NationStates Jolt Archive


Poll: Should animals be used by humans?

ARK2
19-04-2007, 20:57
Please select from the options below.
Swilatia
19-04-2007, 21:58
wrong forum.
Qazox
19-04-2007, 22:50
what else is there to do with them? sit there?
Vetalia
19-04-2007, 22:52
I don't see why not. Animals use other animals all the time.

However, I do support extending special protections to chimpanzees and other great apes as well as elephants and dolphins. Sentient creatures deserve the same protection as humans.
Relyc
19-04-2007, 22:57
I voted for all but the last one. I was a little unsure of the next to last one. Im not really ok with things like dog or cock-fights, but I'm fine with things like dog-sled races and horse-races and rodeos to some extent.
Gun Manufacturers
19-04-2007, 22:58
I voted yes for everything but fur and animal testing. The reasons I didn't vote for these as well, is because I think it's situational. If the animal was killed first to be used as food (with the pelt being a by-product), then I believe it's acceptable to wear fur.

As far as animal testing, I think that as long as the animals are treated humanely (enough food and water, large enough cages, etc), it would be acceptable to me (for the purposes of developing/testing new medications only).


ETA: When I voted for hunting, I made the assumption that the hunter would eat the animal. Hunting for a trophy only is NOT acceptable in my eyes.
Damor
19-04-2007, 23:00
Animals should be treated well, of course. But I don't see any reason not to eat them or wear them, or, if there is no other option, test on them.
I can't really see the point of hunting for sport, though. For food; well, under conditions; but not just for sport.
Mikesburg
19-04-2007, 23:00
Humanity has had a relationship with animals since... well since just about forever. The trick, is the quality of life for those animals, regardless of sentience. We should be working at minimizing suffering in the quest for consumption. In fact, we should be questioning some of our consumption if it results in suffering.
Whereyouthinkyougoing
19-04-2007, 23:01
Options 2, 3 and 5. Which apparently means I voted with the majority.
Dakini
19-04-2007, 23:01
I picked two and five. Three is iffy for me, but sometimes unavoidable.

I also think that keeping pets is ok if they're treated well.
Damor
19-04-2007, 23:03
Humanity has had a relationship with animals since... well since just about forever. And some even marry them! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524504)
The South Islands
19-04-2007, 23:04
If God didn't want humans to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them so tasty. *nods*
Damor
19-04-2007, 23:07
If God didn't want humans to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them so tasty. *nods*Does that mean people should eat more lead acetate too?
The South Islands
19-04-2007, 23:11
Does that mean people should eat more lead acetate too?

Last time I checked, lead acetate is rather bitter. Possible use as a condiment, but not as a main course.
Tsaraine
19-04-2007, 23:13
Hmm. I'm not okay with hunting for sport (e.g. fox hunting, big-game hunting, et cetera) but I am okay with fishing ... mainly because fish get eaten while foxes, lions et cetera don't, but also because of inherent mammalian bias. Rabbits are fine, moreso if you're shooting them to eat them - just shooting them to be shooting them is not so good, but they are a pest species.

Relyc has it on the animals as entertainment one; it depends upon the entertainment in question.

Animal testing ... depends on the animal. I'm not OK with testing on chimpanzees, as they can communicate enough to convince (me, at least) that they're rudimentarily sentient. There hasn't been enough research done with dolphins for me to decide - same with elephants - but I'd wager orcas are probably sentient.

The problem with the "great ape personhood" movement is that while chimpanzees (at least the common chimpanzee - I'm not sure about the pygmy chimpanzee/bonobo) are sentient, they're not much more. High-minded talk about extending rights to them is all very well, but if it comes down to a legal battle between a chimpanzee in the congo and a human in the congo competing for the same resources, I'm going to support the human. Chimpanzees can barely manage language and can't grasp syntax, while humans can grasp all sorts of things.
The Mindset
19-04-2007, 23:14
Last time I checked, lead acetate is rather bitter. Possible use as a condiment, but not as a main course.

Lead acetate is sweet, but so are many acid compounds, since sweet receptors on our tongues are activated by them. In any case, it's a crap comparison since eating meat isn't going to kill you, unlike eating lead acetate.
Dododecapod
19-04-2007, 23:15
Non-sapient animals should be used as we see fit. Whatever restrictions we place on their use are more for our peace of mind than the well being of the animals.
Mikesburg
19-04-2007, 23:16
And some even marry them! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524504)

*shudders*

If it were on the poll, I would certainly not vote for that.
Similization
19-04-2007, 23:17
Please select from the options below.The poll's a bit broken. I don't think there's anything wrong with treating animals as a resource. They're enormously practical, and within reason, very good for us.

That said, our current use of that resource is unsustainable and damaging to both them and us. So I obviously don't think people 'should' carry on like they do. That'd be like ordering a lemming to run off a cliff.

On a personal note, I think eating animals and bodyfluids (and whatnot) is fucking disgusting. I know I should be able to see why it's less reasonable to eat my dead mother, but I simply can't. I just don't get it.
But hey, my SO merrily chews her way through carcass upon carcass, so it's not like I have a major problem with whatever you eat. It's just so... Repulsive. I mean, I could understand if it was human bodyfluids and such. Hell, I love the taste of my lover... But animals? You're really fucking creepy people. Seriously.

... You have no idea how much double-think is required at dinner time in my household.
Swilatia
19-04-2007, 23:18
All options but the last two.
The Mindset
19-04-2007, 23:19
The poll's a bit broken. I don't think there's anything wrong with treating animals as a resource. They're enormously practical, and within reason, very good for us.

That said, our current use of that resource is unsustainable and damaging to both them and us. So I obviously don't think people 'should' carry on like they do. That'd be like ordering a lemming to run off a cliff.

On a personal note, I think eating animals and bodyfluids (and whatnot) is fucking disgusting. I know I should be able to see why it's less reasonable to eat my dead mother, but I simply can't. I just don't get it.
But hey, my SO merrily chews her way through carcass upon carcass, so it's not like I have a major problem with whatever you eat. It's just so... Repulsive. I mean, I could understand if it was human bodyfluids and such. Hell, I love the taste of my lover... But animals? You're really fucking creepy people. Seriously.

... You have no idea how much double-think is required at dinner time in my household.

Don't be ridiculous. The animals that are of use to us are entirely sustainable since we're the ones keeping them alive. All other animals are worthless.
Mikesburg
19-04-2007, 23:19
Options 2, 3 and 5. Which apparently means I voted with the majority.

Just out of curiosity, why 3, and not 1? If you're okay with leather, why not food? Or is it the 'primary food source' bit?
Vetalia
19-04-2007, 23:25
Don't be ridiculous. The animals that are of use to us are entirely sustainable since we're the ones keeping them alive. All other animals are worthless.

I have to admit, I like this attitude a lot...
West Spartiala
19-04-2007, 23:30
Animals would not hesitate to "use" humans. Injuring, killing, and in some cases eating a human would pose no moral problem for an animal. The only reason they wouldn't use humans for clothing, entertainment or scientific testing is because they lack either the capacity or the necessity to engage in such activities. If they are quite willing to exploit us, why should we feel bad about exploiting them?

Also, leather is frikkin' awesome.
Andaluciae
19-04-2007, 23:32
Absolutely!
Callisdrun
19-04-2007, 23:33
I eat meat, yes. And I eat eggs, drink milk, etc.

It's fine by me to wear leather, since it mostly comes from domestic animals (many of which wouldn't do so well in the wild, as we've bred them for things they would not be bred for in the wild, so predators would make short work of many of them). Whereas, fur clothing often comes from wild animals, sometimes endangered ones.

A bit of me is kinda... put off by the silly things they make animals do in the circus. I also am against hunting for sport. Hunting is fine if you're going to eat what you kill, so that you don't waste it. But hunting just for the pelt and the head to hang on your wall? Despicable, in my opinion.
Hoyteca
19-04-2007, 23:53
I only use animals for food, pets, and possibly medical testing. Testing to see what eye liner would do to an eye is unnacceptable. don't bring up insulin because saving a life is WAY more acceptable than killing for fashion. I almost forgot for environmental reasons. While I am opposed to fox hunting because it is wasteful (I have never heard of a person eating a fox. Have you?), I can understand doing it in Australia. Over a century ago, some British-Australian dumbass thought it would be so kickass to hunt poor little foxies down under. Look where that has gotten us. I say we go the California's Channel Islands and hunt those pigs. They aren't native. Screw those retard animal rights groups. Those pigs are killing off an endangered fox species and are too tasty to justify living. Save the Island foxies. Eat some destructive pids. Bring back those Chennal Island bald eagles, who would indirectly protect the foxies by scaring away the nonnative golden eagles.

Save the environment. Join People Eating Tasty Animals today and bring an end to the destructive idiot practices of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. This way, we'll help the environment and get some tasty pork.
Cruxium
20-04-2007, 00:24
I ticked everything except the circus option.

Utilizing animals in whatever manner for food is natural and always preferable to not doing so.

Fur, leather and wool are, in my opinion, preferable to man-made fibres, as such they're all alright, even if it means killing animals solely for their hide. It is preferable that hides do not come from endangered animals.

Hunting is something of a gray area. So long as it is licensed and monitored at expense of hunters, I see no real issue with it, and so long as animals involved in the hunt are killed relatively swiftly and in the case of hunting dogs et cetera kept properly.

As far as I am concerned, animals in a circus is petty and simply a case of asserting humanities dominance. We are quite aware we are dominant, to display the fact seems tasteless. While I do not consider it wrong per se, my distaste for it means I say no...

Finally, in regards to testing, it is preferable to testing on Humans.

Really, my overall opinion is that as the dominant animal, we are free to utilize animals as we wish. Of course I tend to have a nihilistic approach to morals.
Cruxium
20-04-2007, 00:34
Sort of along the same topic, however this is an arguement I have with my vegetarian friend frequently.

Certain species of animal exist only because we continue to eat them. If we were all to become vegetarian, then they would almost certainly become extinct. The prime example being pigs. They serve no purpose, offer no other product but meat, and are bred for the sole purpose of being harvested. (He countered that they would be kept for organ harvesting, with my reply being a vegetarian society is unlikely to believe in killing animals for the purpose of organ donation.)

Considering this, is it morally preferable to continue eating pigs, than to cease doing so?
Relyc
20-04-2007, 00:34
It's fine by me to wear leather, since it mostly comes from domestic animals (many of which wouldn't do so well in the wild, as we've bred them for things they would not be bred for in the wild, so predators would make short work of many of them). Whereas, fur clothing often comes from wild animals, sometimes endangered ones.

I suspect that if every rancher in the US were forced en masse to release their domesticated and docile, Cattle, Bison, Sheep, chicken, turkey, and pigs, then the dwindling Wolf populations would boom to larger than the human population in a matter of decades and they would have a worse obesity problem than we do. :D

Remember that pups are birthed to fit the amount of resources in an area, If theres a 200 large herd of dumb-ass cattle just roaming about idly, the alpha male will probably mate with every single bitch in the pack.
Hoyteca
20-04-2007, 00:42
I suspect that if every rancher in the US were forced en masse to release their domesticated and docile, Cattle, Bison, Sheep, chicken, turkey, and pigs, then the dwindling Wolf populations would boom to larger than the human population in a matter of decades and they would have a worse obesity problem than we do. :D

Remember that pups are birthed to fit the amount of resources in an area, If theres a 200 large herd of dumb-ass cattle just roaming about idly, the alpha male will probably mate with every single bitch in the pack.

birthed to fit? Are people REALLY smarter than wolves? I mean, wolves are smart enough to not mate too much when resources are low. Could hardly say the same thing about people.
New Genoa
20-04-2007, 00:44
I said yes for all of them.
Poliwanacraca
20-04-2007, 00:45
Humanity has had a relationship with animals since... well since just about forever. The trick, is the quality of life for those animals, regardless of sentience. We should be working at minimizing suffering in the quest for consumption. In fact, we should be questioning some of our consumption if it results in suffering.

Bingo.

I have no problem with eating meat, but I have a problem with factory farms that keep their animals in inhumane conditions. I have no problem with watching a dolphin turn flips for an audience, but I have a problem with cockfighting. I have no problem with killing a deer to help maintain a reasonable ecological balance, but I have a problem with killing a deer to feel like a macho man. Basically, it's okay to be omnivorous, but we don't have to be jerks about it. :p
Sel Appa
20-04-2007, 00:55
Humans are animals, but I'll assume you mean non-human animals. All but the last 4 or so, if done in a reasonably fair way. (ie not clubbing seals)
Similization
20-04-2007, 02:25
Don't be ridiculous. The animals that are of use to us are entirely sustainable since we're the ones keeping them alive. All other animals are worthless.I'm not the one being ridiculous here. Your statement is a non sequitur. There is a hell of a lot more to animal production than us eating them.

1/5th of the worlds peoples use 4/5ths of the worlds resources. Sounds almost impossible when put like that, but animal production is a perfectly fine example of why this is. Because animal production requires comparatively enormous amounts of resources to maintain. That alone makes it unsustainable. It's simply not possible for everyone to munch on dead critters 1+ times a day. There's not even enough resources for 1/5th of the peoples of the world to do it, without depriving the remainder of vital resources.

And then there's the small matter of present industry being hugely destructive to ecosystems, local and global...

And of course, there's the ethical question of how defensible it is for us - who have the means to treat animals humanely - to inflict misery on hapless critters we breed, solely because it's the cheapest way to go about producing them.

I disagree animals are worthless. As do most sane people. If I hack your head off, for example, I'll get tossed in jail by our peers, because you're considered to be of worth. I agree that some individual animals are worthless though, but it'd probably be a deat'able offence to mention which.
Free Soviets
20-04-2007, 02:42
The animals that are of use to us are entirely sustainable since we're the ones keeping them alive. All other animals are worthless.

impressive - that's wrong three times in two sentences
Dryks Legacy
20-04-2007, 02:46
On a personal note, I think eating animals and bodyfluids (and whatnot) is fucking disgusting. I know I should be able to see why it's less reasonable to eat my dead mother, but I simply can't. I just don't get it.
But hey, my SO merrily chews her way through carcass upon carcass, so it's not like I have a major problem with whatever you eat. It's just so... Repulsive. I mean, I could understand if it was human bodyfluids and such. Hell, I love the taste of my lover... But animals? You're really fucking creepy people. Seriously.

You know that fruit is plant ovaries right?
Similization
20-04-2007, 09:45
You know that fruit is plant ovaries right?In a sense, yes.

I think you're trying to imply my standards for what's fit for eating, are irrational. I can only agree. Yours are too though, and unlike mine, I don't get how, why and when you discriminate. I don't think I ever will either, so there's probably no point in trying to explain it.

Perhaps I'm stupid. Perhaps you are. Perhaps it's not terribly important.
Risottia
20-04-2007, 10:11
I don't see why not. Animals use other animals all the time.

Totally seconded (or n-thed). Face the truth, humans are animals.

However, I do support extending special protections to chimpanzees and other great apes as well as elephants and dolphins. Sentient creatures deserve the same protection as humans.

webster:

Main Entry: sen┬Ětient
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
I think that this includes all living beings able to feel pain like we do (through a central nervous system).
Hence, while I am supportive of the use of animals for food etc (with the exclusion of sport hunting, I don't think that it is "sport" when you got a gun and your quarry doesn't), I think that the animals should be treated well while living (room, food, living conditions, medical treatment when needed) and killed in the most painless way possible. If we assume the property of a living being, we are responsible for its well-being.
Risottia
20-04-2007, 10:14
1/5th of the worlds peoples use 4/5ths of the worlds resources.

True. This problem could be solved by giving access to world resources to other people and nations, too. Your statement doesn't imply that producing and eating meat is absolutely wrong, it merely implies that the way we currently produce and eat meat is antiethical.
Emen Un
20-04-2007, 11:04
Humans are animals, but I'll assume you mean non-human animals. All but the last 4 or so, if done in a reasonably fair way. (ie not clubbing seals)
Last four? What's wrong with wool? Doesn't even require killing the sheep.
Hamilay
20-04-2007, 11:10
IMO, animals either have the right not to be killed or they don't. Why they are killed is irrelevant. If you're against hunting, you assume animals have some intrinsic value, which doesn't work if you still want to eat them.
The Mindset
20-04-2007, 11:18
impressive - that's wrong three times in two sentences

Oh? Unless we eat them, hunt them, use them for cross-pollination, pets or entertainment, the animals are without value since it's humanity that assigns worth to them in the first place. They do not have intrinsic worth. Any animal we do not have a use for is without worth. Any animal that we have a worth for will inevitably be kept alive/bred for our purposes. We sustain their populations.
Similization
20-04-2007, 11:18
True. This problem could be solved by giving access to world resources to other people and nations, too. Your statement doesn't imply that producing and eating meat is absolutely wrong, it merely implies that the way we currently produce and eat meat is antiethical.Eh.. Yes. That was the point of my comment. I'm so glad to see it didn't escape you.

The "on a personal note" comment was about what's right for me subjectively. Your diet only concerns me in so far as it impats other human beings. I don't give a damn that you gobble down animal remains. It's none of my business - though I may feel compelled not to watch, and to insist you brush your teeth before snogging me.
If you try to imagine how you'd feel about someone eating a bowl of live spiders, then you'll probably have a pretty good idea about how I feel about omnivores. You can eat all the spiders you want. There's just no way in hell you'll make me understand why you'd do such a thing.
Mythotic Kelkia
20-04-2007, 11:24
It is ok to kill and eat an animal, but only if you have hunted it from the wild, with a flint spear or similar implement, as nature intended.
Barringtonia
20-04-2007, 11:24
birthed to fit? Are people REALLY smarter than wolves? I mean, wolves are smart enough to not mate too much when resources are low. Could hardly say the same thing about people.

Man is a narcissistic species by nature. We have colonized the four corners of our tiny planet. But we are not the pinnacle of so-called evolution. That honor belongs to the lowly cockroach. Capable of living for months without food. Remaining alive headless for weeks at a time. Resistant to radiation. If God has indeed created Himself in His own image, then I submit to you that God is a cockroach.

From Heroes embarrassingly...or not
Hamilay
20-04-2007, 11:25
It is ok to kill and eat an animal, but only if you have hunted it from the wild, with a flint spear or similar implement, as nature intended.
Why is hunting it with a flint spear 'as nature intended'? Isn't a flint spear unnatural?
Dryks Legacy
20-04-2007, 12:13
It is ok to kill and eat an animal, but only if you have hunted it from the wild, with a flint spear or similar implement, as nature intended.

If hunting with a tool is natural, surely it's not too much of an extension to say that keeping and breeding for food is also natural. Ants care for other insects so that they can harvest their by-products.
Pepe Dominguez
20-04-2007, 12:17
Voted yes on all options.

Environments should be preserved, kept in their "primordial state," to quote the Wilderness Act, or whatever that was. But the use of animals for food or clothing is fair game, so long as we aren't eating them into extinction or damaging their habitat.
Naturality
20-04-2007, 12:31
I'm suprised wool beat leather. But .. i guess you dont have to kill to get wool.. where you do leather.

Ok, i got 2 pastures near me, in front.. in behind. I love them little cows. They are happy cows, I still don't know what they are sold off as, but I've seen many a generation of them cows come and go. I figure they are sold as local beef. Which would be a lot better than the crap I usually eat. Does it not bother me when I think of them cows there being slaughtered? Yes and No. If I had my way... I'd just hunt wild turkey, a few deer, and raise some chickens to eat. Well actually I guess I could do that. But I still like leather. It's been around for freakin ever. It is a good material. Fur? no.. not my style. and neither are poodles. Not saying i'd never ever wear fur. cause I guess if i lived wherw it was brutaly cold. I would.
Risottia
20-04-2007, 12:40
Eh.. Yes. That was the point of my comment. I'm so glad to see it didn't escape you.

The "on a personal note" comment was about what's right for me subjectively. Your diet only concerns me in so far as it impats other human beings. I don't give a damn that you gobble down animal remains. It's none of my business - though I may feel compelled not to watch, and to insist you brush your teeth before snogging me.
If you try to imagine how you'd feel about someone eating a bowl of live spiders, then you'll probably have a pretty good idea about how I feel about omnivores. You can eat all the spiders you want. There's just no way in hell you'll make me understand why you'd do such a thing.

Totally agreed.
China Phenomenon
20-04-2007, 13:14
Voted yes on all options.

Environments should be preserved, kept in their "primordial state," to quote the Wilderness Act, or whatever that was. But the use of animals for food or clothing is fair game, so long as we aren't eating them into extinction or damaging their habitat.

Seconded.

Also, limiting the needless suffering of animals is a good idea.
Naturality
20-04-2007, 13:33
It is ok to kill and eat an animal, but only if you have hunted it from the wild, with a flint spear or similar implement, as nature intended.

I understand somewhat where you are coming from tho. If I were to hunt .. I'd definately want a bolt action (one shot) rifle.. or a bow. My bro in law only hunts with guns, my cousin only hunts with bows. Being able to freakin shooot a bow, and really hit something, kill something. awesome.
Risottia
20-04-2007, 13:40
About the poll options:
Animals aren't the primary food source for humans. Vegetables are (including grain products, fruits and other vegetables). The diet of most people is almost entirely made by rice or other grain, potatoes etc. Only the richer countries can allow to have a significative fraction of their nutrition needs covered by animal meat (including fish).
ARK2
30-04-2007, 23:56
Thank-you to all those who took the time to complete the poll.
ARK2
01-05-2007, 00:09
I don't see why not. Animals use other animals all the time.

However, I do support extending special protections to chimpanzees and other great apes as well as elephants and dolphins. Sentient creatures deserve the same protection as humans.

If sentience plays a factor in determining which animals deserve the same protection as humans, then it is important to define sentience.

Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.

In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience is commonly seen as the ability to experience suffering. This has and can be proven to exist in animals and should be applied to all animal species.
ARK2
01-05-2007, 00:14
About the poll options:
Animals aren't the primary food source for humans. Vegetables are (including grain products, fruits and other vegetables). The diet of most people is almost entirely made by rice or other grain, potatoes etc. Only the richer countries can allow to have a significative fraction of their nutrition needs covered by animal meat (including fish).

A primary food souce represents the food source that dominates the meal description. I.e. A person will say that they are having a burger and fries as opposed to having fries with a burger.
Pepe Dominguez
01-05-2007, 00:14
If sentience plays a factor in determining which animals deserve the same protection as humans, then it is important to define sentience.

Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.

In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience is commonly seen as the ability to experience suffering. This has and can be proven to exist in animals and should be applied to all animal species.

He did misuse the term, but the the sentience standard remains a load of crap. ;)
MrMopar
01-05-2007, 03:41
This poll fails. It was only open for like a week or 10 days or whatever... that's stupid. Now it's not accurate because I didn't get a chance to vote.
The Parkus Empire
02-05-2007, 02:06
If God didn't want humans to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them so tasty. *nods*

Well, if my diet was "eat whatever so long as it's tasty" I probably wouldn't be in good health.