Budrisia
02-03-2005, 04:50
As far as I can tell, no UN resolution exists here to protect nonhuman animals from needless or severe cruel treatment. For those of you who are familiar with this forum, has such a resolution been already proposed and shot down, or might it have a chance to pass? If it sounds reasonable, I would love some feedback on these ideas:
Note: I really don't intend for this to be a sermon about morals, or a plea for people to become vegans, or anything like that. I hope I'm not offending anyone by putting forth this possible resolution. If I do offend you, feel free to yell at me - but in any case, I'm sorry in advance.
----------
At its barest form, such a resolution would prohibit the intentional killing, mutilation or terrorization of nonhuman animals, in cases where such action is not undertaken for the direct purpose of preserving human life or health.
It WOULD NOT prohibit, for example, hunting or fishing for food, raising and killing livestock or fish as a food source, defending humans against threats such as rabid dogs, or performing lethal experiments on animals - as long as all practical steps are taken to minimize animal suffering, and only IF
1) the benefit gained from harming the animal will likely save at least one human life, OR
2) the act can be shown to directly and widely promote human health or welfare, OR
3) the act can reasonably be construed as improving the welfare of the animal itself (ex: amputation, chemotherapy, or - in cases of incurable, severely painful disease - euthanasia).
It WOULD prohibit the killing, torture or mutilation of animals without serious justification, or for the purpose of recreation or sport (as this would not qualify as promoting human welfare to a sufficient extent). For example, it would prohibit the practice of taunting a captive bull and stabbing it with metal-tipped implements until it bleeds to death.
The definition of an animal, for the purposes of this resolution, might include any living, non-human member of the animal kingdom that possesses pain receptors, exhibits emotional responses to stimuli, or otherwise demostrates a capacity for physical or mental suffering.
Additional (optional) recommendations:
This resolution would **recommend** a gradual phasing out of the practice of raising animals for slaughter, and substituting the practice of using more environmentally and morally agreeable food sources. Motivation: Many livestock practices are environmentally crippling - warehouses that raise large numbers of hogs in close quarters consume massive amounts of water and release it into the environment along with what is often unregulated waste. This waste can enter groundwater and adversely affect human health, as well as disrupt fragile ecosystems.
Raising livestock, if nothing else, is often inefficient - if the land resources devoted to feeding and raising livestock could be used to grow food crops instead, it would produce *much* more food energy and feed more people.
Although some grazing land would be unsuitable for growing crops, the sheer extra yield (one estimate gave more than 20 calories from soy versus one calorie from beef!) will more than make up the difference in many nations. Since these efficiency estimates require a more detailed, regional analysis of land use, and the abandonment of livestock is not always an economically viable solution for all societies, this particular clause should be left to the discretion of each member nation.
However... below is some further motivation for re-evaluating the widespread practice of meat production. Please feel free to skip it if you feel you might be offended by graphic descriptions of animal suffering.
Especially horrid conditions exist in many poultry "farms," which are actually windowless, nightmarish metal warehouses where hens are crammed so tightly into cages that they cannot turn around or spread one wing, and commonly have their beaks chopped off to prevent them from pecking one another to death. When killed, they are hung upside down by their feet, their throats are slit, and they are submerged in scalding hot water to remove their feathers. They are frequently conscious throughout the process.
Pigs and cattle don't have it much better, but to enumerate the particulars of their suffering is most likely overkill.
The point of these details is to elicit some empathy with the animals who are unwilling participants in the "meat production" industry. True, they aren't people, and they might not have the same dreams or emotions or even the same rights as people, but given all the facts, I'd imagine most UN citizens would rightfully feel squeamish about keeping the current practices the way they are.
-------
Thanks everyone - I hope you'll let me know what you think!
Note: I really don't intend for this to be a sermon about morals, or a plea for people to become vegans, or anything like that. I hope I'm not offending anyone by putting forth this possible resolution. If I do offend you, feel free to yell at me - but in any case, I'm sorry in advance.
----------
At its barest form, such a resolution would prohibit the intentional killing, mutilation or terrorization of nonhuman animals, in cases where such action is not undertaken for the direct purpose of preserving human life or health.
It WOULD NOT prohibit, for example, hunting or fishing for food, raising and killing livestock or fish as a food source, defending humans against threats such as rabid dogs, or performing lethal experiments on animals - as long as all practical steps are taken to minimize animal suffering, and only IF
1) the benefit gained from harming the animal will likely save at least one human life, OR
2) the act can be shown to directly and widely promote human health or welfare, OR
3) the act can reasonably be construed as improving the welfare of the animal itself (ex: amputation, chemotherapy, or - in cases of incurable, severely painful disease - euthanasia).
It WOULD prohibit the killing, torture or mutilation of animals without serious justification, or for the purpose of recreation or sport (as this would not qualify as promoting human welfare to a sufficient extent). For example, it would prohibit the practice of taunting a captive bull and stabbing it with metal-tipped implements until it bleeds to death.
The definition of an animal, for the purposes of this resolution, might include any living, non-human member of the animal kingdom that possesses pain receptors, exhibits emotional responses to stimuli, or otherwise demostrates a capacity for physical or mental suffering.
Additional (optional) recommendations:
This resolution would **recommend** a gradual phasing out of the practice of raising animals for slaughter, and substituting the practice of using more environmentally and morally agreeable food sources. Motivation: Many livestock practices are environmentally crippling - warehouses that raise large numbers of hogs in close quarters consume massive amounts of water and release it into the environment along with what is often unregulated waste. This waste can enter groundwater and adversely affect human health, as well as disrupt fragile ecosystems.
Raising livestock, if nothing else, is often inefficient - if the land resources devoted to feeding and raising livestock could be used to grow food crops instead, it would produce *much* more food energy and feed more people.
Although some grazing land would be unsuitable for growing crops, the sheer extra yield (one estimate gave more than 20 calories from soy versus one calorie from beef!) will more than make up the difference in many nations. Since these efficiency estimates require a more detailed, regional analysis of land use, and the abandonment of livestock is not always an economically viable solution for all societies, this particular clause should be left to the discretion of each member nation.
However... below is some further motivation for re-evaluating the widespread practice of meat production. Please feel free to skip it if you feel you might be offended by graphic descriptions of animal suffering.
Especially horrid conditions exist in many poultry "farms," which are actually windowless, nightmarish metal warehouses where hens are crammed so tightly into cages that they cannot turn around or spread one wing, and commonly have their beaks chopped off to prevent them from pecking one another to death. When killed, they are hung upside down by their feet, their throats are slit, and they are submerged in scalding hot water to remove their feathers. They are frequently conscious throughout the process.
Pigs and cattle don't have it much better, but to enumerate the particulars of their suffering is most likely overkill.
The point of these details is to elicit some empathy with the animals who are unwilling participants in the "meat production" industry. True, they aren't people, and they might not have the same dreams or emotions or even the same rights as people, but given all the facts, I'd imagine most UN citizens would rightfully feel squeamish about keeping the current practices the way they are.
-------
Thanks everyone - I hope you'll let me know what you think!