Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[simplexity]

You have not explained how intelligence and social interaction are relevant to the question of causing unnecessary suffering. To me they seem arbitrary just like skin colour and perhaps chosen by a member of a species that is trying to justify treatment of another species. Again, some animals are more intelligent and more social than some humans (the senile, severely mentally handicapped, new born)

They are relevant because of the fact they determine a species sentience. They determine whether a species is intelligent enough to experience the self awareness of pain. You do not seem to understand that there is a huge difference between the ability of an animal to experience pain and just react and the ability to actually have the understanding the pain which is happening to them and be self aware of the pain. Intelligence and social interaction determines the level of self awareness. The ability of an animal to suffer is irrelevant. What is relevant is the ability of an animal to have a self understanding what they are experiencing is relevant to themselves. We as humans have a self awareness and when we experience pain we do not simply react. We also understand the pain is causing harm to our own self.

Again, you are being arbitrary. It seems you are trying to pick out what you perceive to be human attributes and only offering sanctuary to other animals exhibiting the behaviors you have chosen.

You seem to keep spouting the same word at me again and again. No, I am not necessarily picking human and choosing human attributes. As an animal grows more and more self aware it will at some point have a realization it is not the only self around. This is not just a human attribute but an attribute of sentience.

Arbitrary again. Why do you chose empathy? What if it could be shown that other animals had empathy? What about humans with no empathy?

If it could be shown other animals showed empathy, and it has(Dolphins) than it would be ethically unjustified to kill them. I would consider it murder. As for sociopaths, right now it is irrelevant to bring this down to the level of the individual.

You seem to be contradicting yourself - you have accepted that lots of animals are sentient including cows, pigs, chickens.

Actually, I never accepted that cows, pigs, chickens are sentient. I did accept that humans, dolphins, and some species of primates are. Otherwise it is up for debate.

OK. So now your argument is switching to just looking after your own species regardless of all the other attributes you raised like empathy, social interaction, intelligence. It seems you will switch between whatever argument you want just to preserve your ability to eat meat no matter what even though you concede it is indeed terrible.

Once a species has been classified as sentient, there is no reason to take it further by saying for some reason just because one individual seemingly lacks one of these attributes you have to throw everything out the window. No, that makes everything way too complicated and therefore unethical to do so. No, the same applies to every sentient species. I am not just suddenly just applying everything to humans. My argument has been the same the entire time. The sentience of a SPECIES. Not the individual. Stop changing to how a senile old man seemingly "lacks sentience" and trying to apply it to everything I'm saying. It is irrelevant here.

Again, this seems arbitrary. Surely in a debate about inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering the focus must be on which animals are capable of feeling pain and can suffer and whether it is necessary. What has ego got to do with it.

Ego has everything to do with it as I talked about above.

[Scabby Joe]

OK. Please define what you mean by sentient.

[simplexity]

OK. Please define what you mean by sentient.

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences. This has nothing to do with the ability to feel pain as I said beforehand. Actually, I thought I had already defined it quite simply. To have an "ego" and be aware of other's "egos".

[Scabby Joe]

OK. Please define what you mean by sentient.

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences. This has nothing to do with the ability to feel pain as I said beforehand. Actually, I thought I had already defined it quite simply. To have an "ego" and be aware of other's "egos".

There is a lot of evidence that many animals are sentient:

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/document...tience.pdf

It has been recognised in European law for many years:

http://www.eurocbc.org/page673.html

I'm not sure where you are going with your argument. Have you not already described factory farming as terrible?

For the sake of argument, let's say that cows, pigs etc are not sentient. You have accepted that they feel pain and can suffer. How is it moral to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering. If you are saying because they are not sentient, then should there be any limit to the pain and suffering inflicted. Why bother with any kind of animal welfare provisions? Either their pain and suffering matters or it does not.

Also, whatever you make of the science for sentience, consider where the onus of proof lies. Given the implications for the pain and suffering caused, should not the onus be on you to prove that livestock animals are not sentient? Surely this is the moral approach?

[simplexity]

I agree that factory farming is unnecessary and maybe even "terrible" in a way because any animal is physically similar to us and we may have a natural tendency to have to look at this as disturbing.

But I do not find it morally unethical because the animals involved for argument sake are not self aware/sentient.

I still will stick with saying that an animal may experience a reaction to a stimuli and you can refer to this as "pain" if you will. A non sentient animal cannot suffer though, unless it is aware of the pain itself and is therefore sentient/conscious. So unless an animal is sentient there can be no such thing as unnecessary pain and suffering since it cannot experience suffering(ie it does not not even know it's alive as another poster said). Self awareness is needed for there to be any suffering involved. Suffering does not occur in the brain until after we have already experienced the reaction and then become aware of it. The reaction given by an animal may give us a human tendency to feel the animal is actually experiencing suffering but really this is not enough. I do not think it is ethical to kill any animal which displays any signs of sentience unless it is completely necessary to survive.

Granted, all of this is in an ideal world where we could easily understand whether or not an animal has a sense of self awareness. The distinction between reaction to stimuli and self awareness is a difficult one indeed. A chicken may even show a reaction when one of it's chicks is seemingly in distress but how do you tell whether it is actually aware of the actions it has taken.

Very carefully.
There are neurological methods of brain scanning and such which are already being studied, but it is still in the beginning stages.
Just wanted to post this:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ecognition

Even a plant could be self aware. How could we know? This has always been a question. When it comes down to it we still have to eat and the notion that it is ethically wrong to eat is completely ridiculous. So, no I disagree with dawkins. And yes "trying" to prove livestock animals are not sentient would be the moral choice, but doing it is another matter. BTW please define the word moral. We are constantly updating our values but the way you use the word seems like you already know all the answers. If that is so why are you trying to argue this point.

Without sentience, an animal is just another machine and not an intelligence. Sounds very callous I know, but it's true.

[Scabby Joe]

I agree that factory farming is unnecessary and maybe even "terrible" in a way because any animal is physically similar to us and we may have a natural tendency to have to look at this as disturbing.

But I do not find it morally unethical because the animals involved for argument sake are not self aware/sentient.

I still will stick with saying that an animal may experience a reaction to a stimuli and you can refer to this as "pain" if you will. A non sentient animal cannot suffer though, unless it is aware of the pain itself and is therefore sentient/conscious. So unless an animal is sentient there can be no such thing as unnecessary pain and suffering since it cannot experience suffering(ie it does not not even know it's alive as another poster said). Self awareness is needed for there to be any suffering involved. Suffering does not occur in the brain until after we have already experienced the reaction and then become aware of it. The reaction given by an animal may give us a human tendency to feel the animal is actually experiencing suffering but really this is not enough. I do not think it is ethical to kill any animal which displays any signs of sentience unless it is completely necessary to survive.

Granted, all of this is in an ideal world where we could easily understand whether or not an animal has a sense of self awareness. The distinction between reaction to stimuli and self awareness is a difficult one indeed. A chicken may even show a reaction when one of it's chicks is seemingly in distress but how do you tell whether it is actually aware of the actions it has taken.

Very carefully.
There are neurological methods of brain scanning and such which are already being studied, but it is still in the beginning stages.
Just wanted to post this:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ecognition

Even a plant could be self aware. How could we know? This has always been a question. When it comes down to it we still have to eat and the notion that it is ethically wrong to eat is completely ridiculous. So, no I disagree with dawkins. And yes "trying" to prove livestock animals are not sentient would be the moral choice, but doing it is another matter. BTW please define the word moral. We are constantly updating our values but the way you use the word seems like you already know all the answers. If that is so why are you trying to argue this point.

Without sentience, an animal is just another machine and not an intelligence. Sounds very callous I know, but it's true.

Most vertebrates are sentiant by your definition which was 'the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences.' This may include fish.

Of course they 'feel' and show preferences to avoid pain and suffering and to seek pleasure. I've given you good evidence which you've ignored. It's even accepted by many countries in Europe and elsewhere through legislation enacted to protect animal welfare. And this is by people who, like you, ant to carry on eating them.

"Self awareness is needed for there to be any suffering involved."
Please provide sources for this - where did you get it from? If your measure of self-awareness is the mirror test fine. New born babies cannot pass this test until they are at least 18 months old. Are you saying that a baby is incapable of feeling pain and suffering until it passes the test. Get real! Do you really think that! A new born baby is sentient - it can feel pain and suffer and react to avoid it's source.

So, all the animals that don't pass your mirror test are nothing more than machines. Again, I really can't believe you actually think that. So, by your reckoning, it would be no more morally wrong to squash a coke can than to put a kitten in a microwave and wait for it to explode. Really?

Again by your reasoning, those humans (the insane, chronically senile, brain damaged) who do not pass a mirror test are no more than machines? Do with them what you will with no moral objection.

There is nothing ridiculous about extending moral considerations to animals. I think IF you try to answer the questions I have put to you, you will begin to see how ridiculous your position is.

BTW Morally wrong - something we ought not to do.

[The Grand Nudger]

This conversation has clearly veered away from the practical reality of food production. We are obviously much more interested in entrenching ourselves within the seemingly unassailable walls of idealism and morality. Enjoy fellas, I don't think I'll have much to contribute to this one.

[Scabby Joe]

So your argument for continuing to cause pain and suffering to livestock seems to come down to the belief that not to consume them would cause more suffering. You still haven’t quantified this or provided a basis for your claim.
In just the US, there are thought to be in the region of 10 billion animals slaughtered each year. This is something quantifiable, you can check the figures. For clarity, I am advocating a vegetarian diet to reduce this unnecessary pain and suffering.
Let’s look at the impact of livestock production more widely and then come back to the fertilizer suggestion you make.
About 26% of all ice-free land is used to graze livestock and feedcrop another 33%. In all, 70% of agricultural land is used for livestock production.
About 70% of deforestation in Latin America is to provide pastures for livestock with the remainder nearly all used for feedcrop. Not only does this have a huge impact on biodiversity but livestock contribute more to global warming than all of transport combined.
Farmers choose mono-cropping methods of farming primarily to achieve economies of scale which they hope will reduce their costs and increase their margins, but in reality this way of growing crops has many detrimental effects on the environment. According to research, monocropping depletes the nutrients in soil 18 times faster than they can be replaced by natural fertilizers.
The waste produced by intensive factory farming is a danger to public health. http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/nspills.asp
A study by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has found that meat and dairy consumption causes "a disproportionately large share of environmental impacts."

It’s also not very good for you. A study by the Harvard School of Public Health has found that eating processed meat like bacon, sausage and deli meats was linked to a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes.
"Animal products, both meat and dairy, in general require more resources and cause higher emissions than plant-based alternatives," according to the report, entitled "Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production."
Crop rotation that includes green manure/cover crops is sustainable. Cover crops do not only give nutrients back to the soil, but they are also vital in protecting the earth from erosion. Thanks in part to their diminished use in the face of monocropping, soil erosion now takes place at an accelerated pace. In the US, for instance, around 10 times as much soil is lost to erosion than can be replaced through natural formation. Given that top soil can take as long as 300 years to form, this loss is effectively irreversible (Cornell).
SO my argument is that not eating animals means not submitting tens of billions of animals to unnecessary suffering each year, not ruining the bio-diversity of the planet, not wrecking the environment through the production of greenhouse gases, not causing pollution from factory farm slurry, not causing land degradation and not heightening the risk to human health. Let’s see what figures and sources you can come up with.

---

OK. Please define what you mean by sentient.

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences. This has nothing to do with the ability to feel pain as I said beforehand. Actually, I thought I had already defined it quite simply. To have an "ego" and be aware of other's "egos".

[Anomalocaris]

You forgot a tier at the very bottom of ego pyramid: it is populated by vegetarian egotists in the guise of flaky utopian friends of ameba who think they can dictate vegetarianism to others.

[The Grand Nudger]

You really need to figure out how to use quote tags. You keep responding by way of arguing against factory farming. No one is arguing -for- factory farming. Make a case for your own argument, at some point, anytime that it is convenient for you.

I've handled your arguments re crop rotation, and the use of agricultural land already, many many posts ago. I'll repeat it again for you. Not all "agricultural land" is suitable for the production of crops suitable for human consumption. The classification "agricultural land" includes livestock production, feed crops, etc. Feed crops (even when they are varieties of crops we actually do eat) are chosen for their diminished fertility and irrigation requirements. This is what makes it economically feasible for the producer. Crop rotation is not a perpetual motion machine. Many farms use crop rotation, they still fertilize. Green manure is not a perpetual motion machine, you can't get out more than what you put in. Both of these have the inconvenient side effect of tying up food production in that the area cannot be under crop continuously (more-so in the case of green manures, crop rotation allows you to grow something, even if the yield is meager at times). Neither can be used to successfully cultivate all crops at the level we currently produce because many of our food crops are what we in the business call "heavy feeders". The "waste" produced by intensive livestock production is also the fuel for "organically certified" agriculture. Dirty little secret right there that I bet you weren't aware of. You're advocating a reduction of production capacity when there are already people starving? Is this an example of "necessary" suffering? You've invoked heart disease as though it made a good case for suffering. You know only one group of people get heart disease, the living, ie: "those who do not starve to death". I know, I know, it sounds terrible, but if the choice is heart disease or death...I'm going to have to side with heart disease. That's the nature of ag, shitty compromises.

You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of natural farming method capable of feeding us whilst simultaneously "repairing" the earth, or at least not damaging it. This is not the case, at least not currently. Agriculture is not a natural state of anything, nor is our population a natural state of anything. Both are contrived, both are "detrimental" to something, somewhere (or, more aptly, to a great many things everywhere). The earth beneath your feet is not some machine designed to sustain you that can be operated perfectly if one simply followed it's "rules". Now, I love this rock, I love everything on it. I extend this love right down to plants (which you so conveniently disregard so that you may eat them with a clean conscience, apparently), but when it comes down to brass tacks I throw my chips in with homo-sapiens. You are free to encircle a wider group of creatures within the umbrella of what your conscience can bear, but please offer a workable solution. Don't be so quick to buy into production methodologies just because they align themselves with your ethics or morality. They must work, or your ethics and morality mean exactly what? I want what you want, a greener, more sustainable system of food production. I'm not willing to diminish capacity (thereby adding more to the rolls of the huddled hungry masses) in order to accomplish this, because I will not have accomplished anything at all.

Look, I'm on your side here. We need to find a better solution to food production than what we currently have. This doesn't make the case for ethical or moral vegetarianism, which is what I keep waiting to see. Please, explain to me how a sustainable system of integrated ag (which is what would be required to -reduce, notice that I cannot say replace- petrochem reliance, -in addition, you see, there are no magic bullets in ag- to cover cropping and "green manures" as well as -gasp- GMO's) would be outside the metrics of what you have described as "ethical". If livestock were produced sustainably, humanely, and then slaughtered (as they are now) in a humane manner with full regard to their level of "sentience". What would be unethical about that? We clearly have need of the products as we find them in a great many places, not just food. They are clearly an important food source, and we don't have enough food to go around as is. So, again, where's the beef?