Return Home
It is currently Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:14 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 337 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 523 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:29 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
This side talk is just full of good information, but we are fuzzying up this thread as I tend to do.

My main, only point is wanting to know if consuming "meat" created in vitro with no harm to a sentient being to bring it to the table would be "different" than consuming a dead animal on our evolution of QoC.

Then the same situation and the effect of our clarity of consciousness as another question.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:00 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3435
Location: Florario/Ontorida
sorry, I clarified above which words were mine and which were Tom C's.

While it may be technically possible to structure a scenario where I might argue the raising of an animal for meat is ethical, actually making that happen is much more problematic. That is, ensuring that the animal is treated humanely, including appropriate vet care, is easier said than done, especially if you are not doing it yourself.

And then there is the issue of eating meat that you would not be willing to personally slaughter.

So the energy and attention that this would take may be entropic...easier to reach for chickpeas.

For example, my wife would LOVE (I mean, really LOVE) to have a small herd of goats (for milk) and sheep (for wool) to look after. The problem, and we have learned this from our dogs, is that we would be worried about each one, their health, their happiness, and so on.

There is separate to this issue the implied obligation to create and support life. I have brought this up in connection with farmed animals, who exchange their meat upon death for the opportunity of experiencing life. This is different than hunting, which only includes the act of killing, and does not include the act of creating.

For myself, for us, who chose to not have children, which is very syntropic on one level, I worry about the ethics of receiving a life, without returning the gift of creating a life.

Dance Me to the End of Love (Leonard Cohen)

Dance me to your beauty with a burning violin
Dance me through the panic 'til I'm gathered safely in
Lift me like an olive branch and be my homeward dove
Dance me to the end of love
Dance me to the end of love

Oh let me see your beauty when the witnesses are gone
Let me feel you moving like they do in Babylon
Show me slowly what I only know the limits of
Dance me to the end of love
Dance me to the end of love

Dance me to the wedding now, dance me on and on
Dance me very tenderly and dance me very long
We're both of us beneath our love, we're both of us above
Dance me to the end of love
Dance me to the end of love

Dance me to the children who are asking to be born
Dance me through the curtains that our kisses have outworn
Raise a tent of shelter now, though every thread is torn
Dance me to the end of love

Dance me to your beauty with a burning violin
Dance me through the panic till I'm gathered safely in
Touch me with your naked hand or touch me with your glove
Dance me to the end of love
Dance me to the end of love
Dance me to the end of love

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye6JssTdnvw

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:26 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
The song is beautiful, but it is totally an example of social engineering. You fell for it (got married), and feel "funny" about not falling for the whole thing (having kids, ie. worker bees). Marriage is a man made thing used to control the population, just like paganism did, and on, and on. They already "know" that monogamy isn't "natural" as one example of the concept that marriage is a control device for "them" to use on "us."

Killing for food is mean, and if the "same" thing (meat) can be rendered without ANY killing, does that make a difference. Ted, Tom?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:33 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Ocala, FL
kroeran -

Tom has said that animals do not incarnate as food animals for a chance at life. They incarnate for a chance to evolve like all consciousness does. It is a human's interpretation that animals are here for our use. What is the difference between a dog slaughtered for food in Asia and a cow here? One is a pampered pet here and the other a lowly farm animal. The cow is holy in India. Many humans think we are entitled to use other species any way we want.

If there weren't so many animals created here for food those consciousnesses would find a way to experience a VR some other way.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:43 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3435
Location: Florario/Ontorida
I think there are entropy tradeoffs between being coupled or single. I have always been fascinated by the celebacy vows of the Christian and Buddhist monks, why this lifestyle emerged mostly in these religions and not the others, and why Judaism does not practise monasticism, but rather holds marriage as the highest PRM artform. [don't know why I am stuck on Judaism today]

Natural is to be barefoot and pregnant, a single mother with 3 kids on welfare, and for fellows to be serially monogamous at best, adhering to the reproductive imperative and attaching themselves to tribal or ganglike social structures. Its what happens when you live with a planning horizon of 5 minutes and have no impulse control.

We layer the discipline of the left hemisphere on top of the impulses of the R-complex in order to achieve greater syntropy - obtain education so that our work is more remnumerative - do the 9 - 5 grind because the mental work done in cubical farms is where the good money is - make lifelong contracts between the sexes, for the protection of the female and to provide some order to the process of raising children.

The economics of sex difference is driven by the female preference for the older male. When a female is 18, she is hunting males 18-40. When she is 40, she is hunting males 40-60, but relatively few of this age range are in the market.

When the male is 18, he is hunting 16-18, has no money, and is at a great disadvantage to the female, who is hunting a much greater age range. When the male is 40, he is hunting 18-40, which gives him much more choice than the female who is hunting older, and as well, he is coming into his financial strength.

The way it plays out is that the market power of the female starts out peak at 18, and declines with age. The market power of the male starts out low at 18, and rises as he ages.

Without a lifelong contract, the predicable outcome of this is for the male to settle for a partner when he is young, dump her at 40, and then exercise his dramatically increased market power. Combine this incentive with the natural appetite for sexual variety (irrespective of relative sexual value ....men with hot wives still cheat), and you have a formula for disaster.

A few thousand years ago, the culture figured out that you needed a lifelong contract to for their to be syntropic efficiency...the tribes that figured this out conquered the tribes that did not, and this became incorporated into the various dominant memes.

We are now in the process of writing that little bit of firmware out of the culture, with questionable results.

I personally came to the same conclusion as Kris...that swinging or prostitution would be better than the playboy mansion culture that we have now. (though I am far too Republican to consider such things ; - ))

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:54 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3435
Location: Florario/Ontorida
Quote:
kroeran -

Tom has said that animals do not incarnate as food animals for a chance at life. They incarnate for a chance to evolve like all consciousness does. It is a human's interpretation that animals are here for our use. What is the difference between a dog slaughtered for food in Asia and a cow here? One is a pampered pet here and the other a lowly farm animal. The cow is holy in India. Many humans think we are entitled to use other species any way we want.

If there weren't so many animals created here for food those consciousnesses would find a way to experience a VR some other way.
what I am proposing (mostly as a thought experiment/devil's advocate) is that we could be here for their use - we provide them shelter and food for their lives - maybe they couldn't care less what we do with their bodies afterwards.

more an ecology of symbiosis - how can you be so sure that farm animals are not created with their intent and permission?

anyway....in the interest of efficiency, I will take Tom's word for it and move on.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:37 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Ocala, FL
kroeran -
Quote:
we could be here for their use - we provide them shelter and food for their lives - maybe they couldn't care less what we do with their bodies afterward.
I think the issue here is free will. Our dogs, cats and other pets still have a degree of free will. It is a sort of symbiotic relationship. Animals used for food have virtually all of their decision space taken away from them. A de-beaked chicken doesn't have much choice about it's life. I'm sure it doesn't care about what happens it's carcass when dead. Why would an animal choose this life? I don't think they do. I think it is a matter of consciousness filling every available vehicle.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:23 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3435
Location: Florario/Ontorida
insightful points!

for clarity of discussion I propose that we clearly segregate the issue of harmful practices in animal husbandry from the theoretical ideal of a chicken raised the old way (pecking at bugs out free ranging beside the barn) and harvested after a long life of egg production as chicken soup.

this is actually not so theoretical as most cities have a handful of organic farmers who raise chickens this way, or you could do it yourself.

beak clipping is an animal welfare issue, which is separate from the core issue of creating, husbanding, and harvesting animals.

and who is to say that beak clipping lowers the quality of life for the free range flock who are compelled to peck each other, possibly to the death. Beak clipping could be merely like gun control from the chicken's perspective.

that being said it does get my creative juices flowing, bringing to mind some sort of method to glue a small piece rubber on a chickens beak as an alternative to clipping, so that the natural impulse to peck ends up just bumping the other chicken. I am sure I am not the first person to think of this.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:17 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Have you ever had your beak clipped kroeran? They do it because they plan to overcrowd the chickens, and they know the stress will make them peck each other. Free range probably don't get their beaks burned off. Hey, that reminds me of a joke.

Do you know why chickens don't wear underwear?

Because their pecker is on their face. :)

It's suppose to stay there.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:30 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Ocala, FL
OMG Bette you are always a hoot! Thanks for lightening the discussion. I get a bit heavy on animal rights because that is a life long passion for me.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:07 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Thank you Sainbury, I try. :) I feel we are responsible TO animals because we have a larger decision space, period.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:05 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3435
Location: Florario/Ontorida
I am not for beak clipping, but it appears to be the moral equivalent of clipping your dogs nails.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4513302_trim-chickens-beak.html

still seems to me from comments that your discomfort is with the animal welfare issues, not with creating, raising and harvesting chickens.

is creating horses for racing entertainment ethical?

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:29 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Appearances are deceiving, really, get into your "chicken" consciousness and it should be clear this isn't cool.

This has been discussed on the board, Ted has ethically raised animals for food. I somehow picture myself doing this someday, at least raising food. My chickens would fall over dead for me when we needed some protein. It isn't a realistic ideal though, although feel free to do as you wish. Animals are NOT here for our USE, they are here for the same reason we are. You should hush ;), you're going to turn me into a vegetarian.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:02 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Ocala, FL
kroeran - de-beaking a chicken is not the same as cutting the toenails of a dog. You cut toenails because they get too long and can interfere with normal walking.

1. Debeaking is painful to the chicken.
2. Debeaking makes foraging very difficult.
3. Debeaking hinders the chicken from normal preening.
4. Debeaking makes eating more difficult.
5. There will always be a chicken at the bottom of the "pecking order." Cutting off their beaks to prevent them from enjoying their natural instincts is not necessary.
6. There are other treatments for cannibalism. Good flock management makes debeaking unnecessary.
http://www.henspa.com/debeaking.htm

As for breeding horses for racing - I have spent all my life with horses. I have seen some terrible things done to them. I have also seen some wonderful things with horses. There is no doubt that too many horses of all breeds are being bred by irresponsible humans. Horses at the top of their sport are world class athletes. They do it because they have the talent and they love it. It's really hard to make horses do something they don't want to do. You can lead a horse to water.... well, you know the rest.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:15 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3435
Location: Florario/Ontorida
ok, I concede on debeaking, which I presume is done to avoid the cost of beak trimming for commercial production.

but what about the theoretical organic farmer who kills the old chicken for food once it stops laying eggs, a bit before the chicken dies of natural causes?

I believe we all accept roadkill and chickens that die on their own are fair game (pun intended).

http://www.buckpeterson.com/images/books/orccover.JPEG

not trying to give you a hard time, and I intuitively agree with vegetarianism. Just trying to isolate the core issue. What precisely is the threshold.

interesting about the old pleasure and race horses who have outlived their usefulness. I wonder how many end up in a leisurely retirement. In the US, activists have shut down all of the horse slaughter houses. They are now being shipped up here to Canada to be dealt with. I think the meat goes into dogfood or gets shipped to France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_slaughter

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 337 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 523 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited