Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdahl!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!rutgers!bellcore!wind!tr
From: tr@wind.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Imported woman's Fox Fur Coats
Message-ID: <3831@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Date: Wed, 25-Nov-87 13:45:39 EST
Article-I.D.: bellcore.3831
Posted: Wed Nov 25 13:45:39 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Nov-87 06:50:39 EST
References: <132@blic.BLI.COM> <4830@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <1841@chinet.UUCP> <5942@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1854@chinet.UUCP>
Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com
Reply-To: tr@wind.UUCP (tom reingold)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, Noo Joizy
Lines: 58
Keywords: Fox Coats


In article <5942@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes:
sk> [...]
sk> In the wild, humans would almost certainly have to
sk> eat some meat, but not in places that have grocery stores selling lots
sk> of non-meat sources of protein.  Most intelligent people who are opposed
sk> to cruelty to animals are opposed to unnecessary cruelty.  It is necessary
sk> for cats to eat meat.  It is not necessary for a woman to have a chinchilla
sk> coat.
sk> [...]

In response to that, in article <1854@chinet.UUCP>, rhonda@chinet
(Rhonda Scribner) writes:
rs> [...]
rs> So killing a cow for your cat is all right, then?  That sort of blows a
rs> little hole in your "unnecessary cruelty" idea, doesn't it?
rs> [...]

I don't think so, if I may defend Skyler's point of view.  Animals
have their inherent natures.  A sheep is docile and a lion kills
for food.  These are impossible to change.  So are the inherent
diets.  A human being chooses his nature, and thus can choose his
diet.  We can survive on almost anything.  If you call it cruel to
kill a cow for your cat, I call it necessary cruelty, because that's
the way it was intended.  I don't see the necessity for humans to
eat tons and tons of meat.  A little, maybe.

The recent medical evidence suggests that we eat far too much.
There are many health detriments to eating lots of animal products.
It has not been shown that a little is better or worse than none,
though.

Remember our economy is distorted.  In societies where people have
to kill their own, meat is hard to come by, the equivalent of being
expensive.  It's artificially low-priced here.

I am of the belief that the medical and economic indicators mentioned
above are something to base our ethics upon.  This is abstract and
certainly arguable.

As I see it.  Humans have the most flexible natures and it could
be said that the only enherent part of us is that nothing else is
inherent.  We take on the qualities that we develop.  Given this,
it can be viewed, if you choose, to look at our eating animals as
cruel.  If it's necessary, it's probably not necessary to the extent
that the average American slob eats bacon-and-eggs for breakfast,
roast beef for lunch, and pot roast for dinner.  Go try to kill
that many animals yourself every day.  It is necessary for cats to
eat meat at every meal, for dogs at almost every meal.

There is often some coherent discussion on these ethics found in
the newsgroup rec.food.veg.  *Both* sides are presented well,
surprisingly.  We could move this there.

Tom Reingold                    INTERNET:       tr@bellcore.bellcore.com
Bell Communications Research    UUCP:           !bellcore!tr
435 South St room 2L350         SOUNDNET:       (201) 829-4622 [work]
Morristown, NJ 07960                            (201) 287-2345 [home]