Childhood indoctrination

[ManMachine]

We often think of childhood indoctrination as applying to religion; we notice that most people seem to take on the religious beliefs of their parents (probably even if we include atheism as a religion), and these beliefs can be difficult to undo if they are all a person has ever known. I think this phenomenon can apply to other areas, even if there is no logical reason for sticking with the belief.

One "conversion" (not religious in nature) that I've gone through is becoming vegan. The way I see it, I was brought up with the idea that animals are ours to use and exist for the purpose of serving us, and that non-humans are somehow "lower" than us and are not worthy of their interests being considered. Much like religion, this was pushed upon me before I was old enough to consider such hypotheses, or even understand what was actually on my plate, let alone the production process involved in getting it there. It was so normalised in my family and wider community, and it tasted good, so I had no reason to question it. It took several different experiences to unprogram my mind so I would be motivated to think for myself in an unbiased way about this issue. I learned about the animal exploitation industries during my veterinary science degree, attended a talk by the founder of Edgar's Mission animal sanctuary, and watched the movie Earthlings (which can be watched for free at http://www.earthlings.com).

I could probably write a book on the various levels of cruelty in the animal exploitation industries, but to sum things up succinctly: we would all agree that murdering a human for personal enjoyment is not morally justifiable, so to justify killing non-humans for our personal enjoyment, we must specifically identify species differences that confer less of a will to live, less of a survival instinct, or a reduced capacity for suffering. For the animals we exploit the most (mammals, fish, birds and crustaceans) such differences are not apparent. We can't use reduced intelligence as a reason, since this would allow us to justify murdering mentally retarded people, and besides, how do we make the logical leap from someone being less intelligent, to deserving to be exploited and killed? Even if they don't know they will be killed, it is not an adequate justification for human murder to say "but I did it humanely, and he/she didn't even know it was coming!" If I had continued to exploit animals despite the logic presented to me, it would have made no more sense than someone who continues to believe in a religion despite no scientific or logical justification.

Does anyone here think that there are logical justifications for exploiting animals for food, clothing and entertainment? And more to the point, does anyone else have examples of childhood indoctrination (of a non-religious type) which they have managed to overcome?

Language is a form of childhood indoctrination.

Some 'indoctrination' is useful, things like 'don't fight lions', because more often than not you'll lose.

Humans are clawless, toothless, soggy bags of lion food and we'd be pretty useless on our own so we are 'indoctrinated' to behave as tribes. We find meaning in meaningless things to help bind us, it's called empathy and it's a gift from evolution. But in this modern world it no longer has an outlet and sometimes it goes wrong and we end up sitting with the pandas eating shoots and leaves.


MM

MM

[bennyboy]

This thread has totally convinced me that I will force my kids not to eat meat, even when they are old enough to decide for themselves. I'm unsure how I should punish them if they disobey me. What do you fine people suggest?

Indoctrination of children is just a euphemism for teaching things someone else doesn't like.

If you teach them how to squish down a hamburger to fit it in their mouths, to a hippie, youi're indoctrinating them into a lifestyle of animal torture.

If you teach them to recycle or to conserve energy, or that non-humans should be protected, to a Texan, you're indoctrinating them into the God-hating world of tree-hugger terrorists.

[NoraBrimstone]

Yeah, no.

[Rahul]

If you teach them to recycle or to conserve energy, or that non-humans should be protected, to a Texan, you're indoctrinating them into the God-hating world of tree-hugger terrorists.

WTF?

Why you gotta single us out, hippie!?!?!

[bennyboy]

If you teach them to recycle or to conserve energy, or that non-humans should be protected, to a Texan, you're indoctrinating them into the God-hating world of tree-hugger terrorists.

WTF?

Why you gotta single us out, hippie!?!?!

Just a little creative indoctrination, is all.

[littleendian]

This thread has totally convinced me that I will force my kids not to eat meat, even when they are old enough to decide for themselves. I'm unsure how I should punish them if they disobey me. What do you fine people suggest?

You can't force anyone, least of all your own children. From everything I hear once they reach a certain age they'll do whatever they want and particularly the things that piss you off just for the sake of pissing you off Ah, the joy of parenthood

For me this discussion isn't about forcing anyone to do/not-do something, although the opposition keeps putting that strawman up. I just won't let an argument in favor of animal products stand unchallenged, I feel I owe that to the animals. What everyone here does or doesn't do is only up to them.

[NoraBrimstone]

But... the thread title..

[bennyboy]

But... the thread title..

Indoctrination is not forcing someone. It's guiding them, without them knowing there is another possibility.

[Forbinator]

While this is from 2011, I offer it to 'round out' and inform those who would like to take the romantic.... "saving the planet for our children" .... path via vegan/vegetarianism. Please remember this is from an Australian perspective and does focus on our own unique landscape/ climate and population

http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-...hands-4659

This article is mostly fraudulent. As littleendian has mentioned, it picks the easy target by comparing the "best" of animal agriculture to the worst of cropping. It also states that 70% of Australia's land is rangeland suitable only for cattle grazing (which is true), but uses deception to suggest that 70% of Australia's beef therefore comes from rangelands. Since rangelands support only very poor quality grass growth stocking densities are in the order of 1-2 animals per square kilometre. Much higher stocking densities are used on arable land in high rainfall areas, meaning more product comes from higher quality land. If you're eating Angus beef, or Porterhouse steak, chances are it has come from arable land that could be used more efficiently in cropping. Low quality rangeland pasture only supports "hardy" breeds (ie Brahman cattle), who produce lower quality meat. Unfortunately these animals are the ones used in our live export market.

Of course, if someone genuinely knows that their beef has come from rangelands, and has not been "finished" on grain in a feedlot, and they've calculated that their choice in diet is actually less damaging than if they ate plants instead, I would have to give them due respect. This would obviously mean they need to boycott almost all other animal products though, including dairy, pig flesh, chicken flesh, eggs etc. as all these animals are fed grain in much higher amounts than the humans eat. If I can corroborate the facts presented about grain (ie. the mice killed) this probably means I will need to stop eating grain-based products (or maybe only wheat), but I hope that this means you will stop eating grain-fed animal products, as you obviously care deeply about the harm done by grain production, since you posted that article. Just bear in mind that they are allowed to label beef as "grass-fed" as long as they spent their first year on grass. Even if they're "finished" in a feedlot, they can still be labelled as grass-fed, so I hope you're getting your beef from local farmers who can confirm that they spent their entire lives on rangeland pasture, otherwise you have no way of knowing.

He also says that two thirds of cattle in Australia are fed solely on pasture, but then cites this link: http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-and-markets...Lotfeeding which actually says that feedlot utilisation is at 67%! So the link tells us the exact opposite of what he said. I guess he doesn't expect people to check his sources? Speaking of which, the sources he provides seem to be opinion pieces posted by his mates, as well as a biased study done by PG Williams, who seems to examine meat composition only according to nutrients that meat is high in (eg protein). He fails to take into account the basic fact that proteins denature when heated to high temperatures (based on high school biology), and in fact tries to claim that cooked meat has a higher protein content because the water content has decreased. This is as silly as suggesting that pouring a cup of water on a steak will reduce its protein content. Why do all these articles use protein content as the baseline? This is another bias, since protein is in no way a limiting nutrient. If we want to be unbiased, we should use total calories, as this is the standard against which other nutrients are measured. We can then talk about protein and vitamins as a percentage of total calories, as is the standard.

And yes, the article you posted makes the ridiculous claim that we would need "more" land degradation to cater to vegans, even though we could just use the land in high rainfall areas currently being squandered on prime beef and dairy production.

I will come back and respond to some of your other claims soon, but in the meantime here is an independent review into different stunning methods, and it can be seen that none of them give consistently reliable stuns, hence the "quick clean kill" idea of yours is mostly fantasy unless you can ensure it yourself: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/45.pdf Page 9 shows that even the best case scenario (captive bolt stunning) has a 4% failure rate. The other methods (CO2, electrical) are even worse.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I can't justify exploiting them for entertainment (like zoo's.) If letting living things live happy is preferable, and we can entertain ourselves without locking animals up, then there's no reason to exploit them that way. I also can't justify killing them for clothing. If preserving life is preferable, and we can create clothes from things not alive, then there's no reason to kill them for clothes.

But people like eating them, myself included, so killing them for food is justified. We can nourish ourselves with plants and not animals, but I'd rather not, because my desire to eat meat is stronger than my desire to have animals live.

Morality is subjective. Any given moral of any given person is derived from what that person thinks is ideal/important, and everyone has a different idea of what is ideal/important.

Yes this pretty much sums up my position. Also, animals being used for scientific research gets a big plus from me. I'd be dead without it.