12-19-2023, 03:22 AM
As we learn more about animals, our behavior towards them changes. A good example would be dogs --in the past, our treatment of them has been brutal. We've used them in vivisections (stomach-churning stuff), medical experiments, as labor, as first line defenses (think police dogs, war dogs), chained them up outside, and often abandoned them to starve for many reasons.
They were just "things." Terry Pratchett famously said "Evil is when you treat people as things." -- but this argument could also be applied to animals. Evil is when you treat an animal as a disposable thing. When you learn to "read" an animal, you get a much better outcome both for the animal and for you.
So... an article came up about how livestock are not "things that wander around and eat grass" but actually are capable of some self-awareness and complex behaviors. https://www.science.org/content/article/...E78YRM_5f4
Which raises an interesting question: we are omnivores. We do better if we have some meat protein in our diet. But what's the level of sentience at which we should say "don't eat that critter"/don't farm it for its body (I'm thinking about whales, dolphins, animals raised for their fur)?
I realize everyone has their own preferences (I have sworn off pork (but won't turn down the occasional piece of bacon... so I'm kind of a hypocrite there) and won't eat octopus/calamari. I eat the occasional bit of beef but prefer chicken or fish or shrimp... or vegetarian.
So what's YOUR take on it? At what point should we declare that an animal should be removed from our food chain? Is "it's tasty" a good metric for determining what/who we should eat?
(By the way, on the topic of ethical treatment of animals, do you follow the saga of "Guard Dog", a character in the comic strip, Mutts? It's heartwarming but a real tear-jerker... and the cartoonist actually raised awareness for folks about the difficulties dogs have when they're treated as things -- chained up and then abandoned when convenient. (note: there's a very happy ending to the story, but if you're sentimental, grab a hanky first. https://mutts.com/pages/guard-dog)
They were just "things." Terry Pratchett famously said "Evil is when you treat people as things." -- but this argument could also be applied to animals. Evil is when you treat an animal as a disposable thing. When you learn to "read" an animal, you get a much better outcome both for the animal and for you.
So... an article came up about how livestock are not "things that wander around and eat grass" but actually are capable of some self-awareness and complex behaviors. https://www.science.org/content/article/...E78YRM_5f4
Which raises an interesting question: we are omnivores. We do better if we have some meat protein in our diet. But what's the level of sentience at which we should say "don't eat that critter"/don't farm it for its body (I'm thinking about whales, dolphins, animals raised for their fur)?
I realize everyone has their own preferences (I have sworn off pork (but won't turn down the occasional piece of bacon... so I'm kind of a hypocrite there) and won't eat octopus/calamari. I eat the occasional bit of beef but prefer chicken or fish or shrimp... or vegetarian.
So what's YOUR take on it? At what point should we declare that an animal should be removed from our food chain? Is "it's tasty" a good metric for determining what/who we should eat?
(By the way, on the topic of ethical treatment of animals, do you follow the saga of "Guard Dog", a character in the comic strip, Mutts? It's heartwarming but a real tear-jerker... and the cartoonist actually raised awareness for folks about the difficulties dogs have when they're treated as things -- chained up and then abandoned when convenient. (note: there's a very happy ending to the story, but if you're sentimental, grab a hanky first. https://mutts.com/pages/guard-dog)
