![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 55. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 19:56:04
I encountered this maybe 5 years ago.
Have been thinking about it ever since...The racist violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of his own race, when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Similarly the speciest allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is the same in each case. Most human beings are speciesists. I shall now very briefly describe some of the practices that show this.
For the great majority of human beings, especially in urban, industrialised societies, the most direct form of contact with members of other species is at meal-times: we eat them. In doing so we treat them purely as means to our ends. We regard their life and well-being as subordinate to our taste for a particular kind of dish. I say "taste" deliberately - this is purely a matter of pleasing our palate. There can be no defence of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products.
It is not merely the act of killing that indicates what we are ready to do to other species in order to gratify our tastes. The suffering we inflict on the animals while they are alive is perhaps an even clearer indication of our specieism than the fact that we are prepared to kill them. In order to have meat on the table at a price that people can afford, our society tolerates methods of meat production that confine sentient animals in cramped, unsuitable conditions for the entire durations of their lives. Animals are treated like machines that convert fodder into flesh, and any innovation that results in a higher "conversion ratio" is liable to be adopted. As one authority on the subject has said, "cruelty is ackowledged only when profitablility ceases."
Since, as I have said, none of these practices cater for anything more than our pleasures of taste, our practice of rearing and killing other animals in order to eat them is a clear instance of the sacrifice of the most important interests of other beings in order to satisfy trivial interests of our own. To avoid specieism we must stop this practice, and each of us has a moral obligation to cease supporting the practice. Our custom is all the support that the meat-industry needs. The decision to cease giving it may be difficult, but it is no more difficult than it would have been for a white Southerner to go against the traditions of his society and free his slaves: if we do not change our dietary habits, how can we censure those slaveholders who would not change their own way of living?
The same form of discrimination may be observed in the widespread practice of experimenting on other species in order to see if certain substances are safe for hman beings, or to test some psychological theory about the effect of severe punishment on learning, or to try out various new compounds just in case something turns up...
In the past, argument about vivisection has often missed the point, because it has been put in absolutist terms: Would the abolitionist be prepared to let thousands die if they could be saved by experimenting on a single animal? The way to reply to this purely hypothetical question is to pose another: WOULD THE EXPERIMENTOR BE PREPARED TO PERFORM HIS EXPERIMENT ON AN ORPHANED HUMAN INFANT, IF THAT WERE THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE MANY LIVES? (I say "orphan" to avoid the complication of parental feelings, although in doing so I am being overfair to the experimenter, since the nonhuman subjects of experiments are not orphans.) If the experimenter is not prepared to use an orphaned human infant, then his readiness to use nonhumans is simple discrimination, since adult apes, cats, mice and other mammals are more aware of what is happening to them, more self-directing, and, so far as we can tell, at least as sensitive to pain, as any human infant...
The experimenter, then, shows a bias in favor of his own species whenever he carries out an eperiment on a nonhuman for a purpose that he would not think justified him in using a human being at an equal or lower level of sentience, awareness, ability to be self-directing etc. No one familiar with the kind of results yielded by most experiments on animals can have the slightest doubt that if this bias were eliminated the number of experiments performed would be a minute fraction of the number performed today.
Singer, Peter 'A Utilitarian Defence of Animal Liberation' in "Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application" pp. 39-45
This one is a good example:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bhharl.html
or
http://users.rcn.com/napier.interport/cwm/experim.html
Or, for a slightly different perspective:
http://www.uwkillsanimals.com/maternaldep.htm
Posted by Mark H. on February 22, 2005, at 14:56:10
In reply to Animal Rights, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 19:56:04
Dear Alexandra,
Here are some of my thoughts on the essay you quoted.
First, I think we should avoid labeling others with terms they would not use to describe themselves. We may feel emotionally justified in using terms like racist, sexist, terrorist, etc., but on a process level their use is usually prejudicial. It's wonderfully ironic that we tend to stereotype others for stereotyping others.
Second, I think it is useful to become conscious of killing in order to reduce it, but the fact remains that most of us kill other creatures every day, whether by using mouthwash or walking across the lawn, driving our cars into insects or vacuuming our rugs and carpets.
Third, strictly vegetarian diets are not healthy for everyone, especially a diet that relies on soy products to replace animal fats and proteins (see, for example, "Nourishing Traditions" for an explanation of this argument). Speaking just for myself, I tried being a non-meat-eater for about six years when I was younger and found I could not maintain good health.
Of course, I could choose to be less healthy. I know a woman, for instance, who won't take antibiotics to get rid of the intestinal parasites she picked up in South America many years ago. She also sets the vacuum bag outside after cleaning her room to let the fleas escape. And she chooses to let her animals suffer flea infestations rather than using Advantage or a similar product.
So whether or not we kill is not just a matter of "taste" or "trivial interest." I think there may be room to argue that given the choice between eating range-fed beef or a Big Mac, choosing the range-fed beef may be better for everyone. However, this choice is likely determined more by economics, education and access than by personal preference.
Fourth, even the most careful practitioners of harmlessness that I know would be reluctant to compare animal husbandry to human slavery or experimenting on animals to experimenting on "orphaned human babies." Of course, I appreciate that the author would consider this "speciesism."
Fifth, some of those who advocate for animal rights show remarkable disdain for human beings in general, and especially for those engaged in animal food production or experimentation. If one's argument is that compassion should extend to all creatures, then it is important not to exclude those with whom we disagree.
There is a middle ground. I think it's good for us to be aware of where we are in the food chain, and to acknowledge with respect and reverence the thousands of lives of other beings that have contributed to our own (as well as those that have perished simply because we're alive). I think that over time we need to make economic choices (where we can) that promote better treatment of animals used for food and medicine.
Finally, I think that the "bias in favor of our own species" is hard-wired into our brains and is at least one reason for our survival so far. As we expand our compassion to include others, including other species, perhaps we will become more conscious of our interdependence and make better choices as a society.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 16:42:01
In reply to Re: Animal Rights, posted by Mark H. on February 22, 2005, at 14:56:10
>First, I think we should avoid labeling others with terms they would not use to describe themselves. We may feel emotionally justified in using terms like racist, sexist, terrorist, etc., but on a process level their use is usually prejudicial. It's wonderfully ironic that we tend to stereotype others for stereotyping others.
Yes, I agree. Singer has a particular technical use of the term ‘racist’ and ‘speciest’ in mind, however, so it isn’t just ‘name calling’. He also justifies the analogy between ‘unfair’ discrimination on the basis of race and gender, and on the basis of species. Here is some of his justification:When we say that all human beings, whatever their race, creed or sex, are equal, what is it that we are asserting? Those who wish to defend a hierarchical, inegalitarian society have often pointed out that whatever test we choose, it simply is not true that all humans are equal. Like it or not, we must face the facts that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellectual abilites, differing amounts of benevolent feeling and sensitivity to the needs of others, differing abilities to communicate effectively, and differing capacities to experience pleasure and pain. In short, if the demand for equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality. It would be an unjustifiable demand.
(Discussion as to whether these differences are innate or environmental – the scientific jury is still out.)
Fortunately, there is no need to pin the case for equality to one particular outcome of this scientific investigation. The appropriate response to those who claim to have found evidence of genetically based differences in ability between the races or sexes is not to stick to the belief that genetic explanation must be wrong, whatever evidence to the contrary may turn up: instead we should make it quite clear that the claim to equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or simple matters of fact. Equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies and DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION WE GIVE TO SATISFYING THEIR NEEDS AND INTERESTS. The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans… Many philosophers have proposed the principle of equal consideration of interests, in some form or other, as a basic moral principle; but… not many of them have recognised that this principle applies to members of other species as well as to our own…
The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a pre-requisite for having interests at all…If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that suffering be counted equally with like suffering – in so far as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account. This is why the limit of sentience (using the term as a conventient, if not strictly accurate, shorthand for the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness) is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. To mark this boundary by some characteristic like intelligence or rationality would be to mark it in an arbitrary way. Why not choose some other characteristic, like skin colour?
>Second, I think it is useful to become conscious of killing in order to reduce it, but the fact remains that most of us kill other creatures every day, whether by using mouthwash or walking across the lawn, driving our cars into insects or vacuuming our rugs and carpets.
Yes. Although we may question whether ants, mites, etc are really sentient. They may be they may not be. The most clear cut cases seem to be cows, sheep, pigs, mice, monkeys, birds etc.
>Third, strictly vegetarian diets are not healthy for everyone, especially a diet that relies on soy products to replace animal fats and proteins (see, for example, "Nourishing Traditions" for an explanation of this argument). Speaking just for myself, I tried being a non-meat-eater for about six years when I was younger and found I could not maintain good health.
Ok. I don’t know much about nutrition. I guess that is fairly arguable. How about suppliments?
>Of course, I could choose to be less healthy.
Yeah, but we don’t want you to suffer either ;-)
> I know a woman, for instance, who won't take antibiotics to get rid of the intestinal parasites she picked up in South America many years ago. She also sets the vacuum bag outside after cleaning her room to let the fleas escape. And she chooses to let her animals suffer flea infestations rather than using Advantage or a similar product.
Hmm. I am not sure fleas are sentient. But they might be. I wouldn’t go to such lengths, but I respect those who do. But then her pets (who we are fairly sure are sentient) must have suffered a great deal… There are natural repellants that could have protected them without killing the fleas.
>So whether or not we kill is not just a matter of "taste" or "trivial interest." I think there may be room to argue that given the choice between eating range-fed beef or a Big Mac, choosing the range-fed beef may be better for everyone. However, this choice is likely determined more by economics, education and access than by personal preference.
In a fair few cases it is ‘just a matter of taste or trivial interest’ though. The difference between what we are going to buy for dinner can often simply amount to ‘what we feel like’.
>Fourth, even the most careful practitioners of harmlessness that I know would be reluctant to compare animal husbandry to human slavery or experimenting on animals to experimenting on "orphaned human babies." Of course, I appreciate that the author would consider this "speciesism."
Of course they would be reluctant to experiment on an orphaned human infant – that is the point. They do not show such reluctance to experiment on animals and it is precisely their lack of reluctance in the latter case that shows that they are ‘speciest’ in the sense that they show more moral consideration for human infants than they do for animals with a comperable capacity to suffer.
>Fifth, some of those who advocate for animal rights show remarkable disdain for human beings in general, and especially for those engaged in animal food production or experimentation. If one's argument is that compassion should extend to all creatures, then it is important not to exclude those with whom we disagree.
I agree with you completely.
>There is a middle ground. I think it's good for us to be aware of where we are in the food chain, and to acknowledge with respect and reverence the thousands of lives of other beings that have contributed to our own (as well as those that have perished simply because we're alive). I think that over time we need to make economic choices (where we can) that promote better treatment of animals used for food and medicine.
Hmm. But how many lives have been sacrified (how many have suffered) needlessly. I think it should go beyond better treatment. I think we should extend equal moral consideration to all beings who have the capacity to suffer.
>Finally, I think that the "bias in favor of our own species" is hard-wired into our brains and is at least one reason for our survival so far.
Even if that *is* the case that doesn’t mean that it should *continue to be* the case. There is a maxim for that (acknowledgements to Kant) – You can’t derive an *ought* from an *is*. That is just to say that no matter how things *are* that really has no implications whatsoever with respect to the way things *should* be without the addition of extra premises. Even if violence is hardwired it does not follow from that that people *should* behave violently. And we are not obliged to excuse it because they are just acting in accordance with their nature. Not in the case of humans who have the faculty of reason. An adult human being should know better. This doesn’t apply to other animals because they do not have the capacity to transcend their nature.
> As we expand our compassion to include others, including other species, perhaps we will become more conscious of our interdependence and make better choices as a society.
I do hope so.
Thankyou for your thoughts, they are appreciated.
Posted by Mark H. on February 23, 2005, at 14:23:37
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Mark H., posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 16:42:01
Dear Alexandra,
Thank you for your thoughtful response and the additional information. I really appreciate it.
You wrote: "I think we should extend equal moral consideration to all beings who have the capacity to suffer."
A couple of years ago, a friend of mine asked one of our visiting lamas, "Are all beings equal?" The lama looked at her for a long moment and said, "All *phenomena* are equal."
I'm still struggling with that. Even in the practice of equanimity, it seems to me that we must still prioritize, that we have to say, "Doing this is more important than doing that." I like the *idea* of being able to extend equal moral consideration to all sentient beings, but I'm not there yet.
As usual you've given me much to think about.
Many thanks,
Mark H.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 23, 2005, at 16:21:34
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Mark H. on February 23, 2005, at 14:23:37
You are welcome. Thanks for reading it :-)
> You wrote: "I think we should extend equal moral consideration to all beings who have the capacity to suffer."
> A couple of years ago, a friend of mine asked one of our visiting lamas, "Are all beings equal?" The lama looked at her for a long moment and said, "All *phenomena* are equal."Yes, all phenomena (in themselves) are equal. The world just *is* the case. It doesn't follow from the way things *are* what we *should* do. And the world (in itself) doesn't contain any values. Nothing is intrinsically worthwhile or worthless. Nothing has interests or whatever until a miracle occured - sentient beings arose.
And sentient beings have interests (in survival and reproduction primarily and in other things derivitavely. Then some phenomena can be described as *better* or *worse* *good* or *bad* *worthless* or *worthwhile* but these judgements are always relative to *our* interests.
The world without sentient beings, the world where there aren't any interests just *is*. All phenomena are equal.
And all sentient beings are equal too - in the sense that their suffering should be taken into account.
> I'm still struggling with that. Even in the practice of equanimity, it seems to me that we must still prioritize, that we have to say, "Doing this is more important than doing that."
Yes, of course we have to! We have interests and indeed there can be *facts* about which phenomena are *better* or *worse* *good* or *bad* BUT they are only those things relative to (or in virtue of) our interests.
>I like the *idea* of being able to extend equal moral consideration to all sentient beings, but I'm not there yet.
Thats ok. I am not vegan yet. But I hope to get there.
> As usual you've given me much to think about.:-)
> Many thanks,And thanks to you.
Posted by Damos on February 23, 2005, at 19:24:22
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Mark H., posted by alexandra_k on February 23, 2005, at 16:21:34
Posted by alexandra_k on February 23, 2005, at 21:59:20
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Mark H., posted by alexandra_k on February 23, 2005, at 16:21:34
> And all sentient beings are equal too - in the sense that their suffering should be taken into account.
Ah, a correction / clarification.
All sentient beings are not equal (people vary with respect to size and shape and intellectual capacity, moral capacity, etc etc)
That may be why he didn't say that all beings are equal (because they are not).
But to stop the (invalid) step that most people draw from this (namedly, that some people would then be more *worthy* of moral consideration than others) he focused on all *phenomena* being equal.
>>"Are all beings equal?" The lama looked at her for a long moment and said, "All *phenomena* are equal."
Yes, all phenomena are equal (intrinsically) because there is no intrinsic value or worth.
Value or worth is always relative to a sentient beings *goals*.
(Though we sentient beings can also assign *goals* to organisms that may well not be sentient - such as bacteria.)
This reminds me a great deal of Dennett in "Consciousness Explained" where he talks of 'The Birth of Boundaries and Reasons'. And how 'good' and 'bad' only come into being when we assign 'goals' to the organisms (in this case retrospectively).
And now I am starting to feel slightly confused myself...
Posted by jay on February 26, 2005, at 16:20:57
In reply to Animal Rights, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 19:56:04
I pretty much agree with you on many points alexandra. One area I find horrible is animal testing for stupid things like cosmetics. But, if we "hunted" animals (insetead of slaughtering them) the way Native Aboriginals did, I believe it would be a morally correct thing to do. Native wore fur because they *had* nothing else, but humans wear fur out of vanity.
As far as an organization like PETA goes, as I said, I agree with many of their views, but I am also a humanist, and put my applause behind someone like Bono who is trying to help AIDS victims in Africa, and rid the Third World Debt, supporting organizations like Amnesty International. Someone like Paul McCartney(sp?) kind of embarasses me when his biggest beef (no pun intended) and energy are directed towards Kentuky Fried Chicken. Just IMHO....
Jay
Posted by alexandra_k on February 27, 2005, at 0:57:14
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by jay on February 26, 2005, at 16:20:57
Thanks for your response :-)
> But, if we "hunted" animals (insetead of slaughtering them) the way Native Aboriginals did, I believe it would be a morally correct thing to do.
I think you mean 'morally acceptable thing to do' as in allowable; 'morally correct thing to do' implies that we have a moral obligation to do it.
>Native wore fur because they *had* nothing else, but humans wear fur out of vanity.
Yeah. I guess it is acceptable (though not morally compulsory) to kill out of necessity. But not when there are alternatives available..
Though Aldo Leopold is a proponant of the Land Ethic. He doesn't have sentience as the basis for moral consideration, rather he considers out duty is to act for the stability / harmony of the ecosystem. He thinks such things as hunting for sport are defensible (sometimes the right thing to do even) insofar as it assists the integrity / stability of the ecosystem. But then from the perspective of the Land ethic massive human diebacks would be good and as that would benefit the ecosystem it would follow that it is our moral duty to bring those about. Callicot tries to fix this up by talking about degrees of duty of care...
> As far as an organization like PETA goes, as I said, I agree with many of their views, but I am also a humanist, and put my applause behind someone like Bono who is trying to help AIDS victims in Africa, and rid the Third World Debt, supporting organizations like Amnesty International. Someone like Paul McCartney(sp?) kind of embarasses me when his biggest beef (no pun intended) and energy are directed towards Kentuky Fried Chicken. Just IMHO....
I don't know anything about any of that... I am not associated with any animal rights / liberation groups. I just have my personal beliefs. And act from there a little (but not as much as I believe I should).
Thanks.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 27, 2005, at 13:59:28
In reply to Animal Rights, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 19:56:04
Generally I agree with this.
There is no reason to use animals for vaccine developement anymore. Example: the first polio vaccine was developed by Salk using live virus and testing on animals. Thr vaccine *usually* worked. The replacement wad developed by Sabin shortly after using dead virus and needed no animal testing first. That is the one used today, with fewer complications.
In the US veterinary students practice on animals from shelters that are slated to be euthanized. It is done quite humanely, with the animal under sedation the entire time, and then euthanized. Last I heard this wasn't allowed in the UK, so beginning vets usually end up lying 'sure I've done this operation before' while actually learning on pets.
I'm not sure wearing fur is worse than wearing leather. I see people marching against fur, wearing their leather shoes, and to me that is hypocracy in action. Granted trapping can be cruel and a slow death for no reason but vanity, but farm raised animals suffer no more than the cow we eat and wear.
Some years back, in the UK, some well-thinking but foolish animal rights activists sneaked into a mink farm and freed all the minks. The poor things didn't know how to fend, and most were squished on the motorway. The others were pests to farmers and eventually killed - probably by poison.
I have a beautiful red fox hat I bought in China. I don't feel guilty about it because I knew over there the whole animal was used - for food.
While I don't have too much trouble with hunting for food, I have real problems for hunting for trophies or just to kill.
In nature there is a food chain, and we are just part of that food chain. When we are done living, our remains go to feed the lower parts of the chain and the process goes on.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 0:25:36
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on February 27, 2005, at 13:59:28
I agree with you except that:
> In nature there is a food chain, and we are just part of that food chain. When we are done living, our remains go to feed the lower parts of the chain and the process goes on.Firstly just because that is the way things have been doesn't mean that we are morally entitled to go on in the same way 'just because that is the way we have lived in the past'.
I have done some checking around. You can obtain all the nutrients you need to be healthy (incl protein etc) from non animal and non-dairy (though need to take a synthetic form of B12 if you forgo dairy altogether). It might be tricky to work out what sorts of things to eat to get them all though. But the fact is that we simply do not need to eat meat anymore to live healthily.
I can chase down the sources for this if people would like..
The production of animals for food is actually very inefficient. More pounds of vegetables can be produced per acre of fertile land than pounds of meat. Animals are also fed lots of grain - grain that could have been eaten by us directly.
I agree with you about the leather products. That is something that was only brought to my attention recently. But yeah, that makes sense.
With respect to practicing operations on animals I guess I would ask myself 'would we do the same thing to an orphaned human infant?'. Yeah vets have to give surgery to pets one day, but likewise doctors have to give surgery to people. What do we do in the latter case? We practice on the dead, and we practice on those who need it - with appropriate supervision. Why should it be different in the case of animals? Would it be morally acceptable to perform an opperation on a human being (with appropriate anasthetic etc) 'just to practice'???
IMO no.
Not morally justified.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 2:17:45
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on February 27, 2005, at 13:59:28
This is a good link to making sure you get a balanced diet.
Also talks about the health benefits of a vegan / vegetarian lifestyle.http://www.veganhealth.org/shv/
This addresses some interesting point.
http://www.vegsource.com/how_to_win.htm
And here are some replies to the most common arguments as to why it is that eating meat is ethically acceptable:
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 2:22:00
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 0:25:36
Sorry, I read what you had to say about the animal experiments again...
Would it be okay for someone about to be euthanised to be anesthatised first so some med student could practice on them before putting them to sleep?
Posted by Damos on February 28, 2005, at 15:27:08
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 2:22:00
That'd be a big "NO" to that idea.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 15:33:11
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on February 28, 2005, at 15:27:08
Unless we would be prepared to do the same thing to people. I actually don't see why the hell not. But I don't think many people would like it...
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 17:10:38
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 15:33:11
Singer maintains that if pain matters morally then it matters wherever it occurs. Therefore any sentient creature who has an interest in avoiding such pain should have its interest taken into account. He then discounts such properties as intelligence, moral capacity, race, gender etc as being relevant and he maintains that sentience is the only defensible boundary for having ones interests taken into account.
Sentient beings of differing degrees of intelligence should thus have their equal interests considered equally.
Sentient beings of differing races should thus have their equal interests considered equally.
Likewise, he considers that sentient beings regardless of species should have their equal interests considered equallyTo discriminate on the basis of intelligence, race, etc is wrong because these differences are irrelevant to whether something has interests or not.
To discriminate on the basis of species is wrong because this difference is irrelevant to whether something has interests. To disregard the interests of animals simply because they are of a different species is morally unjustifiable (speciest). It is comparable to racism, sexism, etc.He considers that speciesism may be the last form of discrimination that we routinely practice without being aware of it.
To change our lifestyles so that we do not condone the exploitation of animals is hard. But we should consider how hard it would have been for slave owners to change their lifestyles so as not to condone the exploitation of people.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 20:05:40
In reply to Re: Racism and Speciesm., posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 17:10:38
But he writes very well indeed.
http://ar.vegnews.org/Questions.html
He also has links to other articles on objective morality and why children should rebel...
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 21:45:40
In reply to Re:Don't know who this guy is..., posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 20:05:40
... philosophy is hopeless because you just argue round and round in circles all the time... that no clear answer emerges... but they do... quite often... it is just that oftentimes we don't like what they say... that is why socrates was forced to drink hemlock... philosophers typically aren't popular people... but then many philosophers devote their lives to justifications imo... i don't want to do that... i don't want to ever do that... it isn't that i believe i am always right... but i do think that in this case there is a very clear rational answer... and for all those with allergies etc i don't know... i guess it is about doing what one can... hell, it is always a matter of that...
thanks for listening.
Posted by Damos on March 1, 2005, at 23:02:53
In reply to Re: People often think that..., posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 21:45:40
I absolutely agree. I think it was Einstien who said
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
Thanks for the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 0:11:29
In reply to Re: People often think that... » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on March 1, 2005, at 23:02:53
> I absolutely agree. I think it was Einstien who said
>
> "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
>
> Thanks for the thread.:-)
Did he say that???
I suppose he would have been a reductionist...
But it makes sense on other levels too...
Thanks for that.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 12:18:42
In reply to Animal Rights, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 19:56:04
> There can be no defence of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products.
Sorry, I'm rather slow to join this discussion, but I hope the following is food for thought:
It would seem that one of the predicate assumptions for the conclusion that eating animal flesh is unethical is that adequate nutrition is available from a vegetarian or vegan diet. Not only has that never been demonstrated, it is factually impossible, based on some other assumptions.
The United States Department of Agriculture has published extensive analyses of food nutrient content, both for pure foods, and for processed foods. Employing those data, and assuming a caloric intake appropriate to maintain a stable weight, it is not possible to select *any* diet which simultaneously meets all RDA (recommended daily allowance) levels for nutrients for which an RDA is established. Although the belief that a "balanced diet" will provide all required nutrients is widespread, I have never found any evidence that supports that belief. I would be glad to be proven wrong on this, but, as I said, the evidence is lacking.
It's important to understand what is meant by terms like RDA (and related measures such as DRI (daily recommended intake)).
The core determination is the EAR, the Estimated Average Requirement. That's the 50th percentile of overt deficiency risk, based on the seven-day averaged intake of a nutrient. At the EAR, there are equal numbers of individuals showing overt deficiency symptoms, and equal numbers not. The RDA is two standard deviations above the EAR. By definition (normal distribution), that captures all individuals up to the 97.5th percentile. At the RDA level of intake, 1 in 40 *healthy and normal* subjects is still exhibiting overt deficiency symptoms. There is no consideration for adverse health states, nor for optimal intake. Nor are "normal" or "healthy" defined.
For a visual representation, see the graph at:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309071836/html/24.html#pagetopYou'll note that adverse health effects are still expected if someone meets the RDA for that given nutrient (i.e. risk of inadequacy is non-zero). And way off to the right is the Upper Limit, that point where intake is so high that the risk of toxic effects starts to rise from zero. Just from looking at the graph, you can see that it's better to exceed the RDA for nutrient intakes, so long as you stay below the UL.
For some nutrients, there is no known Upper Limit. In other words, you'd have to really go out of your way to obtain any toxic effects from them. For others, the Upper Limit is set with some very conservative safety factors in mind. For example, the safety factor for vitamin E is 36. That means you'd have to take 36 times the recommended Upper Limit for there to be any real risk of toxic effects. (And, it so happens, the toxic effects that do arise from excess vitamin E are likely due to vitamin K deficiency, which really has nothing to do with vitamin E in the first place).
There are other curves (all based on what is called the "normal curve" of statistical distribution) which have been used to show the various aspects of nutrient deficiency and excess.
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/5/1563S/FIG2There are three aspects of deficiency. The most obvious are overt syptoms of deficiency, labelled here as "clinical effects". This is the same curve I referenced above, with respect to RDA. To its right (higher intakes) are curves representing measurable biochemical effects of subclinical intensity, and measurable biochemical effects of no clinical relevancy. The dotted curves showing AROI "acceptable range (of daily) oral intake", lie completely to the right of the intake defined by RDA. In other words, 100% of all subjects would show no signs of overt or covert deficiency or toxic effects within the AROI range. Optimization of health is the limiting character of AROI, whereas RDA is wholly inadequate. Despite that *defined* inadequacy, a balanced diet cannot even meet that threshold.
Here are the only published analyses of diet adequacy that I have ever found. They demonstrate that when calories are appropriately limited, even a balanced diet is inadequate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6703646
Ann Nutr Metab. 1984;28(1):11-23.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3654115
Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 1987;57(2):225-30.So what? People have surviving to ripe old ages, nothwithstanding dietary analysis. What's the big deal?
Cancer.
Bruce Ames (the same Ames of the Ames Test for mutagenicity) has laid it all out.
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/5/1544S
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11295149
Mutat Res. 2001 Apr 18;475(1-2):7-20.What is striking is that a significant number of these key anti-cancer nutrients are also generally deficient in vegetarian (expecially vegan) diets. That said, even omnivores (well, American omnivores, for certain) do not obtain anywhere near sufficient iron or zinc from diet.
The United States government has funded major investigations into the relationship between typical diet and health parameters, under the name NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), now in its third data collection cycle. From those surveys, we obtain the following data:
Iron and zinc table:
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/131/8/2177/T5Even with fortification of foods, more than half of adults fail to meet the RDA for iron or zinc.
Zinc table:
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/5/1367S/T4In this table, "Adequate Intake" (which has no scientific basis; it is an estimate based on an estimate) is defined as only 77% of RDA, yet only 54% of the population meets even that target (despite overconsumption of meat, a major source). In the full-text of that article, it is suggested that only 2% of the population meet or exceed the RDA for zinc, and every one of those uses a supplement.
I repeat. Only 2% of Americans meet or exceed zinc RDAs, and only if taking a supplement. Moreover, there is an unexamined confound, bioavailability. Plant-based mineral uptake is substantially inhibited by constituents of the plants themselves. Direct competition due to binding by oxalic acid or phytic acid is exacerbated by physical compartmentalization within soluble fiber or adhesion to insoluble fiber. Uptake of minerals can be as little as 1% of the amount determined by elemental analysis of the plant mineral content.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1910521
Estimating adequacy of zinc intake:
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/5/1563SA diet analysis only provides you with crude intake information, in any case. It is fallacious to equate intake with uptake. Consider, for zinc alone, the effect of a single dietary variable, phytate intake. From the text above: "The WHO committee set three levels of zinc absorption based on the P:Z of three diet types: P:Z < 5 (representing refined diets or semipurified formulas), 50% absorption; P:Z 5-15 (representing mixed diets or refined vegetarian diets), 30% absorption; P:Z > 15 (unrefined diets, negligible animal protein), 15% absorption. The data used were derived from studies measuring zinc absorption from single test meals, as well as from total diets, although the availability of the latter study types were limited at the time the estimates were made."
Bioavailability is what sets animal flesh apart from plant-source foods. All biota are bioaccumulators. Plants bioaccumulate from soil (with the help of microbes). If that was not the case, would we not just eat soil? Animals are even better nutrient bioaccumulators than are plants. Moreover, the form (particularly with respect to minerals and B-vitamins) of those nutrients are generally more bioavailable (as percent uptake/utilization) than are the identical plant-based nutrients. Whether an individual can survive solely on plant-based nutrient intake is not determinable from any of the data available to us. The normal curves of nutrient requirement have high inter-personal variability. Some people may do quite well on what is statistically an inadequate diet, as it is adequate for their own specific needs. However, it is not possible to generalize from a specific case of adequacy to any other individual. That is the failure of the assumption that vegetarian diets can be adequate sources of nutrition.
For someone contemplating a vegetarian diet, there are some specific considerations to bear in mind. The most problematic micronutrients to obtain are calcium, iodine, iron, zinc, selenium (in some countries, based on soil content), vitamin B12 (cobalamin), vitamin B2 (riboflavin, which itself is essential for zinc and iron uptake from the gut), vitamin B6 (pyridoxine), and vitamin D. Evidence is accumulating that the macronutrient long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids DHA and EPA are also conditionally essential. Here are some abstracts which detail the magnitude of those problems.
B-vitamins generally:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1797957
Vitamin B12:
vitamin D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8237875
Iron
Selenium
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8546880
Iodine
General nutrition of vegetarian diet:
Nutritional importance of animal source foods:
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/11/3932SOn mineral bioavailability:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/633SOn vegetarian diet and long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturates:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/640Shttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7609607
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9637947
To your health,
Lar
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 16:16:59
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 12:18:42
> It would seem that one of the predicate assumptions for the conclusion that eating animal flesh is unethical is that adequate nutrition is available from a vegetarian or vegan diet.
It is but one consideration.
The main assumptions in the argument go:
Sentient beings need to have their interests taken into account.
Animals are sentient beings.
Breeding animals for food and killing them to eat them is severely disregarding their interests
Therefore it is wrong to breed animals for food and kill them to eat them.If we do not need to eat them to survive then I would say that that pretty much fairly conclusively settles that their interests far outweigh our desire to eat them (which would be a 'trivial' interest relative to theirs).
>Not only has that never been demonstrated, it is factually impossible, based on some other assumptions.
The assumption being what counts as 'adequate nutrition'.
> it is not possible to select *any* diet which simultaneously meets all RDA (recommended daily allowance) levels for nutrients for which an RDA is established.> Despite that *defined* inadequacy, a balanced diet cannot even meet that threshold.
> So what? People have surviving to ripe old ages, nothwithstanding dietary analysis. What's the big deal?
Ha! I would take that to be a reductio ad absurdum of the RDA. What I mean by that is that if people we typically consider 'healthy' are found to be labelled 'deficient' then clearly there is something wrong with the RDA. If it is impossible to be 'healthy' without suppliments then I would say that something is severely wrong with that measure of 'health'.
Office mate says that that is why the American RDA is ignored by most of the rest of the world. Instead the British one seems a little more realistic...
> What is striking is that a significant number of these key anti-cancer nutrients are also generally deficient in vegetarian (expecially vegan) diets.
Sure, people often do not eat a balanced diet. Both meat eaters and vegetarians / vegans. The issue is not how people *do* eat, though, it is how they *could* eat if they chose.
>That said, even omnivores (well, American omnivores, for certain) do not obtain anywhere near sufficient iron or zinc from diet.
Right. See the point above. Americans tend to eat badly, we all know that ;-)
> Some people may do quite well on what is statistically an inadequate diet, as it is adequate for their own specific needs.Once again, that makes a mockery of the stats.
>However, it is not possible to generalize from a specific case of adequacy to any other individual. That is the failure of the assumption that vegetarian diets can be adequate sources of nutrition.
Based on what you are saying no balanced diet is an adequate source of nutrition. I would say that there is something severely wrong with the notion of an 'adequate source of nutrition' as laid out. But I shall revise my claim if you like. There isn't anything you get from meat / dairy that you can't get from an alternative source. Is that ok???
Consider a society of cannibals - we tell them that 'eating human flesh is unnecessary as adequate nutrition is available from a non person eating diet'.
They then use all of your arguments to justify continuing to eat human flesh. 'You people who don't eat human flesh don't meet RDA'. Is that supposed to justify a continuation of the practice???
You say that even people eating a balanced diet with meat need suppliments.
Well, I suppose that a vegetarian / vegan would also need suppliments then. Sure, I don't have a problem with that.
I am not talking about whether the majority of vegetarians / vegans actually do eat a balanced diet and likewise I am not talking about whether the majority of non vegetarians / vegans actuallly do eat a balanced diet. I am just saying that it is possible to eat a balanced diet being vegetarian / vegan as it is possible to eat a balanced diet being non-vegetarian / vegan.
What evidence is there that you can be healthy being a vegetarian / vegan???
How about the number of people who are vegetarian / vegan and who seem healthy???
With respect to individual variation... Well, as you say, there are always suppliments.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 16:55:23
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 16:16:59
> > It would seem that one of the predicate assumptions for the conclusion that eating animal flesh is unethical is that adequate nutrition is available from a vegetarian or vegan diet.
>
> It is but one consideration.It seems to be a core assumption.
> If we do not need to eat them to survive then I would say that that pretty much fairly conclusively settles that their interests far outweigh our desire to eat them (which would be a 'trivial' interest relative to theirs).
As you say, that is the pivotal "if".
> > Some people may do quite well on what is statistically an inadequate diet, as it is adequate for their own specific needs.
>
> Once again, that makes a mockery of the stats.No, not at all. It requires that the reader understands the nature and limitations of stats.
> >However, it is not possible to generalize from a specific case of adequacy to any other individual. That is the failure of the assumption that vegetarian diets can be adequate sources of nutrition.
>
> There isn't anything you get from meat / dairy that you can't get from an alternative source. Is that ok???I'm too brain-dead to address that just now.
> >That said, even omnivores (well, American omnivores, for certain) do not obtain anywhere near sufficient iron or zinc from diet.
>Right. See the point above. Americans tend to eat badly, we all know that ;-)
In all America, I should think there are more than a handful of intelligent vegetarians, but only those using supps get enough iron and zinc.
> You say that even people eating a balanced diet with meat need suppliments.
>
> Well, I suppose that a vegetarian / vegan would also need suppliments then. Sure, I don't have a problem with that.I was hoping that you, personally, would conclude that a vegan/vegetarian diet ought to include supplements.
Lar
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 2, 2005, at 20:13:43
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 16:55:23
Larry - You went to a LOT of trouble simply to justify eating those braised pig knuckles you so love!! ;-)
TOFUemmy
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 20:19:10
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 16:55:23
> > > It would seem that one of the predicate assumptions for the conclusion that eating animal flesh is unethical is that adequate nutrition is available from a vegetarian or vegan diet.
> > It is but one consideration.
> It seems to be a core assumption.Suppose adequate nutrition was not available without us eating human flesh. Does that mean that breeding humans to eat is ethical?
If it is impossible for both vegetarians / vegans and meat eaters to eat a healthy diet and it is possible for both groups to eat a healthy diet with the addition of suppliments then it follows that there is no requirement or necessity for us to eat meat. That is all I need.
> > If we do not need to eat them to survive then I would say that that pretty much fairly conclusively settles that their interests far outweigh our desire to eat them (which would be a 'trivial' interest relative to theirs).
> As you say, that is the pivotal "if".But it is a fact that we do not need to eat animal products to survive. Witness the vegans / vegetarians who are alive..
> > > Some people may do quite well on what is statistically an inadequate diet, as it is adequate for their own specific needs.> > Once again, that makes a mockery of the stats.
> No, not at all. It requires that the reader understands the nature and limitations of stats.It shows that what the stats say we 'need' is not what we actually do need.
> In all America, I should think there are more than a handful of intelligent vegetarians, but only those using supps get enough iron and zinc.I don't think the FDA 'requirements' you site are an adequate measure of what 'enough' is.
> I was hoping that you, personally, would conclude that a vegan/vegetarian diet ought to include supplements.I don't know. Maybe we all would be better off with suppliments. Maybe not. Until the comparisons are made between people on similar diets who get 1) no suppliments 2) placebo suppliments and 3) real suppliments I guess we won't know.
I am not sure about how well we are able to absorb suppliments...
And I am still not at all convinced that those RDA stats are an accurate measure of what we 'need' in order to be healthy.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.