Hmm... they could have just gotten up and left, they are not idiots. The animals don't have that option. PETA gets maximum mileage out of minimal resources. If you have the guts search for videos of 'meet your meat'.

Respect for animals is an intrinsic part of most South Indian cultures, whether veg/non-veg or mono/polytheistic.

just a minor note, we've mentioned this before, but most peoples' surprise it turns out that north & west india are the centers of obligate vegetarianism, not the south. in fact, kerala is the one place where i've regularly heard that hindus eat beef (in fact, someone wrote in to NPR yesterday to criticize the generalization that hindus don't eat beef by implying that that was marginalizing the practices of kerala hindus!!! :-)

i'll post the link to the story when i find it re: rates of vegetarianism.

Razib,

That was a typo - I meant to say South Asian, not South Indian. Sorry, fixed.

ok, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_in_specific_countries#India
According to the 2006 Hindu-CNN-IBN State of the Nation Survey, 31% of Indians are vegetarians, while another 9% consumes eggs. Among the various communities, vegetarianism was most common among Jains, Brahmins at 55%, and less frequent among Muslims (3%) and residents of coastal states respectively. Other surveys cited by FAO [2], and USDA [3][4] estimate 20%-42% of the Indian population as being vegetarian. These surveys indicate that even Indians who do eat meat, do so infrequently, with less than 30% consuming it regularly; although the reasons are partially economical.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2006/08/14/stories/2006081403771200.htm
The survey shows that regional location matters more than caste or community. As expected, the lowest proportion of vegetarian families are in coastal States such as Kerala (two per cent), Tamil Nadu (eight per cent), Andhra Pradesh (four per cent), Orissa (eight per cent) and Bengal (three per cent). Most land-locked States, especially in the west and north, are places with the highest proportion of vegetarian families: Rajasthan (63 per cent), Haryana (62 per cent), Punjab (48 per cent), Uttar Pradesh (33 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (35 per cent) and Gujarat (45 per cent).

As a shameless carnivore, I’m not a likely PETA supporter

I guess PETA people are talking about more "humane" way of killing animals for food ; something like "organic" non-vegetarianism. The crass, profit making mentality of many of the meat industriies has led to degeneration of the way animals are handled. This is the focus of PETA (albeit in an overly dramatic way sometimes ). Note that it is beleived that mad-cow disease originated because cows were being fed non-vegetarian stuff. So even if one doesn't share PETA's philosophy because one is non-vegetarian, reasons like safe and healthy meat itself can be a cause for being sympathetic to its cause ( this is not very different from being safety, quality and cleanliness consciousness in other areas like environment etc. )

That was a typo - I meant to say South Asian, not South Indian. Sorry, fixed.

ah, ok.

Razib,
re: the source you cite in #4--Gujarat is not land-locked!

Jain influence across Gujarat claims responsibility for vegetarianism.

The picture reminds me of one of my favorite shows: Dexter.

The New York Times put it well in an editorial referencing two recent scientific studies about industrial meat production (economies of scale to make cheap meat for "shameless carnivores"):

"No matter what you call it, it adds up to the same thing. Millions of animals are crowded together in inhumane conditions, causing significant environmental threats and unacceptable health risks for workers, their neighbors and all the rest of us.

"...the so-called efficiency of industrial animal production is an illusion, made possible by cheap grain, cheap water and prisonlike confinement systems.

"In short, animal husbandry has been turned into animal abuse. Manure � traditionally a source of fertilizer � has been turned into toxic waste that fouls the air and adjacent water bodies. Crowding creates health problems, resulting in the chronic overuse of antibiotics."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/31/opinion/31sat4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I would add that e.coli outbreaks come typically originate in these animal farms. They also produce 20%+ of our nation's greenhouse gas emissions. They also waste ungodly amounts of water and energy. They also produce health problems in farm workers (slaughterhouse workers have it rough, too). One of my group's engineers had to be hospitalized after suffering lung damage from H2S emissions from a hog confinement barn. Should we be eating food produced under toxic conditions like that, which are commonplace in industrial animal farming? Should we treat animals that way? I don't see how anyone, "carnivore" or otherwise, can tolerate all the horrible things that occur, environmentally, ethically, and economically, in the name of cheap meat.

I don't see how anyone . . . can tolerate all the horrible things that occur . . . in the name of cheap meat.

I quite agree, old egg, meat should remain exclusively the province of those of us with "High hats and narrow collars; White spats and lots of dollars," what, what?

I eat meat, and I wear it too. I have no qualms about it, and I'm always perplexed as to how vocal and off-put some vegetarians can be. To each their own, I say. I don't tell people why they should eat meat, so why should I hear about how I shouldn't, how gross it is etc.

Has anyone else had this experience?

5 · Priya said

So even if one doesn't share PETA's philosophy because one is non-vegetarian, reasons like safe and healthy meat itself can be a cause for being sympathetic to its cause

10 · CondeKedar said

I don't see how anyone, "carnivore" or otherwise, can tolerate all the horrible things that occur, environmentally, ethically, and economically, in the name of cheap meat.

The question is whether PETA has hijacked the cause for its own self-aggrandizing purposes. The organization appears to be more about shock tactics than actual solutions. Food hygiene, environmental impact, even cruelty to animals...yes, I agree, these are absolutely valid points and the meat industry (like the leather and pet industries) is pretty awful. I called myself a "shameless carnivore" (please click and read the read linked comment in the post) because I eat everything, not because I turn my nose up at vegetarian fare.

I dislike PETA because it's turned a good cause (reforming the meat industry) into one apparently espoused by nutty "limousine liberals". And I especially dislike the way its tactics have been exported to South Asia. The PETA "cause" appears to be that seals and puppies and pandas need saving from all these mean mean people. There's no serious philosophical underpinning at this point...it's just emotional transference buttressed by moral righteousness.

12 · tevadi said

I eat meat, and I wear it too. I have no qualms about it, and I'm always perplexed as to how vocal and off-put some vegetarians can be. To each their own, I say. I don't tell people why they should eat meat, so why should I hear about how I shouldn't, how gross it is etc.

Has anyone else had this experience?

For the longest time I could care less whether someone eat meat or not. Recently I have come to the realization that if I have a POV it is perfectly ok to share is as long as I back it up. This passion is no different than the passion one has for sports, religion, politics, entertainment or for that matter spread of democracy.
/on soapbox/
So my one line pitch is ‘animals have five senses just like us, the only difference between us and them is intelligence, they feel pain and suffering like us, so if you like to learn then you should read up on vegetarianism.
/off soapbox/

in fact, kerala is the one place where i've regularly heard that hindus eat beef

I have come to the realization that if I have a POV it is perfectly ok to share is as long as I back it up. This passion is no different than the passion one has for sports, religion, politics, entertainment or for that matter spread of democracy.

when will these white kids grow up.... thats right when the trust fund matures!

I haven't read the comments - but just wanted to say that we shouldn't mix up the issue of ethical treatment with vegetarianism. The one does not imply the other, necessarily. Or shouldn't. I hold no brief for PETA, and don't know whether they take the first to imply the second. I too am put off by some of their tactics - but on this one, since there are commercial interests involved, let's be doubly sure who said what to whom, and who told us. If true as reported, this is rank hypocrisy of the worst kind.

On the ethics-vegetarianism issue, I'll go so far as to say that, depending on the circumstances, occasionally, ethical treatment of animals could even imply eating animal meat. So the two things are separate. The natural food chain has some herbivores, but also many carnivores, and most animal species are probably omnivores. So the idea that one animal species might eat another, however abhorrent that may be to some of us, is a part of nature. The ethics can certainly come in when you consider how the animals are killed, but given its widespread occurrence in nature, hardly on the vegetarianism/non-vegetarianism issue itself.

Finally, these kinds of shock campaigns can have real impacts. A close relative in India has now stopped wearing leather footwear, in the belief that the very making of leather is wrong.

16 · melbourne desi said

I have come to the realization that if I have a POV it is perfectly ok to share is as long as I back it up. This passion is no different than the passion one has for sports, religion, politics, entertainment or for that matter spread of democracy.

does that mean because you suppport the Philly Eagles and I support the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, you try convert me to your cause...

Nope, but I have to prove it why my team is better with just facts, no bullshit. Then I leave it to you what you want to embrace.

World Vegetarian Week. And by the way? The East Coast is experiencing a heat wave of unbearable magnitude right now. I can only image what PETA would say if someone wrapped cute kittens and puppies in plastic and let ‘em bake in 100 degree heat. Hypocrite, much?

good logic. john too will rise to the challenge because mccain pizzas have rising crust.

Just an interesting observation. I am a vegetarian and have been one forever. I do not expect people around me to be vegetarians especially in the US. Since we have official parties at home, we cater everything and it is served in my house. It so bothers other Indians who are vegetarians ONLY on certain days. They think that I should forbid meat in my house. Another observation was when a vegetarian meal was ordered for a group of about 150 people. Some thought it was my idea! When they found out it was a not me but an observing Jewish person they scratched their heads :-). I don't care to convert anybody. I am who I am. I try to not wear leather, do not eat yogurt unless it is Penn State Creamery yogurt labelled vegetarian and I do not force my beliefs on anybody. Without PETA I am sure many may not have known of the horror of slaughter-houses. If they did not resort to such extremes I doubt if anybody would have paid them any attention :-)

i am a vegetarian, but i find proselytizing vegetarians as annoying as jehovah's witnesses and obamaniacs.

I can only image what PETA would say if someone wrapped cute kittens and puppies in plastic and let ‘em bake in 100 degree heat. Hypocrite, much?

there's a difference. these interns don't look cute in the least.

Re 5:

I guess PETA people are talking about more "humane" way of killing animals for food ; something like "organic" non-vegetarianism. The crass, profit making mentality of many of the meat industriies has led to degeneration of the way animals are handled. This is the focus of PETA (albeit in an overly dramatic way sometimes ). Note that it is beleived that mad-cow disease originated because cows were being fed non-vegetarian stuff. So even if one doesn't share PETA's philosophy because one is non-vegetarian, reasons like safe and healthy meat itself can be a cause for being sympathetic to its cause ( this is not very different from being safety, quality and cleanliness consciousness in other areas like environment etc. )

Priya, if PETA limited itself merely to talking about more "humane" ways of killing animals for food, I wouldn't have too many issues with them. However, I find their position on other issues, particularly the use of animals for research, to be quite extreme.

If you have the guts search for videos of 'meet your meat'.

I have met my meat in person--as a vet student intern in factory farms and slaughterhouses. It is not a pretty sight, yet perhaps because I am an animal myself (and I am not putting myself down) I eat meat and feed my children meat. My family and I limit our meat consumption for several reasons--health, not to take more from our environment than our body needs, taste (having eaten farmers' backyard chickens I can taste the difference between factory-farmed poultry and free-range poultry), etc.

My mother who has always been a vegetarian is contemptuous of my omnivorous habit. The last time I was in India, though, I was contemptuous of her proud decision not to kill the rats overpopulating her sewage. Trained as a public health professional in addition to being a small-or large-animal doctor, I wanted to slap her with a public health violation notice so the responsibility of the decision could be taken out of her. I tried to tell her that she was aiming for too high a value; that she was pretending to be an absolutist when in reality there is so much killing of animals going on in her name without her knowing it. For example, ecological destruction so we can have a time-share condo in Ooty, a car, and flight tickets to Singapore shopping malls and the tourist experience in Thailand has perhaps affected the populations of non-domesticated animals in ways that we don't even think about. I said that we know so little since so few environmental impact assessment studies are being done. But so she recognizes the animal species, "I asked her what about all the animals used in medical research? Surely, you are not going to give up your medicines, why even contact lens solution, are you?" Since she didn't actually see or touch or handle them like I handle my meat, she didn't think she was doing anything wrong.

I stopped arguing after that. It was futile.

A good site to read about our collective dependence on animals, historically and currently, for health and medicine, our concepts of animal rights vs animal welfare, and other stuff is this. Several things are surprising and enlightening.

I disagree with PETA on a lot of issues including their appropriation of the word 'murder' in their sentence, "Meat is Murder.' 'Meat is Killing' is more appropriate.

People who do not make conscious decisions about what they eat, what they wear, what they do, what sports team they support or what stocks they buy, annoy me. They are probably doing what their friends or parents do. What a waste!!

Malathi, you seem to have thought about your action and consequences, good for you.

According to the 2006 Hindu-CNN-IBN State of the Nation Survey, 31% of Indians are vegetarians, while another 9% consumes eggs.

The above number does not reflect the true nature of meat eating in India. I think a much higher percentage of Indians are functional vegetarians.

21 · Mytri said

If they did not resort to such extremes I doubt if anybody would have paid them any attention :-)

Even Greenpeace, a well respected environmental organization has been accused of shock tactics. This is a universal problem with any advocacy, advisory or lobbying organization which tries to garner the attention of public or govt.

Reg. veg vs. non-veg
There are many reasons one is a vegetarian (a) religion (b) animal love/ethical treatment of animals(c) parental influences i.e. eating a particular diet right from birth and thus leading taste-bud ossification (d) personal choice due to influence of friends/spouse etc.
The problem is that if one is vegetarian ( mainly shown by desi-culture ignorant Americans )people assume that it is due to religious beliefs

13 · cicatrix said

There's no serious philosophical underpinning at this point...it's just emotional transference buttressed by moral righteousness

Ah that is an interesting point. Something similar to DesiNJ@25's comment, there is a whole body of population in America and especially in the developing countries, who don't think and make choices in life, whether it is religion or food based on logical reasoning. Mainly they think & work from the heart than head. This tactic of appealing to emotion is similar to that used by Karl Rove and Bush. And I guess to influence the people and govt these advocacy organizations adopt the same tactic smetimes to their own detriment.

there is a whole body of population in America and especially in the developing countries, who don't think and make choices in life, whether it is religion or food based on logical reasoning. Mainly they think & work from the heart than head.

I agree. and i am with you. we need more decisions that come from the heart.

As a vegetarian, I find there are so many things about Peta's that one can applaud:

1. The movement to boycott Indian leather and try to put itsgreedy workers who earned unseemly profits out of work. It was high time someone skinned those fat cats.

2. The movement to ban medical research on animals, especially since it has clearly been shown by the Royal Society that no significant breakthrough in modern medicine has depended on animal research.

3. Peta's courageous decisions in the past to support the destruction of information gained from previous medical research. It might have harmed a few people and have put researchers at risk, but sometimes a life matters little when compared to a principle. In this age of ambiguity I love the moral clarity of Peta's stand "Send back items that you have from companies that test on animals" and the way Peta officials live by their principles

4. Their outstanding work in animal shelters and their high success rate in placing rescued animals

Without PETA I am sure many may not have known of the horror of slaughter-houses.

It may be fashionable to laugh at the Peta interns, but their sense of awareness of mans place is truly evolved. Despite their failaure now, I hope that try again and achieve an award that they truly deserve

If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat? ~Anon

i have to admit, that was a pretty cruel tactic - and i aldo found it odd that the two interns were the ones who ere suffering, but learly weren't gung-ho about this particular dispaly for their cause - seems to me that if ms byrne was so intent on using this particular method of protest, perhaps she should have bloody well (pun intended) switched places with her interns.

as to the issue of ethical treatment vs vegetarianism - i find it odd, considering that the meat is being raised to be slaughtered. i understand the toxins, health etc reasons. but from a moral point of view, it seems far fetched to really be all that concerned with the welfare of animals while they're living, if you're OK with eating them for meat(and no, i'm not a vegetarian).

It was high time someone skinned those fat cats

it seems far fetched to really be all that concerned with the welfare of animals while they're living, if you're OK with eating them for meat(and no, i'm not a vegetarian).

1) integrate pain and misery over time (e.g., chickens with beaks chopped off)

2) cruelty to animals has a coarsening and dehumanizing affect on humans and their treatment of other humans (some would argue). e.g., what about the marine that just threw a puppy off a cliff???

Nope, but I have to prove it why my team is better with just facts, no bullshit. Then I leave it to you what you want to embrace.

PETA has made a significant dent in the public's consciousness regarding the ethical treatment of animals - and vegetarian or not - you cannot fault them for that. Also, its not cool to call other women "hags" even if you are outraged by the said woman's hypocritical behavior and politics.

Before you condign Peta to sensationalists, recognize that Peta has been quite effective in filling the epistemic gap on how meat in the USA is raised, slaughtered and distributed.

There are acres of vile septic lakes on pig farms in North Carolina. The stench from Texas cattle ranches reaches miles down the interstate. The ghastly poultry pens in Arkansas are notorious for fouling the streams and rivers.

These are just the environmental issues. Peta delves into the borogryphic inducing topics such as slaughterhouses. The sanitized cellophane wraps in the grocery store have sanguinary tale to tell. Good for Peta for telling it.

Without PETA I am sure many may not have known of the horror of slaughter-houses.

Upton Sinclair!
PETA is for the 'U R 2 COOL' texting monkeys.

Re 21:

Without PETA I am sure many may not have known of the horror of slaughter-houses.

Mytri, Upton Sinclair's novel, "The Jungle", not only exposed this, but led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which established the Food and Drug Administration.

"I eat meat, and I wear it too. I have no qualms about it, and I'm always perplexed as to how vocal and off-put some vegetarians can be. To each their own, I say. I don't tell people why they should eat meat, so why should I hear about how I shouldn't, how gross it is etc.

Has anyone else had this experience?"

I never try to convert anyone to vegetarianism. However, many non-vegetarians have tried to convert me. Usually this is over a meal when I order vegetarian and they don't. I usually don't even bring it up, but the non-veg. does and then goes into making a case why it's not bad.
Maybe it's guilt or whatever.

As a male, and if the person I'm eating with is also a guy, the arguments in favor of eating meat often revolve around the notion that it's more macho to eat meat or something like that.

I'd say Peta's tactics go for shock because they get free media coverage so it's economical.

37 · amaun said

PETA is for the 'U R 2 COOL' texting monkeys.

beware all non-veggie parents, your teenage kids are going to become veggies. It seems that this is a rising fad amongst US teenagers. for multiple reasons

The veggie vs non-veggie impassioned posts reminds me of
the emacs vs. vi debate.

Those of you breathlessly citing Upton Sinclair's novel _The Jungle_ should
note his reaction to the book's reception:
"I aimed for the heart of America, and hit it squarely in the stomach."

speaking of Upton Sinclair

Also in today's Times:

LET’S suppose you’ve decided to eat less meat, or are considering it. And let’s ignore your reasons for doing so. They may be economic, ethical, altruistic, nutritional or even irrational. The arguments for eating less meat are myriad and well-publicized, but at the moment they’re irrelevant, because what I want to address here is (almost) purely pragmatic: How do you do it?

Like UPS, I find that non-vegetarians attack me more than I see vegetarians attack non-vegetarians. I really do think it's guilt. I don't care what you do, just leave me alone, I'm not judging. But I have been a lifelong vegetarian. Usually the ones that make a big deal about vegetarianism are the ones that haven't been vegetarians their whole lives. Though it's a bit disconcerting to hear anyone say I don't really care about the animals, I'm just doing it because I'm used to it. If that were the case, why would I be so insistent on vegetarian meals every time I go out?

BJ, The article doesn't talk about it but one other contributing factor may be this: contemporary, urban, children are vaguely sheltered from the concept that meat = ex living animal. All they see is a clean cut or a casserole mush or a TV-dinner tray that looks nothing like what one would have been used to seeing at an old-fashioned butcher's (if the older generation was privileged enough not to kill its own meat in the countryside, that is). Contemporary parents too are uncomfortable about having a blunt and honest discussion. Little wonder that the child, upon entering the teen years, explores and rebels.

My daughter was nearly 4 when she realized the word 'chicken' was used at our dinner table AND her favorite story book. When she asked me if they were one and the same, I gently let her know about where omnivorous humans stand in the food chain (we eat and can also be eaten).

I am all for people learning to eat only as much as their body needs -- be it meat or any other food, even sugar. (Moderation in every area of life appeals to me). Even if I cook a meat or fish dish, I let my kids decide if they actually want to eat it. I believe their bodies know more about how much of animal or plant protein they need that day than I could ever know. Invariably, at least 1 out of 3 will not eat each time--they take turns in refusing, I swear--but on average, each child decides to eat some amount of meat at least once in 2 or 3 weeks.

One of PETA's campaigns in India is about how "bad" cow's milk is for humans. Middle-class has just somewhat graduated to being able to buy milk in unlimited quantities and the poorest of the poor will probably consider it a gift if their toddler can get half-a-glass of milk a day. But here comes PETA with absolutely no irony or historical understanding...well, why don't we give up our sugar-sweetened tea and coffee drinking habits instead? Can not the plantations be allowed to go back to whatever wild lands they used to be?

cruelty to animals has a coarsening and dehumanizing affect on humans and their treatment of other humans (some would argue). e.g., what about the marine that just threw a puppy off a cliff???

Razib, I am not an ethologist, so my interest in this area is somewhat cursory. But I am under the impression that the above argument is based on retrospective case-studies and case-series, not population-based studies, whether retrospective or prospective.

Also, what if the marine had thrown a snake or a lizard or a rabid puppy? Would it have made news? Don't get me wrong, I am immersed in the ethos of the puppies-are-cute culture, but I can never quite turn away from the internal inconsistencies.

Khoof, to answer your question from another thread: I am not yet from Guelph.

Someone who advertises the fact that she is a 'shameless meat eater' (despite knowing the utter cruelty with which farm and other animals live and die) writes a post of this kind mainly to be sensationalist herself. My friends and I used to read Cicatrix's posts, but have little respect for her after this one.

The arguments for eating less meat are myriad and well-publicized, but at the moment they’re irrelevant, because what I want to address here is (almost) purely pragmatic: How do you do it?

One way is to eat (or use in other ways) every last scrap of the animal that has been killed just as hunter-gatherer cultures did--which means you have to eat the chicken heads, chicken feet, pigs' feet, pigs' snout, fish heads. Definitely not appealing, right? But you see this still happening in peasant cultures and in lower socio-economic groups. They embrace fully and efficiently eveything the life that they killed could give them. This way they kill fewer individual animals. In urban cultures, the best cuts are for humans, the scraps are for pet foods, for example. But to sell that pet food, the pet food company needs you to adopt or buy your own cute little puppy (or puppies). At one time, when I was growing up, we (including my vegetarian mom) owned 4 dogs (the max # we have ever owned at any one time). Go figure.

1) integrate pain and misery over time (e.g., chickens with beaks chopped off)

2) cruelty to animals has a coarsening and dehumanizing affect on humans and their treatment of other humans (some would argue). e.g., what about the marine that just threw a puppy off a cliff???

I am all for people learning to eat only as much as their body needs -- be it meat or any other food, even sugar. (Moderation in every area of life appeals to me). Even if I cook a meat or fish dish, I let my kids decide if they actually want to eat it. I believe their bodies know more about how much of animal or plant protein they need that day than I could ever know. Invariably, at least 1 out of 3 will not eat each time--they take turns in refusing, I swear--but on average, each child decides to eat some amount of meat at least once in 2 or 3 weeks.

ak,

killing in one blow is better than torture? i understand the issue of pain and suffering, but in my opinion, it would be more justified when coming from one who didn;t intend to kill the animal in the end

non-vegetarians attack me more than I see vegetarians attack non-vegetarians. I really do think it's guilt.

It's not guilt, it's evolution. In general, carnivores attack herbivores.

killing in one blow is better than torture?

OF COURSE!

46 · karuna said

Someone who advertises the fact that she is a 'shameless meat eater' (despite knowing the utter cruelty with which farm and other animals live and die) writes a post of this kind mainly to be sensationalist herself. My friends and I used to read Cicatrix's posts, but have little respect for her after this one.

Dear karuna, how's your perch on that there high horse?

Did you read my comment #13? Did you click on the link to "shameless carnivore" (if you use quotes, get it right, btw) where I espoused a view (several years ago on Sepiamutiny) similar to that of Malathi's comment 47.

What exactly is "a post of this kind"? That PETA's propaganda clearly has no place for humans? That shrill moral righteousness has no room for thoughtful discussion or even a little humor? The kind of misbegotten logic that leads people to faithfully recycle plastic bottles even though they keep buying bottled water because sharing communal glassware or using water fountains would be gross?

Funny how you have to be rich to follow these rules and live well. And I find it pretty damn offensive that PETA's now attempting to impose its moral values on a culture with a millennia of vegetarianism and respect for animals.

PETA's tactics feed into binary argument: if you're not with them, in the most totalitarian sense possible (forget fur, no milk? no gelatin?) then you're with those wide belt-buckled, greedy heartless capitalist ranchers.

I eat meat because I'm grateful for having food. I eat anything that's placed in front of me.

A far more effective and useful way of supporting World Vegetarian Week would be to introduce the joys of a myriad of vegetables that Americans know nothing about. Beetroot, snake gourd, bitter gourd, pumpkin curries, cashew curries, banana blossoms, plantains, fennel leaves, fennel root, a hundred and one things to do with eggplants and okra...

This definetly is a very weird way to protest. Another one I don't get is hunger strikes. That only hurts one party, the guy protesting!

banana blossoms

Ahh, orgasmic.
... with coconut milk and spices
... with shrimp (fresh & dried)

Ah that is an interesting point. Something similar to DesiNJ@25's comment, there is a whole body of population in America and especially in the developing countries, who don't think and make choices in life, whether it is religion or food based on logical reasoning. Mainly they think & work from the heart than head. This tactic of appealing to emotion is similar to that used by Karl Rove and Bush. And I guess to influence the people and govt these advocacy organizations adopt the same tactic smetimes to their own detriment.

AMEN TO THAT.

I even once had a pretty interesting debate with a certain Mutineer about this topic. I was told that "going with the gut" was a form of virtue, while I tried to espouse what I consider rational dispassionate analysis.

I think there's a whole generation of people out there who think this way now. And the world will be a worse place for it, since many of them are finding positions of power, and will make decisions that impact the rest of us.

Someone who advertises the fact that she is a 'shameless meat eater' (despite knowing the utter cruelty with which farm and other animals live and die) writes a post of this kind mainly to be sensationalist herself. My friends and I used to read Cicatrix's posts, but have little respect for her after this one

You've written exactly what I wanted to way. I'll be joining you in bypassing Cicatrix's posts.

Respect for animals is an intrinsic part of most South Asian cultures, whether veg/non-veg or mono/polytheistic.

Heard of halal meat? animal has to be bled to death to be considered halal. Majority of meat consumed in south asia is halal.

As some people on this board have elucidated much better than i probably can, Nature is full of carnivores - man included - and there's nothing wrong with killing an animal for meat.

Ahh, orgasmic. ... with coconut milk and spices ... with shrimp (fresh & dried)

i'm really surprised nobody has mentioned Petey Singer yet. Perhaps later when SM posts on an infanticide-related story...

58 · ak said

As some people on this board have elucidated much better than i probably can, Nature is full of carnivores - man included - and there's nothing wrong with killing an animal for meat.

firstly, this is an opinion, not a fact, and as such it is not imperative that everybody agrees with you. secondly, the sense of morality is, arguably, one thing that distinguishes humans from other animals, so the argument for the natural food chain is less applicable to us than to other animals. and again, the morality aspect of eating meat is an opinion, not a fact for which there is only one answer.

But I'm rather perturbed that you don't see any difference between ethical treatment of animals slaughtered for meat and the torture they are put through in factory farming.

I interned with PETA one summer back when I was an idealist college student. The tactics that people comment on are 1/10th of the work that PETA does. They have cruelty case workers, a large spay & neuter campaign and undercover whistleblowers who document illegal animal abuse. Their legal team works to prosecute abusers and to strengthen legislation. They spend a LOT of time working with companies like Burget King, KFC and McDonalds to enforce more humane slaughterhouses. You never hear about this stuff b/c the media doesn't care to report on it. PETA has to do some sensationalist tactics to keep their name out there but it is NOT all they do.

By the way, there is no need to hate PETA b/c they do some things you don't agree with. I'm voting for Obama -- I don't agree with everything he believes in but I support his general views. The ultimate aim of PETA is to reduce animal suffering. It is a noble cause, even if you don't agree with the tactics.

ak: 'killing in one blow is better than torture?'

You could probably know more on that from a terminally ill person - if s/he would have rather died without suffering for months or years :-)

50 · amaun said

non-vegetarians attack me more than I see vegetarians attack non-vegetarians. I really do think it's guilt.

I agree with this. As a vegetarian, I never make comments to others about their food of choice. But oftentimes, meat eaters feel compelled to make comments and pass judgment about my meals. Why don't I eat fish and chicken? How can I NOT miss meat (often followed with some obnoxious comment about how delicious steak is)? What if you become anemic? I just want to tell them to STFU and let me enjoy my meatless meal.

ETA: I would pity an injured animal that may cross in front of Cicatrix. she's probably kick him and keep walking.

This is a weak argument. Those interns are not enslaved. as someone else said, they could have gotten up and left if they wanted. a pig in a slaughterhouse doesn't have that choice.

ak, you are usually a little bit more nuanced than this:

...so the argument for the natural food chain is less applicable to us than to other animals.

and this:

i don't think that treating them well while they are alive should somehow make people feel better when these animals are being raised to be killed.

Please don't allow yourself to fall into the trap of homogenizing 6 billion+ people, their geographies, ecological histories (e.g., Tibetans and their main source of protein: yak meat), agricultural histories, social and nutritional customs. Let us not impose our ethical desires on others whose ancestors came from a terrain that looked nothing like our ancestors'. Local problems, local solutions and justifications (or arguements of self-preservation). Also, I have seen firsthand that a traditional farmer's (physical and emotional) well-being is intricately tied to the well-being of the animals in his care, yes, even if (s)he raises them purely for slaughter. You can choose to either be cynical or be respectful of the sentiment and belief.

In general, I am fascinated that so many emotions are shed over companion, farm and food and fur animals, whom I see as renewable resource, but not enough emotions are shed over extinct and endangered farm and wild animals (whom I see as non-renewable resource).

Tayeb @57:

I have witnessed the halal method too in addition to the modern methods employed in slaughter houses and abattoirs. In my opinion, reacting purely to the visual picture, the halal method comes across as less dramatic, more peaceful and more calm for all concerned including the animal.

Karuna and ava, I am merely curious: what if cicatricx had described herself as a shameless beneficiary of the wonders of the vaccine era or the era of the overflowing river of milk. Would you react this strongly?

Ok, this it from me. I have been on this thread a little too much.

ETA: I would pity an injured animal that may cross in front of Cicatrix. she's probably kick him and keep walking

Aw, you're too kind!! I'm more likely to club it, skin it, and eat it.

Look, now that I've been painted into the Ann Coulter corner of this animal rights argument, let me freely say that I thought it would be obvious that my distaste was for the methods, not the cause. Clearly it wasn't, and needed a much longer explanation in the post itself. My clarifying comments were apparently not read, and a lack of protein seems to have left some without a sense of humor.

(that was a joke, please don't throw your plastic shoes at me.)

I'd love to have a reasonable debate on this issue, but my attempts (please see comments #13 and #52) aren't engaged really. Instead we've one person reinforcing pro-PETA views under different handles. That's kinda obnoxious, Pallavi/Naveen/Obnoxious Desi.

As I said before, these binary arguments are useless. There needn't be two sides only to this issue, and we don't all have to end up feeling demonized/victimized.

64 · naveen said

ETA: I would pity an injured animal that may cross in front of Cicatrix. she's probably kick him and keep walking.

59 · Nayagan said

i'm really surprised nobody has mentioned Petey Singer yet. Perhaps later when SM posts on an infanticide-related story...

wow, this topic really brings out the best of the douchebags...

There needn't be two sides only to this issue

easy for you to say as a well-rounded meat eater.

Look, now that I've been painted into the Ann Coulter corner of this animal rights argument,

didn't you once say that bambi was self-obsessed and enjoyed her parents' death?

69 · veggie might said

There needn't be two sides only to this issue

easy for you to say as a well-rounded meat eater.

HEY! WHo're you calling fat!! Monitoring the comment threads isn't the same as sitting on my ass, is it?

(dammit, so busted. Now I have to go for that run.)

Be good while I'm gone, kids.

This should read:

...but not enough emotions are shed over extinct and endangered farm animal breeds and wild animal species (whom I see as non-renewable resource).

Anyone else find it hypocritical that harming pets in US is a crime but eating other animals is ok. Some animals have rights, others don’t.
Someone mentioned ‘they are raised for slaughter’. I wonder how they feel about cloning humans for organs as in The Island.

for all that its worth, i don't think the demonstration was too much. I don't think they were being hypocritical, the people were there because they wanted to be there and they can leave, drink water, hold an umbrella, take a break, walk out or do whatever whenever they want. The intern supervisor might be disappointed or might be understanding;;;however disappointed, i'm sure they won't kill the interns if they leave for shade. People need to need to be informed about where their food is coming from, the decision is then theirs. Most people aren't even aware of the kind of torture the animals go through to get to their plate.

i don't diagree with their tactics to get attention and keep people informed...but this,, i think is funny. i was looking over their website a couple of days ago and i came across this:
http://www.peta.org/about/i-faq.asp

"Out of respect for animals and the work that PETA does, all interns are required to be vegan while on PETA property. This includes diet (no meat, dairy products, eggs, honey, or other animal byproducts), personal care items (cruelty-free and no animal byproducts), and clothing (no fur, leather, silk, or wool)."

hmm..maybe its just i who finds it funny...they seem quite strict!! do they have a clothing inspectors in the gates?? Will people in PETA property (which i think includes the dorm interns stay in) violating these rules be put to shame???

. I wonder how they feel about cloning humans for organs as in The Island

Anyone would feel terrible about cloning for humans as in the Island -- but then again everyone knows that Michael Bay sucks and butchers the storyline in any of his movies.

(on a related note: vegetarians eat vegetables..so vegetarians who also think of themselves as humanitarians terrify me !)

I have witnessed the halal method too in addition to the modern methods employed in slaughter houses and abattoirs. In my opinion, reacting purely to the visual picture, the halal method comes across as less dramatic, more peaceful and more calm for all concerned including the animal.

That is not what I have seen. I have seen chickens jumping around with their slit throats, goats trying to get up or roll around crazily after their throats were slit. In halal slaughter animal should be conscious while its blood gets drained, think about that.

61 · ak said

But I'm rather perturbed that you don't see any difference between ethical treatment of animals slaughtered for meat and the torture they are put through in factory farming.

i'm playing a bit of devil's advocate. i think both are wrong - i was just pointing out that i don't buy that paying attention to how the animals live somehow makes one more ethical when they plan on eating the animal anyway. at best, these animals should be treated well and allowed to live. at worst, they should be treated well even if they are being killed for meat, but i don't think that treating them well while they are alive should somehow make people feel better when these animals are being raised to be killed.

Oh another note, vCJD was spread not *just* by feeding cows ground meat and bones which also contained slivers of brain, but also by the method of slaughtering which(after the cow was dead) involved cleaving the carcass from head to toe with the same blade, which was used again and again without proper cleaning.(Prions are extremely hardy and not biodegradable)

Malathi

...but not enough emotions are shed over extinct and endangered farm animal breeds and wild animal species (whom I see as non-renewable resource).

Top ten Desi debates:

10. Deficiencies of Bollywood movies.
9. Notable Desi celebraties.
8. Racist America and Europe.
7. Wheatish vs. fair complexion.
6. Tradition: Hindu, Muslim, Christian.
5. Arranged vs love marriage.
4. Veggie vs. non-veggie.
3. India vs. Pakistan.
2. ABCD vs. FOB.
1. Cooking recipes/Food.

62 · Pallavi said

I interned with PETA one summer back when I was an idealist college student.

I'm voting for Obama

Instead we've one person reinforcing pro-PETA views under different handles. That's kinda obnoxious, Pallavi

Don't think the confluence of these three is a coincidence.

These comments are getting silly, but I do think there are a lot of salient points in this conversation:

1. No one would understand the horrors of factory farming without PETA
I totally disagree on this one. Not only have other commenters pointed out The Jungle, but the rise of the organic meat/milk movement has also brought the issue of how our meat is raised into the fore. The NYT has numerous articles on the subject, and who can forget the disgusting pig-brain neurosis story that came out a few months ago?

I think PETA has, at times, done laudable work. That said, I have found their ad campaigns incredibly insensitive and ill-thought out (the Holocaust ad? the Slavery ad?) enough times to discontinue any tacit or active support for their organization.

2. Interns != Animals Because They Have Choice
Are you nuts??? If you are wrapped in saran wrap to a piece of cardboard, it's pretty hard to get up and walk away. Is it really necessary to stoop so low as to say that because the interns had a choice in spreading awareness that they asked or deserved to be treated insanely?

3. Ethical Treatment != Abstention
ak, I'm amazed that you argue there is no moral delineation between how an animal is raised and slaughtered so long as it is being raised to be slaughtered. As cicatrix mentioned, there are many moral and personal philosophies that argue just that and that eschew brutalization of animals. I don't have anything wrong with raising meat to be killed, per se, but I do think that the current system of factory farming, paired with an over-reliance on eating meat (spurred by how cheap it is, relatively speaking), has created a brutal, unhealthy, and environmentally devastating system. It's this same rationale that also leads some individuals in non-veg faiths to abstain from eating meat under the current U.S. meat system.

Personally I don't go in for the "we are a higher moral being and thus must refrain from our omnivore tendencies." Maybe I am just too animalistic and think that humans have an overly high opinion of themselves, though :)

I don't see what's wrong with cicatrix offering the disclaimer that she's an omnivore. How is this offensive? Is there a tacit assumption that all desis are veg, or ought to be?

firstly, this is an opinion, not a fact, and as such it is not imperative that everybody agrees with you. secondly, the sense of morality is, arguably, one thing that distinguishes humans from other animals, so the argument for the natural food chain is less applicable to us than to other animals. and again, the morality aspect of eating meat is an opinion, not a fact for which there is only one answer

You're right that this is my opinion. I wasn't trying to push it across as fact. I'm not so sure about the morality aspect that you bring into this, it's more complex than sayng somebody is corrupt morally because they eat meat.

Malathi well said. Your comment about how a farmer's well being is tied to the animals under his care reminds me of an uncle of mine, who has a pig sty and sells meat. It is amazing to see how much he cares about them at the risk of his own physical health. Last time i saw him, he was spending sleepless nights because one of the pigs wasn't eating right. He would wake up every night - sometime a few times - to make sure everything was alright with them.
This personal anecdote isn't meant to be anything more than what it is - a personal anecdote.

I'm an Indian vegetarian but what kills me about how we do vegetarianism and animal rights in India is that we put go-seva, go-raksha (cow service and cow protection), before the service and protection of human women.

The cow is go-mata but human-matas are fit to be burned, beaten and harrassed non-stop.

Not disagreeing w/ you Veggie Feminist (and hope I'm not feeding the artist formerly known as PG), but you might want to take a look at the ultradouche faction of PETA.

I have no objection to nudity.

14 · DesiInNJ said

12 · tevadi said

So my one line pitch is ‘animals have five senses just like us, the only difference between us and them is intelligence, they feel pain and suffering like us, so if you like to learn then you should read up on vegetarianism.

Plants are living organisms too. Talk to a passionate botanist.

Plants are living, that is obvious. They do not however, have the developed nervous system as do animals. They feel something, but not to the extent that animals do. Similarly, humans are higher up on the chain than animals, otherwise the argument for homicide could be made.

For Tayeb @ 77:

Be my guest--visit a mechanized slaughterhouse and, when (or if) you wake up from the nightmare of watching tens of cows being unloaded of their body parts in a passionless 'dis-assembly chain' manner within a matter of an hour, come and tell us all what you think of traditional methods in a comparative context.

All traditional methods be they kosher or halal or a plain, well-experienced stab to the heart of a piglet instill a one-on-one relationship and connectivity to the animal being killed, to the extent that the human is usually grateful and honors the life that is being killed to nourish his/her own species/family/self. Where uninformed people see a lack of 'humanity' in the actual act of killing, I see the essence of humanity. When condescending, sanctimonious (hardly non-beneficiaries in the absolute sense) people use unimaginative, facile words such as the 'guilt' of meat-eaters, I am inspired to write poetry that captures a whole range of complex, delicate thoughts and feelings unique to man. After all, as far as I know, the human being is the only species that is capable of empathizing with its own dinner. I'd rather experience that subtle contradiction than pretend to raise myself above all reproach.

ak, I'm amazed that you argue there is no moral delineation between how an animal is raised and slaughtered so long as it is being raised to be slaughtered.

however, seeing as few, or no, commenters agree with me, i shall not speak further on this topic

ak,
Please don't not speak on this topic--it's a really interesting one, I think, one that we still haven't really "figured out" in a satisfying way--unlike many topics, on which there is now more or less either a consensus, or two or three plausible positions. This one is still very much up in the air, in terms of hard-core analysis. Personally, I, for example, hold the (I'm sure idiosyncratic) view that given high human populations, it's a bit odd to oppose factory farming, in the sense that then only the rich could eat meat. But, I do recognize the (very real!) concerns about factory farming--so--I don't really have a good answer. I grew up in a veg. family, and I don't cook meat at home (though I cert. don't deprive myself of the cornucopia of culinary delights (!) available at restaurants, and would even confess to (don't tell moms!) serving my guests prosciutto with melon). ;-)

My girlfriend wants me to eat her. Is that ethical?

Yup.

Thank you.

Signed,
Jeffrey Dahmer

68 · veggie might said

wow, this topic really brings out the best of the douchebags...

I see no connection between feminine hygiene products and arguments concerning animal welfare (outside of Ira Isaac's portolio, i guess). I don't agree with Singer and was surprised that no one had brought up his arguments in the context of this discussion.

has created a brutal, unhealthy, and environmentally devastating system.

truly it is brutal (and you get a better picture of this from reading anti-intensive farming books, especially if you are a meat-eater) but brutality is present in non-intensive farming as well. What is objectionable is the attitude that because the animal is being killed for food, and is the product of non-intensive farming methods, that the brutality (by subjective measure) disappears. It doesn't. Every single method devised to quickly dispatch a food animal, involves some level of violence or cruel dynamic that some person would find excessive.

IMO, we no longer have rituals or even strong offal cuisine traditions to account for this ever-present brutality( unless you're a snout-tail foodie or live outside the US)

ak, your tone suggests you are hurt. I don't see why you should be hurt considering that people, including me, are giving you credit for usually being able to see nuances and all sides of the issue. I agree with your friend: there will be no universally-acceptable answers, especially since ... well, I can write a series of academic papers on the complexities that include historical, political, economical, technological, anthropological, developmental issues, among others. On my part there is only a plea to understand the all-inclusive idea of our dependence on animals as a natural resource for the benefit of human development and, no one living on earth today can claim to be on higher moral grounds.

Let me help you feel less troubled about eating that chicken your mom cooked, the one you think was raised just for the benefit of your consumption. Well, think about it: if it weren't for your need and ability to pay for it, that particular chicken would not even have had its brief, insignificant existence on this planet. Your consumption pattern resulted in its life. It is bizarre to think of it that way, but...You are troubled that an Angus is raised mainly for beef production? Well, "the average herd life of US Holsteins is today fewer than 3 lactations." Let that milk-guzzling vegetarian see blood on his late-night ice cream snack (absolutely non-essential for human health). Where do you think the dairy cow ends up, after being raised solely to produce 9000kg of milk per year (essentially, a single unit milk factory) only for human consumption? But hey, despite heading for the knacker indiviually, the Holsteins collectively are in a better shape than the milking Devons and the Nandi dairy cows.

Do you have all the answers now? I don't think so. But do you have more questions than before? I hope so.

i never really understood them. i don't want someone telling me to eat meat (which happens all the time here), so why should i tell others to be vegetarian? respect me, i respect you. none of their demonstrations do anything but label veggies as crazy exhibitionists. blah!

not just kerala - even in Tamil Nadu many Hindus eat beef. No - not the brahmins - but many others. However beef is slowly being replaced by chicken. I love my meat - does not mean that I eat it daily. It is a treat to eat it just a couple of times a week. And Sunday is a meat day :) PETA can go and get stuffed. Leather is great - remember it is organic ;) - not a byproduct of Oil.

Melbourne Desi: I'm Tamil "non-Brahmin" Hindu and can vouch for the fact that we have traditionally consumed meat (mostly chicken, fish, goat) even though we recognize the superior moral position of vegetarianism (a legacy of Jainism which was once quite popular in TN). But I have never heard of beef eating oustide of very Westernized wealthy Hindu families in TN...is this something that is traditional in the communities where you have seen it or a recent development?

Malathi, I read up on the links you provided about disappearing breeds...truly sad and alarming...such short-sighted policies on everyone's part...

I also agree that the chicken that people are concerned about wouldn't even be alive if it wasn't for human consumption...there are only a few hundred thousand wolves (at most) in the world and millions upon millions of dogs...that's the same analogy.. something humans value has reached enormous preponderance.

Anyway, I love 'non-veg' as the Indians say.

96 · Malathi said

Well, think about it: if it weren't for your need and ability to pay for it, that particular chicken would not even have had its brief, insignificant existence on this planet.

see: wrongful life and the repugnant conclusion.

Malathi - I am not hurt. But I am frustrated that even after making a clarification, people seem to be attributing to me opinions that I never stated. This is not an issue of me being unaware of the issues at hand - it's just a matter of me not seeing the same things in a similar light as other people on this thread. Nor did I deny any of those arguments as many, including yourself, hint at - I am just saying that there is one aspect of this issue that speaks to me deeply, and that nobody else brought up on the thread. But it doesn't mean that I have ignored other elements of the matter. I am not looking to get all the answers - and I know enough about these issues to be constantly thinking about all the aspects that come along with it. It's just annoying to have people respond to my comments in this way, without clearly reading what I said, and worse, attributing to me statements that clearly I did not make.

Well, think about it: if it weren't for your need and ability to pay for it, that particular chicken would not even have had its brief, insignificant existence on this planet.

i have heard this argument before, and it definitely is one of the poorest reasons for meat eating around. this line of argument condones keeping death row prisoners alive to do experiments on them, or that women should not have the right to abort even in the case of rape.

Portmanteau, I'm sorry I don't understand the point of your links.

My consciousness as a human being is complicated enough. I do not use human rights arguements to understand animal welfare issues. I subscribe to the idea of individual human rights but not individual animal rights (and I am well within my profession's ethics which includes the idea of promotion of public health).

VM: please come up with right analogies and coherent arguements if you want to engage me in a discussion with you.

ok, port. I think I get it. Thanks. I will have to give this some attention when things are less crazy here.

95 · Nayagan said

I see no connection between feminine hygiene products and arguments concerning animal welfare

ironically, peter singer has an excellent description of the cosmetics and associated industries, and the impact of their testing on animals, in "animal liberation".

VM: please come up with right analogies and coherent arguements if you want to engage me in a discussion with you.

maybe you don't believe in a moral framework based on sentience, but that doesn't make arguments founded on that principle wrong or incoherent. my understanding of the energy and resource efficiency of carnivores makes it seem like even a pure human welfare argument on the grounds of feeding the most people sustainably favors vegetarianism.

also, what is a philosophical foundation for animal welfare that is not based on sentience? the only other one that i can see is that treating animals poorly is detrimental to human character. the latter does allow for socially accepted forms of animal abuse to be deemed not detrimental to our humanity - which is why horse racing is on the front page of the ny times, which vick serves 2 years in jail for dogfighting.

87 · cocktail_stirrer said

14 · DesiInNJ said

12 · tevadi said

So my one line pitch is ‘animals have five senses just like us, the only difference between us and them is intelligence, they feel pain and suffering like us, so if you like to learn then you should read up on vegetarianism.

Plants are living organisms too. Talk to a passionate botanist.

As Veggie Might said, Plants do not feel pain, they do not have nervous system or brain to register anything. DNA wise, Humans are not too far removed from animals, but significantly different than plants. Anyway arguments about everything discussed here has been fully discussed at various internet forums. Thus I said, if you are interested then read up, if you don't care, you don't care, nothing I can do about it.

There are plenty of cosmetic lines that do no use animal products.

are eggs considered non veg in India?

ak, I apologize if I mis-attributed your argument. I did read your clarifications, but was skimming and was VERY hasty in responding (and probably overly terse/simplistic). While I'm amazed by the scenarios and arguments you offered, I, nonetheless, find your reasoning interesting and challenging, and I appreciate all your contributions to the discussion. Please don't hesitate to post -- I always enjoy reading your POV, including when it differs substantially from my own. From a purely selfish perspective, I like that your comments make me think/reflect more about my worldview, reasoning, etc.

Nayagan, from my perspective your comment is totally on point. I do think there is a unique horror, however, to American-style factory farming. I'm sure my rationale is not logical, ethical, or well-reasoned, but as an omnivore I am especially perturbed by how my meat is raised/killed, and the subsequent effects. It is brutal to murder other animals, period. However, the added torture that is life as a farm animal in the U.S. seems especially disgusting to me.

VM, I was supposed to figure out you were hinting at sentience with your choice of examples?

Ok, consider this:

Historically, humans could not afford to raise cattle or chicken just to eat them; they milked them or tricked them into laying eggs. Then when the animals got too old to produce efficiently and it was not economically viable to feed and care for them, they were entered into the food chain. (Goats and pigs were another issue because they converted poor vegetation and organic waste into protein, respectively). Contrary to popular myth, most beef and chicken eaten in the world today are retired dairy cows and layers, respectively.

In India, retired cattle are turned loose by an already impoverished farmer (losing a chance to earn a few buck from the knacker). In rural India, cattle compete with wild herbivores for meagre resources. (With the rise of mega-dairies, things will have to change in India). So is it less cruel to abandon farm animals and more cruel to eat them? Is it more acceptable to just incinerate retired production animals and not use their flesh for protein? The answers lie mainly in each individual human's philosophical and/or religious worldview. I am reminding you to include economics and ecology while considering the issue. You are focused on the animal as the individual unit. I am stepping back and looking at a bigger picture.

Sustainability should ideally include the concept of not descending on Andes-grown quinoa like horses on wild oats. Where I live, one can try to be a vegetarian or follow the 100-mile radius diet but not both simultaneously.

Sentience-based approach, although noble and guilt-inducing, neglects those species, breeds that we don't directly cause pain but nevertheless extinguish by logging or building dams or building parking lots (again, complex issues). It also excludes the non-charismatic, lower order animals from receiving any necessary attention.

To me, it all comes down to whether we as a species truly consider members of another species to be our equal in every sense of the word. I have come to the conclusion that we do not. If you are honest, you will agree with me. Two words: euthanasia and guinea-pigs. You can euthanize your dog (ironically, on the basis of sentience) but not your great-grandmother. Even meat-eaters will be up in arms if you express the latter wish. Vegetarians and animal rights advocates, despite the bad economy and high unemployment rate, are hardly lining up to usurp the guinea pigs’ day jobs. Our soapboxes should not be so high that the speaker's head is amidst the rings of Saturn. After all, his/her feet are firmly planted on this earth.

Halal and kosher methods may be more than mere rituals. A German study apparently showed that draining the blood induced a state similar to "going to sleep"; this may be the reason why I concluded the animal suffered less (please see previous comments). But my knowledge on pain physiology is really rusty so I am not confident making a statement one way or the other. (Ironic, considering this study)

Amitabh, there are over 72 million pet dogs and about 82 million pet cats in the U.S. alone. These numbers represent an increase over previous years and do not include those pets abandoned and languishing in shelters. Yet puppy mills and more responsible breeders continue to survive.