What would you feed them?
First, remember that this is in response to the “produce enough to feed everyone” idea.
If you limit the feeding of corn, soy, etc. to livestock, then you could use the land on which these crops are grown to grow food directly for human beings. This would be a much more efficient use of the land, nutritionally-speaking.
You could still allow livestock to feed on rangeland, land that’s unsuitable for agriculture. There, they would eat wild grasses and the like.
Obviously, this would cut down on the amount of livestock that live in the country, and cut down on the amount of meat available. I don’t think it’s a realistic expectation. But if we’re worried about feeding everyone (and I don’t think we are, not as a society), then we could do worse than to redirect our agricultural programs toward feeding legumes and grains directly to humans, instead of using them to fatten up livestock.
Daniel
Thanks
I believe I said that, though I put is slightly differently.
However, this isn’t quite as simple as you make it out to be. If North Carolina passes laws regarding the treatment of hogs, it won’t help any hogs at all. All it will do is drive North Carolina hog farmers out of business, while hog operations elsewhere will expand. This is basically a n-player prisoner dilemma situation - if there are any defectors, the cooperators are all screwed, though in this particular case, the defectors have to have enough agricultural capacity to influence the market. You have to get a substantial majority of states on board, and probably Canada as well before you’ll see a sufficient impact on prices to make it workable.
I’m not at all opposed to this sort of thing - in fact, I’m emphatically in favour. My opinion of the conditions in large hog barns is one of extreme distaste. But it’s going to be extremely difficult to get regulations off the ground, since introducing this sort of legislation in any state with enough agriculture to make it worthwhile is going to be impossible unless most other relevant states are passing similar statutes. So how do you get the ball rolling? What state legislature is going to pass a law that will destroy the pork industry in their state since they’re the first ones to pass it?
No, my concern isn’t really “feeding everyone”. A poor choice of words on my part. “Producing anywhere close to as much meat as the market would like” would be closer to what I meant. I’m well aware of relative costs of producing meat as compared to grain. Though, to be frank, I think the usual quips on the subject grossly oversimplify - most of what is fed to animals isn’t anything that humans would want to eat, either because it’s low quality due to bad weather or what have you, or because it’s a livestock feed grain not popular as people food (and livestock feed grain varieties typically outproduce varieties for human consumption by a significant margin), leading to an exaggeration of the ratios, even without taking into consideration the marginal land only suitable for grazing (which I see you mention in your subsequent post). But my point wasn’t about producing sufficient total calories. Right now we aren’t having any particular difficulty producing sufficient total calories, so that isn’t a reason to produce less meat. My point simply was that as the market currently stands, the only economically feasible way to produce livestock while treating them substantially better than factory farms is in very small-scale operations where the farmers earn most of their living off the farm - something which will never produce a volume which will really register in terms of the overall market.
I’m also not quite sure how one would go about making it unprofitable to feed grain to livestock. To do so, you have to elevate the price of grain relative to the price of meat, but since the two prices are connected, I just don’t see how you’re going to accomplish that. You could remove or decrease the subsidies on grains, which would be a good thing to do in its own right anyways, but while this will raise the price of feed, the market will simply adjust to a new equilibrium with similarly higher meat prices and slightly less meat production. Unless you go in for some pretty serious market regulation, I just don’t see how you pull this one off. But perhaps I’m simply lacking in imagination.
D’oh! You’re right – I was focusing on the last part of your post.
First, I mentioned it in my first post fairly explicitly: The only ecologically sound way to raise meat is to do it on land that is unsuitable for crop agriculture, I said. Secondly, I take no responsibility for other folks’ exaggerations; I’m aware that other folks inflate the figures. Though they’re wrong to do so, the basic principle is valid – which I think you recognize.
Me either – which is why I said, I don’t think it’s a realistic expectation. I do think it would have a major positive impact, inasmuch as it would reduce the amount of land that we need to devote to food production, freeing up this land for other uses or even for return to a wilderness state. But I don’t think this is a realistic expectation. I’m allowed to dream, right? 
Mostly, I was pointing out that producing enough food for everyone wasn’t a barrier to improving conditions for livestock in our country; since you’ve revised your point (i.e., producing enough meat to meet market demand is a barrier to improving conditions for livestock in our country), I’ll agree with you.
Incidentally, although I’m having trouble tracking down information on the issue more recent than 2000, the regulation of factory farms in North Carolina is a fairly major issue.
(I’m doing this part from memory; forgive me if I get a few details wrong here). Prompted by the intrusion of factory farm pollution into a golf-tourism community in the Piedmont back in the mid-nineties, the state government put a moratorium on the construction of new waste lagoons. Currently, tourism is one of North Carolina’s biggest industries, as you’ll understand if you’ve ever been here: the state is jawdroppingly gorgeous. But a lot of tourism folks were finding that their incomes were being negatively impacted by the odor and pollutions from hog farms.
Our state is something of a test case for how factory farms will be regulated across the country, I think. Of course, animal welfare isn’t really being discussed, but it’s likely that regulations that prevent excess pollutions from factory farms will have an indirect positive effect on the welfare of the animals on the farms.
Finally, there is one way that in a free market folks can lessen the cruelty to factory-farmed animals: don’t buy products from the industry. Less money into the industry=less capital spent within the industry=fewer animals raised in the industry=fewer animals mistreated in the industry. To the extent that PETA pursues this path honorably and honestly (not a very far extent, IMO), they do good work.
Daniel
It sounds like we’re in general agreement, except I think I’m less inclined to give up my burgers. Of course, I’m looking forward to a couple years down the road to when I can score ground bison off my brother’s newly established operation for my burgers. The land in question is being restored to something close to its original state (different grasses, but grasses nonetheless - slowly, though, since with the drought, the first grass seeding didn’t catch, so the parts of the pasture that were expansions from the original are mostly wild millet and pigweed at the moment), the bison don’t seem at all distressed (not that the cow I’m currently in the process of eating was that distressed, either, except for the bit where her calf almost killed her being born and had to be cut out of her in pieces), and the profit margin should be higher than with beef, at least for a few decades. Anyways, our farm (or rather, my father and brother’s, though to me it’s just “the farm”) is in the category I mentioned - farm pays for itself, off farm jobs pay the living expenses.
Hog lagoons :shudder: Words cannot express…of course, though, tourism isn’t hurt by the conditions in the barns, just the odours emanating from the lagoons. I’ve heard of some newfangled systems for processing the liquid waste, though, which as I understand it power themselves by burning the methane and dehydrating the rest, resulting in very little odour, at a price competitive with current disposal techniques. Wonderful news for hog farmers, their neighbours, and the poor sods who empty lagoons, if it actually works. I don’t know that it will help the pigs any, though, and I have my doubts that limits on lagoon size or what have you will do much either.
Yeah, I think we’re in agreement. FWIW, the last beef that I ate came from Blue Eyes. I was camping, with some friends, in a farmer’s orchard over Thanksgiving 1997, and in exchange for his letting us stay there, we spent a day helping him bring in the autumn harvest. His wife was butchering Blue Eyes, one of their cows that they’d slaughtered a few days prior, and she made us up an incredible beef stew for lunch.
I’d seen and worked around the other cattle, and knew that they were living a pretty paradisical bovine life. I felt pretty good about my lunch that day.
Although philosophically a lot of AR arguments make sense to me, viscerally I have a hard time condemning farmers who treat their animals with respect and compassion.
You’re right that the improvements to hog farms might not help animal welfare; I hope that they do, but that’ll be an indirect effect if it occurs. Ideally, I’d like to see national animal welfare standards be applied to agricultural animals, as proposed by Senator Byrd. I’d also like to see programs such as the American Humane Association’s Free Farmed program gain widespread support. But these are long-term goals.
Although I’m semivegetarian, I don’t preach (debating it in the appropriate forum is of course different from preaching). I believe some of PETA’s tactics have their place, but they’re not an approach I’d take – and some of their tactics, such as the current ones under discussion, are pure and simple loathsome.
Daniel
A national standard would escape the prisoner’s dilemma problem - I would have thought that this was a state issue, and not a federal issue, but what with me being a furriner and all, I’m often wrong about your political system. It would be a fine thing to have passed, though the devil is in the details - how does one specify what counts as humane treatment? Would you happen to have a link to Byrd’s proposal handy? If not, I can always google.
I’m not sold on the AR arguments, philosophically speaking. Oh, in terms of humane treatment, absolutely - inflicting pain without good reason is simply wrong, end of discussion. I would argue, though, that if it were solely up to farmers, this wouldn’t be a serious problem, or at least, no more serious than mistreatment of pets is. Sadly, though, farmers are forced to choose between cutting corners and being foreclosed upon, and they tend to be heavily averse to the second option, as they like to be able to clothe their families (feeding the family generally isn’t a problem - it’s a lousy farmer who can’t keep food on the table :)).
But in terms of not raising animals for food, well, sorry, I don’t buy that a cow that lives a contented life for 18 months and is then eaten would have been better off to have never been born at all, which is pretty much what an argument from conventional forms of utilitarianism requires. I really should read more of Singer’s book, since he’s bright enough to know that, and he might have a response. The bits I have read have mostly made reference to specific farming practices, though, which doesn’t get one a conclusion against livestock farming in principle. You might get a consistent position arguing from negative utilitarianism (minimize pain, no reference to pleasure), but I don’t find that a compelling starting point.
You may have missed the :rolleyes: at the end of my original post…I posted those lines with a sarcastic tilt, especially the line about dragging flesh-eating animals to court – totally unfeasible. Sorry if you misconstrued it…
After a couple of skimmings of your referenced article about AR, I will declare myself as a “specieist” and for good reason. I do work with people with developmental disabilities and the comparison made between human infants (as well as the mentally impared & disabled) to nonhuman animals with intelligence is a leap of reasoning (the weakest bridge to his argument) that the author believes should be substantiated; but since I work with this population (MI and infants), I see the author does not totally understand the characteristics and the capacity to learn by these populations (including the profoundly retarded), and makes a totally false assumption and views that we are supposed to accept.
As a speciesist, I advocate the rights of all humans, from conception to ashes, from all levels of intelligence, except for criminal behavior on their behalf that they do knowingly. To have someone place the rights of animals before (and I say “before” because I do not see the author advocating rights for the developmentally disabled, infants or the unborn, etc.) those of the infants and the disabled by demeaning their status in life to equal the most intelligent animals and therefore, extending the “bridge” of rights to animals is insulting at best.
As a speciesist, I advocate the use of farm animals for food and production of dairy products, but I do not advocate the senseless abuse of animals like kicking a dog or throwing cats off a roof. I do advocate pest control when it comes to rodents, insects, and pidgeons that attempt to live in/on my domicile. I do not view the eating of animal flesh as a pleasure, but as a necessity…there are days I need to eat a bean burrito (like today) and the need of a steak and beer the night before.
I might have more to post later, but I have payroll to do for for our employees; some of our employees are developmentally disabled, but nonetheless, are viewed as abled bodied workers who like to earn a paycheck and spend it as well on things that make them “happy” in life just like the rest of us humans…hardly a nonhuman characteristic that the author tried to convince me of. :dubious:
As for the argument that a cow is better off not being born – this is where Singer might diverge from true AR philosophy. If you look at someone like Tom Reagan, who argues for a rights-based approach, I think you’ll find him saying that whether the cow is better off being born is immaterial. A rights-based philosophy tends to talk only in terms of negative duties: you’ve got an a priori duty not to inflict suffering on other creatures, and that’s that.
Preference utilitarianism, OTOH, might argue that preferences only occur when a being actually exists. To talk about the preferences of a theoretical cow is as meaningless as it is funny.
The Theoretical Cow: band name?
As for Byrd’s proposal, I don’t have a link to the actual language, but he made a speech about his proposal that’s famous amongst animal welfare folks.
I do think that most family farmers are friendly toward the idea of treating animals humanely. Part of the problem is the increasing consolidation of ownership of livestock in our country: a mega hog facility is nothing like a family farm, and the owners of the “farm” may not even live in the same state. Business owners in Trenton or Atlanta aren’t going to be confronted with animals suffering; they’ll only be confronted with profit/loss sheets. And if they can obtain a greater profit by treating animals like machines, they’ll do so. And in doing so, they’ll undercut the same family farmers who treat their animals well, forcing them to adopt the same procedures or go out of business.
Which is, I think, pretty much what you’re saying. And which is why I think federal laws would be a great step toward improving the treatment of livestock.
Daniel
No, I didn’t misconstrue it: it was puerile sarcasm that made a point that has been exhaustively addressed by AR folks. That’s why I recommend you read about your opponent.
If I say something like, "Gee, I guess you meat-eaters are right – if you don’t eat meat every day, you’ll die! Poor you, you’re just doing what you need to do to survive, I’m so sorry I questioned you! :rolleyes: ", then you’d be right to rake me over the coals for it. Sarcasm in attack of a stupid straw man is unworthy.
Good reason? What’s the good reason? You’ve said that there are significant differences between people with developmental disabilities and nonhuman animals, but you’ve made two errors:
- You haven’t delineated those significant differences, which is crucial to addressing his point; and
- You seem to be talking about a different population than Singer’s talking about. If you’re doing payroll for the folks that you work with, then you’re probably not talking about (for example) people in irreversible comas. You’re not talking about folks with “severe and irreversible brain damage,” as he talks about.
So here’s your challenge: describe the relevant differences between people with, for example, irreversible comas, and animals, in such a way that eating the latter is okay, but eating the former is not okay.
First, you skimmed the article, which must be why you didn’t see that: you’ll see that he’s arguing for a standard of granting “rights” that doesn’t relate to species, but rather to the capacity for suffering. Can infants, the developmentally disabled, etc. suffer? then clearly he’s arguing that they should be granted rights. Second, saying that it’s insulting is, absent your meeting the challenge above, immaterial. It’s just saying, “I’m a speciesist because I’m a speciesist.”
Daniel
You know, people in irreversible comas are vegetables, so they must be okay to eat accoding to PETA.
I’m sorry, I just couldn’t resist.
Well, to paraphrase a better man than myself, rights are nonsense, and rights of animals are nonsense on stilts. 
I’m not a fan of deontological normative ethics, if you hadn’t guessed. And even if some deontological view were right, it sure as hell wouldn’t be one which mentions a priori anything, with the possible exception of requiring some sort of respect for agency on pain of self-contradiction, in a sort of Kantian-style argument. Since cows aren’t moral agents, though, that’s a moot point.
As for preference utilitarianism, the correct question to ask is this: In which situation are more preferences, on balance, satisfied instead of frustrated - (A) Where the cow lives contentedly and is then eaten, or (B) Where the cow doesn’t exist. You are absolutely right that the non-existent cow has no preferences, so in case B we have a neutral baseline where no preferences are satisfied, nor are any frustrated. So the question is whether the cow’s preferences for the simple pleasures of the bovine life, all of which will be satisfied, outweight the cow’s preference to not have its existence ended upon reaching 1100lbs, which is frustrated. While my “would the cow be better off not having existed” characterization was a tad flippant, since, as you correctly note, a non-existent cow can’t be better or worse off, it’s pretty much just a non-philosopherese version of the more careful restatement “is the state of the world in which the cow exists one in which more preferences, on balance, are satisfied?” Since the cow’s long term preferences seem pretty unlikely to be anywhere near as robust as its short term preferences, I think we clearly have more preferences satisfied in A than in B. Unless we add some sort of ad hoc rider giving a negative weight to death, utilitarianism just doesn’t yield an AR argument past humane treatment. Of course, even human deaths pose a problem for straight utilitarianism, but there are at least plausible responses to be made in the case of humans, given their very robust long-term preferences, etc, which simply don’t hold in the case of cows.
Puerile sarcasm in the third person…cool!
The expression of grief and sympathy in one human for the pain and suffering of another human (or the condition of irreversible coma or brain damage) is a difference in emotion that a nonhuman animal can’t display nor perceive…although I don’t believe I was required to talk about people in irreversible comas until your demand, even though you felt the need to give me an extreme example. Nonetheless, the next of kin has a say on how to handle their “loved one”, because they understand what the future entails for said loved one.
I have never thought of asking a stranger if I can nibble on their comatose relative…I’m guessing (through communication) that the stranger just might tell me that this poor soul is not to be viewed as an appetizer at your local Applebee’s restaurant, or he/she just might flat out deck me. Talk about insulting…I wonder if animals can “feel” insulted if I ask them if I can nibble on their “loved one”?
Rights for animals from gratuitous violence and cruelty is great idea and sensible and I do agree with that, but taking them off the menu is not. What the author (deemed by you as “my opponent”) missed is that even the developmentally disabled (using Benn’s description “imbecile” which really is archaic terminology - which means the observations made by Benn are quite dated or based on outdated studies) are quite capable of learning, it’s just that they learn at a slower pace. I work with people who have single digit IQ’s (even this method of measurement is becoming archaic) and they have the capacity to learn and express feelings, more so than any intelligent animal that I have seen thus far; hence my feelings. The author probably did not spend the time to study and understand the DD population (which is as diverse as the rest of the population) and relied on old studies and writings where the developmentally disabled where actually treated like animals. In California, pre-Lanternman Act (1971), the developmentally disabled were institutionalized and some locked up and isolated. We learned that de-institutionalizing the DD population made the people act more human and civilized when we started treating them as such. I don’t know how North Carolina and her people treat the developmentally disabled, but here in California, conditions for the DD population has improved sharply over the last thirty years, and to compare them to the most intelligent animals is STILL insulting.
“I yam what I yam”…Popeye (Spinach-lover and friend of Wimpy the burgermeister).
First, have you ever spent much time around animals? It’s harldly anthropomorphizing to notice that when a person is sad, a dog will often come up and lick their face. Bonobos have complex social rituals in which after a fight, they comfort both fighters – but they give more comfort to whoever lost the fight.
Second, although Singer didn’t mention people in comas specifically (just talking about folks with severe and irreversible brain damage), they’re a good place to look for a dividing line between humans and other animals.
Third, am I reading you correctly? Are you saying that the only reason why we don’t fry up the old lady on the respirator is that her family might object? In other words, if we’re dealing with a person who has no family, may we legitimately perform experiments on them, eat them, etc.?
Ask them in animalese. Try, sometime, to take a nursing puppy away from a mother dog whom you don’t know. Really, this is kind of an obvious point: it’s well-known that animals in social groups often have means for defneding some members of that group against aggressors. Ever seen nature documentaries where, when attacked, horses will form a ring with the colts on the inside? Ever seen the battles between mother mongoose and cobra? Ever been on a farm when the kids were separated from the mothers? For that matter, have you ever had two pets and had one of them die? It’s very common for the surviving pet to freak out, to spend a long,long time looking for their missing companion.
On the contrary, I get the impression that you’ve not spent much time studying animal populations, and hence you make a classic mistake in responding to AR arguments. Instead of seeing that AR folks are trying to elevate our behavior toward animals to the level of our behavior toward humans, you assume that they’re trying to lower our level of behavior toward some humans to our current level of behavior toward animals. That’s simply not true: AR folks aren’t arguing that we should eat the comatose grandma, they’re arguing that we shouldn’t eat the cow. They’re not arguing that we should treat DD folks poorly, they’re arguing that we should treat chimpanzees well. Snide comments about how we treat DD folks in NC are what’s insulting, not the idea that farm animals ought not be eaten.
Daniel
You raise good questions, Gorsnak, and I’m afraid I’m not the person to answer them at this point. It’s been years since I’ve seriously studied AR arguments, and while I can still put on an AR hat to answer basic objections, I’m not really in a position to argue the finer points like this. I hate to drop out of an argument without a straightforward concession, but I’m afraid that’s what I’ve got to do here.
Daniel
Yeah, and dogs also lick you on the face when you’re happy, sleeping, when you feed them, and after you’ve sweated doing yardwork or exercise - and maybe it’s because they like a little more salt in their diet…
The dividing line is already there, but the author feels the need to find another “dividing line” to suit his purpose(s) and the most convenient place for him to start is with the DD population and infants.
Most societies would object, not just some family member (remember, you picked one condition of “comatose” and I gave just one response to that condition) but their are still some civilizations in the world who advocate such behavior. There are people who donate themselves as cadavers for medical research because they “feel” it would benefit society in some way.
Although I do not run a farm, I’ve been around animals…and I have seen everything that you’ve described. I do respect animals in the wild where their instincts dictate their behaviors. Have you ever seen Komodo Dragons try to eat their own young, by chasing them up a tree and try to knock them out of the tree? Or sea turtles leave their eggs buried on the beach fulfilling their “duty”, and not try to defend their young from sea gulls during their initial scramble to the ocean? Or birds tossing (thinning) out their clutch in order to feed a smaller amount of hungry chicks in order to survive?
Instinct and emotion are two different acts…horses, komodos, mongoose, turtles, etc. are acting on instinct, not emotion.
You’re right, I do not have a degree in any of the animal sciences, but that does not mean that I’m totally devoid of information about animals. Therefore what you say is a “classic mistake” made by myself in how I view AR, I can say that the author gives me the impression that he has made a “classic mistake” on his views of the DD population and to use them to argue in favor of AR. You see it as animals being raised up (half-full) and I see it as the DD population being pulled down (half-empty). Let’s agree to disagree on that one.
As for the my “snide” comment about how DD population in NC is treated - I really do not know how they are treated there; are they better off or worse there? I don’t know, haven’t been there to look at your state’s social services system. Therefore, don’t take it as a snide comment because I did not mean it to be snide - I meant it simply to be, “I don’t know”.
California has 100’s of thousands of developmentally disabled people receiving a large array of services, and more people are moving here from other states that have inferior or no services whatsoever. Along with New York, California is one of the top states when it comes to helping the developmentally disabled population, and Arizona is virtually non-existent, hence migration from Arizona to California. You probably know where North Carolina fits in better than I do.
I don’t know whether DD folks in NC are treated better than in CA; I do know there are a lot fewer AR folks here than in CA.
When you say,
This isn’t a matter of perspective, unless you can find an AR person arguing to lessen the rights of the DD population. Absent that, you’re simply incorrect if you see it as pulling the DD population down.
When you equate the behaviors of komodo dragons to the behavior of bonobos but not to the behaviors of humans, why do you make this arbitrary distinction? When a baby human reaches for its mother and is happy to find her, is this not instinct? Why would it not be instinct here but would be instinct when a baby chimp reaches for its mother?
Occam’s razor applies here: if two entities display relevantly similar behaviors and relevantly similar neurological systems, it is needlessly complex to have two separate explanations for their behaviors when one explanation suffices.
No, the “dividing line” isn’t already there, and the autohor uses examples of the severely brain-damaged to show that the dividing line isn’t as clear as we’d like it to be.
As for the person in the coma, you now seem to be suggesting that we couldn’t eat coma-granny because “most people” in society would object. How is that relevant? Is morality determined by majority vote?
Most importantly, though, I think you need to show some evidence that animal behavior is determined solely by instinct, whereas the behavior of the DD is not. I suggest that Occam’s razor requires us to look at relevant behaviors and relevant biology; if both are similar, it’s bizarre to conclude that the behaviors have different causes. (If I’m missing a possible cause – if you believe, for example, that human behavior is caused by an immortal soul but animal behavior is not – lemme know).
Daniel
There is an established field of view in the animal sciences that views them as simple mechanisms. I think it dates from the conditioning experiments. Of course, Pavlov’s conditioning works as well on humans… If anyone has read “The Intelligence of Dogs” they cover it briefly in the beginning.
Personally, I think it begs the question quite exceptionally. “No, they only look like they’re happy. Really. Well, yes, they’re doing an excited dance and widdling on the floor, but they’re just imitating humans.”
If it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. If it acts happy, it’s probably happy. Unless significant evidence is shown otherwise.
Animals aren’t nice. They may not have a mothering instinct… it’s not always pro-survival. But, at the very least, mammals appear to have human-equivalent emotions. You’ve noticed the contraexample chosen were all lizards or birds?
Suppose an evil rogue scientist creates a nanomachine that can invade the brains of animals and raise their intelligence to the level of humans. He releases his new nano-device into the wild and worldwide the animal kingdom becomes capable of learning and understanding language and history. They quickly discover that their ancestors have been tortured, murdered, and enslaved so that they can be eaten. How do you suppose they would view humanity? I’m guessing as an evil force to be fought against.
I hate the idea of eating meat, but lack the convictions to be a full-time vegetarian. Convienence wins many times. There are few veggie fast-food joints. Still, I would love to see a day when all animals can be treated with respect and dignity. This will require being able to make foods in wholly new ways in order to feed our growing population. It will be hard, perhaps impossible, but if we succeed, and we grow our meat in the future, I can see the future looking at this stage of humanity as primitive and repulsive. I can also imagine an intelligent decendent of a modern day animal evolving (or being given) intelligence and being really pissed at those primitive hairless apes.
I can see the comparison, basically. I’ve thought about it before. I think that being carnivores is one of those things we should try to phase out. I think it is kind of evil in a way. Perhaps it is more evil to let people starve. Also, we didn’t set up Nature, we just make do, but still - I think we could improve on it. We should at least try. I think PETA has an admirable cause and I hope that we somehow figure out a way to live without killing sentient beings some day. My compassion for life isn’t just for humans. I love my cat as much as any human. To imagine suffering or torture being inflicted on animals inspires the same feelings as the same being inflicted on humans. I think they both suck.