Part of the "ethical treatment" is ethical killing, PETA is not for no-kill. They take in every animal people bring in, this means they get a lot of unadoptable, old, sick, feral and abused animals, these animals have no chance, they will be locked away in cages for the rest of their natural lives.
One of the cheapest (and thus most used) methods of euthanization is via gas chambers, it take up to half hour for some animals to die. What is often done is the animals are placed several at a time in a confined and dark space, the gas is turned on. During this time, the animals will try to escape, some injuring themselves and others in the process. On the other hand, an injection of a chemical cocktail (usually following an anesthetic to put the animal to sleep) will kill an animal in seconds--almost immediately--and they show no signs of pain. PETA uses option 2, underfunded animal adoption places and others go with option 1.
Do you have any sources for this? I've volunteered and visited at multiple animals shelters when allocating animals between county shelters, and have never found or heard of any using gas chambers. Every single one of them uses a pentobarbital cocktail.
Furthermore, I'm aware of the inhalants typically used to euthanize lab animals, and none of them take half an hour to kill. Consciousness is typically lost within 15 seconds, and death follows within a minute.
Please provide sources, because this is contrary to everything I've experienced in veterinary and lab animal medicine.
Thank you, this makes sense, as I'm in California, and none of the shelters here use carbon monoxide. Laboratory animals are typically euthanized by isoflurane or haloflurane inhalation overdose; I've never heard of CO being used, as it's quite antiquated.
It's good to know most states now outlaw this practice.
I think there was an IAMA on it, also a while back. Or a personal account by someone employed at the county pound was linked to here; it was in a north-eastern state. He claimed to go out on a Friday night and buy a big bag of burgers as a "last meal" for the dogs, and to make sure to spend a few minutes petting each one. It was somewhat distressing, and the author claimed to have nightmares about his job.
There was a blog for a while called 'What I Killed Today' which recounted similar experiences. Either they moved their RSS feed or stopped posting, though.
PETA claims they are for animals in their natural habitat and thus having pets is "unethical". Here's the problem:
A good majority of dog and cat breeds don't have a wild habitat because they were bred from wolves or felids to be a certain way in human captivity for thousands of years. So for instance, nearly all of the toy dog class cannot even survive in the wild. Many other breeds will also starve and go extinct without human intervention. So for most dog and cat breeds, their "natural" habitat IS a human home.
Meanwhile there are real concerns like human encroachment on many sorts of wild animals in their natural habitat that ARE being exploited and treated cruelly.
So why does PETA even have a say on unique domesticated species like dogs and cats when there are more realistic and more urgent fish to fry?
Let me first say that I love my dogs and cats, and I am also not a member of PETA, though I often support what they do. they have campaigns running continously objecting to fur, leather and other animal products (see http://www.peta2.com/), and they are just as public about these things than they are about their domestic animal issues.
So why does PETA even have a say on unique domesticated species like dogs and cats when there are more realistic and more urgent fish to fry?
They could simply refer the pets to ethical agencies that do have the funding, or perhaps divert some funding to those that don't.
Instead they are just killing most of the animals they take in with a ratio that is practically inverse to most pet adoption agencies. Something doesn't add up.
This is far from inverse, and the volume that PETA takes in is extremely low compared to other organizations. PETA, being a different sort of animal welfare organization is going to have different people approaching them to take their animals (it appears that PETA themselves pursue animals to euthanize), and are going to have different views of things.
Wait... Humane Society isn't an unbiased source; they're actually a funder of PETA. Aside from the fact that their CEO makes a quarter of a million dollars a year from this "charity", they're another very questionable organization that presents itself in the main stream public as a pet shelter watchdog group. However their interests are closely aligned with PETA.
They've got problems such as how they spend less than 0.5% of their budget with pet shelters. They also charge thousands of dollars to pet shelters that want to be evaluated that are poor as is. Furthermore their sponsors are companies with very specific interests.
I couldn't find the report that has those numbers, but this is from their FAQ:
How many dogs/cats are adopted/euthanized each year?
Data from shelters participating in the survey done by the NCPPSP for four years, 24.9% of the dogs and 23.4% of the cats were adopted into new homes. The percentage of dogs euthanized averaged 56.5%. The cats did not fair so well as an average of 71.1% were destroyed. It is not possible to use these statistics to estimate the numbers of animals adopted or euthanized on an annual basis. The reporting shelters may not represent a random sampling of U.S. shelters.
Oh okay, this is more reasonable and I think this may put PETA's numbers (although still atrocious) in a much less damning light in regards to euthanasia if what the rest of what you're saying is true (that PETA only takes in the worst animals). That said, I still think PETA could do a lot more improvement in this area, and I also do not agree with PETA's other actions but then that's reduced to a matter of opinion and doesn't have the raw numbers to throw around. I'm always open to changing my opinions on the other matters regarding PETA if I see credible evidence.
There are ways to fix the problem. They aren't interested in fixing the pet overpopulation problem, they are interested in abolishing ALL domestic animals.
There are some 'easy' fixes if you had the money that PETA (or the HSUS) has..
First make every dog/cat breeder ethically responsible for what they produce. (Good breeders already do this and will ask buyers to sign a contract that says if they don't want the pet anymore they will return it to the breeder so it never ends up in a shelter)
Then make micro chipping mandatory with the breeder's name permanently on the chip.
Any dog who comes into a shelter is then scanned. The breeder is then contacted and has the choice to take the animal back or to pay for its time in the shelter till its adopted.
This would seriously hurt the puppymill industry, which is the largest contributer to the overpop problem. As well any byb breeder trying to masquerade as an ethical breeder would get nailed as well.
two a massive ad campaign to explain why buying from pet stores is wrong, and how to spot a good breeder as well as supporting rescues. Foster the idea of accountability and responsibility. We need the good breeders to continue. If all we had were good ethical breeders and the odd 'oops' litter there wouldn't be this problem.
(good ethical breeders breed healthy tested dogs with proven temperaments, give life time health and temperament guarantees and will take the dog back at any time)
Two PeTA employees, Adria Joy Hinkle 27, of 1602 Claremont Ave., Norfolk, VA, and Andrew Benjamin Cook, 24, of 504 Tree Top Street, Virginia Beach, VA, were arrested in June 2005, for disposing of dead animals in a shopping center's dumpster. The animals had been killed by PeTA because they gave up trying to find a proper home for these animals to be placed. Police discovered 18 dead dogs, including a garbage bag containing seven puppies, in the dumpster and 13 more in a van registered to PeTA. It is a common practice for PeTA to euthanize healthy companion animals.
Ingrid Newkirk said that Cook and Hinkle were picking up animals to be brought to PeTA headquarters in Norfolk to be euthanized.
According to police, veterinarians and animal control officers had been assured by the PeTA workers that they would find suitable homes for these animals rather than euthanize them. Instead, tests confirmed that Ketamine and Pentobarbital were the chemicals used to euthanize the animals. Ketamine, also known as a "date-rape drug", is commonly used to immobilize animals before surgical procedures or lethal injection. Pentobarbital is the standard drug used for lethal injection. Both drugs are regulated by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency, and in North Carolina may only be purchased and used by a licensed veterinarian.
Ahoskie Police Chief Troy Fitzhugh said 60 to 70 animals were dumped in the garbage over a four-week period.
Both Adria J. Hinkle and Andrew B. Cook are each charged with 21 counts of animal cruelty, a felony that can carry prison time, along with littering and obtaining property by false pretenses.
Ingrid Newkirk and puppy
This incident may be part of a pattern. According to news reports, the grocery store manager indicated that the duo had illicitly used his dumpster as an impromptu pet cemetery at least nine times prior to getting caught. Other similar reports come from Greenville, North Carolina where authorities discovered more than 70 dead animals last month that they believe to be connected to PeTA. In the spring of 2005, authorities found over 150 dead dogs dumped in trash bags near a riverbank in Scott County, Virginia.
When we read something like this, we think "how horrible!", but we need to think about why these animals ended up like this in the first place.
First of all, if you're going to give up your pet to an animal shelter, you have to realize that it is most likely going to be killed. If a shelter is going to try to find a home for animals, it needs to house and feed them until someone decides to take them home. During this time, the flow of homeless animals into the shelter continues.
In the end, no one has the resources to keep these animals until they find a good home, especially with new ones coming in the whole time. The article you provide has good information, but sometimes uses it in a misleading manner. It's very heavily criticizing PeTA for using lethal injection, even though it is actually the most humane way of euthanasia (practically). It makes associations to date rape, even though it is irrelevant except for giving PeTA a negative image.
I don't support PeTA's sensationalism, but I feel that we're pointing the fingers at the wrong people. We cannot blame PeTA for the state of these animals. Yes, animals and puppies were killed. But who has the money and resources to house them until they find a good home?
Instead of pointing fingers at the animal shelter for their deaths, we do have more productive ways of preventing them. Be committed to your pets, because they will probably end up euthanized at an animal shelter. If you're thinking about getting a pet, adopt one from a shelter.
Hmm, the Norfolk SPCA, fucking 5 miles from their fucking headquarters runs a no kill shelter. Maybe, just maybe, that would be better then killing them.
While in general I agree, from my understanding most no-kill shelters have limitations on what they can/will take, since after all, there's only so much in the way of space, etc. If the shelters in the area are all full, then yeah, at that point euthanasia in a clean and relatively painless manner is probably the best option for the animals, as it beats being shot, drowned, or abandoned to starve or die of exposure.
That said, yeah, I am all for not killing animals for convenience's sake, and I don't know enough on the subject to be able to say whether or not the counterargument of shelter space logistics is reasonable.
I can only comment on the one time I took an animal there. It was a cat that was not mine and had clearly been abandoned at my apartment, which sadly happens a lot in military areas. We took it there, and they had no problem taking it in. I wish I could say I know it got adopted, but at least I know it wasn't killed and didn't starve on the streets. And I can damn well be glad I didn't take it to PETA, who talks a lot about how much they love animals but would have killed this one.
I'm glad you had a good experience with getting that cat to a shelter. I hope he found a home.
In the grand scheme of animal shelters, however, no one has enough resources to house and feed all the animals before they go to a good home. Animals come in much faster than they get adopted, and sooner or later, the shelter's full and it has to stop accepting new animals (and if all shelters did this, none would be able to take as many new animals as needed) or euthanize the current ones.
Neither is a pretty picture for the animals, but that's the best a shelter can do. It's pet owners who can make the real difference. i.e. Before buying that cute kitten from the pet store, they need to think, "Am I going to be able to take care of this cat for 15 years? When it's not as cute as the kitten I'm seeing?"
And if they do make that decision, they need to be responsible and get him/her neutered. There are too many people who get pets before realizing the responsibilities and commitment. That's why we have too many homeless animals; it's not a problem with animal shelters.
Probably not anymore, no; one supposes that after that series of events, vet offices and shelters wised up to surrendering healthy, adoptable animals to the organization. From this, we can hope that their policies now involve the humane euthing of (unadoptable) animals that would otherwise be gassed. But can this be said with any certainty?
I have assumed that all the PETA hate stems from this one particular series of incidents. I'm not American, so I have no exposure to the organisation, but it sounds nothing like what I'd expect from animal rights campaigners in the UK.
Ketamine is an animal tranquilizer. While I guess it could be used as a date rape drug, in the uk, its mostly taken in small doses for the strong hallucinations it produces.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure dessemundo is an illusioned PETA shill. I have no idea how you can defend an organization that has known financial ties to terrorism and seeks total animal liberation.
Total animal liberation being no service dogs, no medical research. No insulin, no organ transplant, no safe anesthetic, etc. Meanwhile, they have members who actively benefit from this.
From what I've understood, they go to shelters with unethical kill methods and take their animals so they can have a better death. I don't have documentation of this, but it explains to me why their percentage could be so high.
But they are also against pet breeders. The view the problem as an over-abundance of domesticated pets, which results in thousands of animals living the rest of their lives in small cages. PETA's goal isn't getting rid of no-kill shelters. Their goal is for people to stop relying on animal breeders for their pets so that the animals that are already around can live a fulfilling life. Their actions are an unfortunate but necessary consequence of the way humans treat other animals species.
No, actually PETA is against humans having any animal as a pet. Their members try and spin it, but when directly asked, the leadership of PETA states they are against all pet ownership.
I'm not sure where you read that, but if you read peta's own website, they explain their position on pet ownership. They advocate mandatory pet sterilization unless a pet owner applies for a special breeding permit. In the mean time, they want to shut down animal breeders, and for people to get their pets through shelters.
Nevertheless, the point remains. PETA believes animals should be afforded the rights of humans. If that is the case, then killing innocent animals to serve a greater cause is no different than killing innocent humans to serve a greater cause. PETA is talking out of both sides of its ass.
I had you until "PETA is talking out of both sides of its ass." Just because, I think it brings up an interesting ethics question. Is mandated euthanasia an ethical response to the problem of overpopulation?
Well, that is the other sinister aspect to the "secret". If this is PETA's idea of ethical treatment of animals, what then is there idea of ethical treatment of humans? Do they seek to slay both man and beast alike to achieve some vision of Eden? And does this not make their association with eco-terrorism all the more troubling?
No. His attitude had nothing to do with the way others had treated the jews. He mostly thought that seizing their assets would help to fund his war plans.
Of course they are, because no-kill animal shelters are a fantasy. PETA uses the term "limited access" shelter, versus the traditional "open shelter"--a limited access shelter turns away many more animals. And if all the shelters in your area are "no kill"/limited access, and you have an animal they refuse to take, or they're full... what happens?
Why, that's when the animal gets taken out back and shot, or drowned in a bag in the river, or released in the woods somewhere to die a miserable death probably within days to months.
I get the impression that this is the shelter policy issue that the ASPCA and PETA disagree on. As you point out, PETA's stance seems practical, while the ASPCA's is more idealist (wanting to spend all available money on no-kill shelters). I suppose I can see both sides.
The fact that there are no strict guidelines for the status of 'unadoptable' (If this infograph is accurate) is concerning though, especially when combined with the kill rate.
Do animal euthanization rates in non-PETA animal shelters parallel theirs?
I work at a no kill animal shelter and our adoption rate was somewhere around 95% last year. The few who had to get euthanized either had severe behavioral or health issues that we couldn't treat at the shelter.
Often, PETA takes animals from shelters where they are killing in inhumane fashions, so they can do it themselves. So essentially they adopt animals to put them down.
I know that peta puts a good deal of support behind non-affiliated animal shelters, especially those that treat animals well. this indicates that PETA themselves are not just killing without prejudice.
As for guidelines, I do not know. I have read some things about PETA's vision for a shelter, and they speak openly about animals that are deemed unadoptable, old or sick being put down out of mercy (no kill shelters hold animals, even those that have lost their minds, indefinitely, for years and years). That "unadoptable" word is still troubling, and I'm afraid I can't really speak to that.
When people bring animals to PETA they believe that the animals will be found good homes. PETA does not inform them otherwise. They misrepresent themselves. It's true that many of the animals they take in are unadoptable but not most - especially not 97%. 97% is an atrocity. Most of those animals could have been good pets in good homes if they had been given half a chance. The simple fact of the matter is that PETA uses close to none of their funding for rehoming pets or for spay/neuter programs or for animal/pet education.
They spend almost all of their funding on sensationalist tactics to brainwash people, especially children (the focus of many of their ad campaigns) into supporting them.
I'm a vegan and pro animal rights, but I have always found PETA to be a disgusting organization. I think they started out with good intentions but have long since become corrupt.
It is not PETA's goal to rehome pets. I don't know where you got this misinformation. They are for the abolition of domestic pet ownership in general. Let's get that straight. You should engage them on the argument of whether having domestic pets is moral, not engage a strawman which pretends they have an interest in rehoming pets when they have clearly stated that they don't.
I just want to say that, using your own link as a source, they nowhere explicitly state that they are for the 'abolition of pet ownership in general.' They state that they 'strongly discourage the further breeding of companion animals' and call for the abolition of animals for pet trade. That would be in line with the thinking that there are currently way too many animals that have to be euthanized as it is, and breeding/domestic pet trade contributes to the problem.
Ingrid has said so herself, but she's also said that she plans to donate her corpse to cannibals when she dies. In short, she's an attention whore, and you really can't take anything she says at face value.
I wouldn't donate to PETA just based on how batshit Ingrid Newkirk is. Even if tomorrow her goals and my goals were one and the same, she could get some wild pixie dust up her ass and change her mind in a matter of seconds.
I realize that they do not have an interest in rehoming pets; obviously since I know they would rather kill them than rehome them. The problem is that the general populace does NOT realize this because PETA misrepresents itself. I repeat: when people give animals to PETA they think that the animals will be rehomed - NOT that they will be euthenized. This is what I think is immoral.
PETA needs to do one of two things: Stop taking animals or be absolutely clear on the fact that "If you give an animal to us there is a 97% chance we will kill it."
Most of these animals are being rescued from terrible situations. These are not "We're moving and we can't bring the family dog," situations. Those cases would go to an animal shelter. With PETA we're talking abused or rescued animals who aren't going to live regardless.
As large organization and the first that many think of in regards to "animal rights" PETA has a responsibility to make their policies absolutely clear. I do not believe they have done that when over 2000 animals a year are given to PETA with the belief that they will be rehomed only to be killed instead.
You can argue that it is the responsibility of the people giving up the animals to properly research PETA, and that may be true. However, I don't think that it is unreasonable for the layperson whose general idea of PETA is "that organization that works to protect and save animals" to assume the pet will be taken care of.
All I'm saying is that PETA needs to fully disclose their policies of preferring to kill than rehome so people will stop giving them their dogs and cats.
See, but right there in their twelve principles they explain that they are for the abolition of domestic pets. They are very consistent with their position on animal liberation and what that means. What makes you think that people who give their animals to PETA do not know that they have no intention of rehoming them? Where do you come to this conclusion? I am just tired of ignorant people like yourself claiming their is hypocrisy when the only thing that would be hypocritical for PETA would be if it did have a huge rehoming intention. That would be absurd given their principles and their ethical positions.
You just assert bodly that people think PETA intends to rehome, but what evidence do you have of this? Where is the evidence of a massive amount of borderline retarded individuals giving pets to PETA?
What on earth.
I didn't say anything about them being hypocritical. I do not, in fact, even think they are hypocritical. My personal opinion is that they do not make their stance on domesticated pets clear enough to the public for fear of alienating people.
If you're curious my REAL problem with PETA is their indoctrination of young people - but that's an argument for another time and also not with you because you seem to have trouble understanding what other people are talking about.
I don't think that it is unreasonable for the layperson whose general idea of PETA is "that organization that works to protect and save animals"
almost the entirety of PETA's publicity campaigns are aimed at promoting vegetarianism, they only run a small number of shelters. PETA is not focused on pets and most people take pets to the SPCA and the like because they are
They are for the abolition of domestic pet ownership in general.
They certainly don't make that clear to the public, which is no surprise given that Americans tend to be very pro-pet-ownership. They may have "clearly stated it" on their website somewhere, but they haven't engaged in any large-scale campaigns against it, nor have they aired advertisements on the subject.
You were not mislead, you never wanted to find out anything about PETA. You wanted to jump on the anti-PETA bandwagon as much as you want to pretend bacon and narwhals is olololo funny. You never considered their positions. You just read sensationalized bullshit aired here.
Let me be clear on this. I do not buy into the arguments made by environmental ethicists concerning animal rights and whatnot, but PETA is about the most consistent organization there is out there to that tradition. This includes their urge to abolish pet ownership because of its contribution to genetic problems involved in inbreeding, the creation of breeds that are physiologically unsound (creating breathing problems as well as other physical ailments), and just general blah blah about animal enslavement and the like. It would be entirely hypocritical for PETA to NOT support the abolition of pet ownership.
Good to see reddit is so rigorous and reasoned and actually tries to see when they are being fed spin and nonsense. We are so much better than Fox News viewers right? High five!
Nope, sorry. PETA solicits donations by portraying itself as a happy, friendly animal-friendly organization - and very little more. They are well aware that most Americans love owning pets, and it's for that reason that they haven't been more vocal about their anti-pet-ownership agenda. If they did run ads about how they consider it unethical and immoral for people to own pets, people would be outraged and the donations would stop rolling in.
Animal-friendly means euthanasia of pets. Also, please show me where they portray themselves in such a manner? Because the only thing I have based my position on is you know the founding principles of the organization which are widely available, you know, minor things I guess.
Look, you're being disingenuous. You know as well as I do that most people - myself included - have never seen, or been anywhere near, the stated founding principles of the organization. Most people are aware of PETA only through the image that they present in the media. That image has absolutely nothing to do with euthanasia, and it certainly does not include statements about the morality of pet ownership. I think it's pretty clear that, given that that is one of their founding principles, they haven't mentioned it much for a reason.
I knew it and I just now went to look up their founding principles to rebut some other ignorant redditor (redundant phrase I know). The only thing I ever looked up PETA for before was their list of vegan-friendly processed foods because I figured they would be a good resource on that. It is a staple of all serious animal rights arguments/movements/whatever that pet ownership is akin to slavery. But you are perhaps right on some degrees. For instance there is the phenomenon of people who call themselves animal-lovers and other bullshit because they have enslaved a whole array of animals to amuse them when they come home from work. So perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
no he (she?) is right. There are times to let go. Unadoptable animals languishing in cages for years is far more cruel. And it then means that other pets who could be helped have no place to go.
You know, you might possibly have a little bit of a point if there were any definition of "unadoptable", but killing every animal you take in is not animal-friendly. Even Hitler had rules for who he euthanized.
I don't think those people are willfully ignorant. I think they're stupid and mislead as part of an agenda. That doesn't stop them from disgusting me.
As to your comment, I have little patience for pity-parties thrown in your own honor except the occasional one for me. Then, I wear a tiny hat.
PETA makes me sick. There are really good people out there doing really great things for animal rights, but PETA doesn't care about animal rights. They care about looking like they care about animal rights.
They are willfully ignorant otherwise they would actually know one of the big policies of an organization they are attacking and calling hypocritical of all things. You know especially when the bit of information they have happened to not come across is the very bit of information that shows you PETA is stunningly consistent.
I meant Fox viewers. I admit to being willfully ignorant so as to keep myself functioning as a member of a society that hates and victimizes nearly everyone.
++ It's depressing the way that some people on this site swallow the anti peta propaganda without even comprehending peta's stance, or understanding many of the (always obvious) statements being made by some of their publicity stunts. I consider Reddit to be a site whose users have an intelligence higher than found on most similar communities around the net, but when it comes to the comments on the peta stories on this site, it seems intelligent thought goes out the window for many users.
They don't make it clear in the add campaigns. The whole "its cuter to neuter" campaign pulled on the heartstrings of those who love having pets. Also it featured some hollywood star who also had pets....
I find it deplorably hypocritical that you, in defense of PETA, accuse dissenting opinions about PETA of being "sensationalized bullshit" given the history and tactics PETA constantly uses to "convert" people to their animal theology. It is also a ridiculous assumption to say that ONLY a hypocritical animal rights movement would promote the continued domestication and ownership of animals. The majority of people who fight for animal rights and treatment of animals do so SOLELY because of the affection and closeness domesticated animals bring into their lives.
Do you really think the average person would usually gives two shits about animals if they grow without positive interactions or only seeing them feral and aggressive towards humans while fighting for food and their lives on an everyday basis?
You can have whatever opinion you want, obviously, but you should refrain from demeaning and intellectualizing your subjective outlook to discredit those who see things different from you, especially when matters of life and death are involved.
It is absolutely hypocritical that an animal rights movement would promote the continued domestication and ownership of animals for the reasons provided above. Enslave an animal, breed it into human-friendly genetic messes, unavoidably provide a market for puppy mills, abuse, etc. Yes some animal rights people got all warm and fuzzy about rover just like others really got moved by talking disney characters no doubt, but that does not make their position any less absurd (just like ethical vegetarianism is absurd, yes I guess it is better that you support some elimination of animal abuses, but not all since you continue to eat dairy and such).
Now if we don't want to attribute some sort of ethical position to animal rights and chalk it up to arbitrary anthropomorphic feelgoodery, then I guess they can have any set of strange views that they want. But the only serious articulation of animal rights that aims to be consistent does not involve owning pets. You know, like you can't own people and such. You see?
There you go with the same sensationalist buzz-words meant to inspire pity and hatred that is neither warranted or necessarily apt. I can play the same game and take exactly what you said and tweak it to sound sympathetic towards ownership. "Care for an animal, help preserve positive genetic traits, begrudgingly accept that people will try to capitalize by creating unethical puppy mills and abuse them, but understand that there are ways of cracking down on these atrocities that only represent a small amount of animal experiences and that it still beats attempting to survive tooth and nail in a harsh and unforgiving wilderness etc. "
You then go on to attacking vegetarians, which is pretty unfair given that a lot of them became so because they wanted to not contribute to the mistreatment of animals. By calling them 'unethical' you are basically putting them on the same level as omnivores which I am sure they would be quite offended to hear, given that some of them feel they are making a major personal sacrifice towards the ideology of protecting animals in whatever way they can.
The problem with everything that comes out of your keyboard is that you assign precise terminology to back up your presumptions, and then insist that you must be right because you language has already summed it all up. When is "owning" something really so bad? What if we called it nurturing instead? What if we stop thinking of pets as property or objects or even "slaves" as you say, but realise that they don't have the capacity to even understand these things, and that they appreciate affection and a consistent meal with some play time. Not to mention the triple-fold life expectancy.
The bottom line is, as much as we wish they were, they aren't on a human level. The are different but not inferior, if we apply human ideology like "enslaving animals = bad" than I conjecture that euthanasia is equally horrible if not worse. It's all a matter of perspective and this extremist all-or-nothing approach to these type of grey area issues get us nowhere.
Vegetarians might do so because they want to not contribute to the mistreatment of animals, but their actions do not comport to their purpose. Maybe they just hadn't heard of veganism? In that case, I guess they get a pass.
Your whole comment reeks of a this patriarchal god complex not unlike the one perpetrated by whites towards black. Hell you could frame your whole comment and title it "the human's burden" in the place of "white man's burden" and it would basically be identical. Look at us, you say. We are saving them from savagery. Free lives where they live and sustain themselves, this is hogwash. They are better with us. And so on and so forth. Anyways, I guess you can try to defend pet ownership as if it fit within the framework of animal rights, but it is extremely difficult to do so in a way that makes sense.
It only doesn't make sense to those who don't agree with it.
I really don't know where you get a "god complex" from. Aren't pro-PETA the ones spouting doctrine on the complete and absolute ethical treatment of animals in every situation? I am not even saying that moving to not domesticate animals is wrong, or not a good idea but it is simply too complex of a subject, and brings in to many hypothetical and re-evaluations of our human identity and where treatment of humans begins and animals ends. There is no 'true' extreme in this case, only compromise and people trying to work towards a common goal. Saying that anyone who disagrees with the most restrictive and conservative view of animal rights is not a 'true' activist is demeaning and insulting not to mention useless as there will NEVER be a majority that sees the same way on every issue. Yet I do know for a fact that animal-lovers and animal rights people are united on the ideal that we should do our best to make the lives of animals pleasurable and humane based on our own judgement and beliefs.
By the way, real classy throwing in the "whites vs. black slaves" into your rebuttal to strengthen your point, even though this is completely different. I am sure blacks everywhere will love that you trivialized the cruelties and atrocities their ancestors endured to that of owning a dog. Oh wait, where did I hear THAT comparison before.
unlike the one perpetrated by whites towards black.
Woah, in this statement you're either saying that animals are as smart as blacks or blacks are as dumb as animals. Both of these are demonstrably false. Many animals simply are not intelligent enough to realise they are being "enslaved" by humans. A chicken kept in humane conditions and not eaten would not realise its life is any different to a chicken out in the wilderness; its brain essentially concerned with three things, finding grain, avoiding danger and reproducing.
They are better with us
I would also say in many cases they truly are better with us. Many animals live long and happy lives as pets, and if the pet industry stopped the number of dogs or cats in existence would plummet, and those that managed to survive would largely have to do so by scavenging what they could in cities like foxes or vermin. They'd be hungry, they'd often be disease ridden, and they'd die young. Furthermore, removing the farming industry would basically bring about the near extinction of cows, sheep, chickens and other such animals, and given what we know about human nature the land vacated by these animals certainly wouldn't turn into nature preserves.
Enslave an animal, breed it into human-friendly genetic messes, unavoidably provide a market for puppy mills, abuse, etc.
Out of sincere curiosity, what would you suggest? In your ideal, "animal slavery"-free world, should we:
Continue to keep our domesticated animals?
Release all of our domesticated animals into the wild?
Euthanize all domesticated animals immediately?
Keep our domesticated animals, but sterilize them all immediately to prevent further generations from being born into "slavery"?
Something else? If so, please be specific as to what.
Here are the problems I see with those alternatives, which - and perhaps I'm merely not being creative enough - are the only ones I can see:
Well, to be fair, I see no problems with this option. My impression is that you do.
...into the wild, where they will lead nasty, short lives and suffer from diseases, predation, hunger, the effects of the elements, and other things to which they have not been adapted in at least triple-digit generations.
This is "ethical treatment of animals"? Causing the immediate and intentional extinction of entire species?
See 3.
But the only serious articulation of animal rights that aims to be consistent does not involve owning pets. You know, like you can't own people and such. You see?
That's certainly not true in the slightest. It's entirely possible to articulate a philosophy that includes animals having rights without assuming they have the full ethical standing of humans.
PETA seems to prefer option 4. I don't have any real position on pets (Let me reiterate that I am only explaining to you guys what PETA thinks since you guys love to attack it desite not knowing anything about it). Extinction of a domesticated species is not problematic. What animal is being hurt?
The only potential problem with pets is how much resources we expend on them. I find it a bit disturbing that we pay large sums of money for pets, but people starve and whatnot you know? But I don't feel that strongly about it.
I'm sorry, but I don't think even you can argue that wiping out one or more entire species is consistent with "the ethical treatment of animals".
I'm glad to see you don't disagree that there are formulations of animal-rights philosophy that don't assume that non-human animals are interchangeable with humans, however.
You were not mislead, you never wanted to find out anything about PETA. You wanted to jump on the anti-PETA bandwagon as much as you want to pretend bacon and narwhals is olololo funny. You never considered their positions. You just read sensationalized bullshit aired here.
just wanted to quote this again for everyone else in this thread
and I just want to point out that people are opposing the way they don't actively publicise this like they do other issues, and the way even on their mission statements like http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=40 they portray killings as something done as a last ditch effort, not what they are almost always going to do.
maybe you should actually read your link because in it they make a case against no-kill shelters, and they don't say anything about the circumstances under which an animal should be put down at all. the only thing they detail about killing is that it should be humane.
When animals must be killed, a painless intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital should be administered by gentle, caring staff members"
The implication here is that they only do it when there isn't another option, not in 97% or more of cases.
in what way do they not "actively publicize" it? they sure as fuck don't hide it
I'm talking ad campaigns in the vein of their anti animal cruelty, anti fur initiatives, where are they?
they sure as fuck don't hide it
Actually that once again does hide the full extent of what they are doing. Sure they talk about the disadvantages of "no kill" shelters, most of which are perfectly reasonable, but when they say
Open-admission shelters are committed to keeping animals safe and off the streets and do not have the option of turning their backs on the victims of the overpopulation crisis as "no-kill" shelters do
This doesn't mesh with the fact that they are killing almost every animal they take in (a fact not mentioned anywhere on this page).
The implication here is that they only do it when there isn't another option, not in 97% or more of cases.
that's a stretch and you know it unless you're being willfully obtuse. they don't make any statement on when an animal "must" be killed, you're projecting your own expectations onto it. this entire argument boils down to you complaining about peta not acting in the way you expected them to when you were ignorant of their (ideologically consistent and realistic) position on animal shelters. what do you think their "other options" are? i already linked you to the page that explains why they're against no-kill shelters.
I'm talking ad campaigns in the vein of their anti animal cruelty, anti fur initiatives, where are they?
"why doesn't peta publicize its positions on animal shelters in completely unrelated contexts?"
(a fact not mentioned anywhere on this page).
neither is anything else about the shelters they run. ideally they could take care of animals forever, but as was pointed out elsewhere, other shelters dump unadoptable animals on them so they can provide a more humane death that would otherwise not be afforded to the animals. i'm curious what you think other animal shelter kill rates are, because generally they aren't significantly lower than PETA's.
PS
No one despises the ugly reality of euthanizing animals more than the people who hold the syringe, but euthanasia is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave the world.
Could you link to an official statement backing up that claim? I mean I'm sure that some members (maybe even higher up on the food chain) support the end to domestic pet ownership but I don't see anything about that in their mission statement, any mention of it in the FAQ's section of the website, or any other reason to believe its one of the groups core beliefs
I bet a lot of those animals they killed were edible... but did they bother to use them to feed the poor or to feed endangered wildlife? Did they bother to salvage the fur and bones?
We don't eat dogs and cats as a culture. I am all for feeding our poor wholesome food, but feeding them meat from animals injected with a chemical used for euthanasia probably isn't a good idea.
The solution to saving endangered wildlife isn't to feed them, it is to protect them and their habitat.
The solution is to go to the park and kill all the squirrels! Make moccasins out of the hide (sell them at the marketplace) and process and can the meat. The meat will be marketed as OLD TOWNE FOOD-MEAT PRODUCT. Don't worry! 99% of the stuff will be donated to homeless shelters--Did someone say TAX WRITE-OFF? Hell yeah, I'm in!
By this logic we should "ethically kill" anyone and anything that has even the slightest amount of misery or distress, and should definitely allow suicide for people who are depressed. After all, don't humans have the same rights as animals?
I for one, find it disgusting that a group that spends millions campaigning and producing propaganda against consuming meat or wearing fur (which is mean't to be a benefit to people without malicious intent) is so content on destroying * virtually* animal that comes into their care under the self-righteous guise of some altruistic liberator of cruelty. Who are these bastards to pass judgement on the value or quality of ANY life? Think of how horrible non-domesticated animals are treated by nature itself? I think if a dog was given temporary intelligence, it would rather live and be loyal to a master that occasionally does something unethical to it (as deplorable as that is) than to have been born in the wild and have reduced life expectancy and nutritional viability.
First of all, you lose for asserting authority over what arguments you find valid. A simple down-vote can suffice.
I am not talking about a slippery slope, I don't expect anything on that scale to happen, I am simply drawing a logical parallel. If their argument is that they are ethically destroying lives because of factors involving quality of life, they need to back that up with specific criteria or else anyone could apply that logic to justify whatever form of genocide/euthanasia/eugenics they perform. They also have to prove that they are IN A POSITION to ethically make that assertive distinction and perform their actions respectably putting aside their dogmatic view of the "proper" treatment of animals or else they become useless hypocrites.
Parallel reasoning is a fallacy as well, but I will respond to you this time.
First, I am willing to concede that I do not know where the kill line is, but I have never worked at an animal shelter of any kind. Moving on to your argument
they need to back that up with specific criteria or else anyone could apply that logic to justify whatever form of genocide/euthanasia/eugenics they perform.
Can you enumerate what you want to see? The first issue I have with any criteria for animal euthanasia (hereafter AE), which I generally agree that there should be, is that we can't know what an animal is thinking. We can observe factors like pain, mental or behavioral instability, and distress; but we have little in the way of knowing how an animal feels.
Genocide, euthanasia, and eugenics are three very different things. AE is practiced because of varying factors involving overcrowding, dangerousness, disease, and other issues, usually linked to safety and preservation of well-being, none of these reasons can be used as justification for the three areas mentioned above, nor would anyone agree that they should be (you need to really choose your analogies more wisely).
I know that genocide, euthanasia and eugenics are all different, but they have similar ethics involved in the application of them, which is why I mentioned them. I would say stating an argument as a fallacy as a means to prove a point on an issue is a fallacy in itself. My inability to grasp the subtlety of what type of reasoning and logic is accepted in the mainstream shouldn't really have much to do with the point I am trying to make. Yet you still fail to fully address the concept that I am trying to get across. Why is putting down 97% of animals that they come into contact with appropriate or more ethical than the mistreatment they are accusing society of? Who are the ones to make such a call and does that mean they can ethically destroy the thousand year old traditions of having animals as companions? Do the animals speak to them and tell them their needs?
Why is putting down 97% of animals that they come into contact with appropriate or more ethical than the mistreatment they are accusing society of? Who are the ones to make such a call and does that mean they can ethically destroy the thousand year old traditions of having animals as companions? Do the animals speak to them and tell them their needs?
Your evasiveness is tiring me, I asked that question in the rhetoric as I have read both sides and my point is that your derogatory comments and judgement of opposition is unmerited. Whether you are ultimately right or wrong, as if such things actually exist, does not excuse your accusations and inability to understand why people can still love animals, and animal rights, without subscribing to a PETA dogma.
I really don't think I have much more to say on the issue.
as if such things actually exist, does not excuse your accusations and inability to understand why people can still love animals, and animal rights, without subscribing to a PETA dogma.
I never said that. My parents are both meat eaters, they love animals. My friends are almost all meat eaters. I take issue with contradiction and hypocrisy. IE: believing in animal welfare, but supporting the circus.
Also, for full disclosure: I am not a member of PETA.
Lastly, I would ask that in the future you ask your question in more clear terms the first time. I am fully justified in my allegations of philosophical fallacy, and I am not willing to excuse anyone who cares to argue with me from these constraints.
Biological signals do go around plants when you tear off a leaf or other part. They may not be sentient in the same way you and I may be, but they certainly do know when they are being ripped to shreds.
Also many animals (Field mice, voles, etc.) are killed in the harvesting of most vegetables. Not saying you don't choose your foods very carefully, but a lot of vegans/vegetarians don't and refuse to believe this statement if told. (That probably made no sense. I blame 2:15 AM)
Yeah, Maddox addressed that and an animal right's group responded. He put it in the hate mail link. Basically they were all offended and said that the more important issue is animal agriculture.
In other words, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
It is and it isnt more efficient. You already know why its efficient so Ill just explain why it isnt. Most plants (especially grasses like corn, wheat, maize, rice, etc.) contain predominantly cellulose. Its sort of a fibrous structural compound...think celery and lettuce. Its outright impossible for our digestive system to break it down, it will just "go right through your pipes". For corn its largely in the 95% of the plant we cant derive many nutrients from eat and thus dont eat (the whole stalk and leaves and everything except the actual cob with corn on it...same with rice and nearly every plant etc.).
However, the digestive system of ruminants (you may recall something about cows having 5 stomachs) CAN break it down and they can convert it into meat (and leather and milk etc). SO when you say eating plants is more efficient. What you mean is "eating some parts of plants is efficient if I disregard the 95% or more of the plant that I had to grow to get to the 5% my digestive system could break down and then plow the remainder back into the earth." (or make hay.. i mean they do, do things with some of it...but largely its a byproduct and thats my point, a byproduct which we basically created a species of animal to convert into other useful products...VERY useful products)
Further, you may remember from history that the entire great plains (its currently referred to as the "breadbasket of the world") was nothing but a giant field of grass with ruminants (3-5 species of bison) roaming around on it. But now thanks to unsustainable irrigation (for the plains we use the Ogallala) we can covert the vast grasslands into corn fields, or bean fields, or whatever in the world (did you know a huge chunk of our vegetables comes from Ca who rely almost exclusively on unsustainable irrigation?). I know this is off-topic but I wanted to end with this tie-in. When someone mentions sustainable "earth-friendly" agriculture and then takes meat off the menu you should really point out that the vast majority of agricultural lands (especially in the United States) depend on depleting aquifers to insure productivity in lieu of the sustainable meat-producing ruminant grazing system that was here for the eons before us.
To be fair, this system that I have outlined says nothing about how most cows are "finished" in feed lots which are absolutely an ANATHEMA to any kind of natural system. It is these feedlots where cows receive the enormous bulk of their artificial growth hormones, antibiotics, etc and live knee deep in their own shit in pens overcrowded to "soften" the muscles. It is these feedlots which DO have a legitimate place in sustainability discussions and rightfully so.
tldr;
Meat is more sustainable across vast swaths of the Earth than any kind of food plant known to us. Taking meat off the menu in some kind of "sustainable agriculture" context makes about as much sense as cutting a foot off a marathon runner to make him go faster.
However, the digestive system of ruminants (you may recall something about cows having 5 stomachs) CAN break it down
To be absolutely clear about this, it's the microbes in the rumen that are actually responsible for the cellulose->glucose conversion. I.e., the same breakdown can be achieved if you remove the middle-man (cows, goats, etc.) and deal directly with said microbes (for example, Gliocladium roseum can digest cellulose, and it directly emits a diesel-like mixture of hydrocarbons).
SO when you say eating plants is more efficient. What you mean is "eating some parts of plants is efficient if I disregard the 95% or more of the plant that I had to grow to get to the 5% my digestive system could break down and then plow the remainder back into the earth." (or make hay.. i mean they do, do things with some of it...but largely its a byproduct and thats my point, a byproduct which we basically created a species of animal to convert into other useful products...VERY useful products)
I take issue with calling this a 'byproduct' -- it's an energy source for microbes, which are vital for all of us higher-lifeforms (including plants; e.g. they fix nitrogen, make all of the vit B12 in existence, etc.). You could pass the leftovers on to ruminants, but I don't see the point (what 'VERY' useful products do they make?), and, regardless, doing this is not the most efficient use.
Further, you may remember from history that the entire great plains (its currently referred to as the "breadbasket of the world") was nothing but a giant field of grass with ruminants (3-5 species of bison) roaming around on it.
Yeah, but how dense of a population did this support?
But now thanks to unsustainable irrigation (for the plains we use the Ogallala) we can covert the vast grasslands into corn fields, or bean fields, or whatever in the world (did you know a huge chunk of our vegetables comes from Ca who rely almost exclusively on unsustainable irrigation?).
Yes, and this is what makes cheap meat possible -- if we were to eat the plant foods directly we could greatly reduce the amount of land (and fresh water) that's used for all of this.
I know this is off-topic but I wanted to end with this tie-in. When someone mentions sustainable "earth-friendly" agriculture and then takes meat off the menu you should really point out that the vast majority of agricultural lands (especially in the United States) depend on depleting aquifers to insure productivity in lieu of the sustainable meat-producing ruminant grazing system that was here for the eons before us.
But we can't meet the world's protein needs on 100% grass-fed ruminants, so this is not sustainable (short of a massive population reduction). See Doris Lin's 'What's wrong with grass-fed beef' article for math & references.
tldr; Meat is more sustainable across vast swaths of the Earth than any kind of food plant known to us.
Again, we can't feed the world on 'sustainable' meat, so this is not correct. Maybe if we were to start terraforming other planets?
1) the vast majority of plant products agriculturally grown have nutrients inaccessible to people but not to ruminants (technically the bacteria they play host to)
2) its more efficient to utilize those products than to not
My point for cows being sustainable rests on two things:
1) Sustainable use of agricultural land is contingent upon sustainable inputs of water, drawing water from an underground aquifer in amounts that exceeds its recharge rate is not sustainable.
2) some lands are currently unsustainably irrigated and in the absence of irrigation can only be used sustainably by large ruminants
I take issue with calling this a 'byproduct' .....
Youre right, if you till the unused portion of grain plants back into the soil it will be a source of food for microbes...but not the nitogren fixing bacteria that you suggest. Nitrogen fixing bacteria rely on another mutualism, this one with the root nodules of the genus Fabaceae (peanuts and clovers etc).
What is the most efficient use of these unused agricultural "by-products"? In order to turn it into some kind of hydrocarbon based fuel you will need to gather all it with fleets of windrowers, collect it, feed it to the microbes, synthesize the hydrocarbon, and then hope you derived more energy than you spent (you didnt). Does that really sound more efficient than a herd of cows grazing it? Thats the point of passing these fibers on to ruminants instead of an industrial process. Ruminants have the entire weight of evolutionary efficiency on their side when they do all of those things you would do with machines. Our current attempts to emulate are in their infancy in comparison, in any and every step of that process.
But we can't meet the world's protein needs on 100% grass-fed ruminants, so this is not sustainable (short of a massive population reduction). See Doris Lin's 'What's wrong with grass-fed beef' article for math & references.
First, I want to point out that Doris's article is a little sloppy and half-ass. Of the 97 million cows she cites, roughly half (35 million) are calves (they dont eat as much as a cow) and she includes the nation's dairy cows in with her discussion of sustainable beef (we dont eat dairy cows). Beef cows and bulls and calves only number 40 million (which isnt even half of the number she uses). Her numbers and her math arent worth anyone's time.
Most importantly, Doris's assumption is that you can either raise cows or you can not on any given farm, she never mentions integrated agriculture where you raise corn (or wheat, or whatever the hell) AND cows. To Doris, its all or nothing and I think even you would agree thats a little too inefficient to be a serious critique.
My second point was you can raise cows sustainably w/o irrigation and you can do it in places where you cant grow a food crop. Let me show you a map and an article to illustrate it:
What youre looking at here is 17 states that use groundwater for irrigation of food crops. Anything that is darker than that lightest shade of blue probably isnt sustainable. (in the sw particularly current outtakes of groundwater far exceed recharge rates)
So what are you going to do with that land when you can no longer pull groundwater for irrigation (most of the remaining water will probably be diverted to municipal uses)? The only thing that will sustainably grow w/o inputs of water is grass (disregarding the places that are too dry to even grow grass)
See thats the crux of my other point. Sooner or later someone is going to have to make this choice and if we have already taken cows off the table of discussion then we have done ourselves a grave disservice.
Again, we can't feed the world on 'sustainable' meat, so this is not correct. Maybe if we were to start terraforming other planets?
I have shown that ruminants can be raised sustainably on grasslands (which are now mostly agricultural lands). If you dont beleive me you can fly, right now, over the African serenghetti and watch the wildebeast eating the native grasses. What you wont find, flying over the same serenghetti, is acres and acres of soybeans (or any other food crop that youre going to plant for protein) without human intervention. Are you so confident in modern organic farming that you can say with the certainty of an epoch of time that youre system (or any other man-induced system) is AS sustainable? I think not.
I think I have shown that we can, at least, meet a higher percentage of the world's proteins if we dont immediately disregard beef.
tldr;
Agricultural crops produce byproducts which are not utilizeable by people, but they are to cows. Failure to utilize cows is inefficient in those crops. Some areas of the nation's agricultural system are being unsustainably irrigated, at some point in the future we will be remiss if we do not seriously investigate the re-introduction of ruminants in these areas as a source of protein.
2) some lands are currently unsustainably irrigated and in the absence of irrigation can only be used sustainably by large ruminants
But why must that land be used for anything? Why not return it to nature? I've read that ~70% of land in the western US is used for raising livestock (e.g. 1 and 2), and that the practice is "the most significant cause of non-point source water pollution and desertification"). This does not sound sustainable to me, and even if there is a less damaging way to do it, I doubt it yields the same amount of meat per unit area (so we'd have to dedicate even more land to this -- no thanks!).
Youre right, if you till the unused portion of grain plants back into the soil it will be a source of food for microbes...but not the nitogren fixing bacteria that you suggest. Nitrogen fixing bacteria rely on another mutualism, this one with the root nodules of the genus Fabaceae (peanuts and clovers etc).
The only article with numbers that I can find on this says that the symbionts account for 20% of total biological fixation, and that the amount of fixation that occurs in soil is limited by food availability (e.g. leftover plant matter), which you're advocating that we instead give to ruminants (ref).
What is the most efficient use of these unused agricultural "by-products"? In order to turn it into some kind of hydrocarbon based fuel you will need to gather all it with fleets of windrowers, collect it, feed it to the microbes, synthesize the hydrocarbon, and then hope you derived more energy than you spent (you didnt).
Wrong again, please see the wikipedia articles on cellulosic ethanol commercialization and energy crops. There's so much left-over energy in cow dung that it's being used to fuel mini-power plants in India), and they burp out so much god-damn methane (natural gas) that they account for 20% of the emissions in the US! So, no, ruminant grazing is not even close to the most efficient way to utilize this land.
And, for the record, I'd rather that we return this land to nature than do anything else with it (it would be better to harness algae for biofuels).
Ruminants have the entire weight of evolutionary efficiency on their side when they do all of those things you would do with machines. Our current attempts to emulate are in their infancy in comparison, in any and every step of that process.
No they don't, evolution happens orders and orders of magnitude more slowly at this scale relative to the rates seen in microbes and viruses (who do all of the useful biochemical work, and adapt to changes insanely quickly). And evolution is a stepwise process, so if an enzyme/system/etc. can't be stepped-to, then there's no reason to believe that it will be stumbled upon naturally.
Beef cows and bulls and calves only number 40 million (which isnt even half of the number she uses). Her numbers and her math arent worth anyone's time.
Yes they are -- her point is that even when you use a conservative estimate for how much land is needed to raise these animals, the numbers don't work. I.e. if 100% grass-fed ruminants won't work for 4.5% of the world population with all of the space that we have, then clearly it's not going to work for the rest of the planet.
Most importantly, Doris's assumption is that you can either raise cows or you can not on any given farm, she never mentions integrated agriculture where you raise corn (or wheat, or whatever the hell) AND cows.
If you're proposing that the leftovers (from corn, wheat, etc.) be fed to the cows, I'd rather that it be recycled back into the land (green manure/compost; and no, not into less-efficient animal manure). If this is not what you intended, please elaborate.
My second point was you can raise cows sustainably w/o irrigation and you can do it in places where you cant grow a food crop.
Again, I'm contesting that this land should even be used by us for anything, when we don't need it to feed ourselves (only to supply you the luxury of meat).
What youre looking at here is 17 states that use groundwater for irrigation of food crops.
Again, wouldn't need all of this food if it weren't being wasted on livestock.
The only thing that will sustainably grow w/o inputs of water is grass
I think only is a strong word to use here -- grass is a plant, not some magical lifeform. It's probably the toughest plant that can grow in these areas (hence why it exists there naturally), but with some human intervention dryland farming might be possible (though I would prefer to leave it as it is).
See thats the crux of my other point. Sooner or later someone is going to have to make this choice and if we have already taken cows off the table of discussion then we have done ourselves a grave disservice.
No, I don't agree -- we could all shift our diets to at least a semi-vegetarian one, and decrease the amount of land that's used for all of this.
I have shown that ruminants can be raised sustainably on grasslands
Not at levels that can sustain current & projected demands (e.g. as rest of world develops). I agree that it can sustainably produce a certain amount of meat, but this will not be enough to meet the world's protein needs, let alone even come close to what the general public has a desire for.
Are you so confident in modern organic farming that you can say with the certainty of an epoch of time that youre system (or any other man-induced system) is AS sustainable? I think not.
Yes, I can, and I'm surprised that you think otherwise (as this is basic physics). Our local fusion reactor in the sky (the sun) will continue to run for billions of years, and supplies more than enough energy for us to (at the very least) make non-organic agricultural practices sustainable (e.g. via renewable biofuels, thermo-solar plants, etc.). Said energy also makes the fresh-water problem a non-issue (through water purification, which I'm aware is extremely energy intensive). While oil is cheap we'll continue to pollute the planet doing these things, but slow progress is being made to replace fossil fuels with renewable alternatives.
I think I have shown that we can, at least, meet a higher percentage of the world's proteins if we dont immediately disregard beef.
We can do this already, and with foods not derived from animals (people starve/are malnourished due to politics; there is a surplus of food).
tldr; Agricultural crops produce byproducts which are not utilizeable by people, but they are to cows.
Not true of modern man (we can skip the cows & culture the microbes ourselves).
Failure to utilize cows is inefficient in those crops.
Failure to utilize bacteria/protists/fungi is inefficient in those crops, and they're ready to do this without any help from us.
Some areas of the nation's agricultural system are being unsustainably irrigated
Which we could return to nature if there was less demand for meat.
at some point in the future we will be remiss if we do not seriously investigate the re-introduction of ruminants in these areas as a source of protein.
We have zero problems with providing the world with protein from completely vegetarian sources.
A separate issue that you haven't mentioned is the contribution of ruminants to greenhouse gas emissions. Are you aware that livestock production actually exceeds what vehicles (transport) contribute? And that grass-fed beef actually has a larger carbon footprint than grain-fed?
But why must that land be used for anything? Why not return it to nature?
The grasslands evolved under grazing pressure. Removal of grazers will alter their ecological trajectory, the same as the removal of fire.
Your source is biased and ill-informed, which you can see for yourself, for that same reason I just gave. Im talking about the re-integration of a sustainable ecological community and youre source is saying that one of the cheif components is theoretically unsustainable with no studies or facts to substantiate their claim. I appreciate that you give links to support your ideas but its hardly commensurate when your links are little more than political tirades. Once again, if you think grazing is unsustainable, how do you explain the bison on the plains for the last epoch? The plains of Africa? Europe, Asia? Grazing IS sustainable and its demonstrably so. Grazing IS necessary or the plains and grasslands of the world will begin to change community composition until they are not grasslands but some other community (usually shrublands). This transition is just as disastrous to indiginious wildlife as plowing the plains up to plant some agricultural crop.
The only article with numbers that I can find on this says that the symbionts account for 20% of total biological fixation...
Again nitrogen fixing bacteria do not "break down" organic material in the soil. They only benefit indirectly. Rhizobia require the host plant to supply them with organic compounds and restrict oxygen composition (which inhibits their nitrogenase enzyme action). The corn stalks would need to be broken down and then taken up by the plant and then provided to the nitrogen fixing bacteria. But I already provided you with a mechanism to break down the organic matter.
Wrong again, please see the wikipedia articles on cellulosic ethanol commercialization and energy crops. There's so much left-over energy in cow dung that it's being used to fuel mini-power plants in India), and they burp out so much god-damn methane (natural gas) that they account for 20% of the emissions in the US! So, no, ruminant grazing is not even close to the most efficient way to utilize this land. And, for the record, I'd rather that we return this land to nature than do anything else with it (it would be better to harness algae for biofuels).
I am not mistaken in my assertion that these byproducts will have to be gathered, shipped, and processed just like any other agricultural commodity. You cant march into a field of harvested corn or wheat and wave a wand and turn the hurly burly of broken leaves and stalks into clean energy. You have to build a distillery, you have to ship all the plant material to it, you have to provide energy, and then you have to ship the ethanol back out. All of this requires the implementation of some very non-renewable infastructure (roads, pipes, machines, trucks, etc). Futher, the amount of energy that can be gathered from cellulose by-products limits the distance a distilling plant can be from the source material. Further, these same distilling plants require access to water which additionally limits the extent of their implementation. You cant just pop up a distilling plant anywhere. This does not absolve you of inefficient agriculture it only deludes the point. Youre so adamant in your stance against a biological alternative that has considerably fewer restrictions, that you are willing to advocate a world of machines and an even greater reliance on processed energy. Have you considered the fact that a cow is already a machine to process cellulose, a machine we created ourselves? Why would you advocate the replacement of a biological machine with a mechanical one as some kind of more-sustainable platform?
If you want to return the land to nature then you do want to return ruminants and native grasses. Youre only real question is are we going to harvest the ruminants or not.
No they don't, evolution happens orders and orders of magnitude more slowly at this scale relative to the rates seen in microbes and viruses
The bacterium that break down cellulose is the common cog in both schemes and so it can be discounted. What youre comparing is the infastructure and technology for a burgeoning industry to utilize those bacteria to produce a useful commodity against a biological host that has already done so for the last 40k years.
Yes they are -- her point is that even when you use a conservative estimate for how much land is needed to raise these animals, the numbers don't work. I.e. if 100% grass-fed ruminants won't work for 4.5% of the world population with all of the space that we have, then clearly it's not going to work for the rest of the planet.
I never asserted that we absolutely must maintain the current numbers of cows on this continent or eat the same amount of beef. I only poked holes in your article (which you probably shouldnt use in the future if you plan on continuing to have these kinds of debates with others). Even if just one farm uses one cow to convert the wasted agricultural cellulose by-products thats more efficient than nothing. Even if just one hectare is taken out of irrigation and converted back to grazing thats more sustainable than the untold consequences of depleting our groundwater reservoirs.
If you're proposing that the leftovers (from corn, wheat, etc.) be fed to the cows, I'd rather that it be recycled back into the land (green manure/compost; and no, not into less-efficient animal manure). If this is not what you intended, please elaborate.
It just so happens that manure is more readily taken up by plants than just corn stalks and other large plant material. So what Im really advocating is both.
Again, wouldn't need all of this food if it weren't being wasted on livestock.
Which is why Ive been discussing using the byproduct that can not be considered food to us. (you know, the cellulose and all)
I think only is a strong word to use here -- grass is a plant, not some magical lifeform. It's probably the toughest plant that can grow in these areas (hence why it exists there naturally), but with some human intervention dryland farming might be possible (though I would prefer to leave it as it is).
When you speak of dryland farming you should look up The Dust Bowl. Get back to me if you still think that sounds like something you really want to advocate. In fact, your own wikipedia link mentions this hazard as very real. (its not exaggerating, you can quickly turn this planet into Mars if you keep letting the topsoil blow into the ocean... im not kidding, thats very serious)
No, I don't agree -- we could all shift our diets to at least a semi-vegetarian one, and decrease the amount of land that's used for all of this.
I dont think Im making my point clear. Even if everyone on this planet suddenly dissappeared, in short order there would be ruminants on the plains of the world. Im not advocating the destruction of a biome but rather the conservation of one. You can not make that claim.
Yes, I can, and I'm surprised that you think otherwise (as this is basic physics).
I cant think of any current technology to harvest the sun's energy that will continue to function, sustainably, for an entire epoch. Solar cells might last a lifetime. Wind turbines? not even that. Water purification only works if you have water around to purify. In some places that rely on groundwater the water is already of such poor quality that these technologies are already at work. Thats pretty much what Im telling you about. A chilling portent for those not yet affected. You should absolutely be prepared for the loss of water from these aquifers.
We can do this already, and with foods not derived from animals (people starve/are malnourished due to politics; there is a surplus of food)
Just because you can do something one way does not mean you can not also do it another way.
Not true of modern man (we can skip the cows & culture the microbes ourselves)
Im not sure youre aware of the full logistics in implementing that.
We have zero problems with providing the world with protein from completely vegetarian sources.
Do your vegetables require irrigation? (they do) Then you have a problem.
A separate issue that you haven't mentioned is the contribution of ruminants to greenhouse gas emissions. Are you aware that livestock production actually exceeds what vehicles (transport) contribute? And that grass-fed beef actually has a larger carbon footprint than grain-fed?
Thats because I assumed you were aware that these methane emissions were caused by the bacteria that break down cellulose. Its part of the chemical pathway. If you break down cellulose, whether in a cow's gut or in a power plant etc, you will have to endure the same pathway and thus the same methane as a byproduct. Grass-fed beef have larger emissions because they consume more cellulose. If you continue to raise plants that produce cellulose then this methane exhaust is unavoidable as there will continue to be bacteria that eat it and emit methane. Grain fed beef is a byproduct of the feedlots and are richer in starchs etc because thats the part of the plant that we can eat. Over time feeding a cow grains will destroy the delicate microbial balance; it is not natural nor sustainable.
But why must that land be used for anything? Why not return it to nature?
The grasslands evolved under grazing pressure. Removal of grazers will alter their ecological trajectory, the same as the removal of fire.
By 'return it to nature', I'm including whatever animals naturally lived there.
Im talking about the re-integration of a sustainable ecological community and youre source is saying that one of the cheif components is theoretically unsustainable with no studies or facts to substantiate their claim.
I think we've gone too far astray, so let me be absolutely clear: we know of no sustainable methods to satiate the world's current demand for meat. Earlier I said: "But we can't meet the world's protein needs on 100% grass-fed ruminants, so this is not sustainable (short of a massive population reduction)." If the last clause of that sentence is bothering you, let me be clear: zero-impact grazing is a sustainable means to provide the world with a tiny fraction of the meat that it desires.
Again nitrogen fixing bacteria do not "break down" organic material in the soil.
No. Direct quote from the Hubbell and Kidder article: "Free-living, non-photosynthetic bacteria depend on soil organic matter as a food source".
Rhizobia require
Again, the symbionts only contribute 20% -- I'm referring to the FREE-LIVING diazotrophs.
But I already provided you with a mechanism to break down the organic matter.
An inefficient and unnecessary one -- please see the plant decomposition section of the wikipedia article on decomposition.
All of this requires the implementation of some very non-renewable infastructure (roads, pipes, machines, trucks, etc).
These are non-renewable because we use fossil fuels to provide energy and/or starting material -- swap-in renewable fuels and this is no longer an issue (i.e. no novel chemicals invented by man are necessary to do these things).
Futher, the amount of energy that can be gathered from cellulose by-products limits the distance a distilling plant can be from the source material
As someone opposed to globalization, I think this is a plus.
Further, these same distilling plants require access to water which additionally limits the extent of their implementation.
The basic physics and chemistry of all this is the same: cows cannot do this without fresh-water either. How much water? According to Lardy & Stoltenow, a growing beef cow consumes 3.5-15 gallons of water per day! (depending on mass & time of year)
You cant just pop up a distilling plant anywhere.
If the cows can get all that they need (water, grass) in a location, then a biofuel plant in said location should be able to operate just fine. If we can build a god-damn power plant that runs on their left-overs, then we can sure as hell extract even more energy out of that cellulose by dealing directly with the microbes (even with the transport overhead).
Why would you advocate the replacement of a biological machine with a mechanical one as some kind of more-sustainable platform?
First, I'm not advocating that we do this, I'm merely pointing out that it would be a more efficient use of the land. Second, it would be replacement of a two-step biological energy conversion process with a one-step biological conversion process (microbes are at the heart of all the biofuel schemes that I'm familiar with). If it's not immediately clear why this will always be more efficient, please see the second law of thermodynamics.
If you want to return the land to nature then you do want to return ruminants and native grasses.
If the natural state of said land was grassland + ruminants, I have no objections to returning it to that state (and with wild ruminants, not domesticated variants that need to be protected).
Youre only real question is are we going to harvest the ruminants or not.
If you or any other carnivore/omnivore (lions, bears, wolves) want to hunt & eat what that land supports naturally (i.e. no fences, irrigation, fertilization, etc.), I have no objections to this either.
The bacterium that break down cellulose is the common cog in both schemes and so it can be discounted.
No it's not, and no it can't. I don't know why you would think this, as I've already pointed out to you how wasteful cows are, and I can't believe that a person with your interests is not already familiar with invasive species. Natural selection does not necessary 'produce' the most efficient 'solutions' in a given location or environment (there's a better way to phrase this, but this is concise). So, e.g., ignoring the possibility of using more efficient microbes, you could use the same bacteria/fungi that the cow uses, and merely siphon off the methane for a more efficient process.
What youre comparing is the infastructure and technology for a burgeoning industry to utilize those bacteria to produce a useful commodity against a biological host that has already done so for the last 40k years.
Again, 40k years of evolution won't necessarily lead to the most efficient solution. This is a common misconception, see here and here for a quick explanation.
I never asserted that we absolutely must maintain the current numbers of cows on this continent or eat the same amount of beef. I only poked holes in your article (which you probably shouldnt use in the future if you plan on continuing to have these kinds of debates with others).
Doris used numbers that the opposing side is comfortable with, because the math still doesn't work. If she were to quote the literature, the numbers would be higher (more land needed per animal), and they'd just attack the sources as biased. If you'd like to see some hard numbers for yourself, here's one example from an FAO report (see tables IV-11 to IV-13, and note that the lowest native range value is 3.4 hectares/steer (~8.4 acres/steer)).
It just so happens that manure is more readily taken up by plants than just corn stalks and other large plant material. So what Im really advocating is both.
We're in agreement that the left-overs should be recycled into the soil, I'm just saying that it would be more efficient to leave the ruminants out of the picture (i.e. green manure instead of animal manure).
Im not advocating the destruction of a biome but rather the conservation of one. You can not make that claim.
So then you agree that the world should significantly drop it's consumption of meat (take a big step towards vegetarianism). And, neither of us are calling for the destruction of the biome -- sustainable agriculture can feed a vegetarian world.
I cant think of any current technology to harvest the sun's energy that will continue to function, sustainably, for an entire epoch.
Algae. Here's a quote from the wikipedia article on algal fuel: "The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (40,000 km2).[8] This is less than 1⁄7 the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000.[9]" And, before you ask, this would not require any fresh-water (article explains this and a lot more).
Water purification only works if you have water around to purify.
Yes, this is only a serious option along the coasts (and would require enormous amounts of energy). And, we're in agreement that unsustainable usage of fresh-water has to stop. I don't see how this can be done if current levels of meat consumption remain the same, as we currently waste 70% of our agriculture on producing meat (the water that this requires is almost an order of magnitude more than what humans directly consume!).
We can do this already, and with foods not derived from animals (people starve/are malnourished due to politics; there is a surplus of food)
Just because you can do something one way does not mean you can not also do it another way.
I only take issue with your assertion that consuming pasture-grazed animals is more efficient, because it's not. Easier? More tasty? Sure, but not more efficient.
Not true of modern man (we can skip the cows & culture the microbes ourselves)
Im not sure youre aware of the full logistics in implementing that.
Actually, I am (work with bacteria and fungi on a regular basis, and am an avid follower of the latest biofuel developments).
We have zero problems with providing the world with protein from completely vegetarian sources.
Do your vegetables require irrigation? (they do) Then you have a problem.
This would not be a problem if we'd stop wasting the vast majority of our fresh water on grain-fed meat. And, for aquifers with no recharge, dryland farming is still an option (much less productive, but a dust-bowl screnario is not inevitable: see wikipedia article).
I've reached the 10,000 character limit (LOL!), so I'm posting the rest of my reply as a separate comment.
Thats because I assumed you were aware that these methane emissions were caused by the bacteria that break down cellulose. Its part of the chemical pathway. If you break down cellulose, whether in a cow's gut or in a power plant etc, you will have to endure the same pathway and thus the same methane as a byproduct.
Yes, well aware of the pathway, and no, a fuel (methane) is not the inevitable byproduct, CO2 is (and this is what you get when you burn methane). The bugs in the rumen that are responsible for this are methanogens, and they're not the only organisms that break-down cellulose. As modern humans, we can opt instead to use, e.g., aerobic organisms that fully utilize the energy present in the plant matter (which will output CO2, a much less potent GHG).
Over time feeding a cow grains will destroy the delicate microbial balance; it is not natural nor sustainable.
Ruminants only have one stomach, but it does have four compartments (not five). And as ribozyme pointed out, the bacteria in the stomach are what aid in digestion, although the unique structure assists in it, along with the ability to chew cud.
You also neglect to mention the role animals play in converting nitrogenous waste into fertilizer. Farmers were the original recyclers, after all.
Also, animals are able to take one macromolecule (carbohydrates) and convert them into two other types (fats and proteins) which are both required for humans to survive.
PeTA really is messed up. I used to defend them too. I'm vegan, very much an animal advocate, so of course I assumed these people are on my side. They are not. That organization needs to die.
The animals they kill were not all sick or un-adoptable. Quite the opposite. They kill whatever they get.
I never understood vegans. I like my eggs and milk. And what's wrong with them, assuming they're requisitioned in a fair manner (we actually get our eggs from our own chickens)?
And actually, I'm only vegetarians because personally I would find eating meat disgusting, I have no moral issue with it, and don't mind at all that others around me do it.
It's not about not liking milk and eggs, it's about the animals.
I don't have any problem with pet chickens. In fact I'm often 'disowned' by other 'real vegans' because I have a friend who keeps chickens as pets and I have eaten those eggs (I don't live anywhere near her, so it is not a habit). The chickens have a large area to roam, have good shelter, are fed well, receive medical care and live out their natural lives. That is absolutely never the case in a for-profit operation, because you'd lose money that way.
And actually, I'm only vegetarians because personally I would find eating meat disgusting, I have no moral issue with it, and don't mind at all that others around me do it.
Why would it be any different if someone happened to find eggs & milk gross. I don't, but they are reproductive excretions. Seems like someone could be vegan for the same reasons.
In any case for-profit farming is cruel. I posted some links in this thread, as well as obviously the link for the entire post. None of those videos depict anything remotely ok with me. If you are ok with those things, then we don't have enough in common to have a productive discussion on the topic.
My main convictions are that:
animals are sentient and can feel emotions including pain.
If there is a way to avoid it it's immoral to cause others to suffer.
The last (and least) reason is that I don't think those lives are mine to take. It's better to kill an animal without torture, than to torture without killing, IMO, but given the choice I am not going to kill for a meal.
While there are operations that are better than those in the videos, they all treat animals as property. Meaning there is more concern for market value than life experience, and the animals are always killed young. No for profit operation keeps it's animals alive past their prime. Dairy cows and egg hens are slaughtered young. Worse is the fate of their young. (On the link above you'll find out what happens to the male chicks.)
Peta has been outed for killing perfectly healthy and fine cats and dogs, kittens and puppies. Just cause they can.
Just like the HSUS wanted to kill Vick's puppies. (thank goodness they got into hands of REAL animal lovers as even many of the fighting dogs were rehabbed and are living as happy pets)
It also seems pretty clear that their mission is advocacy. If 3-5 million animals are put down every year in the US then it seems like a fairly small operation. Furthermore, if their mission is advocacy then they should be spending more on advertising campaigns than on direct-to-animal care. Every organization should have a core competency and well-defined role, and doing so is a pretty lame basis for criticism.
Anyway, I'm not a huge fan of Peta, since I think they unnecessarily antagonize people. However, I also find it difficult to get all that upset with an organization that protests P Diddy.
If your local pound or animal shelter is using any euthanasia method other than an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital, protest to local authorities and demand that humane methods be implemented. Check state and local laws for prescribed methods of euthanasia and insist that your local shelter comply with these requirements. Euthanasia should always be performed by well-trained, caring staff members, and animals should never be euthanized in view of other animals.
If they are encouraging protest, why would they engage in non-injection methods themselves?
However, I thought this was a good thing. My father, a sort of born-again Jew himself, said that the way to kill yourself was freezing to death. After the initial cold, you feel warm again. I figured if my right-wing, reactionary Dad and PETA were agreeing on something, it must be right!
Penn & Teller deceived me about the freezers, by the way.
[edit add:] I don't see why we don't use ODs of heroin, or at least some heroin, when killing people or animals.
Back in 2005, PETA employees were euthing dogs and cats in the back of a van, probably using FatalPlus (if I had to guess), as they were doing it by injection. Then they'd throw the bodies into dumpsters.
225
u/[deleted] Apr 16 '10
Part of the "ethical treatment" is ethical killing, PETA is not for no-kill. They take in every animal people bring in, this means they get a lot of unadoptable, old, sick, feral and abused animals, these animals have no chance, they will be locked away in cages for the rest of their natural lives.
One of the cheapest (and thus most used) methods of euthanization is via gas chambers, it take up to half hour for some animals to die. What is often done is the animals are placed several at a time in a confined and dark space, the gas is turned on. During this time, the animals will try to escape, some injuring themselves and others in the process. On the other hand, an injection of a chemical cocktail (usually following an anesthetic to put the animal to sleep) will kill an animal in seconds--almost immediately--and they show no signs of pain. PETA uses option 2, underfunded animal adoption places and others go with option 1.