Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!mcnc!duke!rjn
From: rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Racists and Meat Eaters
Message-ID: <8618@duke.duke.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Sep-86 23:14:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: duke.8618
Posted: Thu Sep 25 23:14:41 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 00:20:48 EDT
References: <2558@watdcsu.UUCP> <1909@shark.UUCP>
Reply-To: rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum)
Distribution: world
Organization: Duke University, Durham NC
Lines: 117

In article <1909@shark.UUCP> alang@shark.UUCP (Alan Geist) writes:
>
>A lion does not consider itself superior to antelope, and thereby justify
>its preying upon them and other prey.  Indeed, the lion is probably not
>capable of such mental activity.  And if you believe otherwise, then take
>the case of a spider.  In any case, these animals are preditors because
>at some point along their evolutionary path, they developed the ability
>to kill, and found it to be a dependable source of food.  Since that point
>in time, they have been natural born preditors.  Fact: They are able to
>kill because they are better at killing their prey, than their prey are
>at killing them.  In that respect, and that respect only, they are superior.
>Fact: They use this superiority to obtain food; they are natural born
>preditors.
>
>Humans have exactly the same evolutionary history, as far as preying is
>concerned.  Since the point we started killing for food, we have been
>natural born preditors; better at killing than our prey; superior at that,
>and only that respect.
>

I think humans actually have a much different evolutionary pattern and 
background as pertains to food sources than large predators.  I don't 
believe man was much of a predator at all until he developed tools and 
weapons.  Even then many populations of man were largely gatherers or 
fishers.  Even today many cultures eat very little meat except for fish.
It was my understanding that man most likely evolved from large
omnivores with eating habits similar to those of bears, i.e. gatherers
with the occasional fish or small mammal thrown in, also insects and
carrion.

>There is certainly people out there who do kill because of their believed
>superiority, but this is a small minority of the "meat eaters" I know.
>
>Note: I in no way wish to change the eating habits of anyone.  I merely
>object to people trying to make me eat like they do, because _they_ think
>they know what is right.
>
>Possible question for discussion:  Many so called vegetarians (I do _not_
>mean that in a derogatory way) I know will not eat air breathing animals,
>but do eat fish and other water breathers.  I realize that some do this
>for dietary, and not philosophical reasons.  But I have had more than one
>of them critisize me for my meat eating.  How do they justify their apparent
>hipocrasy?  And I have also had people who only eat domesticated animals
>_and_ water breathers criticize me for my hunting of non-domesticated animals.
>Again, how do they justify their apparent hipocrasy?  I have yet to obtain
>rational arguments on my own (eg. "But fish aren't really animals.").  Maybe
>someone out on the net can help me.
>
>Alan Geist
>tektronix!shark!alang

I thought I might attempt an answer to this because of the fact that I am a
semi-vegetarian for what I consider moral reasons.  

As far as eating fish and perhaps fowl, but not eating large mammals, my main
reason is my belief that the more developed nervous systems of large mammals
allows them to 'feel' more than fish or fowl.  I know this sounds like a very
weak reason, but it has power for me.  I have always had pets (dogs, cats)
and I know how much I thought those animals were able to understand and
relate to their surroundings.  I strongly believed that they knew what was
going on and had at least some emotions.  Meat animals (cows and pigs) have
generally the same intelligence levels as dogs and cats, in fact pigs are
said to be even more intelligent.  I therefore cannot justify killing them
any more than I can justify killing a dog or cat for food.  Many foriegn
cultures (Asian in particular) do eat dogs and/or cats and find it strange
that Westerners make a distinction between different types of mammals as to
which are correct to eat and which are not.  After all if you're going to
eat pigs, why not eat dogs?  I prefer to eat neither.

I don't criticize non-vegetarians for eating meat.  I criticize them for
eating processed meat which someone else killed for them.  Nowadays I
don't think most people even realize most of the time that they are eating 
flesh that was cut from the animals they see on tv or when they drive through
the country.  If a person is going to eat meat they should have to kill it 
and assume the moral responsibility for that animals death.  I think quite a 
few more Americans would be vegetarians if they had to slaughter and butcher
their own meat.  In many cases the pre-slaughter treatment of animals is
very cruel.  For details on this consult the literature of some of the
animals rights organizations.

I see nothing wrong with your hunting provided you eat what you kill and
hunt correctly.  I would not do it nor would I encourage anyone to hunt.
I find it hard to believe that someone could take pleasure in killing
an animal.  Again why not shoot dogs and cats, what's the real difference?
The problem is that too many 'hunters' are really butchers in disguise.
They kill for a head to hang on the wall or something to brag about.
They take impossibly long shots, resulting in wounded animals which are
often never found and die in agony.  A hunter should be prepared to track
his kill to ensure a clean death for the animal.

BTW, up until about 7 years ago I ate meat without giving it a second
thought.  Then I read a book called 'Dr. Rat' (I don't remember the
author right now, I will find out and post it later).  This book
described, from the point of view of the animals, a number of situations.
Some examples were: a pig on a pork breeding farm, a chicken in an egg
farm, a baby monkey in a psychological test lab, etc.  Each incident
was taken from the actual circumstances and was very true to life.  The
animals were not given human like intelligence.  They were given an
intelligence level which was well within the realms of possibility.  In
most cases they did not understand what was going on, only that they were
in pain, both mental and physical.  The narrator was a rat in a test lab.
After each incident he would try to justify things from a human point
of view (after all humans have to eat, they need to know if such and
such a chemical irritates the skin, etc.).  Unfortunately the justification
sounded very weak.  In the end the rat was roasted alive by the very
humans he was trying to defend.  I'm not saying that animals really feel 
the way described in this book, but I think it's highly likely and on the 
off chance that they do, I don't want to burden my soul with that horror.

Jim Nusbaum


-- 
R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department,
Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110.
CSNET: rjn@duke        UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn
ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay