Thank you for this powerful article.

For too long I had a "willful ignorance" about our food animals: just the payload inside the bun under the cheese. I for one would pay an extra quarter, or whatever, to ensure that the animal making up my beef- or chickenburger were treated humanely from start to end.

What's the downside for giving thanks to our food animals and treating them with decency? And I wonder, what would this world be like if all us so-called "modern" nations made that kind of commitment?

Live your life however you choose.
Just spare the rest of us the pieties and platitudes and judgements ... unless and until you can, and do, walk the talk.
And enjoy your steak.

Okay, elbinkogrande, you go on about your life, finding satisfaction in knowing that you're better than all the vegans and vegetarians out there because you're perfect in your consistency, while I'll try to muddle through with my imperfect life, trying to do the best I can, as imperfect as my best is, even though I'm not as consistent as you are.

You're kind of inspiring, actually. After discussing this topic with you, I now realize how wrong I am to even try. So tonight I'll go to the biggest local grocery store I can find and buy myself a big fat steak and barbie the sucker up so no one can call me a hypocrite because my belt is made of leather.

Thanks. You've just made my life a whole lot easier.

"As for elbinkogrande's calling vegetarians hypocrites, do you think that just because we can't guarantee total peace, we shouldn't try for more peace? I doubt you do, so that was a rhetorical question. But doesn't the same thing apply to animal welfare? Isn't abusing animals less better than abusing them more? Or do you think that unless you can't be perfect, you shouldn't even try?"

It's not about "abusing animals more or less." It's about "do as I say - not as I do ... because it's not convenient for ME to do as I say." It's the preaching and judging from many vegans and vegetarians who cannot be bothered with their own inconsistencies. I have a lot more respect and regard for people who have actually followed through and changed their lifestyle habits including the use of animal products like leather. Until one does so, please spare us the preaching.

Kernel, I don't think anyone here is talking about making eating meat illegal. All anyone here is talking about is what they feel about eating meat themselves, and about making certain practices illegal, such as what the article that started this discussion is about.

But, since this is a progressive website, let me ask you a question: What do you feel about universal healthcare, Single-Payer Medicare for All? Are you in favor of it? I am. If you are, are you concerned about the health insurance companies going out of business?

As for elbinkogrande's calling vegetarians hypocrites, do you think that just because we can't guarantee total peace, we shouldn't try for more peace? I doubt you do, so that was a rhetorical question. But doesn't the same thing apply to animal welfare? Isn't abusing animals less better than abusing them more? Or do you think that unless you can't be perfect, you shouldn't even try?

The conditions and treatment of these animals is abhorrent and must be addressed and stopped.

However, to those professed "vegans" and "vegetarians" please check your feet. And your waist. And your coat.

Where do you suppose the leather used in making your shoes, belts, coats, etc. comes from???
I've encountered a lot of this "inconsistency" in so-called vegans and vegetarians and I find the hypocrisy to be breathtaking.

MOOTHER

we select a few of each and send them back to the wild, from whence they came......cows don't seem to be doing too badly wandering around india. and i'm sure the rest would revert to their 'natural' ways. instincts die hard.................

This question goes out to the vegans and/or vegetarians---what's to be done with all the Pigs, Sheep, Cows, Chickens....if we stop eating meat? I mean really. This would be devastating in so many ways.
Bless Temple Grandin for all she is doing, to make the treatment of these poor creatures more humane.

She liked me too Reb. We formed a pact.

Kem, you crack me up. You're not suggesting that we humans are hypocritical, contradictory, and capable of justifying any damn thing we want, are you?

BTW I get the girlfriend joke, but it took me a minute, funny.

And anti-acids are made from finely crushed marble REBEL. Yep, wheat does that and Postum is one of the drinks used by hard core veggies, __ made from grain it is. Expensive too.

Hey, even the Seventh Day Adventists don't eat meat. ___ Of course most of them do eat some, they just don't admit it and they don't have confession like the Catholics. But they never eat any PORK or Bunnies. The hogs have cloven hoofs, but don't chew their cud. Rabbits chew their cud, but they have paws. Ya gotta have a good memory when you go by God's dietery rules. Butttt, then when Jesus came, he said "everything" was edible and Okay for consumption. __ I go by his rules.

Of course the Jews say Jesus was a fake and they go by the Old Testiment, and they proclaim, that if meat hasn't been blessed by a rabbi, it's not fit to eat. ___ But, I've seen Jews eating burgers at Wat-a-Burgers and McDonalds. My brother-in-law had a big rig, he often hauled sides of beef. Sometimes before the rear trailer doors were closed, he'd have to wait until a Rabbi would show up and bless the load of swinging beef, ___ for a fee of course. That load was then declared to be Kosher and was worth more per pound at the check out counters.

I had a good loookin girlfriend once who was a veggie, but thankfully she wasn't strict about it.

OK Kem, I hear you so here's a quick story about wheat that might help someone. I lived with heartburn my entire adult life. I thought I had tried everything but always ended up taking anti-acids. Then my wife for reasons of her own stopped eating wheat so I followed along for support and surprisingly my heartburn went away. If I eat wheat of any kind, I get heartburn, no wheat no heartburn. I wish I knew that years ago.

Uh-oh, __two minute warning.__ You veggies better hurry up and type fast. This baby is going to be lost in the archves pretty quick.

agave, I can totally relate to your concerns about eating certain grains. I don't want to eat wheat gluten, not because I can't tolerate it, but because 80% of wheat gluten comes from China, and I don't trust the Chinese food supply (though I don't trust the U.S. food supply much more than China's).

Also, there's a lot of controversy about soy and a possible link to breast cancer. My grandmother, mother and sister have all had breast cancer, and it's the one that's hormone-receptive, which means they should avoid soy, which allegedly mimics hormones.

So I try to stay away from processed foods and to avoid soy and especially synthetic soy supplements (like in multi-vitamins). Fermented soy is supposed to be safer. But it's definitely a challenge.

My recommendation: take a walk through your local health food store and try out some of the items. They have many products that are wheat free and gluten free, especially breads. I try to use rice milk as an alternative to soy milk. And I too love ice cream. Since you're interested in vegetarianism rather than veganism, no problem with the ice cream. Organic Valley has a good reputation as truly being organic and humane, whereas some of the others, such as Horizon, have had some criticisms leveled at them. (I have a food processor and make my own version of "ice cream" by placing frozen bananas in the processor and put some organic chocolate "Ahlaska" brand syrup on top. Pretty yummy).

Things I miss: Chinese spare ribs, chicken wings, cheese. But whenever I feel tempted, I go to PETA's website and watch a video like "Meet your Meat" and remind myself of what it is I'm consuming.

ticonderoga__ I believe we are getting closer but I still have a few thoughts. First, I respect the right of anyone to eat or not eat anything they choose and have not called them any disrespectful names, unlike many here that have commented on meat eaters etc.

I realize CD is named Dreams not Common Practicality, so that may explain some of the difficulty. The present livestock industry has been developed over decades and will not be dismantled in a short time.

We have thousands of ranchers that own or operate millions of acres of grassland and certainly do not want to see their way of making a living stopped and their land values decrease.

We also have thousands of farmers raising corn and soybeans on millions of acres of land that is supplying the feed for all of the livestock destined for the nations supply of meat products.
Those farmers would not be appreciative of losing this outlet.

It may be fun to talk about a pure society eating only organic produced veggies and it could be healthier, but it is not in any way realistic. Many people feel the same about their meat as the gun nuts mantra-- Just try to pry the gun (or steak) out of my cold dead hands. (approximate wording)

It may be that meat eating is natural to humans. It may be that war and torture are also exactly what our savage God intends us to do. I am happy that I have given up those things for myself, sad for the present and future victims of it, horrified to find myself in the company of such monsters as our gory race appears to be. People are, of course, free to pursue whatever hideous rituals they choose. They do so without my company. There are times when it is honorable to be a freak, better to be a species to oneself, than to belong to a club so utterly haywire as the brotherhood of man.

I turned vegetarian three years ago and have never regretted it. Occasionally I've slipped up and eaten meat after being invited to dinner by friends. I'm not going to anymore (eat flesh foods).

Chinese Buddhists say that in order to end wars, people must stop eating flesh foods. They say that after humans eat meat, we absorb the anger and bitterness from the animal that is released into the meat when it is slaughtered (you are what you eat). Some meat eaters also get panic attacks from eating meat for the same reason.

It's enough to turn me off completely by just being aware of how cruel animals are treated as they are raised for slaughter for profit. :(

How about the meat that is being genetically reproduced that is growing just the meat without the rest of the animal. YUM YUM!! No morals to worry about anymore?

In the early 1950s I lived on a working farm and also participated in hunting. What we caused in pain and suffering then was humane compared to what each meat-eater is responsible for today. I am a "near-vegan," and have been vegetarian since the early 60s. I would ask that any meat eater be honest enough to be present at the slaughter of any animal they eat. If they are responsible enough to look in the face of the creature they attack, to hear it's scream and see it's death throes, then perhaps they can claim some degree of integrity. I can't be cold-hearted enough to say what we do is OK.

Yup, the meat stuff does get people riled up. It helps that it went banner on the front page, too.

I'm not going to try debating the veg's anymore. It doesn't work. They're VERY fundie on this, which is quite frightening in its own special way. I stand by my original statements. Deal with it. :p And don't bother flaming me, I'm not coming back to this article. Enjoy your veggie food. :)

I disagree that most of us only care about animals and not about people. The article about the vanishing King Penguins didn't garner much response by comparison. Yet they are animals too. I think we can relate to this "slaughterhouse" article because we know how abusive humans can be to other humans. Like one of the other posters said, it is the same way we treated the slaves. I think we are anthropomorphizing (sp??) the pain and suffering of the animals. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the animals are really suffering. I just think our own projections on to them make our perceptions so intense that we experience their pain in great imaginative detail. This is where our compassion comes in. It is good that we have this capacity.

I also think that we are very passionate about food and eating habits. There are a lot of emotional issues, pleasant and unpleasant with food, probably dating all the way back to our childhoods. Food is tied up with our parents and family, our beliefs, our self image, and our culture and roots. When eating habits are debated, a lot of feathers get ruffled.

This article seems to have brought about a lot of passionate responses. We all love the animals because they are so innocent. If only everyone could talk to them like Dr. Dolittle. Then we could all be traveling the world in a pink sea snail or on the giant lunar moth.

Just because I eat meat does not mean I am evil or that I condone these horrors. My son is a vegetarian and a finer figure of a man would be hard to find but if I become a vegetarian, how will that stop all this? It is the people who trade in and transport animals that need to be educated and, if possible, punished

Yet another reason why Vegetarianism is great and meat eating is evil and cruel.
How can people do this and not think of these creatures as inanimate objects with no feelings
Put them all into one of those ships for a ride and see how they like it.

Okay, Kernel, maybe we should try to make this discussion a serious one.

First, there's no way that people are ever going to stop eating animals all at once, so the livestock that exist in America today aren't going to simply be left to stand around and die. If people stop eating meat, it will be a gradual thing, and there will be a gradual reduction in the demand for it, so livestock ranchers and farmers will gradually raise less livestock.

Second, your upset because vegans think eating animals is cruel, and you don't like them saying this because you eat meat yourself, and also used to be a rancher. It's understandable that you resent being labeled as cruel, even by association, but you've been doing the same thing to vegans. At least you've been labeling them as aggressive and militant, and also ignorant.

Third, there most definitely is a lot of cruelty in the way livestock is raised and slaughtered, and no amount of rationalization is going to make this be not true.

Fourth, you're right: it's not a perfect world, which has been my point all along. I believe that it's better for the global environment for people to not eat meat, but I also am realistic enough to know that a vegetarian world isn't going to happen overnight, if it ever happens at all. But eating less meat would benefit the world, and eating meat that doesn't contain growth hormones or antibiotics would be better for people's health, and eating meat from livestock that was treated well and slaughtered as painlessly as possible would be good for people, as well as for the animals involved.

Fifth, I used to hunt, so I've seen plenty of dead animals. And, although I no longer choose to hunt myself, I'm not interested in banning hunting outright. Hunting, when done properly, is actually less cruel to the animals that are hunted than is modern factory farming and ranching to the animals in that world, IMO.

Sixth, I live in farm country and most of the farmers I've known were people that I thought were basically good people (I've worked on diary farms when I was young, too). But I still think that not eating meat is preferable, in many ways and for many reasons, to eating meat.

Seventh, I have no desire for small family farmers to go out of business. Instead, my "beef" is with the gigantic factory farms that are putting the small family farmer out of business, and the gigantic slaughterhouses that are putting the small slaughterhouses out of business.

Eighth, I've read The Jungle.

"I am wondering what the vegans plan would be for the millions of cattle and hogs now alive in the country if they were not used for food."

There is a very urgent situation here. Animals must be set free. Period. The operative word here is REPATRIATION.

Man has played at chaos for too long and the results are staggering and horrifying.

Murder is not man's occupation by nature. Animals are not ours to use, abuse, eat, destroy, confine, etc.

What is in the interest of all of us is one and the same. All creatures depend to their natural habitats. Those are largely decimated but together with the animals, we can try and recover our depleted soils, and dying planetary diversity.

We can not do this without the participation of other animals. And, they have their own right also to find adaptations based upon the requirements in which we have all come to dwell, far less than ideal.

Birds in Africa have adjusted to the encroaching desert or gone extinct. The same situation confronts us all, pigs, cows, humans.

Old animals should be allowed a natural passing just as you hope for yourself. That IS the way of nature unless they are killed by a NATURAL carnivore.

Not long ago I watched a documentary from the Galapagos filmed in the seventies. Skeletal remains lay in the sun where animals finally slowed past the point of life. Humans were not feared and were approached by wild life for the wild animals did not yet know of their ecological insanity.

Natural Law is not mistaken. Investigate it. Cows, chickens, pigs all have sense http://www.sentientbeings.org/. That may surprise you but theirs will finally be shown to transcend your own, at least at this point in human cultural history.

None of us have a pristine natural world in which to dwell but the recovery and restoration of some sort of naturally functioning biosphere(s) must be permitted. Animals play a role in soil generation and many other important natural functions. And, they have their own rights to happiness. Human ignorance and blindness must no longer be the arbiter for who will live and how long (s)he will live.

ticonderoga___ Yes I have raised cattle for many years and treated them well during their life span. When they were old and were not able to continue in the herd they were sent to the packer, which was preferable to just letting them die a long and slow death, which would be the alternative. I am wondering what the vegans plan would be for the millions of cattle and hogs now alive in the country if they were not used for food.

That was my thought about the dead animals which you will have if they are not used, and to me that is worse than a quick death at a packing plant. It is not likely that many stockmen would prefer to go that route, as they need the income from the animals to survive in their business.

There are still a few people around that take some stock in the Bible, so I threw in that reference about Gods advice on eating meat. And yes, to the person who did not like the thought of animal sacrifice, I never liked that idea either as I became quite attached to all of my animals.

Some of you that get so worked up over the packinghouses should know that about 100 years ago Upton Sinclair wrote a book exposing the terrible practices that were going on and it became a bestseller. From that book came the Food and Drug Administration, and meat inspection was also instigated. The point being, people have tried to do things properly, but it is not a perfect world, and it is not right to label everyone who raises cattle or hogs etc,or processes them as cruel villains.
Sinclairs book was "The Jungle".

"Trying to become vegetarian in a third world country, where a can of sardines and instant chicken/ beef noodles (fortified with MSG) comprise the diet of the poor, and are more affordable than vegetables, is a taxing endeavor that requires an unfaltering devotion to your cause - one that is not easily appreciated."

Can't imagine where you are. Being vegan in most third world countries is much easier than in the US. The only exceptions woud be slave factories that serve sardines and chicken soup. The one I worked in served steamed buns and rice with tiny vegetable decorations, so I was not previously aware that there was a 'chicken soup' for 'poor' people...

But, when people in Third World countries are not confined in slave/work camps, vegetables are generally plentiful, at least where I have been and that includes India and the Middle East. But the insistence upon consuming meat (as a means to be optimally strong and/or healthy) is an enormous problem for the poor who should be told that their plentiful vegetables and fruits are in fact all that their bodies require.

Corporations are more to blame for preventing locals from accessing those foodstuffs locally grown or available. Or for fomenting social upheaval to hamper local food production. Below is an intersting excerpt regarding food availability in the third world.

Remember also that only 1/16 of an acre of land is required to feed a practicing human herbivore compared to fifty times that amount for a typical western meatarian.

12 Myths of Hunger (http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html)

"Only by freeing ourselves from the grip of widely held myths can we grasp the roots of hunger and see what we can do to end it.

Myth 1
Not Enough Food to Go Around

Reality: Abundance, not scarcity, best describes the world's food supply. Enough wheat, rice and other grains are produced to provide every human being with 3,500 calories a day. That doesn't even count many other commonly eaten foods - ..."

Click on link above to read all 12 hunger myths.

Elite corporate (bolstered by military violence) monetary and disinformation policies and fraudulant monetary and resource manipulations keep people from eating. And that is all there is to it.

Scrolled through, I thought I had stopped breathing, all the rants sucked the oxygen out of my room, wheww!
I own 7 dogs, love each one, they ARE my KIDS... I know their individual barks, nuances, click-clack of their nails as they hit the floor. I love horses and could not allow myself to see those photos, I do not understand this need to be abusive towards creatures, why? Damn I love agood steak every now nad then, if you suggest I am all of the above, so it is.
I on my jaunt through Europe, disgusted American, ready to become an ex-pat, anywhere but the US, then-there-was-Paris! Why must they adorn themselves with dead animals raised, only to be murdered for some 89 lb French chick. turned a corner, mink draped over mannequins shoulder, white, pure, diamond brooches shoved in place of eyes, AAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!! I mean no disrespect but i do think a man had his hand in THAT masterpiece....

Very thought-provoking and interesting post, tinylotus. Thanks for making it.

"And here's something else to chew on: Most veggie meat-substitutes are highly processed food. Is that an improvement? I don't think so."

Improvement in what? If you care about desertification, yes, that would be an ENORMOUS improvement. If you care about cancer in humans, eating meat substitutes would also constitute an ENORMOUS improvement.

Compare the ecological footprint of consuming a Beerbrat from Tofurky to any type of meat. And, many processed vegan items do not use any artificial ingredients and are made with organic ingredients.

So the improvement (less negative impacts for human and animal health) is quite amazingly huge.

"
Tofurky® Beer Brats are the first vegetarian meat substitute designed to cook both in the comfort of your kitchen and outside on your grill!

These Big Dogs actually SIZZLE on the grill and really fill out a bun with mustard and sauerkraut.

Made with Real Tofu, not Hexane Extracted Soy Isolates or powders, and Micro Brewed Full Sail Ale. Certified vegan, satisfying and delicious. "

quote copied from: http://tofurky.com/products/sausages.htm

Their peppered jerky is also exceptional!

For cheeses try 'Follow Your Heart' Monterey Jack and Cheddar and also Soyco's parmesan.

Health Valley makes great vegan 'no-chicken' patties. And Trader Joe's offers excellent soy nuggets. Vegan meat balls are superb! Don't add them to the sauce, just microwave and use to top your spaghetti or in a grinder.

Check out Soy Decadence 'ice creams' they are yummy, organic and vegan. Buy Wholesoy lemon yogurt (cherry is good too). Tofutti sour cream and cream cheeses, etc., etc.,etc.

And yes, that will help A LOT!

http://www.soydelicious.com/products/products.html

What are you doing, Kernel?

First you drag God and the Bible into this discussion, saying it's okay to eat meat because God says so, then you say you think it's okay to eat pork, even though you admit God says you shouldn't. Then you say cows have five stomachs, when the real situation is that they have one stomach with four compartments. Then you refer to vegans when directing your posts to me, when I've made it clear that I'm not a vegan. Then you say all us vegans ought to watch a coyote kill a rabbit, saying it's not a pretty sight. Have you ever seen a coyote kill a rabbit? I've seen one kill a woodchuck, as I've mentioned before, and it was over very quickly and caused the woodchuck far less pain than modern animal farms cause cattle (see article above). You say you are, or used to be, a farmer, yet you don't seem to know much about livestock. Remember the five stomachs thing? I mean, I don't mind the constant attack on vegans, but can't you at least get a few facts straight?

And, by the way, I've seen plenty of dead animals. Dead deer, dead foxes, dead possums, dead woodchucks, dead rabbits, dead pheasants, dead etc. What does that have to do with anything? And, more importantly, what does that have to do with the undeniably cruel treatment of the animals as described in the article that started this discussion?

Trying to become vegetarian in a third world country, where a can of sardines and instant chicken/ beef noodles (fortified with MSG) comprise the diet of the poor, and are more affordable than vegetables, is a taxing endeavor that requires an unfaltering devotion to your cause - one that is not easily appreciated.

Cruelty to animals is not so much of an issue in poor countries whose people make a living out of shepherding and butchering, and where meat is a status symbol. It is almost too much to ask to look after the welfare of animals, when the people themselves are treated like non-human beings.

Show them these videos and bombard them with horror stories, and they'll surely be appalled. But the revulsion is temporary not because they think that they cannot do without meat, but because they are disconnected from this kind of reality.

The poor will eat what is on the table. And more often than not, it is instant noodles and rice, if not salt and rice.

O.K. I'm working on comment # 91 or whatever. I think we might make it past 100.

munch1 - It's not that I'm trying to say that dessert or sex is bad. As far as the former goes, I cannot eat much dessert for medical reasons. Actually it's not the sweet so much. It's the wheat/gluten - one of those overly processed grains that's in EVERYTHING these days. It makes it hard to be vegetarian as most vegetarian dishes rely heavily on grains, and almost all the grains typically used are from wheat. That stuff is toxic to my gut. Grains are hard on my digestion in general. If I want dessert I focus on chocolate and icecream. Anyway, without boring anyone with that subject, it is going to be a challenge for me to eat vegetarian and also stay away from wheat and other gluten containing grains. Vegan is worse for me at this point. Gives me very little options for food. And I'm not ready for the RAW diet. And as for the latter, let's just say I don't even have to try on that one - it's just not happening in my life right now.

I've had cats igmore me. They are godd at that.

""If you eat meat, regardless of what other good you may do in the world, you're EVIL!!! *snap!*" Ugh."

Pray tell...

After promoting desertification, deforestation, water pollution and depletion, animal suffering, heart disease in humans, rampant species losses... what good deeds are you planning for your closing act?

"I have never bought into the argument that human critters are "naturally herbivores." "

It isn't being sold. The facts speak for themselves.

Here's another quote from: http://www.stopcancer.co.uk/Humans_are_herbivores.htm

" Humans are herbivores
The health risks of eating meat

Cardiologist William C. Roberts, Editor in chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and medical director of the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas the famed cattle state of Texas itself, says without hesitation that Humans aren't physiologically designed to eat meat. He states that the evidence is pretty clear. If you look at various characteristics of carnivores (meat eaters) versus herbivores (non-meat eaters), it doesn't take a genius to see where humans compare" "

and for those who missed it first time around...

From "The Comparative Anatomy of Eating", by Milton R. Mills, MD

Facial Muscles
CARNIVORE: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
HERBIVORE: Well-developed
OMNIVORE: Reduced
HUMAN: Well-developed

Jaw Type
CARNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HERBIVORE: Expanded angle
OMNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HUMAN: Expanded angle

Jaw Joint Location
CARNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HERBIVORE: Above the plane of the molars
OMNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HUMAN: Above the plane of the molars

Jaw Motion
CARNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
HERBIVORE: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
OMNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side
HUMAN: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back

Major Jaw Muscles
CARNIVORE: Temporalis
HERBIVORE: Masseter and pterygoids
OMNIVORE: Temporalis
HUMAN: Masseter and pterygoids

Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
CARNIVORE: Large
HERBIVORE: Small
OMNIVORE: Large
HUMAN: Small

Teeth: Incisors
CARNIVORE: Short and pointed
HERBIVORE: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
OMNIVORE: Short and pointed
HUMAN: Broad, flattened and spade shaped

Teeth: Canines
CARNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HERBIVORE: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
OMNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HUMAN: Short and blunted

Teeth: Molars
CARNIVORE: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
HERBIVORE: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
OMNIVORE: Sharp blades and/or flattened
HUMAN: Flattened with nodular cusps

Chewing
CARNIVORE: None; swallows food whole
HERBIVORE: Extensive chewing necessary
OMNIVORE: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
HUMAN: Extensive chewing necessary

Saliva
CARNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HERBIVORE: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
OMNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HUMAN: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes

Stomach Type
CARNIVORE: Simple
HERBIVORE: Simple or multiple chambers
OMNIVORE: Simple
HUMAN: Simple

Stomach Acidity
CARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
OMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach

Stomach Capacity
CARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
OMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract

Length of Small Intestine
CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length
HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length
OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length
HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length

Colon
CARNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculated
OMNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HUMAN: Long, sacculated

Liver
CARNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HERBIVORE: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
OMNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HUMAN: Cannot detoxify vitamin A

Kidney
CARNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HERBIVORE: Moderately concentrated urine
OMNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HUMAN: Moderately concentrated urine

Nails
CARNIVORE: Sharp claws
HERBIVORE: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
OMNIVORE: Sharp claws
HUMAN: Flattened nails

Hi REBELNOW, Yes indeed, very serious and indeed it was a long time ago for me. I'm 72 now so it was 62 years ago. It was a slaughter house that supplied most of the the meat for a mid-sized town in Michigan that was heavily populated with Dutch immigrants. Most of the school's students were were farm kids.

You could buy meat right there at the slaughter house store. I remember being a bit surprised that it was very clean for a slaughter house. Also they didn't physically abuse the animals before they were led to the knife. They just killed them and butchered em up. They bled them while their hearts were still beating and then used the blood in sausage, nothing was wasted, even the cattle hoofs were ground up for gelatin.

Chicken feet were sold for use in soups, all meat scraps, the guts, eyeballs, etc, from the pigs, sheep and cattle were made into scrabble. Ever heard of Mountain Oysters? That's bull's nuts, hammered flat, deep fried and smothered with a thick sauce or gravy.

~COCO~. I don't believe the other articles are ignored, or that people don't care about humanity suffering. __ I sure do. It is just that for me for example, I often don't know what to say usually and don't know how to stop it. Then too, twelve or so articles appear here daily and I usually only blog on three of them.

This animal subject is often more talked about with more comments, because it is more like politics and there also are a large number of vegetarians who blog here. The whale issues didn't get a lot of comments either you may recall and then this is a lead article too.

Of course SOME people probably do care more for dumb animals than they do for people. I never have had an animal insult me, rob me, sue me, pass me on a blind curve, or otherwise piss me off.

BTW: Shipping pigs from the Mainland to Hawaiʻi and calling it "local" is fraud, and seriously, to my Island friends: where's the local pride, brah?

Oooo, a veggie flame war! Loads of fun for everyone!

I have never bought into the argument that human critters are "naturally herbivores." It's usually claimed through comparative anatomy, which honestly doesn't prove very much. The anthropological evidence is sketchier.

I have to remember to not click on any article on CD about this sorta thing, because as soon as you scroll down to comments, you can almost hear the minds of veg's closing like a steel trap. "If you eat meat, regardless of what other good you may do in the world, you're EVIL!!! *snap!*" Ugh.

And here's something else to chew on: Most veggie meat-substitutes are highly processed food. Is that an improvement? I don't think so. (Bonus points for you if you wisely avoid such things.)

"One more point I believe needs addressing…for those who believe in evolution as I do. It has been theroized that we humans as a species developed our superior (?) brain by eating meat and lots of it through a long period…the point being that our brains have developed to the point they are because large amounts of protein have been comsumed over a long time allowing for the increase in brain size."

Who writes this stuff? This flies in the face of all the facts. One, few people even ate meat until the introduction of refrigeration. Before that people had small brains? Or is it that only MOST people had small brains?

As far as protein is concerned, the actual amount of protein in any number of vegetables such as broccoli is truly astonishing. And, humans like all creatures have optimal parameters. Those do not include excessive protein or the wrong type of protein.

The idea that brains were enlarged (or did you mean swollen;) by being poisoned is absurd and another attempt to create an 'historical/anthropological' dietary myth to derail reasonable and logical and fact-based discussions on the subject of what constitutes a healthy (ecologically sound) human diet.

But let's look at one of the problems for humans who consume animal proteins (quote copied from http://notmilk.com/deb/092098.html)

"WHY DOES ANIMAL PROTEIN CAUSE BONE LOSS?

I spoke with Dr. Sellmeyer, and here is her explanation:

"Sulphur-containing amino acids in protein-containing foods are metabolized to sulfuric acid. Animal foods provide predominantly acid precursors. Acidosis stimulates osteoclastic activity and inhibits osteoblast activity." "

And, acidosis in humans also signals the environment to decompose us since humans become decidedly acidic upon death... so, all you meat-eaters, you are not only participating in the rape, torture and murder of other animals you should be leaving alone, the environment is being signaled to do its best to kill you also.

You won't get a bigger brain by eating meat. And frankly, considering the resistance to understanding ecological principals on this planet amongst humans, I would say that a 'bigger' brain can quite logically be ruled out as a part of human characteristics. It never happened, at least not functionally.

Humans are herbivores. Behave accordingly and then see what benefits, intellectual and otherwise, can be reaped.

rminniss February 13th, 2008 9:0
"Please, for the animals vote for Hillary Clinton!"

Hillary is the NWO's gal (just ask Anne Coulter and the rest of the Faux News group). I'm sure her ideas will be very good for the other animals,it's her policies toward the Homosapiens that worries me.

"I've posed to you the question before about what to do where I live. In much of the Rocky Mountain foothills, elk and deer are overpopulated because humans have killed off the wolves. The elk now herd and graze like cattle, destroying the very ecosystems that support them, and they are now dying of starvation and disease."

Simple Sauce, I'm afraid I must jump in here and catch a ride on your bandwagon...especially regarding hunting. I live in Central Texas and in spite of our Parks and Wildlife Department doing constant whitetail deer population studies and determining per county bag limits based on these annual studies, the whitetail population is increasing to the point where there is over browsing which results in starvation of many deer. One major reason the existing populations are overbrowsing is because their natural habitat is being taken away by the developing of the and for human occupation (subdivisions, roads, etc.)Hunting is used to manage the herds and the money derived from the sale of hunting licenses is used to perpetuate the studies as we as provide additional food reserves in areas that have been overbrowsed in spite of existing bag limits. I don't know about how others here feel personally, but I would rather see the populations being managed through the practice of hunting rather than starvation. One way or another, some of the population loses and at least when an animal is taken as game is is used for food (I hope...I do loathe trophy hunters!) I have a suggestion for those who oppose hunting...buy a hunting license with a non-game stamp if available. This way you put your money where your mouth is. I used to hunt but do not anymore, not because I have a dislike for hunting/hunters (most hunters/fishermen have a tremendous respect for the game they hunt or fish for and will do anything that will benefit the species in general) but rather just don't care to get up that early to go out and hunt and get cold. I do however still buy the license because I know that money is being put to good use in caring for the entire wildlife population.

One more point I believe needs addressing...for those who believe in evolution as I do. It has been theroized that we humans as a species developed our superior (?) brain by eating meat and lots of it through a long period...the point being that our brains have developed to the point they are because large amounts of protein have been comsumed over a long time allowing for the increase in brain size.

Cheers all and have a great day!!!

-Shawn, BSF, RPLS (Bachelor of Science Forestry/Registered Professional Land Surveyor)

tinylotus, nice comments. Are you familiar with Marjorie Spiegel's book, "The Dreaded Comparison, Human and Animal Slavery"? A must read, for the reasons you mentioned.

Kem, are you serious about a field trip to a slaughter house? It must have been awhile ago because it would never be allowed nowadays. Most are guarded like prison facilities.

I was going to suggest that very thing for todays high schoolers. Why not be educated about our food sources? Then we could make an informed decision about our eating habits. Of course they would need to bring ear plugs because the squeals of fear and agony are deafening. Also they would need to bring barf bags because if they didn't vomit from the horror most would from the stench.

We are free to choose to eat meat slaughtered from todays hideously insane conditions, but if we seriously look at those conditions we can't help but be shocked and deeply saddened, if not horrified. It's one more example of a world gone wrong.

BTW, i do not have a problem with this...............

i'm glad to see this article is from a u.k. source. at least the folk in the u.k. might take notice. it's very interesting that animal rights issues seem to take a precedence over others. for instance, look at the amount of comments on the following issues:

iraq's tidal wave of misery - 10 comments

inequality, not identity, fuels violence in kenya - 10 comments

surge in spending on nukes a grave error - 26 comments

u.s. accused of using 'kangaroo court' - 83 comments (another 'independent/u.k' article)

video reveals violation of laws, abuse of cows at slaughterhouse - 114 comments.

the total amount of comments so far on this issue is 79. it will probably surpass the 114 of the cow slaughterhouse article.

to my mind it goes to show that people care more about animals than they do about iraqi suffering, african conflicts, nuclear proliferation or terrorists............

Good for you, agave! I've recently become a vegan (formerly vegetarian as well as meat eater), after seeing stories and videos like the ones above. If the cruelty of meat "production" doesn't sway people, I would think the unsanitariness and unhealthiness of it would. Who would want to eat meat that's been shat upon or is sick or diseased? Gross!

For me, I just came to believe, to the bottom of my heart, that this is murder. And no, I'm not calling meat eaters murderers. But those who eat meat from factory farms are complicit in the torture and murder of innocent, beautiful, sentient creatures. Truly horrific what we humans do. Does this make me a militant for feeling this way? If so, then I embrace the label.

Tinylotus, I had the very same reaction when I saw the animals transported in these containers. It reminded me of the human slave trade; slaves were treated as disposable chattel, without feelings, without souls. We have not evolved at all, IMO. Our cruelty and inhumanity have just taken a different form (and there are so many!). But I applaud, like you, the fact that there seems to be a growing recognition that what we are doing to these innocent, sentient beings is an abomination. And hopefully things will change.

As for the reference above to the bible, I have never been able to stomach the Old Testament concept of killing animals for ritual sacrifice, just as there is much else in the Old Testament that I find unacceptable (incest would be one). The God that I know and love would not sanction the torture and starvation of animals.

I was torn between Clinton and Obama. I looked at their voting records. .Clinton has more experience, so she has a larger voting record. Considering on what they both voted on, many times they voted the same. I was torn between the two. I then looked up interest groups and saw how the interest groups rated them. Clinton had #7 animal rights groups give her an 86%. #17 other animal rights interest groups gave her 100%. Obama had only #3 animal rights interest group that gave him 60%,60%, & 20%. I knew Hillary Clinton was for me. To think that the blameless creaters don't have a chance, and that the only voice they have is not their own.

Please, for the animals vote for Hillary Clinton!

I applaud your efforts Agave... but "sex, desserts"? Why deny yourself those?

Sex is good. Dessert (especially when I make it) is possibly even better.

Want some recipes for happiness with no pain?

~ELMYSTESTERIO~ Interesting post you just posted. Someone else posts their opinions and it's blah-blah-blah. ___ And what "Sir Wizard" is your post? ___ Educated wisdom perhaps?

And why do you ASSUME, someone who deplores animal suffering, would walk past a suffering human, without giving a second look? __ You the judge, or just an opinionated boor?

In fifth grade, our class went on a half a day field trip to a slaughter house, for educational purposes. It certainly was an education. Us kids all knew that the pigs waiting their turn outside, were fully aware of what was happening to the pigs inside. The squealing was horrendous. None of us liked that field trip, huge black and white pigs bleeding to death with their throats slashed, as they were strung up with a big metal hook stuck through one of their hind ankle joints. ___ It was barbaric.

Blah blah blah... Poor little critters. Its funny how someone could get so bent out of shape about "animal cruelty" yet walk past a suffering person without giving them a second look. And as far as the person who posted above that humans are herbivores, all I can say is bullshit. Impressive looking post but bullshit none the less.

munch1, your post that includes "The Comparative Anatomy of Eating" is an interesting addition to this forum.

This article doesn't surprise or offend me anymore than the "inhumane" treatment "livestock" receive in factory farms or slaughterhouses. However, it does seem more rudely impractical in its own way.

Sure, i am a vegan consumer out of personal protest, irrespective of special dietary needs (i suppose i have the "luxury" of that choice).

i hope that all folks in this mindset are doing more to "fight" this "system", and not just trying to outwit the choir, or feel comfortable for consuming only "free range / organic" or "local" or only from CSA's. i suspect many of us are, and that's beautiful. Endowed with this information, we must be vocal and disseminate for the sake of our (local) communities.

kloshe chako

All I can think of when I read a peace about cruelty to animals is Iraq. Humans are animals too.

This is part of "THE NEW WORLD ORDER" that the
Bush Family was peddling. The Clintons have gone along with this game and no one seems to place the blame where it belongs..

I think I will become a vegetarian. I've thought about it for a while now. This article has kind of nailed it for me. For the longest time I stopped eating beef. As far as all the other animals, I've only eaten small amounts. But now I can't seem to stomach it anymore.

There is a spiritual side to abstaining from meat, much like other things we abstain from: alcohol, sex, desserts, etc.
There is also a spiritual side to abstaining from T.V., computers, iPods, cell phones, car travel, jet travel, etc.

There is an ache, pain that goes with controlling our desire for all these things. How do we wrestle with that challenge?

Little by little. And with the support of others who are trying to do the same. We cannot impose our beliefs or ideas onto others. We can only show by example. And the example needs to be clear and honest. We cannot criticize those who do not seem to understand or "see the light". It is a waste of time to criticize. Instead help others find a way to control their desires, whether it is abstaining from meat, or abstaining from a pair of Nike shoes, let them experience the benefits of their actions and applaud them for trying.

"As for being a herbivore, cows have five stomachs to handle all of that hay and grass, and they like it so much better than I do."

You are confusing terms. Herbivore means naturally adapted to be a plant eater. There are many types of plant eaters. I assume that you do like potatoes, cherries, rice, avocado, walnuts, olives, lettuce, mangos?

The cow's stomach is actually a later evolutionary development making it possible for cows to graze on foodstuffs that were even more abundant than fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, etc.

A cow is, is a graminivore herbivore. Humans are more appropriately called frugivores though I don't believe that we are exclusively that type... just more like that.

There are in fact many types of herbivores; folivores (eat leaves), etc. Kapische?

Your taste for meat is cultural. And that is all there is to it. Others who are not raised to eat meat have no inclination whatsoever to begin.

"It might be educational to have a look at a dead animal sometime and see if that looks preferable to ending up as a worthwhile part of someones dinner."

??? Is there a logic here?

Overpopulation would be less of a problem if people ate veggies.

It's the fossil fuels used in fertilizer that makes meat such a drain on the system. Raising food to feed and grow a cow!

So many hungry people on the planet can afford to eat exotic foods so the demand taxes the natural systems in nature that fed us in the past. Native animals no longer have a right to their land. Their Land! Our Land? Who owns the earth?

It's the masses of people and their appetite pushing wildlife to extinction by consuming their habitat.

I BELIEVE IT WILL COLLAPSE LIKE A CHAIN BREAKING.

Forty years ago when I was in my early twenties I was a meat eater. I was attending a Junior College at the time and took a pre-med course that involved dissecting human cadavers.
During one class we were dissecting the muscles of the human leg. That night I went home to a nice home cooked meal that my wife at the time made. A nice home cooked meal of beef - beef muscle that looked just like human muscle.
I quit eating meat for quite a while after that.
I eventually returned to eating meat but about three or four years ago started to like beans, rice and grains more and more and meat less and less. I'm now a full time vegetarian and don't miss meat at all - plus I lost twenty pounds that I did not need.

ticonderoga__ No I do not eat shellfish, because it just never appealed to me. However , I would hate to think of not ever being able to enjoy a good steak or pork chop occasionaly, even though God may not approve of the pork chop. As for being a herbivore, cows have five stomachs to handle all of that hay and grass, and they like it so much better than I do.

Without using them to pull wagons, as in older days, or perform in rodeos, I do not know what use all of the cattle on the planet would have besides ending their life as food, which seems preferable than letting them just roam around and die. I am not sure that would be such a great sight either for all of the vegans to drive by and look at, besides smelling the carcasses laying around.

It might be educational to have a look at a dead animal sometime and see if that looks preferable to ending up as a worthwhile part of someones dinner.

The 'spirit world' is a natural part of the living world. All of it depends to natural law. Engaging spiritual consciousness requires engaging natural consciousness; which can only be accessed by obeying the natural laws of interaction... and those must be understood.

Humans are herbivores. This is one of the principle laws of human natural interaction.

The spiritual truth is the natural truth. And, meat-eaters violate natural law and consequently also violate spiritual law.

Yes, we are all one. And that one requires of all its elements (human included) to be law-abiding for the sake of the all and the one.

Special Sauce wrote: I've posed to you the question before about what to do where I live. In much of the Rocky Mountain foothills, elk and deer are overpopulated because humans have killed off the wolves. ... How else besides hunting are we to restore ecological balance in this place?

Nature will take care of the overpopulation of elk. It always has, and it always will. Man should not interfere at all. We've done enough interfering.

You are an elitist. You have tried to establish yourself as being different to meat-eaters, as being the savior of the RMNP, as being deserving. However, you are just one of over 20 million active hunters in the US who would be only too happy to save the RMNP....in a single season. Then there would be no elk, but I am sure that you and the other 20 million hunters would be prepared to save the RMNP from the subsequent explosion of rabbits. And so on, until nothing is left.

I will repeat again my contention: That without industrialized meat production, most wild animals will be hunted to near-extinction, certainly within one human generation. The only way to stop the slaughter is to eliminate meat from our diet. And that applies equally-well to self-serving elitists.

Contrary to what you may think, you are the problem, not the solution.

I have been waiting most of my life to see this discussion take place on a venue that is broadcast around this planet.
All of the points made for each "side" have been done in a seemingly endless loop of rhetoric about this subject for countless millenia.
May I submit, that none of the above discussions have included this point:
The conditions described for these animals in their transport are exactly the same as those described in our history books for the humans "we" used in slavery....at the time,
some humans refused to believe that the slaves had feelings, and also at the time there were other humans who fought for the rights of these "slaves".....
My point is... there is hope...as we have at least began to admit that we need not inflict pain on one another in the name of superiority....perhaps "we" as a species will take this a step further and recognize the "equal rights" of all beings to enjoy a full life....

For a more spiritual understanding of what I mean, go to:
http://www.globalcommunity.org/
Do NOT skip the intro. The intro says it all.

Simple
Why are you calling vegans as militant vegans :-) ?
Are you militant meat eater?

"This would be hilarious if it wasn't so arrogant and absurd. To think, people living sustainably for 10,000+ years in a place don't know what's good for them… If only they knew that they didn't belong there in the first place!

Now, if only we could get these ignorant savages to see the light and change their heathen ways…"

Quite absurd. I did not say 'heathen' and if that is your interpretation, then please, realize the advice is given across the board to ALL meat-eating humans.

And, the Inuit are apparently descended from tribes from Japan. It is most probable that they ate very little meat before settling in the North, so it was an adaptation that is NOT supported by their ecological design.

The Inuit have the WORST incidence of osteoporosis in the world! And they evidence other deleterious affects from following a diet that is predominantly unsuited for their needs.

Everywhere on earth, humans have developed attitudes and behaviors that are not survivable. These we inherited from one dominator society or another (originally all linked). These behaviors are NOT natural responses to survival as you surmise and as you have been taught. The roots of meat-eating, even Inuit meat-eating, are other than you believe and that root has more to do with introducing cultural hierarchies than human survival or human health.

____________
The Natural Human Diet

According to biologists and anthropologists who study our anatomy and our evolutionary history, humans are herbivores who are not well suited to eating meat.

Unlike natural carnivores, we are physically and psychologically unable to rip animals limb from limb and eat and digest their raw flesh. Even cooked meat is likely to cause human beings, but not natural carnivores, to suffer from food poisoning, heart disease, and other ailments.

People who pride themselves on being part of the human hunter tradition should take a second look at the story of human evolution. Prehistoric evidence indicates that humans developed hunting skills relatively recently and that most of our short, meat-eating past was spent scavenging and eating almost anything in order to survive; even then, meat was a tiny part of our caloric intake.

Humans lack both the physical characteristics of carnivores and the instinct that drives them to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Ask yourself: When you see dead animals on the side of the road, are you tempted to stop for a snack? Does the sight of a dead bird make you salivate? Do you daydream about killing cows with your bare hands and eating them raw? If you answered "no" to all of these questions, congratulations, you're a normal human herbivore, like it or not. Humans were simply not designed to eat meat.

The above discussion was copied from http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet.asp

Is it true that Native American Indians had great respect and understanding for the animals they hunted? Didn't they see their world as one? Wasn't there a sense of harmony and being in tune with nature? Or was that just a myth?

What about the industiralization of the modern world and the role of science? Today everything is broken down into parts, separated from each other, labeled, and compartmentalized. This is the world we were all born into. We have no tolerance or understanding of each other. We separate ourselves. We label. We compartmentalize. Vegans here, meat eaters over there.

This view that we are all different and seperate from each other is a misconception. We are all interconnected, intertwined and inseperable. We all look different on the outside, but the inside we all look the same. If we can all realize this, and begin to understand and have respect for each other as the earth's family, then we can start to learn how to care for the plants, the animals and each other again. We have to accept that we are a much bigger family now. There is no getting around it.

For a more entertaining look at this concept, go to:
http://www.globalcommunity.org/flash/wombat.shtml

Just remember, we are ALL ONE !!!!!

You're interpreting entirely incorrectly, Simple.

No one's calling for the Inuit to forego their traditional diet. Of course not. But just because something's traditional and sustainable doesn't mean it's the healthiest for the individual. That is objective fact, were you to take it as such.

If I lived my whole life eating a stick of butter a day, and someone told me I would live twice as long if I ate a carrot a day, would I?

I don't know how to define your thinking, but generally it's pretty short-sighted and PC-reactionary. It's not you vs. the militant vegans, it's you just coming across as lame. I like some fun, spirited exchanges, but have gone sorely lacking today.

Overpopulation is also a HUGE myth used to justify genocide (and appease consciences) around the world.

See foodfirst.org, the twelve myths of hunger.

Like I said, the only problem is ignorance and the unbelievable suffering it is causing. Murder is unnatural for humans (who are natural herbivores) and only made possible by cultural indoctrination.

The simplest and easiest thing to do is to stop eating ALL meat. Why? All of nature including your own nature supports this course of action and ecological interaction.

"That said, even the Inuit would be better served (and certainly much healthier) if they ate an herbivorous diet as they are naturally defined to do. (Greenhouses if they wish to stop trucking in food as is done today)"

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so arrogant and absurd. To think, people living sustainably for 10,000+ years in a place don't know what's good for them... If only they knew that they didn't belong there in the first place!

Now, if only we could get these ignorant savages to see the light and change their heathen ways...

"I'm not talking about a hypothetical world. I'm talking about moral decisions for eating here and now."

That is the point. This is not hypothetical. Humans are herbivores. Human herbivores are destroying the planet and causing unbelievable suffering due to nothing else but ignorance. These are facts.

The other fact is that five businesses that I have attempted to launch that would have made it as easy as going to Mc D's to get really delicious and healthy food have been overwhelmingly opposed by corporate concerns and a government (FBI) that works to protect their interests.

Educational programs to provide critical information to schools have also been opposed. Yet, the importance of this to student health and to the health of the environment has been told repeatedly to government education officials. It is time for the public to realize that there are well-entrenched road blocks that include medical concerns (they make money on your ill health), agribusinesses and unhealthy global food service corporations.

WTF:

I know, I just don't get it because I'm a moron, etc. I'm not talking about a hypothetical world. I'm talking about moral decisions for eating here and now. You condemn people who hunt or scavenge (road-kill venison can be very tasty!) and pastoralists who raise indigenous species that have been otherwise eliminated from their habitat. I don't agree that these practices are immoral or unsustainable.

I've posed to you the question before about what to do where I live. In much of the Rocky Mountain foothills, elk and deer are overpopulated because humans have killed off the wolves. The elk now herd and graze like cattle, destroying the very ecosystems that support them, and they are now dying of starvation and disease. Reintroducing wolves is politically impossible, though the wildlife biologists long to do so. How else besides hunting are we to restore ecological balance in this place? Is it not our responsibility as the dominant species (the one that killed the indigenous predators) to do what we can to prevent the elk from starving and destroying what little remains of the native ecosystem?

I know, I know. I just don't get it. I'm in the wrong because I'm not a vegan. I'm either with you or against you, and the moral dilemmas that I choose to acknowledge do not exist, and there is only one possible correct way to live as a human being... I've heard all of that before. Tell me how to ignore the destruction of the willow carr ecosystems in Rocky Mountain National Park that I've volunteered to restore as the elk keep breeding. Tell me how to ignore the nagging sense that it's more wrong to dam the rivers and plow up the prairie to grow food when the bison that belong here can feed me as well.

I had the dubious privilege of being born at what I hope will be the peak of industrial civilization. I want to see us pull back from it in a way that seeks to restore ecological health and balance, by voluntarily reducing our population and our impacts. I believe that part of that involves rejoining the indigenous food web wherever we find ourselves. Where I live that means eating some meat as part of my diet. If I was on the Columbia River, it would mean eating some salmon (and removing the dams). If I was in an intact forest, it would mean eating as many fruits and wild veggies and grains as possible, and perhaps some fish or venison from time to time.

"There is no middle ground because there are too many people."

There are too many people, I agree. As industrial civilization collapses, we will all have to find food wherever it is, and some of that might just have to be meat...

Totally disgusting behavior by humans -- the absolute scurge of the Earth. I stopped eating meat two years ago. I tried for several years to go vegetarian. If every single person were confronted with the brutal images of inhumane torturous conditions and brutal behavior at the hands of humans, one must wonder how anyone could ever eat meat. Humans are truly the scurge of the Earth -- no respect for other living things whatsoever -- especially when it comes to profit.

Poultry, too, are raised and transported in horrible conditions. Over the years I've bought less and less meat, and when I do tend to buy from more responsible sources such as those that claim the meat/eggs were free range or pasture raised and not fed antibiotics or hormones, etc. But, it's hard to fork over the much higher price. If I wasn't married to such a carnivore I'd probably just be a vegetarian. I don't deny that as a species humans probably naturally eat meat, but there is no good excuse to raise it in such cruel ways.

"I didn't see anyone talking about the importance of bioregional diets (which sometimes must include meat or else preclude human habitation)."

First, whales do not need to inhabit every mountaintop. The same is true for humans. Humans will only solve the issue of survival when they embrace (rather than oppose) ecology.

That said, even the Inuit would be better served (and certainly much healthier) if they ate an herbivorous diet as they are naturally defined to do. (Greenhouses if they wish to stop trucking in food as is done today)

Humans are raised in a dominator culture. It is accepted by them that they are meant to dominate all of nature. In fact, we are a part of nature and if we succeed in dominating it (altering it completely) entirely, it will disappear and so will we.

Now, what did the 20 million buffalo do before the English arrived to 'manage' their numbers? Just like the wildebeest of Africa, they overpopulated... and to the great benefit of the soil. That soil, btw, has been depleted by almost 80% on the US plains mostly due to the growing of feed crops for cattle.

Just think, we have moved from ecological sanity where herds helped define soil generation to total ignorance where animal manure is now used to pollute our water and promote other deleterious affects.

Humans are the last creatures who should assume a right of murder over other creatures and populations. No creature on this planet is deceived by man's lack of consciousness in regard to the requirements of ecology and even his own ecology.

It is time for man to recognize his natural disconnection and the smug arrogance it protects and embrace the fact that every chicken he murders could teach him more about finding his own sanity than he could ever imagine.

Natural intelligence…Try it. You'll like it. It's not your corporate programming, it's different.

Simple Sauce wrote: You seem to think that hunting or raising locally indigenous species (like native-grass-fed bison on the plains) is somehow identical to industrial meat production.

You just don't get it. OK, let's play your game of justifying hunting indigenous species in a world where raising animals for slaughter does not exist. Given the paucity of wild animals, how long do you think it would take before all those wild animals are eliminated? Natural areas in the US cannot sustain unlimited hunting, especially for a population of 350 million. Maybe you think there should be a licensing system, whereby the hunt is limited? Or maybe a lottery? How long would it be before the elite would control the licensing/lottery? How long would it be before greater-than-thou types circumvent the licensing system and hunt illegally. How would YOU justify your place in the meat queue for the last bison in the US?

Well get in line, because there are at least 100 million Americans just like you who will say anything to justify their consumption of meat.

You just don't get it. Industrialized meat production exists because the natural environment cannot support the vast over population of homo sapiens. The only egalitarian way out is for EVERYONE to stop eating meat. Period.

So you either support industrialized meat production, or you support an egalitarian approach to saying no to the unnecessary slaughter of animals. There is no middle ground because there are too many people.

Peace Czar:

I'm not exactly sure how being polite precludes actual discussion. The rest of the posters here have politely raised and defended points, with a couple of exceptions.

I didn't see any of the militant vegans bringing up points about how industrial agriculture plantations of all kinds (not just the ones that raise feedlot feed) are damaging and unsustainable. I didn't see anyone talking about how hunting in areas of herbivore overpopulation where the predators have been wiped out can reduce starvation and disease in indigenous animals. I didn't see anyone talking about the importance of bioregional diets (which sometimes must include meat or else preclude human habitation).

These things are all important to discussions about the ethics of taking life to support oneself, especially as industrial civilization begins to slow down an collapse under the weight of its impacts on the natural world. I managed to bring them up without calling anyone stupid, ignorant, evil, uncaring, a moron, or a spiteful shitkicking douchebag. I don't see how that's a failure to engage on my part.

Perhaps you'll care to enlighten me as to why it's not only immoral to eat meat in an ecologically appropriate and sustainable way, but also why insulting people in a print medium is necessary to discussing these things.

Simple Sauce: I applaud your temerity. I, too, live in a rural area and although I have significantly reduced my meat consumption, I also believe that there are sustainable systems that include human use of animal products. And I, too, have been trashed for that belief on CD in the past. I have rarely seen people bring such a religious zeal to any discussion as they do to the vegan religion. For many vegans, progressive tolerance is apparently a great thing as long as it meshes with their beliefs.

"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants."

- A. Whitney Brown

Actually, Kernel, although I'm not strictly a vegan, I have seen a coyote catch and kill an animal. It was a woodchuck, though, and not a rabbit. And it was over in a second.

The thing is, the coyote has no choice in the matter. It simply cannot survive on a strictly vegetarian diet. But we can.

And if you want to bring God into this, I hope you don't eat clams or oysters, because, according to the Bible, God says you're not supposed to eat shellfish.

Simple Sauce: It's about finding a sustainable food system to support people wherever they live, and that means that there is no single right answer

Well, you just described a single right answer that simply parameterizes the ecology. We can arrive at sensible policies when we use reason, parameterize carefully, and put a lid on the liberal extremism that allows the capitalist to rampage, plunder and destroy everything.

You will find that animal cruelty and child abuse are linked.

You will also find that hunger is tied to eating animals rather than following our natural diets and you will also find that those with a vested interest in keeping the public ignorant on these issues controls land usage and food distribution in order to PROMOTE hunger.

The land required to feed a practicing human herbivore is 1/16 of an acre. Fifty times that amount of land is required to feed a typical American meatarian. It does not just represent a huge waste of land (promoting deforestation and desertification), these insane practices also deplete fresh water supplies and because of the manner in which animals are now being raised, pollute them as well.

Nothing is going to be well on this planet until humans turn the corner on this issue. It is fundamentally about human ignorance and the cost to all life for that ignorance.

SecularAnimist:

You hit the nail on the head with that point. Animal livestock and agriculture increases the need for industrial agriculture many fold, because the input of resources so heavily outweighs the yield. There's no closed, sustainable loop that's possible on their current scales of operation.

Thanks to you, munch1, and others for saying all the things that we know, but have to say out for everything looking for that loophole to magically justify eating meat. I'm in more of an eye-gouging mood today than one of baby-spooning the facts, though I applaud your patience and apologize for my own lack thereof today.

-----------

Simple:

Don't be so damn pithy as to question, "do I oppose industrial agriculture, not just industrial meat." Are you talking to toddlers here? I actually have a secret death wish against plants... I care deeply for the animals tortured in CAFO's, but revel in delight at the pesticides and GMO madness to our grain supplies. I particularly hate safflower... call me a sadist if you will.

Stop being so mealy-mouthed and polite if you actually want a discussion. Roll up your sleeves and present some valid points for discussion. And get a sense of humor while you're at it. I don't mind a few jibes if you're actually going to talk legitimately and openly.

I can juggle insults and facts all day; I'd all the same prefer to really discuss matters.

Have any of you vegans ever seen a dog or coyote catch and eat a rabbit? It is not a pretty and humane sight, but it happens thousands of times a day in this country. What do you think we should do about that as those rabbits wanted to live too. Also. as we move up the food chain, many more species of animals meet the same fate.

Apparently, most of you have never read the Old Testament of the Bible where God gives his people commands about which animals are alright for them to eat. I do not believe in setting oneself up to dispute the word of God.

I applaud efforts to treat animals as well as possible, but do not think some posters are justified in putting down people who believe differently about the use of animals.

Munch1, if you don't mind I'd like to add one more thing to your list of examples illustrating that vegans are the ones who are really being marginalized by society: Dennis Kucinich.

"I don't understand something…Why is it that it is perfectly okay for "vegetarians/vegans" to be so incredibly aggressive and downright hostile towards "meat-eaters"? I resent it."

This is typical. Falsely accuse, demonize... turn public opinion. I have NEVER met a 'hostile' vegan! The very idea is oxymoronic.

I have met (and I am one myself) motivated and very dedicated people who have made huge sacrifices to help others understand the nature of their concerns.

We cook (all the time for others so they can realize that 'vegan' does not include taste compromise), we nurse (others get sick, we stay healthy so we are always on call and always trying to make it easier for others to make healthier choices), we leaflet (spend our own time and money on resources), we put up with people who are knee-jerk-reactionary and virtually spit at us these days because society has now convinced them it is OK to treat vegans like deranged assholes.

Sorry, bud; I have been a practicing human herbivore for over two decades. I have been violated in ways you can not imagine from physical attacks to numerous attempts by undercover agents at entrapment, to theft of property (small and large), break-ins, threats on my life, and unbelievable slander campaigns.

Vegans are not the problem. We are the ones who have been trying to get healthier options in all the places people are likely to want them for decades... and we work tirelessly at it and against HUGE and well funded corporate and government syndicated efforts to block our efforts.

And we do it for your health, your sanity and for the sake of ALL life; plant, human and other animal.

SecularAnimist:

Good points. To your scientific arguments about nervous systems in animals vs. plants, I don't disagree. I'd say that subjective experience as we understand it does not justify a hierarchy of life. That's just my perspective. I'd point to Derrick Jensen's A Language Older than Words for some interesting thoughts about plants and sentience.

As for the plantations that support industrial meat, we agree. I've seen plenty of plantations that are equally atrocious that have nothing whatsoever to do with meat, including wheat, sunflowers, palms, olives, fruits, vegetables, etc. My preference is for the abandonment of all industrial agriculture, not just that associated with the meat industry.

The world is not ready for globalization. This is what happens when the people doing the decision making,the law making do not have a clue about what is happening in the practices they prescribe for others. That cruelty exists whether you eat it or not. This is needless suffering and it has become a convenience to ignorance.

PeaceCzar? Douchebag?

Oh well.

I don't understand something…Why is it that it is perfectly okay for "vegetarians/vegans" to be so incredibly aggressive and downright hostile towards "meat-eaters"? I resent it.

I respect peoples' beliefs, I am a compassionate and caring individual who has spent years helping the homeless and mentally challenged, mentored children and run numerous animal rescue services. Yet because I eat meat I am labeled less-than-human, and let's not forget… "Meat eaters either lack compassion, are stupid, ignorant, or combinations thereof. More often than not, all three. I can assure you I am none-of-the-above!

I asked my doctor about the need and/or desire to eat meat. She told me that we as humans evolved with certain organs and teeth to be able to basically eat and digest just about anything. Yes we can survive without meat, but more and more studies have shown that there are some essential components to meat that we just cannot get from vegetation, at least not yet. She also told me that more and more studies are showing that children especially should be allowed to consume meat at least until they stop growing.

Speaking of children…In this day and age when children are treated as mere objects, "things" that can be abused, tortured and killed, just like the animals we speak of, how can anyone (animal rights groups, etc…) expect animals to be treated better? Wouldn't we be better-off first trying to save the children and educate them to the cruel and inhuman ways we treat our food and once we have saved them, then work together to help the animals?

Back to being a "vegetarian/vegan"…How come no one speaks about all of the fossil fuel needed to grow enough food for everyone? How about fertilizers, pesticides, etc…What about the economic loss from doing-away with meat production. It's the poor underpaid folks who work in the meat industry who will pay the biggest cost.

I think this is a really big issue that needs a whole lot of research and discussion.

I personally think if we did-a-way with the politicians, ceo's and religious leaders of the world, we would be able to come together as a "human-race" and deal with these issues.