Is there something in the zeitgeist about this subject at the moment? Just last week I wrote a blog about a couple of NZ authors who've written a book called: "Time to eat the dog: the real guide to sustainable living".

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterwedderburn/100014941/want-to-save-the-planet-kill-and-eat-your-pet/

These authors may also be tongue-in-cheek, but the problem is that some people take them seriously, and when mud is thrown, some often sticks.

So people, keep your dogs on the leash when out in the park!

Pete 

Pete Wedderburn November 2nd, 2009 06:08:54 AM

My dad tells a story about living in Trinidad several decades ago.  He says at that time, there was no fast food; the only way to get a quick meal was to stop by a roti stand (thick bread wrapped around meat chunks).  He had one roti vendor he patronized most consistently, because the guy's "goat roti" was really, really good.  Then one day he couldn't find the stand.  Turns out the guy was arrested for rounding up all the stray dogs in town to make filling for his roti.

So apparently, not only has my dad eaten a fair amount of dog, it was pretty tasty.

Galadriel November 2nd, 2009 07:36:10 AM

Pete: I agree that this NZ couple's choice of titles was in poor taste/ Given they admit that shock value was the impetus for its election, more so. Nonetheless, it has garnered them worldwide attention––proving that "Kiss Your Sister" might be an apt title for someone else's tome. (What is it about taboos?) 

Sadly, their point gets lost in the melée over their title. Namely, that pets do have an environmental/ecological impact and that it behooves us to pay attention to this, among many, many other factors as we make our lifestyle choices.

Though I dispute their math on a large breed dog's carbon footprint (equivalent to a Hummer's? don't think so if you calculate all expenses of a huge truck's manufacturing and ultimate disposal and discount for a large dog's reduced energy requirements relative to smaller dogs), they make a great point. Except that eating your pet does not necessarily reduce your carbon footprint relative to skipping this as a protein meal altogether. 

Dr. Patty Khuly November 2nd, 2009 07:43:09 AM

The Jonathan Swift "Modest Proposal" rip-off has been the savior of hacks trying to sell books since ... well, the 18th Century. :::yawn::::

Food for thought? Piffle.

Gina Spadafori November 2nd, 2009 09:04:55 AM

Here's a review of the Foer book in the New Yorker.  I don't think one has to be a subscriber to read it.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/09/091109crbo_books_kolbert

(I'll have to rant later, work beckons now)

Will November 2nd, 2009 01:50:43 PM

Will: Thanks for the link. Good piece. A bit of a spoiler, though. Though she gives him a positive review, she makes it sound as if Foer lacks some consistency and firsthand knowledge of animal agriculture (based on his apparent willingness to consume factory farmed eggs––cage free is not cruelty free––and drink factory farmed milk––even organic doesn't mean no McDonalds lies at the end of a brief life of slipping in the mud). Disappointing. But I'll judge for myself. 

Dr. Patty Khuly November 2nd, 2009 03:09:06 PM

There was a good article by Foer in the recent NYT Magazine Food Issue too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11foer-t.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Jonathan%20Safran%20Foer%20&st=cse

I struggle a lot with eating meat or not eating meat.  Recently I've been very much on the side of 'not'.  It's a personal thing and I really appreciate folks who challenge my thinking on both sides of the issue.

AnneT November 2nd, 2009 03:25:01 PM

okay...I have to be honest here, I have some serious mixed feelings. I eat meat and I am not going to give it up. But I am not in favor of feeding animals that are not normally carrion eaters, other dead animals, much less ones pumped full of euthanasia drugs.

if there are not homes for all these dogs, cats and horses, then why should they not be directly part of the food chain. ( not the ambiguous way they are now which is deceitful and not without dangers) It can not be just because they show intelligence. I've met goats that are smart, birds that are smart, yet we eat them...what makes dogs and cats and horses off limits?

(now, bombard me all you want with the hate baskets, but at least provide sensible reasoning in your arguments)

loving animals does not mean that they can not be enjoyed on the end of a fork, despite the arguments from vegetarians and vegans alike.

LorriM November 2nd, 2009 05:21:00 PM

A man in Auckland NZ recently killed and ate his dog, and was not prosecuted because he killed it humanely.  http://www.3news.co.nz/Home/Story/tabid/209/articleID/116819/cat/41/Default.aspx

Though the news media made a big deal out of it, he did nothing illegal. I think that we are hypocrites when it comes to "meat". It's very simple: If you eat meat, you should be willing and knowledgable to kill and butcher your own animals.

I'm in agreement with Temple Grandin. Life is cruel, "natural" does not equal "all good".

rebelrottie November 2nd, 2009 05:49:58 PM

<<.It's very simple:If you eat meat, you should be willing and knowledgeable to kill and butcher your own animals.>>

I completely agree and if I could keep fed animals, I would. I have no qualms about butchering my own meat. I know that way I could be responsible for the manner in which it died.

Self food sufficiency is a direction I have been heading in for a long time now. I think it is a healthier and more humaine choice.

I now live on the edge of state gamelands and will be learning to hunt and prepare wildlife in the next few years, it is not an area I have any experience, but I already grow many items.

http://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewforum.php?id=37

provides interesting discussions and information.

LorriM November 2nd, 2009 06:09:23 PM

Why the guilt at being an animal and part of the food chain?

This is from Wendy in the "Slaughterhouse Live" thread and I've wondered about that too.  Even plants compete for sunlight and some die because others are better at grabbing some rays.

How animals are treated is something to be concerned about, the impact on the environment is something to be concerned about, the effect of antibiotics and pesticides is something to be concerned about, ad nauseam.  That said, getting all twitchy and guilty about the actual eating seems strange, there isn't another organism on the planet that worries about it, even the prey animals don't seem particularly worried unless the predators are quite nearby.

As for Foer pointing out that humans are mostly illogical in their beliefs, I'm less than impressed.  I was a whole lot younger than his 32 when I noticed that.

Will November 2nd, 2009 06:12:47 PM

different cultures have different food taboos.  It's entirely about culture, not reason.

A friend who was friends with a Crow Indian (who don't eat dogs and find it disgusting) tells a story of his friend attending a Shoshone Indian wedding.  The Shoshone's do eat dogs and consider puppies a delicacy.  The groom offered the Crow, as an honored guest, the first bowl of puppy soup.  The Crow was able to avoid his repugnance and yet not insult his hosts, by offering the bowl to the bride's grandmother in her honor.

There are plenty of forms of animal protein we COULD eat (certain insects come to mind), if we WOULD eat them

EmilyS November 2nd, 2009 06:29:14 PM

<<There are plenty of forms of animal protein we COULD eat (certain insects come to mind), if we WOULD eat them>>

well, I'd consider it if the yards aren't pesticided to death...I'm not opposed to consuming bugs, just pesticides.( and I know for sure I ate a handful of knats cutting wood last week, though I'm pretty sure they didn't offer much protein and I really didn't like the one in my nose.)..and I really would like the insect knowledge fact book...my cat licked a slug over the summer and was not acting right for as long as it took me to get the vet, so I suspect some are not safe to consume.

I find the thought of puppy soup disturbing, but having seen piles of dead shelter puppies, I'd rather see puppy soup. Our animals are suffering from a serious lack of humane treatment in this country on our plates and off it.

The native americans have some excellent customs when it comes to food...both in the raising, killing and giving thanks for. We could do a lot worse then emulate those.

LorriM November 2nd, 2009 07:03:27 PM

I don't have an issue with what animal the meat comes from, so long as I like the taste.  There are alot of 'common' meat animals that I just don't care for the taste of.  I don't think that dog or cat would be any different. 

My only concern is that I don't want to personally know any critter I'm eating, whether it's Thumper, Bessie, Chicken Little, Fluffy, or Fido. 

I'd never have made a good farm kid.

cl November 2nd, 2009 07:53:27 PM

Well if our pets have a huge carbon footprint doesn't having another person in the household have the same carbon footprint? So should we start eating our grandparents? 

Anyway, I am a meat eater and try to stick to as much local, cage free, free range or organic meat/eggs as possible and this is what I feed my dog from (I home cook) but one thing that never made much sense to me is eating another carnivore. Hence why I could never eat a dog or even a cat for that matter. I'd gladly share meat with my k9 companion. If I had to kill my own meat to survive I probably would, but I'd stick to prey animals and I definitely would to feed my dog in fact I'm sure he'd gladly help. 

I'd certainly never eat a wolf, bear, lion etc. So why would I eat another animal near the top of a food chain... 

Andrew November 2nd, 2009 08:08:16 PM

As a lifelong vegetarian, I have always been bemused and amazed at the extreme irony of the so-called animal lovers (those who want to protect dogs, would condemn Michael Vick to lifetime imprisonment, the "City Slickers" type who would adopt a calf, etc.) who talk about their love for animals, pets, etc. while they busily chew their baby back ribs and cheesesteak subs.  

My encounters with this type of hypocrisy both online and off-line has simply deepened my beliefs and strictures with regards to vegetarianism.  It is truly liberating to know that I do not need to support an artificial construct based on extreme hypocrisy.  It is always black and white for me - either you are for animals or you are not.  It's as simple as that.  

Rushabh Sheth November 2nd, 2009 10:35:36 PM

LorriM - Your sentence "loving animals does not mean that they can not be enjoyed on the end of a fork, despite the arguments from vegetarians and vegans alike."

Verses my sentence "you cannot say you love animals if you are killing them, despite the arguments from meat-eaters."

You see both are in desperate need of clarification... So here's mine on the latter.

To "love" an animal, human and nonhuman alike, one must at the very least extend a respect to them that lets them possess their own lives. This the the very "essence" of what that being possesses. It is also what we all value the highest. To each of us who live - our lives are paramount to us... It is all we have.

You cannot take, (by force) the ONLY thing, the MOST IMPORTANT thing a being possesses (their lives) and claim to "love" them.

But, what you can do... is say you "love" some animals - but can relegate others low enough to exploit them for unnecessary pleasure.

This mythos was not uncommon 200 years ago, when society expected that we show respect and consideration for our "fellow man"... But that it was accepted to exclude some "others"because of their color, or their sex.

Speciesism is the last frontier of our moral progress... That books like Foer's and others challenge our awareness and our prejudices is just the beginning of a long overdue task and responsibility. Not only to bring consistent justice for all the oppressed, but for our own evolution as well.

Go vegan. It's not only better for your health and the environment... But because it's the right thing to do.

Provoked November 2nd, 2009 11:21:45 PM

"loving animals does not mean that they can not be enjoyed on the end of a fork"

That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? At least, to my read so far, it seems to be Foer's strongest argument.

Yes, humans are mostly illogical in their beliefs and he suggests it's this brand of cognitive dissonance that is reflected in our culture's willingness to hold various species in comestible contempt. But he neglects the fact that there are omnivores who happen to maintain a consistency of views that in my estimation bests his.

Again, I've only read about 20% of his book and perhaps I've been influenced by spoiler reviews, but it seems to me that...

1) I can kill my own food and eat it while still loving it, just as I can euthanize companion animals in the course of my daily life. I see both acts as morally equivalent. 

2) I do have the rational means at my disposal to recognize that dog-eating is not beyond the grasp of most of us––nor is cannibalism, given certain social structures which are currently not accepted for a variety of reasons. I can easily imagine a parallel universe in which we might have evolved, socially, into a more rational species in this regard. 

For example, I see no moral difference between cannibalism and organ usage upon the death of our loved ones. 

Would I eat granny or my late Sophie? No. They're both too close to me. And the difference there is not an inconsistency. It's the mindset that accompanied my lifelong relationship with both––a cultural constrict, of course, one that's evident in almost every aspect of our human lives, not just when it comes to choosing what hits our dinner plates and what does not. 

3) There are a variety of individual moral standpoints with regard to animal usage and not all should be deemed inconsistent due to the fact that the bulk of society legitimately deserves some eye opening on these issues.

For those of us who have spent our entire lives puzzling on these themes, adopting vegetarianism and veganism at different times in our lives and educating ourselves tirelessly on the subject of what we consume and why, blanket statements that would condemn well-reasoned and very personal points of view with respect to animal use (i.e., you cannot eat animals and love them, too) have no place.

Nonetheless, I welcome all new points of view and I will take Foer's work on the subject very seriously to heart. 

I am willing to go vegan. But I have not yet spied themes in his writing––or anyone else's yet––that I have not already considered, adopted or not, rejected or not, etc. He's going to have to work a lot harder when it comes to people like me. 

Dr. Patty Khuly November 3rd, 2009 05:57:55 AM

Provoked: I challenge anyone to adopt a healthier eating style than the discriminating omnivore. 

Given that we don't even remotely understand the complete nutritional requirements of human beings, stymied by nutrigenomics and other factors as we are, erring on the side of biology would stand to reason: i.e, our digestive tracts strongly support an omnivorous diet. 

Comparing veganism to Cracker Barrel American-style eating is not an apt approach. It's this that confuses the issue. Meat consumed every day in the quantities we do is not most biologically appropriate either. Veganism is certainly preferable to this.

But eating meat or seafood a couple of times a week is undoubtedly a healthful approach. Eggs and milk products in moderation (as accompaniments, not as sole fare for any one meal, as we've adopted in the US) is also most likely to meet our complete needs.

I, too, adore vegan restaurants and am repelled by steakhouses where 18-oz steaks are served up in slabs. But a decidedly vegetable/grain/fruit-predominating middle ground is far more likely to meet our human needs based on what we know of our basic physiology. 

Dr. Patty Khuly November 3rd, 2009 06:45:11 AM

Agree wholeheartedly Dr. K.  I tire of the absolutists - that all vegans are of higher moral authority and all omnivores are hypocritical lower life forms.  It's like religion - you have every right to beliive what you do, and I enjoy rational debate, but I draw the line at blanket condemnation.  There's far too much of that kind of thinking in our society right now.

We each make choices about everything we do and we each have to live with those choices.  However, I do not apologize for being a CONSCIENTIOUS omnivore - and I do not think my vegan friends are wrong for their choices either.

Di November 3rd, 2009 09:17:57 AM

"As a lifelong vegetarian, I have always been bemused ..."

As a lifelong bullshit detector, I have always been bemused at how the entire vegan community seems to run on smugness.

Maybe that's where those missing micronutrients come from.

I have no issue with people who want to be vegan. None. But if you live, others living things die to make that possible. And when you die, you make life for other living things possible. 

There's no getting away from that. Period.

After accepting that, we all make our own decisions. A few of us think about those decision. Most of us don't. And those of us who think about them often arrive at different decisions.

Gina Spadafori November 3rd, 2009 10:27:58 AM

Rush/Provoked - well, you can call it hypocricy all you want, but I don't give a rip. Meat tastes good, and is healthy in moderation (like all things in life). I enjoy eating it. I also have a dog, that I love. But I'm able to seperate the two with ease. I, like many others, grew up rearing animals destined for the plate, and hunting and fishing. While we cared for our animals, we also knew what their ultimate fate would be. I never enjoy killing and cleaning an animal, but I do respect the process and the animal for what it has provided.

The only reason you & others are able to have the time to wax philosophical about the ethics of consuming animals is because modern technology has enabled the US agricultural industry to produce enough food to feed the world, thereby affording you time to devote to other pursuits. Worrying about whether or not your food was ethically reared is a luxury for the rich. I'm so sick of all the beatdowns of Agriculture. Just because someone raises/kills/consumes meat, it doesn't preclude them from having a consious.

Chip November 3rd, 2009 10:32:01 AM

if you live, others living things die to make that possible.

Not to mention the incessant war going on between your immune system and the horde of organisms attempting to turn you into compost.

Will November 3rd, 2009 11:36:13 AM

"Worrying about whether or not your food was ethically reared is a luxury for the rich."

Well, actually, Chip, isn't a really an issue for the poor. Tossing the "elitist rich folks" charge into the issue is meant to shut down debate on corporate agribiz.

But in fact, concentrated animal feeding operations and other modern agirculture strategies have costs far beyond the cruelty involved to animals. They are fossil-fuel intensive (and hence, a risk to national security), they are producing antibiotic-resistant bacteria at a rate that would alarm anyone with a brain, they are environmentally unsustainable (look up the death plume in the Gulf of Mexico, just for a start).

Cheap food isn't. The check just hasn't arrived.

The poor have always had to worry about getting their own food,and so, too, have the middle class, both until quite recently. They grew veggies, canned and preserved food and kept chickens for meat and eggs, even on city lots.

The rich have never had to worry about food: They could always eat the bounty provided by the labors of others.

Access to clean, fair and healthy food may be trendy for the rich, but it is an issue for us all.

Gina Spadafori November 3rd, 2009 12:26:03 PM

"this really is an issue for the poor" is what I meant to type.

Gina Spadafori November 3rd, 2009 12:28:50 PM

<<As a lifelong bullshit detector, I have always been bemused at how the entire vegan community seems to run on smugness.>>

ROFLMAO.....

well said.....I never fail to be amused by the very black and white way vegan's argue things. Not all, but in general. That invalidates their argument for me almost from the first read word.

I will be honest, I don't really appreciate everyone's pint of view, but I do like expanding my horizon's by reading and considering good founded factual arguments. When the two sides fall into the same old BS, I lose interest in even considering another lifestyle.

I enjoy food, I enjoy sticking my fork into a lovely rare piece of grilled steak and I will never apologize for that. I don't need to.

I don't ask anyone who eats tofurky instead of turkey to apologize for what they choose to put into their mouths, but don't presume to say that because I enjoy meat, it somehow diminishes my love for animals. That is simply an obnoxious and sadly arrogant stance to take. Vegetarians and vegans are not better people because they don't eat animals. IF that was the case, then only carnivores would be in our prisons.

I am going to have to read this book now, and I wasn't going to, simply because I like sci fi and fantasy and usually keep my reading to either education or totally entertainment...

LorriM November 3rd, 2009 03:09:13 PM

LorriM: (OT) You need to read Margaret Atwood's new novel. It's fantastic––halfway through, anyway. It's looking like I'll be finishing it up bf Foer's. ;-)

Agreed with Gina on the rich/poor arguments often made to squelch debate on the issue of industrial animal agriculture. God knows I made it through vet school on kale, collards, lentils and canned tomatoes (with the very occasional hamhock) bc it was the cheapest way to eat. Some eat Ramen noodles but I swear my approach was cheaper in the long run. Certainly healthier. 

The issue often comes down to food education...which is not happening...not while kids continue to be served school lunches with ketchup or pizza sauce counting as a vegetable serving. I have no doubt it's the legacy of industrial farming that's to blame. 

Dr. Patty Khuly November 3rd, 2009 03:30:18 PM

To:Gina Spadafori

Regarding your response to my comment, I think some clarification is in order.

My bemusement lies in the irony of someone being outraged at the treatment of certain animals while ignoring equally heinous treatment of other animals.

I am not asking anyone to be vegan and nor am I advocating vegetarianism and vegan lifestyle. I believe in leaving people alone to make their own decisions.

However, I do draw the line at the irrational actions of the flesh-eaters who take umbrage at the treatment of certain animals. This is where your "bullshit detector" should be redlining.

Why is it that you are not calling out those flesh-eaters who take umbrage at treatment of animals? Indeed, why don't you tell these outraged flesh eaters exactly what you told me:

"if you live, others living things die to make that possible."

So for those who were outraged at Vick's treatment of dogs or those who are outraged at the premise of Foer's essay, why aren't you telling them to suck it up and accept that it's the way of the world?  

That's where the vegans' smugness comes in.  They have every right to be outraged at the mistreatment of dogs and other animals because they themselves do not consciously and directly contribute to mistreatment of ANY animals.  

The closest analogy from the vegan's point of view is a group of serial killers being outraged at the suggestion of killing babies while they are busily hacking adult humans to death.  

No amount of rationalization can explain for the illogical reaction of flesh-eaters being outraged at the killing or mistreatment of animals.  

That being said, if you are not outraged at the least bit by the mistreatment of animals or by the actions of Vick or the consumption of dog flesh, then the vegans will respect you for your consistency and rationality with regards to animal flesh.  To each his own.  

The same respect cannot be extended to those who are inconsistent in their viewpoints regarding animals.  Either they are against mistreatment of ALL animals or they are not, just as they should be against ALL serial killers or they are not.  

Rushabh Sheth November 3rd, 2009 03:58:20 PM

Rshabh- Vick's actions has no place in this post. This is about EATING animals, and PURPOSEFULLY killing them, not abusing them. But in your view, killing= abuse. Haven't you heard? All life ends in death. Sorry to destroy your precious romatic idea. (Not.)

By your rationale, because humans are animals, and we eat animals, we should eat other humans. You have to support this logic because there is no way the current or future population of earth could be sustained by eating only plants, so how many of us need to die? Soylent Green, anyone?

On the other hand, imagine you are among the first humans to populate one of the Pacific islands. There's not much to eat, and humans need protein to survive. Everyone is struggling with staration.  Who would criticize the people for eating the flesh of the invaders (talkin' captain Cook, here)?

Not black and white, is it? Love this discussion Patty, thanks.

rebelrottie November 3rd, 2009 05:57:22 PM

<That's where the vegans' smugness comes in. They have every right to be outraged at the mistreatment of dogs and other animals because they themselves do not consciously and directly contribute to mistreatment of ANY animals.>

do they drive cars?....wear shoes?...use paper, read books? this is where the vegan argument falls apart. Plastic, rubber, vinyl production, wood, paper production is not animal friendly..some of it is down right dangerous...

so they just don't eat or consciously wear animals..(many glues are made from animals and hold all sorts of items together including shoes even if they are "man made")

the vegans want things just as much if not more BOTH ways as those of use who love animals on and off our plates.

I have seen no compelling arguments here that even sway me to reduce the quantity of animal products I eat. I only see the same old lame 1/2 truths that defeat any rational argument.

But Dr. K...thanks for the book recomm. looks like a good one...and the discussion.

I'm having nice stirfry with chicken and veggies.... ;)

LorriM November 3rd, 2009 06:21:33 PM

Several random points I feel compelled to address:

--as for the argument that humans are designed for meat consumption...well, not entirely.  From an anatomically comparative standpoint, the human jaw is not optimally designed for meat consumption.  Our jaw muscles are considerably weaker than that of other carnivores and our dentary structure places less emphasis on large canines and more on flattened, grinding molars--a hallmark of many herbivores. 

--I don't see anything wrong with feeling a certain amount of guilt for the circumstances under which most of our meat and dairy supply is currently produced.  Whether that may impact one's decision to eat meat/dairy is a matter of personal choice.  My choice has been to cut meat out of my diet and limit my dairy intake (still trying to figure out how to live without cheese!).  Am I better or worse than the guy who has decided to cut back to eating meat every other day?  Who am I to judge?

This gets to the blanket statements made by some vegans/vegetarians.  While I admire their passion and dedication, I worry about the smug all-or-nothing attitude that often accompanies the (mostly valid) arguments they are trying to make.  There is no room for a false sense of moral superiority if the goal is to get others to consider an alternative point of view.

Having said all that, I'd like to get back to the original point of Dr. K's posting.

From a purely rational standpoint, Foer's argument for consumption of dog meat makes perfect sense.  Why let social constructs dictate what is or isn't an approrpriate meat source, particularly when an abundant yet taboo supply is readily available?  Ah, if only our dietary decisions were made solely based on reason alone!

I'm left wondering what Foer is attempting to get at...but that may be his point.  Engaging the reader in a thought-provoking discussion on the seemingly arbitrary categories created for certain animals (food or companion) and the confines in which we view them can go in many different directions.  The direction of the conversation is less important, however, than the fact that there is a conversation taking place on man's consumption of meat and how it is obtained and consumed.

JL November 3rd, 2009 08:58:31 PM

Rushabh Sheth wrote "That's where the vegans' smugness comes in. They have every right to be outraged at the mistreatment of dogs and other animals because they themselves do not consciously and directly contribute to mistreatment of ANY animals."

I am sorry to tell you that the grains, fruits & vegetables and anything else you eat do directly contribute to the death of animal and insect life. The act of harvesting food kills animals in the fields. Even if you choose to ignore it, your consumption directly contributes to the mistreatment of animals. Unfortunately, it is just a fact of life. Unless you want to eat nothing until you die, you are directly contributing to the mistreatment of animals. By the way, I am a long-time vegan. I just understand that I have no reason to be smug.

Susan G. November 3rd, 2009 09:21:03 PM

What constitutes 'appropriate' food differs from culture to culture. Do I want to eat dog? No. Do I want to eat cat? Hell no. But that's just conditioning; it's not something I've thought rationally about. If someone else wants to humanely slaughter and eat an animal that is usually domesticated, then that's fine by me.

Jess November 4th, 2009 12:11:54 AM

Gina -

I agree with this "Access to clean, fair and healthy food may be trendy for the rich, but it is an issue for us all.", and actually most of what you posted. I work in an environmental/conservation related field, and I have a strong background in agriculture. I say this to show that I am not naive to the problems created by large-scale agronomic production. That being said, I think the benefits far outweigh the positives.

As for the food issue, more needs to be done to make good food available to more folks. You go into most inner city environments and good luck finding fresh produce or anything not processed and full of fat and MSG. Community gardens are starting to catch on in a lot of areas, as are food share programs. We need more stuff like this, as well as education and quality food in our schools.

I just get sick of the smug attitude of the vegans I run across. While I actually may agree in principal with them on quite a bit, it's the way the message is delivered that turns people off (and makes me want to go eat a big fat aged bone-in ribeye seared and covered in butter).

Chip November 4th, 2009 09:56:37 AM

That should read "The benefits far outweigh the negatives".  Carry on ;)

Chip November 4th, 2009 09:58:00 AM

<and makes me want to go eat a big fat aged bone-in ribeye seared and covered in butter).>

just the suggestion of one makes me want to go eat one...<lol>

LorriM November 4th, 2009 03:53:10 PM

The smug vegans believe that they get to decide the terms of debate, wherein any killing of animals for any reason is defined as abuse, and therefore if you eat meat, you have no business criticizing people who get their jollies torturing animals.

That's not just nonsense; it's self-evident nonsense.

Food animals don't have to be abused, in life or in the circumstances of their death, in order to be food. We are certainly far, very far, from doing a good enough job at actually achieving that, but no, I do not have to sign on for veganism in order to non-hypocritically opposed to the abuse of animals. I oppose abuse of all animals, including animals in the food chain, not just my family members.

It's also not hypocritical, irrational, inconsistent, or in any way Not Nice for me to decline to eat members of my family. This includes the adopted, four-footed members of my family. Regarding family members as potential food items is deeply destablizing, and no functioning society has ever done that as a significant food source. (Ritual cannibalism is another matter. And, sorry, farm families are generally very clear about which animals are definitely or potentially on the menu, and which ones aren't, whatever mechanism they use to manage that difference.)

It's quite true that humans don't have the jaws and teeth of wild carnivores. It is laughably false, however, to claim that we have the mouths of herbivores. Humans do not have either the jaw structure or the digestive tracts of herbivores. And our nearest relatives, the chimps, hunt, kill, and eat meat. How's that for evidence of our natural diet?

What we do have, is the mouth and digestive tract of an animal that has been cooking its food, including meat, since before homo erectus became homo sapiens. And we know this because we have the evidence of fire use and cooking by homo erectus, and the change in our jaw anatomy after that began.

And finally, anyone who believes the NZ couple's "case" that dogs have greater environmental impact than SUVs might want to take a look at this:

Dogs vs. SUVs

Lis November 9th, 2009 09:39:48 PM