Re: excessive cruelty (was Re: News Flash: Link application received for vealchop.nj.us.blitzed.org)

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 05:16:14PM +0100, Kevin Mulligan wrote:
> On 12 May 2005, at 13:42, Andy Smith wrote: 
> > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:55:23AM +0100, Kevin Mulligan wrote: 
> > > On 12 May 2005, at 09:49, Andy Smith wrote: 
> > > > All animal products involve excessive cruelty to animals since 
> > > > animal products are for the most part easy to do without. 
> > > > 
> > >  
> > > That's untrue.  If an animal dies of natural causes and its meat 
> > > (an  
> > > animal product) is used, this is not excessively cruel. 
> > > 
> >  
> > Are there any animal products that are supplied by animals naturally
> > dying or providing the resource of their own free will? 
> > 
>  
> I can think of no resource which is provided with free will by anyone 
> other than humans (blood, hair, organs).

Well exactly.  So that leaves natural death.

> I don't believe that enough 
> is understood about animal behavior to know whether they are providing 
> a resource of their own free will or not.

Just because there is an open question about the exact limits of
intellectual ability of various animals does not mean that it is OK to
ignore *obvious* treatment that is not in the best interests of the
animal concerned for no good reason other than making money.

Why do we not farm retards or homeless people?

> Chickens will certainly lay unfertilized eggs without being forced or
> asked. 

They certainly will, however if you got a bunch of chickens and put them
in your back yard then even if you went out to feed them 4 times a day
the chances are they will wander off eventually.  In reality you will
need to fence them in and breed them to sustain your supply of eggs,
both of which will result in the chickens becoming nothing more than a
resource to you.

When that happens to human beings it is defined as slavery, even if the
slave might die without the slave master.

> > Please note that if it involves keeping animals in captivity to 
> > provide it then it isn't by their own free will.. 
>  
> If somebody keeps chickens as pets and the chickens happen to lay eggs 
> (provide) are you saying that this is not of their own free will even 
> though they would do this in the wild? 

The laying itself is of their free will but they do not choose to live
in the person's back yard and when the person's chickens get too old to
lay is he going to continue feeding them even though they produce no
eggs?  Will he also be buying more chickens and breeding them so he
always has more?

Keeping an animal as a pet may well be the best thing you can do for
that specific animal.  But when its time is over, that animal is no
more.  It would be wrong have purposefully bred it to get more of the
same animal to keep or sell to others.

If the chickens are pets then presumably the owner continues to feed the
chickens even when they are not producing eggs.  The owner does not kill
the chicken and eat it.  The owner does not breed the chickens to always
have egg layers or meat providers.  I imagine there are very few people
who truly keep chickens as pets.

> > > I am shocked and disappointed that you would make such a huge  
> > > generalization. 
> > > 
> >  
> > It is a generalisation but I can't really think of anything which 
> > goes against it. 
> > 
>  
> See chickens above. 

See my proviso regarding confinement and enforced breeding.  If it is ok
to fence in chickens, make them lay eggs continually and breed them as
you wish then why don't we do that to humans?

All those teenage mums, why aren't they being paid to give up their
babies for nice veal?  Human veal.

> > Fine if he rescues the chickens and doesn't breed them. 
> > 
> > If he breeds them for this purpose then he is no better than anyone 
> > who breeds animals for a living and keeps them in captivity. 
> > 
>  
> It was a she, and I don't think she bred them.  She just had a huge 
> plot of land where they basically just herded around and minded their 
> own business.  If they bred, they bred.  It would be wrong to stop 
> animals from reproducing. 

So when they all died was that the end of it?

> > > There are many examples of situations where  
> > > animal products can be obtained without involving excessive 
> > > cruelty. 
> > > 
> >  
> > Such as? 
> > 
>  
> Sheep's wool, if a sheep isn't shorn it gets very hot and uncomfortable 
> and can be more prone to parasites.

Do you think that sheep as a species grew like that naturally?  What use
to an animal are genes that make it get too hot to live its life
normally?

Modern sheep are bred and in some cases genetically modified to have
more wool to increase the revenue per animal.  We do this to all manner
of farmed animals; it does not matter if they become dependent on us.

Modern sheep should not exist.

> When elephants and other tusked animals die their tusks can be removed
> and traded.  This was originally the practice until poachers began to
> get greedy and started killing elephants purely for their ivory.

It may have originally been the practice before hunting was invented, so
that's about 80,000 years ago.

I'll certainly give you that wool collected from dead animals, or from
fences where they have rubbed themselves etc., and ivory collected from
dead animals, is cruelty-free.

But are there really many people who do this without wanting to turn it
into a business and then wanting to increase their profits by meddling
with the animals that supply their resource?

> Virtually every animal product can also be obtained after the natural 
> death of the animal although because large animals in Britain don't 
> tend to roam around in the wild the opportunity to harvest product from 
> an animal which has died a natural death isn't regularly present. 

Sure, but people DON'T!

There is no market in any of this without enslaving or hunting the
animals that produce the resource.  Were the exploitation to stop, this
would be reduced to a tiny number of people doing it as a hobby.  And
since most of the animals that produce these resources only survive
because we farm them, they will start to die, and there will be even
fewer people doing it.

> > Road kill is about the only example I can think of, but I wouldn't 
> > really call it an animal product. Logically it is an animal product 
> > of course but to my mind the term "product" in this context implies 
> > a fairly guaranteed supply. 
> > 
>  
> A product is defined as "something produced by human or mechanical 
> effort or by a natural process" by answers.com.  I don't believe it has 
> anything to do with being a guaranteed supply.  If something is 
> regularly produced then it will be regularly supplied, but nobody said 
> anything about that. 

Oh for god's sake, can you not see the context of what I said?

You can't productise a resource unless there is a plentiful supply.
It's unlikely that anyone can make a living selling roadkill, but they
could collect and use roadkill as a hobby, without directly harming any
animals themselves.

(I'm thinking larger animals than hedgehogs and rabbits here.  moose,
 elephants, whatever)