Can a vegan have a relationship with a meat eater?

quote:I recently started dating someone new. I'm a vegan, and he's a meat eater. This isn't the first time I've dated an omnivore; I've always considered myself tolerant of the choices other people make.
For some reason though, I've suddenly become really turned off when it comes to him eating meat. I feel like he smells like it and the sight of him eating it turns me off. What to do? I feel like I can't tell him to stop, but I can't go on like this either. Is this relationship doomed?

Views Eating Greens As Nice

When I was vegan, I had no problem being friends with or having relationships with meat eaters, as long as they were respectful of my choices. But then, I had no problem with people joking around with me, and I think I had a higher tolerance for that sort of thing than other vegans I've read about who get really sick, really quickly, of people making jokes or asking questions they consider offensive. It just never bothered me. Maybe because I hadn't been vegan long enough for it to wear thin. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

I'd like to go back to being vegan, but it's hard to go back once you've fallen off the wagon. It was a conscious choice for me to start and to stop, but maybe someday I'll do it again. But I consider it a personal decision and while I'm happy to see others reduce their animal consumption, I don't have visceral reactions to those who don't.

I guess it's just a personal thing. If you are having physical and emotional reactions to watching people eat meat, then I guess it probably won't work to have a relationship with them.

My boyfriend is discreet with his meat consumption and as a former vegetarian, he is very respectful of my views. This can mean using seperate cutting boards and knives to prepare his meal and mine, as to not contaminate my dish, or eating mostly vegetarian meals with me when he's at my house, though I do let him keep some chicken in the freezer at my place. It has never been a problem in our relationship, but I do eat some seafood and I'm not a vegan, and he knows not to come too close if he has burger breath. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

FYI, link to the Ms. Communicate column in question here.

I'm an omnivore. I've been vegetarian and tried being vegan (never felt worse in my life, so left off), and I even like most vegetarian foods. That being said, I couldn't live with a vegan. It would be bound to come up at some point and I can't see it going well. I have a thing about fussiness, and food restrictions are often fraught with varying levels of fussing. I lived with a man who eschewed onion and garlic for a few years, and by the end of it I was itching to slip 'em into everything.

Chalk it up to a character flaw on my part, but it'd drive me batty to have to worry about cutting boards and knives, or two different meals at a time. And the philosophical aspects of veganism vs omnivorism could not help but grate, eventually.

quote: though I do let him keep some chicken in the freezer at my place.

Hahaha. Kind of hard isn't it? My boyfriend showed up at my door one day with a huge hunk of frozen deer thigh. For me, it was completely gross but I had to think about in the context of my family. My brother often hunts with his grandfather on the reserve so I have an understanding of hunting for necessity. I had to think of it that way although we do have two freezers, one for meat stuff (which my boyfriend doesn't eat much of at home since we eat generally vegetarian food), and one for veggie stuff.

My mom is the queen of pissing people off at Subway or Mr. Sub. She asks them to change their gloves before making her veggie sub because she doesn't want the meat-infested gloves touching her sandwich. You wouldn't believe the dirty looks she receives.

I could date a vegan. But would a vegan date me?

Michelle, does this mean there's hope for my hopeless crush? If only I'd known you were so, ahem, flexible... ;]

Back in my hippy days when I lived in a commune, there were two women residents who cooked almost exclusively vegetarian, and I learned from them, but I have found that unless I am with someone who is totally devoted to vegetarianism I quickly forget how to make delicious vegetarian meals. In my lifetime I haven't met very many vegetarians - maybe a dozen, maybe slightly more. I've never met anyone who called themselves a vegan. Here on the Quebec coast, there are no vegetarians as far as I know - these are fishing communities, and most are descended from English, French, and aboriginal ancestry - mostly meat eaters, in other words. Even in 2008, here on the coast, learned vegetarians and vegans are non-existent. I'd love to have a vegetarian companion to teach me better (and healthier) vegetarian cooking, but, realistically, that's unlikely to happen, as our variety of veggie foodstuffs is quite limited.

I'm not a vegan, but I am a vegetarian and I try hard to limit the amount of animal products I consume. My partner is the same. My friends are all meat eaters, but I honestly don't know if I could be romantically involved with a meat eater. My vegetarianism isn't designed to improve my health, it's a response to our monstrous exploitation of animals. Being romantically involved with a meat eater would, for me, be similar to being romantically involved with someone who is unapologetically racist. Among other things, a relationship is a crucible for the distillation of character and virtue--we love partly because in loving, we refine the best parts of ourselves. That can't happen if our partner regularly violates our core ethical principles.

Timebandit: I'm curious about those flaws in the argument. Do fill me in.

Actually, the argument against eating animals isn't arbitrary and it's not about rights.

Bioethicist Peter Singer, using a standard utilitarian framework, argues that while "rights" are impossible to determine, "interests" are self-evident. Anything that feels pleasure and pain has interests: while "rights" may or may not exist, it's undeniably in the interests of a sentient being to avoid pain and experience pleasure.

As a utilitarian, he argues that, from a disinterested standpoint, it's irrational and unethical to arbitrarily prioritize the interests of one sentient being over the interets of another.

In saying this, Singer distinguishes between minor interests and major ones: minor interests are those that are essentially conveniences, while major interests are questions of life-and-death. With animals, we routinely sacrifice their major interests to serve our minor interests. From a utilitarian perspective, that's deeply immoral.

In other words, the moral issues around animal exploitation aren't terribly axiomatic, except in as much as ethics themselves are axiomatic.

[ 17 May 2008: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]

quote:Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:

As a utilitarian, he argues that, from a disinterested standpoint, it's irrational and unethical to arbitrarily prioritize the interests of one sentient being over the interets of another.

Isn't Peter Singer the guy who approves of sex between humans and other animals?

quote:Originally posted by Timebandit:
...he thinks sexual acts between humans and animals are fine, as long as the animal does not suffer...To be fair, he would not want the human to suffer, either.

Peter Singer, by the way is a devout atheist.

It's always been one of my personal favourites.

Could be, but the person denouncing him has said something just as heinous:

quote: It is sad that just as Dr. Kevorkian has finally been recognized in a court of law as being a criminal for acting on the basis of similar beliefs in the case of physician assisted suicide, Princeton sees fit to hire a proponent of infanticide to teach ethics to undergraduates.

This is vile and no progressive person should have anything to do with someone who would force me (or anyone else) to live against our will in the face of horrible suffering. Fuck pro-lifers!

She sounds like one of those shitheads who would keep people "alive" attached to a machine for 50 years. Just as repugnant, that, as deliberately killing a less-than-perfect child.

quote:Originally posted by Proaxiom:
The 'disinterested standpoint' from which the interests of all sentient creatures are equal is arbitrary on its own. There are other internally consistent ethical frameworks that don't start there.

Actually, I'm not sure of that. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I've read quite a bit about ethics, and, when it comes to the subject of animals, I haven't yet found an ethical framework as consistent and comprehensive as Singer's.

And, yes, Singer is an atheist, and a much better one than people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.

Timebandit: I'm not drawing from Singer's sound bites, which are typically conclusions bereft of the arguments supporting them. Singer's Animal Liberation provides those arguments, and they're rather sound.

Now, as for sex with animals that doesn't cause them suffering (which, remember, is a small subset of acts of bestiality, the majority of which undoubtedly cause animal suffering), I honestly believe that this is a rather trivial ethical issue when compared with the issue of eating animals. It's that whole major interest/minor interest thing again.

As for our evolution as omnivores, it seems rather obvious that although we can eat meat, the very fact that we're omnivores means that we don't need to eat meat. Indeed, we can be very healthy without it, especially given the number of meat-related diseases out there and the ecological damage being done to our planet by meat-eating.

Besides, we also evolved as animals prone to rape, murder, slavery, and all sorts of other cruelties that are considered ethically deplorable, regardless of how profitable these acts often are for the people committing them. A tyrant can become very "healthy" by exploiting the bodies and labour of other human beings, which is likely why sociopathy has never been weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection. Parts of our evolutionary heritage...like sociopathy and our capacity for ethical reasoning...are in conflict with one another, which is only to be expected, given the randomness and complexity of the process. I believe that meat-eating and our capacity for ethical reasoning are also in conflict with one another.

Yes, that is deeply wrong, and very different from those cases of massive and multiple damage that create a baby that can have no self-awareness or quality of life.

Not the case for people with Downs, unless it is only one of many factors.

I'm not actually opposed to all eugenics - prenatal and even pre-conception testing for genetic diseases can be a great boon. And no, I would not condemn a mother for aborting a foetus carrying Downs, Spina Bifida etc.

But people born with such conditions should receive good care and education.

There was the famous story of the food co-op in Toronto (this is a true story, but it might be 30 years ago) that had a cat to kill vermin that ate its organic grains. A hardcore vegetarian faction voted to move out the cat, and of course the organic grains became infested. What to do? Spray them? Set down poison? Bring back the cat?

I don't like being lumped in with extremists, so I would appreciate no one generalizing about people's food choices. Especially if they have no clue what is behind them.

Also, I should add that mt belief system certainly does see morality in nature.

[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
Timebandit: I'm not drawing from Singer's sound bites, which are typically conclusions bereft of the arguments supporting them. Singer's Animal Liberation provides those arguments, and they're rather sound.

Now, as for sex with animals that doesn't cause them suffering (which, remember, is a small subset of acts of bestiality, the majority of which undoubtedly cause animal suffering), I honestly believe that this is a rather trivial ethical issue when compared with the issue of eating animals. It's that whole major interest/minor interest thing again.

What you've written above is an exhibit of cherry-picking. And again, if you've read Animal Liberation, you should also understand that Singer didn't actually say "don't eat meat". So you are, in fact, cherry-picking what suits your own viewpoint and ignoring the rest as "trivial".

quote:Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
As for our evolution as omnivores, it seems rather obvious that although we can eat meat, the very fact that we're omnivores means that we don't need to eat meat. Indeed, we can be very healthy without it, especially given the number of meat-related diseases out there and the ecological damage being done to our planet by meat-eating.

Farmpunk has already mentioned that there is a flaw in the "meat is bad for the environment argument". It's definitely flawed. Feed lots and large industrial meat production is not environmentally sound, however you don't leave room for other sustainable options. You've framed it as an either/or, binary, black vs white sort of thing and it isn't. For example, I buy meat from local producers (less fuel in shipping) who run smaller operations and raise their meat naturally and in humane conditions.

And for all those vegetarians who like their organic produce, what do you suppose organic growers use to fertilize their fields? Cowshit, last I heard, does not grow on trees. Mixed farming is the most sustainable, not strict vegetable or grain farming. If we want to talk about ecological damage, farming the prairies has been far more destructive than letting it go back to grassland and raising cattle on it would be.

Now, as to health, yes, we can survive on limited diets, but optimal health is achieved by a varied diet. All traditional diets, whether they include meat or not, include some form of animal product. I will agree that the standard North American diet is too meat-heavy, but leaving out some meat can cause some people to have health problems. I do know from personal experience that my endurance and general energy levels are much better when I include meat in my diet. And there is a reason that vegan diets are not generally recommended for children. Most meat-related diseases are related to surfeit rather than moderate consumption, not that meat is consumed AT ALL. Just because fruitarians tend to have wretched states of health is no reason to give up fruit altogether -- if we are to apply your reasoning in another direction.

quote:Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
Besides, we also evolved as animals prone to rape, murder, slavery, and all sorts of other cruelties that are considered ethically deplorable, regardless of how profitable these acts often are for the people committing them. A tyrant can become very "healthy" by exploiting the bodies and labour of other human beings, which is likely why sociopathy has never been weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection. Parts of our evolutionary heritage...like sociopathy and our capacity for ethical reasoning...are in conflict with one another, which is only to be expected, given the randomness and complexity of the process. I believe that meat-eating and our capacity for ethical reasoning are also in conflict with one another.

Sure, the logic stands up if you accept the premise. However, I don't think you can equate the financial well-being of a tyrant with the function of the human body. Very different basis. And in choosing your analogies, you're painting with some pretty broad strokes, here, not all of which I think would stand up to closer scrutiny. I disagree with the fact that meat-eating and ethics are somehow mutually exclusive -- as I've written above, we can make choices that minimize cruelty and suffering, choices that most certainly involve ethical reasoning.

But that's just the point of view of a tyrant and sociopath... [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

quote:Originally posted by RosaL:
If it is morally justifiable to eat a pig, why not a 3 or 4 year old human? I am making a deliberately provocative statement. I just want to see if anyone can present a coherent argument. Why?

quote:Originally posted by RosaL:
If it is morally justifiable to eat a pig, why not a 3 or 4 year old human? I am making a deliberately provocative statement. I just want to see if anyone can present a coherent argument.

Singer would say it is, in fact, as morally justifiable.

Yes, your statement is deliberately provocative -- practically trolling. I suppose your point is that pigs have thoughts and feelings, too. Be that as it may, we're ahead of them on the food chain. Sucks if you're the pig, but there it is. Now if you'll kindly keep your moralizing off my plate...

ETA:
quote: People have been discussing animal rights. This is a pretty basic kind of question in that context. A person with an opinion in this area should be able to provide some kind of coherent answer.

I try not to "should" all over myself, and would appreciate it if you'd refrain from "shoulding" all over me, too.

I think my posts above have been pretty coherent. Was there something specific that is beyond your ken?

[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

Timebandit: I think you're presupposing what you seek to prove.

We are on the top of the food chain...except, of course, for bacteria...but that's hardly a natural given. We are on top of the food chain these days because our technology and social organization makes us very powerful. In contrast, at one time we weren't powerful, and so therefore we were prey, way down on the food chain.

So what? You can't get an "ought" from an "is". After all, for quite some time the West has been on top of the world's political and economic hierarchy. Does this mean that, ethically, we should be, and that we can console our conscience by saying that while this arrangement "sucks" for Africans, Asians, etc, that's just the way it is? Remember that for many people, this is exactly the logic they use to justify unjust social arrangements.

In other words, we need to ask whether our current power structure in any way justifies itself.

As for my tyranny comment: people who are able to hoard the resources of others' labour are certainly healthier than those who can't. Tyranny and sociopathy--such as the tyranny and sociopathy that has produced the global distribution of wealth--have very direct consequences for the health of those affected by these evils, both as benefactors and victims.

Health is, for this reason, largely socially constructed, and therefore questions of optimal health for a given population (classes, nations, ethnicities, species) are themselves subject to ethical criticism. For the benefactors of the global economic hierarchy, this arrangement certainly produces "optimal" health--but does this mean it's just?

This is directly relevant for meat-eating. We are able to consume so much meat because we have the power to super-exploit other species, without having to worry about being prey ourselves (well, except when it comes to bacteria). Our factory farms are expressions of this super-exploitation, just as sweatshops in the global south are expressions of economic super-exploitation. The fact that we could have a more "just" system of meat-eating...one that gave animals a fighting chance, for instance...is, given the way our society is currently structured, irrelevant: we could also have a more "just" global economic system in which products were produced in non-sweatshop conditions, but as long as we have this particular global economic system we have to seriously consider the ethical ramifications of, for example, our purchases from stores that depend on sweatshop labour.

Of course, animals are incapable of either considering the ethical dimensions of our meat industry or treating us ethically. Humans, however, have the capacity for ethical deliberation, and we typically see that capacity as being the highest expression of our humanity. To exclude animals from our sphere of ethical consideration, and to subject them to super-exploitation simply because of their membership in species incapable of what we consider rational thought, betrays this capacity and thereby debases us.

It also raises a host of ethical problems. If animals are fair game for super-exploitation because they aren't rational, then what of human beings who are incapable of rational thought (like people with profound developmental disorders or senility)? If we decide that rationality isn't the criteria that we use to separate those who are fair game from those who aren't, then what criteria should we use? Membership in a species? This strikes me as being arbitrary, and a slippery slope, because this is an arbitrary contraction of our ethical universe. If membership in a species justifies super-exploitation for tautological reasons ("all 'A's are vulnerable to super-exploitation because all 'A's are vulnerable to super-exploitation"), then why not use the same logic to distinguish among various human communities?

There is also a psychological cost here. The moment we declare that sentience is irrelevant when deciding whether or not a given entity is fair game for super-exploitation, we decide to numb our capacity for empathy. While this numbing is initially directed towards certain groups, it's all too easy for it to spread to other groups. Consider troubled children who torture animals, and the way this affects their later relationships with human beings. Through the super-exploitation of animals our global community is engaged in a massive project of empathic anaesthetization (anesthetization? sp.). This can't have good consequences.

Finally, regarding your comment about organic farms and cow dung: how much of the food we're producing, and the manure required to grow this food, is devoted to maintaining livestock? How much food could we raise if we decided to make better use of, for example, human waste, or the waste from animals we chose not to slaughter (and treated with greater consideration)?

quote:Originally posted by Farmpunk:
I could date a vegan. But would a vegan date me?

Michelle, does this mean there's hope for my hopeless crush? If only I'd known you were so, ahem, flexible... ;]

Golly! (blush!) When are you moving to Toronto!?

(What? You're not moving to Toronto?? It's over!)

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Seriously though...I know lots of vegans have a really hard time with other people eating meat and dairy. I guess I never had the real visceral reaction to meat and dairy that others have. I could never train myself to be grossed out at the thought of those things, so it didn't freak me out watching people eat it. I wasn't all, "Oh my god, it's a corpse!" at holiday dinners. I guess maybe if I had been like that, I wouldn't have been able to switch back so easily. It was simply an "ethical consumer" decision on my part.

Which is why I feel guilty these days about not doing it. When I eat meat and dairy, it feels to me like I'm shopping at Walmart. I don't have a physical revulsion reaction to it, but I feel like I'm not living up to my principles. I doubt I'm going to shake that feeling any time soon. I don't even really want to shake that feeling.

Here's just another thought to throw into the mix.
Human's have been living/working with/using had a relationship with domesticatic animals for likely thousands of years.
There are/have been a diversity of different breeds of things like Chickens, sheep, ducks, cattle, swine etc etc.
If people all gave up meat and became vegan..no animal products many if not most of these would simply become extinct. In fact right now many breeds are at extinction level with in some cases only several hundred animals in existence.
This mostly because of the development of the the types of chickens and breeds used in factory farming. The similar sort of homogenization of our food systems that's happened with veggies and the loss of upwards of 80% of the vareties that were available 100 years ago.

Just wondering how people feel about actual extinction of types of these animals that humans have had a relationship with for eons.
I don't mean it to be an uber provocative question that's suggesting anything one way or another about people's different food choices. I myself was veggie at one time and aimed to be vegan. Changed though for a number of reasons.
I'm just interested in pondering the ethics and some of the questions behind the mere existence of these animals in the first place. There's talk about sentience and responsibility. Do we have a responsibility to ensure them living in the first place? Especially considered that there mere existence is because of the relationship that humans have with them for eons. Or is it okay to simply let them die out of existence because they are no longer necessary. If say we moved to a point where we simply conserved for the sake of their own life itself, like say pets is that viable in a ecological sense?
I'm not saying I have the answers either, ethically speaking. Some of these questions I've been pondering myself.

For instance Micheal brought up this point in reference to Farmpunks comments about organic farming.
quote:Finally, regarding your comment about organic farms and cow dung: how much of the food we're producing, and the manure required to grow this food, is devoted to maintaining livestock? How much food could we raise if we decided to make better use of, for example, human waste, or the waste from animals we chose not to slaughter (and treated with greater consideration)?

Many of these comments are actually things I considered myself in my own life in setting up a small sustainable homestead within the framework of permaculture and creating the circular and ecological system of waste to food to waste to food and so on. What I learned though when I got into the nuts and bolts of ecologically and basic biological principles of the not only human but the lifecyle of the animals themselves is that it is not so easy to just say..no killing..just use the waste. In order to perpetuate the very existence of the animals over the long term in both health and welfare both physical and psychological it's not necessarily a good option to say leave and let be.

For instance, ever seen a flock of chickens with a over abundance of roosters? It can get really nasty. Like lots of death and carnage type nasty. The roosters will fight and kill each other for dominance and breeding rights. There is nothing unatural about this either. Feral and wild chickens act the same way. So in relation to humans, if we leave and let be do we just let it happen or do we integrate in with the natural tenedecies that happen anyway and create a relationship that can provide benefits for both us and the animals.
In the case of roosters a small flock owner generally will cull the males for food when they are big enough.
Now in factory farming systems it's another story, the male chicks as soon as they are able to be sexed are pretty much killed and thrown out in the garbage.

I actually seriously considered the possibility of having a chicken flock that could provide the waste for the overall system as well other things like weeding and pest control and not introduce killing into the cycle. I also wanted to be a part of trying to conserve some of the breeds that are facing extinction. That was before I understood the life cycle and nature of the animals themselves in terms of their own birth and death cycles as well as health and welfare. Genetics, in terms of breeding and inbreeding is also important..that plays into the overall health of the animals as well as the potential to keep having babies and existing perpetually. Short term no killing would work, but long term, the sustainability of the animals themselves is another question entirely.

I'm not that knowledgeable about other domesticatic animals but I expect the patterns are similar.

I also want to make it clear that I'm speaking about the existence of animals in a non-factory or industrial type operation.

I eat meat, but in minimum amounts. I get grossed out by others 'pigging out' on meat like there's no tomorrow, or eating meat that is anything but well cooked. I don't know how anyone can eat rare roast beef. And, I especially don't know how anyone can eat those triple decker or one pound hamburgers and live. Depending on how I feel, I sometimes pull the meat out of sandwiches or hamburgers and just eat the bread with veggies and condiments. I think we'd all be a lot healthier if we simply cut down on amounts of red meat consumed, not necessarily avoiding meat altogether, or maybe eating minimum amounts of fish or chicken instead.

quote:'m just interested in pondering the ethics and some of the questions behind the mere existence of these animals in the first place. There's talk about sentience and responsibility. Do we have a responsibility to ensure them living in the first place? Especially considered that there mere existence is because of the relationship that humans have with them for eons.

What? Humans are responsible for destroying our animal population, not helping it. As an FN person, we have a responsibility to treat our equals with respect, and animals are our equals. The way you are talking is foreign to me as a human and as a caretaker of the land.

They are in a "mere existence" because of our relationship with them? Seriously, read the list of endangered species, read what pollution, urban sprawl etc is doing to our animal friends, then get back to me on this totally man vs nature theory it seems you have. No offense against you but to me, this line of thinking is repulsive.

quote:Originally posted by Caissa:
oh Boom Boom, I feel a schism coming on. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] I love red roast beef and am more of a carnivore than omnivore. And to think, it's theology that separates most Anglicans....

I lived in residence at Trinity College (Toronto's main Anglican seminary) for a year in the 1970s. Every Saturday was roast beef evening, with blood dripping from the meat interior. I had to have a small piece of meat carved from the outside of the roast as I would get sick from just looking at the red (pink, actually) portions. I wasn't the only one, apparently, as many students simply left the red/pink portions on their plates when finished eating. A few of the Trinity women simply bypassed the meat altogether and feasted on the veggies (including roasted potatoes).

quote:Originally posted by Stargazer:

What? Humans are responsible for destroying our animal population, not helping it. As an FN person, we have a responsibility to treat our equals with respect, and animals are our equals. The way you are talking is foreign to me as a human and as a caretaker of the land.

They are in a "mere existence" because of our relationship with them? Seriously, read the list of endangered species, read what pollution, urban sprawl etc is doing to our animal friends, then get back to me on this totally man vs nature theory it seems you have. No offense against you but to me, this line of thinking is repulsive.

I think you're misunderstanding what animals I'm speaking about here. I actually agree entirely with what you're saying. I'm talking specifically about domesticated breeds and not the wider animal population of which I totally one hundred percent agree that humans are responsible for destroying and not helping.
Over time in various regions there has been the development of a diverse amount of types of domesticated animals, like chickens that are suited to the various climates and other environmental factors. They all came from the wild at one time, but over time have developed into specific breeds unto themselves because of the relationships between humans and them. That's what I'm speaking about. For instance right now there are numerous types of chickens, all with different attributes, here in Canada there are specific ones that do well in cold climates, or ones that are better foragers. They all at one point came from wild. The same way that pets such as dogs and cats all came from the wilds at one point.
Because of the homogenization and industrialization of the food systems many of these are now threatened. The chickens that you find in a chicken factory have actually been breed on purpose to produce more eggs or more meat and thats it. In many cases they have been breed to the point where the mothers won't even go broody and raise their own young. That instinct isn't necessary in this type of system so it's thrown out. I find this incredibly repulsive because it goes against the very nature of the chicken and would never happen without human manipulation. That is an example of man vs. nature and something I find utterly abhorrent.

Other non-industrial chickens, who actually can and do raise their young and function closer to what a wild chicken does, are actually severely threatened with extinction. This situation is connected with humans and I do actually feel responsibility for this situation because of all the reasons you state.

The same goes for sheeps, cattle, goats, swine and pretty much any other animal that has been a part of subsistence farming all over the globe.
As specific types they do exist because of the relationship between humans and animals that has been occuring since the dawn of agriculture.

I'm actually looking at this question from the perspective of caretaking and looking at it from a position of responsibility because it's a relationship that does exist now and not something that would likely have occured without human contact. This isn't man vs. nature, it's man with, alongside, a part of and trying to figure out how to live with, integrate with etc etc.

I don't consider the animals that live with me as things, but as part of the whole. I'm not above them, nor is it a competition. The same goes with wild animals. My own food system actually takes wild animals into account and they are part of it and not something that I have to fight against.
For instance we have a lot of deer around. In the terms of a garden deer can be problem from my perspective because they eat the food I'm trying to grow. From the deers perspective they are just being deer and there's no way I can get angry at that. We also live on a deer path that goes from one lake to another so they come through all the time.
From a man vs nature mentality an option would be to set up a fence and just block them out of the property. Nope ain't going to do that. So I spent the time to observe the paths that they've chosen and am building around that. A cardinal rule in our household is no blocking animal paths. Along the paths I've planted or just left the plants they already eat. Instead of a fence I've planted a barrier of shrubs and other plants that they like and behind those and between the actual veggie garden, plants that they don't like. So they have their space and I have mine and so far it seems to be working out just fine. Some of the other people around here think I'm friggin nuts because yes I'll admit it publicly I actually talk to them and make the request.
I did the same with rabbits at another place I lived. I purposely left a patch of lawn with all of the plants they like between where they lived and the garden and made a request. No problems for the two years I was there. So what happened when my mom moved in the next year? She mowed it all down and boom, rabbits all over her garden. She was all prepared to start fencing and blocking until I told her and the next year she did what I did previously and there hasn't been a problem since. No fighting is needed.
Again a public admission that for many will cast us as nuts but I don't really care. My husband is actually FN's and he speaks and works with the animals around us all of the time. We had an issue with coyotes coming and bugging our dogs, so he went for a walk, had a conversation and we haven't had a problem since. We see them all of the time on the edges of the marsh but they stay there now. We don't bug them and they don't bug us.

Sorry this is a bit a tangent to the topic but I really want to illustrate that my questions about the relationship with domesticated animals is not coming from a man vs nature place. If anything it's the exact opposite place.

quote:Originally posted by Stargazer:
Eliza Q, what an amazing post! You are 100 percent correct of course, in your analysis IMO. The steroids we inject into animals, the way our food is genetically modified. All nasty and apparently now we will be eating Genetically modified meat with no warning.

BTW, I talk to my animals all the time, including my turtle Pepper. I know they understand. I guess we are both the "crazy cat ladies".

Oh good. I'm glad that cleared up what I was trying to say when you first posted your comments I was like crap crap, that's not what I mean't it to sound like. That's so not where I'm coming from.

And yeah good to know that there's other 'crazy cat ladies' out there too. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:Originally posted by Stargazer:
Eliza Q, what an amazing post! You are 100 percent correct of course, in your analysis IMO. The steroids we inject into animals, the way our food is genetically modified. All nasty and apparently now we will be eating Genetically modified meat with no warning.

BTW, I talk to my animals all the time, including my turtle Pepper. I know they understand. I guess we are both the "crazy cat ladies".

That was an interesting post, I didn't know turtles could be pets, So a couple questions,

1) You have a turtle? cool. What can they do?

2) What song or band was called pepper? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] .Right now the only pepper I can think of are the bad doctor and the female assistant to Tony Starks in Ironman (played by Gwyneth Paltrow in the new movie).

3) You come off as a "sane turtle woman" to me [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] You should get that as a tshirt.

An estimated summary of stargazer's current life:

Note: The flowers above are "stargazer lillies".

[ 21 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Yes, "pepper" is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of turtles [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

especially Evil Knievel turtles...

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: jas ]

Pfft. Pocket change compared to my $25000 sundae.

quote:What song or band was called pepper? Does Pepper Tree count?

Huh?

Mind you, coming out the other end of the slaughterhouse is blood and bone - ie, blood and bonemeal fertilizers.

Or maybe you want your NPK to come from petroleum.

To grow the plants without utilizing animals would require more fossil fuels than with using them in some capacity.

I'm not sure that agriculture can get by without using fossil fuels at this time, and I've said this in other threads. The idea is to only use them when necessary until a legitmate sustitute can be found. Not in fertilizers, in other words.

Haybine? What am I, a hayseed? Hehe.

quote:Originally posted by Farmpunk:
Snapping turtles taste good. Not the most ideal pets, however.

They are fun to handle! When you get them upside down and they're going nutty trying to get at your fingers it is a little worrying, but they're such cool animals!

I have a bad habit of trying to pick up anything and everything cold-blooded. Tarantulas, scorpions, monitor lizards, a whole variety of snakes, the odd politician...

I think everyone should listen to the Bookish Agrarian. He's a much more knowlegable and calmer farmer than I.

But to give one last kick at the Qa'Bong - I suppose veggies walk themselves to market? It's quite a hike from Mexico, ain't it?

That's half a joke, Bong. I think animals must be part of food production. As for the transportation and procesing of food... fuck... I have enough trouble convincing people that what comes out of the ground must be returned, as per the ages old wisdom of BA's statements. Figuring out how to get food from field to plate seems to me more of an urban planning\transportation issue. Maybe a green thumbed Jane Jacobs will come along someday and enlighten us all. I'm hopeful.

quote:Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Yeah, yeah; if I'd have written "tractor" my point would have been lost.

I suppose I could have written "bale wagon," but nobody around here uses them any more, although these guys have made a whole business out of selling them.

Just teasing.
We are even more old fashioned here, and a lot hillier for such a high tech devise. We still use thrower racks for a lot of our hay. High snow area, so sometimes getting a round bale to cattle is a lost cause so we still have to have small squares. Besides I have a collection of round bales I thought I let out on a level spot that gravity slowly took over on and dumped in the bush, the creek, that wet hole, and my pride and joy over the side of a steep bank and into the waiting arms of a big, huge maple and resting about 25 feet off the ground.

And Farmpunk I think that is the first time anyone has called me
calm [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] Either I am getting old and mellow or is that a 'in comparison' kind of thing.

Kabong: "What's your point? You can't seriously claim that livestock production somehow is easier on fossil fuel consumption than grain or other plant production.

One third of the land on the planet is used to feed livestock. Does that make sense to you?"

I won't bother to ask for a link to that 1\3 comment.

In fact, what I attempted to illustrate in this thread - poorly, perhaps - is that in term of plants and animals and agriculture, the two cannot and should not be separated. The intelligent use of domesticated "meat" animals in a sustainable system will certainly reduce fossil fuel useage in ag.

What's your point, by the way? Grain and plants aren't fossil fuel intensive?

Anyhow, I've derailed this thread enough. Shall we start a new one in the environmental section? Maybe Bookish-Agrarian will continue to contribute.

Vegans and Meat Lovers: Truce?

quote: We've all been there. It's a cozy dinner party, the wine is flowing, the guests are happy, when suddenly someone lets it drop. "I love meat." Everyone looks nervously to the vegan, who is already arming a retort. It's as if someone has just said, "I condone unilateral war." The typical argument ensues. Needless to say, the party is over.

But if the new school of vegans and carnivores is any indication, these differences may only be skin-deep. While the ancient debate rages on in dining rooms everywhere, four authors -- two vegan, two carnivore -- are calling on consumers to consider what they eat, and why.

Their central message: whether vegan, vegetarian or carnivore, eat thoughtfully. The once-clear battle lines are beginning to blur.

I don't think there is a "meat-eating community. I wouldn't equate how I eat as having much in common with the average, meat-heavy, prepared food diet of most North Americans even though both are omnivorous. In fact, I find the idea kind of insulting.

I generally do treat vegetarians with indifference unless pontification begins, or, as a host, I need to ask how I can accomodate a guests eating habits or restrictions -- just as I would for a guest who can't tolerate spicy foods or a friend who is diabetic.

To some degree, sure. But I still won't comment on somebody who eats processed, mass-produced foods regularly, even though I believe it's crap. The harder part is teaching my kids that commenting on the pizza pops in the lunch room at school is bad manners, but they're catching on.

As a dedicated omnivore with carnivorous tendencies, I don’t know that it would actually work, without a major adaptation in one of our diets. I’ve dated a few vegetarians and it basically worked when we were never serious, but I don’t know that living together/buying groceries/raising a family would actually work. There has to be compromise, especially if kids are involved. One vegetarian friend even told me that she didn’t care if her husband ate meat, as long as around the house and the kids, he went along with the meal plan.

Even without dietary restrictions, when a couple moves in together, there usually is a general set of recipes that tends to take over. This is usually up to the primary cook, but their need to be agreement. At home, Mom always said Dad was really easy in this regard for day-to-day meals (although our holiday meals the foods tend to be taken from my Dad’s mom’s playbook). Women at work talk a great deal about the foods that there family won’t eat and one always assumes it’s the children who won’t eat the greens but mostly it’s the husbands!

Unless there is some uniformity between the foods people are willing to eat, I foresee problems at least for me. Like anything else food even if you don’t love to cook is a major part of our lives, do you tend to go for fast food? Do you like to eat popcorn at the movie theater? Do you like to bake? Do you drink pop? Water? Have allergies? Spend hours planning your meal? Eat something bland but healthy? How much meat do you consume? A lot? None?

Has anyone seen that Burger King commercial, where a couple is out on a date and just getting to know each other (who takes a date out to BURGER KING?), the woman orders a salad (of course), and offers some to the guy, and he says, "No thanks, I'm a meatitarian."  She says, "A meatitarian?"  The guy says, "Yes, a meatitarian?  I eat meat?"  Then a pause, and he finishes, "It's a personal choice?"

It's kind of funny, but it's also a mocking thing, clearly meant to make fun of vegetarians, and also, I suspect, women, particularly young women, with the inclusion of the "uptalk" (turning every sentence into a question through tone of voice).

I saw the Wendy's commercial, along the same lines, but without the date context.

Both Japanese and Vietnamese pancakes are commonly made with meat items.  In Japan, it's just not a pancake without some octopus!

I guess I got the chains mixed up because I was traumatized by this Burger King commercial from a couple of years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGLHlvb8skQ

The first time I saw this one, I was at my dad's place, and we saw this extended version (they started playing the 30 second version after the first little while).  My dad, his wife and I were watching it, and it just seemed to go on forever, each scene more ridiculous than the last.

I admit, I laughed all the way through it because it was so stupid it was funny - they just keep topping each over-the-top expression of "manliness" with an even more outrageous expression, culminating in throwing a mini van over a freeway onto a flatbed tractor trailer pulled by a strong man in a harness trying to get a meat-filled burger.  I mean, really!!

That's true, they were dressed in business clothes, so maybe they were just out for lunch.  How heteronormative of me!  :)  Thanks for the reality check. :)

A friend of mine has been a vegetarian and largely vegan for over 20 years, but she has an even deeper involvement in food security issues. Having dedicated her day-to-day life to grassroots community organizing, she has witnessed a lot of hunger and has frequently experienced it herself. She is also a committed anarchist. Out of that, if my friend is offered a meal that includes meat, she has explained to me that she eats it gratefully. with honour and respect for both the gift and the animal, rather than ever see food go to waste. In fact I once cooked her something vegetarian that contained over half a bottle of Italian wine as well as olives, lemons and herbs from the supermarket, served with brand-name store-bought bread, and although she didn't say anything I realized that she was more offended by that than if I had made something frugal with local ingredients flavoured with meat.

That kind of perspective seems to me to open up some territory for an activist couple who may agree to disagree on meat.

Not that I would know anything about that personally.

No, never. But in my focus on avoiding animal products, I overlooked the fact that this is only part of her ethics around food. What I prepared cost probably over $35 all told, not including what we drank, just for the two of us, whereas that is more than her own food budget for a week -- she does a lot of dumpster diving and lives and cooks communally. Her household at the time was preparing meals for 15 - 20 homeless people three times a week and not spending anywhere near $40 each time. Add to that the fact that some of my ingredients had been transported halfway around the world, some were from southern California, grown by exploited Mexicans, and I think she was just a bit disappointed that I did not seem to be getting where she was coming from on food.