I have been studying the AR's philosophy and many peoples posts on VB. There seems to be an underlying mission of stopping all animal suffering, which of course is to be commneded. However, looking at the big picture and taking this term as it is used..."Eliminating animal suffering", I find it an inacurrate and unreasonable statement.

Here's how i see it:

Animals will always kill for the sake of killing......predators do it all the time. Animals will always kill for food. The food chain mandates that some animals are food animals....carnivors feed on meat etc etc. That all leads to animal suffering.......animals bring it on themselves. They feel pain and their killing tactics are often horrific.

How can we stop this? We can't.

Now, if we restrict people...or "Human Animals" from eating meat.....lets say we magically ban all hunting overnight in North America, then what happens to the back woods folk that kill and eat for their own survival? There are A LOT of elderly and poor back woods people who kill Deer, Turkeys Rabbit, Squirrels, Fish etc etc so they can eat. Veggies don't grow in the dead of winter in Canada or Alaska.

Wouldn't those "Human Animals" starve and suffer?

What about the economic toll of banning such a thing? Reportedly, 80% of Canada's econonmy is based on the tourist, hunting and fishing industry. What would happen to thsoe people and their lively hood? Wouldnt that lead to suffering?

I think a better term should be "To bring awareness to animal cruelty" OR "Eliminate unnesessary animal suffering"

I think awareness is the key. That leads to education and that leads to change. But change that is wise....not radical or with haste as to create a bigger problem.

Thoughts?

I don't understand what your point about suffering caused by non-humans is supposed to relate to.

What about the economic toll of banning such a thing? Reportedly, 80% of Canada's econonmy is based on the tourist, hunting and fishing industry. What would happen to thsoe people and their lively hood? Wouldnt that lead to suffering?I think economy is usually a bad reason to bring up in ethical discussion (discussion about right, justification, etc.). (An unethical action renders its benefits, especially economic ones, meaningless. Allowing it as a reason may already presuppose a certain view on non-humans.

I think a better term should be "To bring awareness to animal cruelty" OR "Eliminate unnesessary animal suffering"?

I think you've answered your own question here. :)

I think awareness is the key. That leads to education and that leads to change. But change that is wise....not radical or with haste as to create a bigger problem.

Again, I think you're right on the money. However, given the engrained resistance that society has toward this kind of change, I don't think moving with haste (whatever that might mean) would ever be a realistic problem. It's kind of like the "what would we do with all the farm animals if everyone turned veg overnight" question... it just ain't gonna happen.

Obviouslly we will never eliminate animal suffering, we will never eliminate human suffering, but the least we could do is try to stop cruelty that we have control over.

I agree, change on a massive scale will never happen overnight. The best we can accomplish is to help educate the masses and show by example that not only can we survive, but really thrive without animal consumption. Education is what made me change, and I believe it is the catalyst that makes change possible, even easy.

sean

What about the economic toll of banning such a thing? Reportedly, 80% of Canada's econonmy is based on the tourist, hunting and fishing industry.
Thoughts?

I highly doubt that figure. I mean tourism is big but I think you mean tourism related to hunting etc. The animal cruelty industry cannot be 80% of our economy.

We cannot prevent all animal suffering.

Nor can we prevent all rapes, all murders, all assaults, etc.

A goal can be impossible, yet still be worthy to work towards.

Just my $.02

I think calculated, greedy, and unnecessary exploitation of animals is the primary point. I frankly wouldn't lose any sleep if factory farming was banned around the planet (and enforced), animals raised specifically for fur and leather were banned, breeding and sales of animals for pets was banned, and people still hunted for food and clothing.

We cannot prevent all animal suffering.

Nor can we prevent all rapes, all murders, all assaults, etc.

A goal can be impossible, yet still be worthy to work towards.

Just my $.02

ditto.

I highly doubt that figure. I mean tourism is big but I think you mean tourism related to hunting etc. The animal cruelty industry cannot be 80% of our economy.

Ok, I checked out my handy dandy 1969 encyclopedia and it states that manufacturing makes up 75% of the Canadian economy. I'm sure we haven't reverted back to our hunting and fishing days since then. :)

The goal for me is to live in a more peaceful world and I can't see how people causing animals to suffer for no reason is a peaceful scene for me. People don't [i] need [/] to hunt or fish or kill domestic animals and stuff like that.

These two sites show animals can think and reason.

http://www.primidi.com/2005/07/09.html
http://www.awionline.org/wildlife/ag-chimp.htm

Most people would not interact with that parrot (asking it questions, getting answers) and then take it out back and chop off it's head. Most people would not do that to that chimp.

People just need to become more consistant. Obviously we know that dogs and cats can feel happy, sad, confused, depressed, cocky and all that. So why should we be able to show such loving and kind devotion to a dog and then go out and shoot a deer. And not every shot kills an animal right off. So the deer is running and bleeding and there's no reason for it. Sure the deer will die eventually but so will every person. We don't allow hunting for humans (except during war and that's not for food).

Just as we should treat other people with kindness and respect so we should treat other species with kindness and respect (and consistancy).

How about "eliminating animal suffering at the hands of humans"? We have no control over how they treat each other, only over how we treat them.

Ok, I checked out my handy dandy 1969 encyclopedia and it states that manufacturing makes up 75% of the Canadian economy. I'm sure we haven't reverted back to our hunting and fishing days since then. :)

1969? A lot has changed in the past 36 yrs. I was told it was 70-80% but I am not exactly sure. But one thing is for sure, a lot of people depend on Hunting and Fishing for their livlihood and business and an all out ban would have horrific economic results to those people. Particularily would be concerned for back woods people that live off the land. :book:

I think baby steps are a better way.

1969? A lot has changed in the past 36 yrs. I was told it was 70-80% but I am not exactly sure. But one thing is for sure, a lot of people depend on Hunting and Fishing for their livlihood and business and an all out ban would have horrific economic results to those people. Particularily would be concerned for back woods people that live off the land. :book:

I think baby steps are a better way.

Who told you it was 70-80%??? It's not. I'm not going to look it up on the net but if you want to and find that it is indeed 70-80% I would love for you to post back.

I know 36 years is a long time but if anything we've become more industrialized.

Are there people who rely on hunting and fishing? Sure. People rely on all kinds of terrible ways to survive. Look at the ecomomic impact that would happen if we in the west stopped allowing goods to be sold that were made in sweat shops. And slavery is still huge in the cocoa bean business.

I, too, think baby steps need to be taken in most cases. But I'm a privileged person so it's easy for me to say that. I'm not the one in a sweat shop, I'm not a slave, and no one is going to hunt me for food.

Btw, if you're looking for a greater economic impact arguement for a country like Canada you're better off using the agriculture industry. It accounted for about 10% of the economy (back in 1969, lol). But that includes wheat and stuff as well as hogs and beef cattle and all that. Fishing and trapping accounted for only 1%.

I agree on the baby steps. Not necessarily because that's how it "should" be, it's just how it will be. Many farmers, fishers, and "backwoods elderly folk" do have a reliance on animals. What should be cut out is the factory farms, the major cruelty areas, leaving family farms, etc. to be run. Then, later down the road, less and less animal reliance... Anything can be changed, even the reliance on animals for sustenance by 100% of the human population, but i agree that its happening overnight, much like anything else, is very unrealistic and unlikely

I don't believe in the "baby steps" thing at all. Why should we proceed cautiously in the area of humane treatment or liberation of animals? We should put our efforts on full bore in hopes of converting as many people and enlightening as many manufacturers as possible. I'm not talking about harassing people or being annoying, but raising awareness through letter campaigns, requesting cruelty-free products and alternatives. I think the consciousness in our country IS shifting toward a more socially responsible and humane lifestyle and this is our time to strike--not tread lightly in fear of upsetting the current economic status quo???! That just doesn't make sense to me. If people can make a living off cruelty, they can certainly make a living off cruelty-free. After all, which one is better? People have a way of adapting AND finding new ways to profit during changing times.

I agree with Donkey-Paws-Lov. Trying to change cruel practices of factory farming won't have any kind of negative impact on people who raise their own food or who sell to a local market. So I don't think "baby steps" are necessary to avoid negative financial impact on those people.