not able to get inside any animal's (including human) mind.

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
68. Because I have interactions with them similar to what I have with my pets.
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 07:01 PM
Jan 2015

I can't get inside their heads any more than I can my pets, or family members. But we have complex emotional relationships, which is one of the hallmarks of sentience.

The2ndWheel

(7,947 posts)
13. It would be easy if there was moral fact
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:12 PM
Jan 2015

It's certainly a great thought.

Good and bad, right and wrong. It all depends on the context of the situation in which you find yourself in a given time and place. It's all opinion. And force, whether by pen and/or gun, is what determines who's opinion is followed. Might makes right, and it always has.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
15. An inconvenient truth for many.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:15 PM
Jan 2015

"But Smohalla," said I, "the country is all filling up with white people and their herds. The game is nearly all gone. Would it not be better for your young Indians to learn the white man's work ?"

"My young men shall never work," said he with a wave of the hand, including numerous imaginary Indians, as well as the two seated near by. " Men who work cannot dream, and wisdom comes to us in dreams."

"But your young men have to work hard during the fishing season to get food for winter."

"We simply take the gifts that are freely offered. We no more harm the earth than would an infant's fingers harm its mother's breast. But the white man tears up large tracts of land, runs deep ditches, cuts down forests, and changes the whole face of the earth. You know very well this is not right.

"Every honest man,'" said he, looking at me searchingly, "knows in his heart that this is all wrong. But the white men are so greedy they do not consider these things."

-----------------------

Thanks kpete. K&R

kpete

(71,997 posts)
20. Zorra
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:26 PM
Jan 2015

sometimes DU makes me crazy......................



for me:

We ONLY evolve if we start thinking OUTSIDE of our comfort box

and acknowledge that there are MANY paths -

ALL of which can be respected simultaneously,

or at least considered.



there, I vented,
if it had not been for your post of Understanding, I would have cried

peace,
kp

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
35. I hope you know that there are DUers
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 01:05 PM
Jan 2015

(self included) who make it a point to read your posts. Thank you for your many contributions to this forum.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
49. My dear chervilant,
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 02:43 PM
Jan 2015

The destructive processes that "civilization" employs, primarily in service of an economically advantaged few, seem to me to be enormously destructive to everything. For those of us who are capable of empathy, and self-awareness, it is not possible to witness this widespread harm and destruction without feeling the pain of it in ourselves, and we want to stop all the suffering and harm. I believe many of us are of one heart and mind in that we want the world to be as equal, just, and kind, as is possible.

Like you, I hope someday we can, without causing any significant harm or destruction in the process, create the opportunity for a kinder, safer, less painful, and more rewarding existence in this life for everyone and everything.

In our own ways, we speak with one voice on these matters of the heart, because we feel the same way. Thank you for your contributions here also, and thank you for letting me know that what I post sometimes has value for others.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
27. Chris Hedges is, of course, correct.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 12:40 PM
Jan 2015

Life is sacred and humans and other sentient beings infinitely so.

hunter

(38,317 posts)
36. Nature, and especially human nature, is messy.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 01:05 PM
Jan 2015

I think it's possible to be an omnivore and still be respectful of animals.

First up, I do think there is a hierarchy in the way animals ought to be treated.

Great apes, cetaceans, elephants, highly intelligent birds with obvious cultures (California Condors, Macaws...), and many other animals ought to enjoy near-human protections of both their natural territories, and of individual animals.

Even chickens, dairy cows, and beef cattle ought to be treated with greater respect.

I'm not against respectful hunting, especially of invasive species like wild pigs or collared doves, or deer whose populations are no longer kept in check by absent predators such as wolves.

Predators, even human predators, are a "natural" part of the environment.

I'm not accepting of idiot trophy hunting, disrespectful hunting, or recreational gunners poisoning the environment with lead shot and bullets.

And leave the wolves alone. Wolves are cultural animals, and packs can be taught and establish traditions of leaving humans and their animals alone. Recent studies suggest wolf packs shattered by wolf hunting are more likely to attack human livestock than wolves in stable packs.

The conditions in most factory farms, especially those raising pigs and chickens are appalling. This needs to stop. Eggs, chickens, and pork are not essential to the human diet.

There are also many fish species I avoid for several reasons, mostly that certain fisheries are poorly managed, the workers in these fisheries are subject to slavery or near-slavery, or the fishery is an important resource for marine mammals and rarer, even endangered, species of fish, turtles, and other ocean life forms. A good list of seafood to avoid is here:

http://www.seafoodwatch.org

I'm mostly a vegetarian, but I don't consider myself a hypocrite if I occasionally eat animals that were never treated as mere objects with no feelings. I don't consider myself a hypocrite for feeding my dogs a diet that includes meat.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
40. I have killed animals--deer, game birds, fish--
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 01:13 PM
Jan 2015

in order to feed people.

I don't think I have ever killed anything without giving thanks to it and feeling regret.

A momentary digression--

My family learned how to survive in the pine barrens of northern Wisconsin after immigrating here in 1910. Their homestead was next to an Ojibwe Indian reservation, and their teachers were the Indian kids with whom they associated. They got certain perspectives from the Indians, and passed those perspectives on to me.

The Indians assume that animals have spirits or souls. But not all animals are the same. A bear, for example, is its own person, with one soul per bear. When one kills a bear, one explains the reason and makes peace with the soul of the individual bear.

Deer, on the other hand, all partake of an "over-soul," the Deer Spirit. When one takes a deer, one makes amends with the over-soul of all deer.

I think this dichotomy arises from their observations of the animals in question. Bears are very individualistic in their habits and dispositions. Each of them seems to be animated by an individual spirit that is quite different from the spirit inhabiting every other bear.

Deer, on the other hand, are quite predictable, given constraints of age, sex and season. It doesn't take more than one soul to account for the behavior of the species, at least in the wild.

From an informational perspective, one might say that each bear carries with it a unique package of traits, while every deer is pretty much a copy of every other deer (given those variations in age, sex & season). To kill a bear or a human is to destroy something unique, whereas to kill a deer is pretty much to destroy one instance of a creature that has many replications, so much less unique information is lost than when a bear dies.


HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
62. re informational perspective...I've killed for biological information
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 08:38 PM
Jan 2015

The joy of learning typically departed early in a study and killing for 'N' became a burden...such was a career counting parasitic worms.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
63. Not to mention any critter whose name ends in "tick."
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 08:41 PM
Jan 2015

And deer flies and black flies and no-see-ums and…

Well, I've spent a lot of time outdoors in my life, and I have a lot of grudges.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
66. I'll take mine medium-rare, please!
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:30 PM
Jan 2015

Welcome to nature, where living things consume other living things to survive.
 

seveneyes

(4,631 posts)
69. River of Time
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 07:59 PM
Jan 2015

We can save this ill-fated race
Who are lost in the ocean of space
Show them the way to reverse their decline
Guide them back on a river of time

 

NightOwwl

(5,453 posts)
70. Unless they are a Democratic voter for over 30 years...
Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:07 AM
Jan 2015

who, after 30 years of faithfully supporting her party finds out that it was all a phony sham. And when said voter realizes that part of her life is over; when she discovers life without politics is anxiety and fear-free; when she finds that life without politics is healthier for her and her loved ones; when said voter realizes she is accomplishing more and is becoming more compassionate and loving; when she sees a world that used to seem so small and petty becoming a thousand times bigger and brighter -

when she tries to share some new ideas (albeit in a somewhat clumsy way) with with people she thought she had much in common with - people she thought were open-minded, intelligent and progressive (after all, isn't that what being a liberal is all about?) -

she is verbally spat on and treated like scum, and the thoughts she shared are shot down as crazy (never mind that various philosophers and one of my favorite comedians, George Carlin, have shared similar thoughts.)

Compassion for life - who can argue with that? Here's a thought. Maybe some of that compassion could be directed towards real, live people - as well as words on the internet.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»All Forms of Life Are Sac...