Think humans are special? Like the animals we eat, we’re meat too

In recent advertisements for Meat and Livestock Australia, actor Sam Neill told us, in David Attenborough-inflected tones, that: “when our early ancestors started to eat red meat, our brains began to grow”. “Hunting,” Neill said, “forced us to think”, and consequently, “red meat is a part of the diet…

32jjk7fw-1346392574 — It might be cute, but when it grows up it might also like to eat you. Steve Hillebrand/Wikimedia Commons

“Hunting,” Neill said, “forced us to think”, and consequently, “red meat is a part of the diet of the most highly developed species on the planet”. Meat eating is an “instinct”. We are “meant to eat it”.

This is a very familiar origin story, one told to us from primary school days. It makes the consumption of meat central to our evolution as a species. In this story, to eat meat is to fulfil our duty to the food chain.

But the meat that we eat today is usually raised in factory farms and killed in abattoirs. It is then presented for our consumption, sliced, minced and parsley sprigged in our butcher, cling wrapped and barcoded in our supermarket, or slammed into buns and sauced in our fast food joints.

Today’s meat has little to do with the animals that humans used to hunt, and the modern processes of transforming a live animal into a piece of meat are entirely different from what they once were.

All the same, connotations of hunting, evolution and mastery over nature are still intrinsically linked in public discourse to the consumption of meat.

This rhetoric of meat eating is part of a project that can be termed “human exceptionalism”. It places humans apart from and above all other animals.

Throughout most of human existence, we have been eaten by other animals, as well as eating them. Flickr/courtly

Part of this is the insistence that humans eat animals, and animals do not eat humans. This is despite the fact that throughout the longest period of our history on this planet, humans have been a mid-level predator. Until recently, we were beings that were both predator and prey, who both ate and became dinner.

This is something that our culture represses, and this repression is seen in a number of ways.

The extreme reaction when an occasional predator dares to treat a human like meat is one example of this repression – we never fail to be surprised that a human life could be ended in this manner.

Another example is the way in which we divorce ourselves from the reality of what we eat: dead animals are presented as meat in increasingly sanitised ways, with mince, sausages and clean white bloodless chicken breast rising in popularity.

Livestock animals (both their lives and their inevitable deaths) are removed from our everyday existence, and the increased invisibility of animals that we use for food relies on brutal industrialised farming practices.

And finally, there is the way in which we deal with our own dead bodies. Even human death is hidden away in hospitals, and we cannot bear to become food for the worms once we die “naturally” (whatever that may mean in these medically inflected times). Instead we are burnt, embalmed or at least buried in land which is definitively set apart from food production. In this way, humans are lost as a source of fertilizer, and our ties to the food chain are severed.

Rosy on the outside: meat production is kept hidden from view, and humans are disconnected from the realities of our place in the food chain. Chicken Farmers of Canada/Wikimedia Commons

Perhaps this is why the modern human struggles for meaning, and against death. Post-humanist philosopher Donna Harraway’s recent book When Species Meet attempts to accept and foreground our connection with other sentient beings, and works against the tendency of humans to think of our own lives as the only ones which are important and meaningful.

If we remember that we are part of nature, we remember that we will die. However, we should also remember that from our death inevitably comes new life. Although that life is not human, we would not have existed without it.

This article is based on a lecture presented at the Melbourne Free University as part of The Naked Brunch.

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You have to confirm that you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some sources, such as AAP, don't allow their images to be republished without permission.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

94 Comments sorted by

Mike Swinbourne

logged in via Facebook

Actually, if you are buried after you die, you are eaten by other organisms, so we remain part of the food chain. It is only if you are cremated that the link is broken; but even then if your ashes are scattered you do become fertiliser of sorts.

But I do agree with your views about how we are divorced from the realities of food producion. More people should see and try to understand the whole process - maybe we should introduce excursions to factory farms and abbatoirs into the school curiculum. Or at the very least, visit a market in a third world country - they aren't quite so divorced from the actualities of their food supply there.

8 months ago report
1. Helen Addison-Smith
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Mike Swinbourne
  
  Point taken. Enbalming slows everything down, of course, and then we end up with these graveyards that must have incredibly fertile soil being used for growing nothing but ornamental shrubbery. . . .
  
  There's a great deal of resistance to the notion of letting kids know where their meat come from. I think I routinely horrify other people's children by telling them that ham is from pigs and 'chicken' is chicken. I never hid this fact from my daughter and, being a chef as well as a university-type-person, have always handled carcases in front of her. She declared that she was a vegetarian when she was four. Except that she eats chickens, because she doesn't think that they are cute. We've owned chickens, so she speaks from experience!
  
  8 months ago report
Geoff Russell

Computer Programmer, Author

I understand why you cited the MLA junk at the beginning Helen, but repeating a myth just reinforces it and this particular myth is about as wrong and destructive as any myth can be. The formal version recently received a coup de grace in Nature ... here's a good accessible account http://bit.ly/OfFglj

It's tempting to say that the disconnect people have with food has some philosophically deep underpinnings, but I figure it's just ignorance, plain and simple. Many kids don't know that dairy…
Read more

I understand why you cited the MLA junk at the beginning Helen, but repeating a myth just reinforces it and this particular myth is about as wrong and destructive as any myth can be. The formal version recently received a coup de grace in Nature ... here's a good accessible account http://bit.ly/OfFglj

It's tempting to say that the disconnect people have with food has some philosophically deep underpinnings, but I figure it's just ignorance, plain and simple. Many kids don't know that dairy milk comes from cows. Why should they when it's in cartons and looks the same as soy milk? They don't know that their mobile phones communicate with GPS satellites either, but is anybody waxing lyrical about a disconnection with the fundamental physics of the universe? The simplest explanation is best. They don't know because they've never been told.

By the time they understand what meat is, the habit is thoroughly ingrained and peer group pressure is all that is required to maintain it. We are fundamentally tribal and like to "fit in" and only think rationally with considerable effort.

8 months ago report
1. Sharon Hutchings
  
  logged in via Twitter
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  So true Geoff.
  
  Schools take kids on camps to sweet animal farms where they get to experience milking a cow and feeding the chooks ... my boys are doing exactly that next term.
  
  Problem is, the education is not completely honest as they are not told the truth about the life of a dairy cow. They are not told that, just like us humans, the milk is actually produced for their offspring, who are taken from them within a week of birth. They are not told that if they happen to be male offspring…
  Read more
  
  So true Geoff.
  
  Schools take kids on camps to sweet animal farms where they get to experience milking a cow and feeding the chooks ... my boys are doing exactly that next term.
  
  Problem is, the education is not completely honest as they are not told the truth about the life of a dairy cow. They are not told that, just like us humans, the milk is actually produced for their offspring, who are taken from them within a week of birth. They are not told that if they happen to be male offspring they are destined for the slaughterhouse. They certainly are not educated in the whole paddock to plate truth at school, supposedly lest it might upset the children and their parents.
  
  Our boys do know the truth, but only through their parents.
  
  They recently had an encounter with an orphaned lamb and a couple of rescued 2 week old male dairy farm calves. It provided them with an invaluable experience that reinforced our compassionate choice.
  
  It is all about choice .... to do more or less harm.
  
  8 months ago report
2. Monika Merkes
  
  Honorary Associate, Australian Institute for Primary Care & Ageing at La Trobe University
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  "here's a good accessible account http://bit.ly/OfFglj";
  ... and in The Guardian today, too:
  Humans hunted for meat 2 million years ago
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/23/human-hunting-evolution-2million-years?CMP=twt_fd
  
  8 months ago report
3. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Monika Merkes
  
  The Guardian piece just repeats the same tedious irrelevancies ... whether some different species of hominids ate meat or hunted 100,000 years ago or 2 million years ago is just as irrelevant to why we play chess and do mathematics (some of us, anyway) as it is to why lions and wolves do neither. The link I posted explains the digestive tract/brain trade off science in more detail. But the whole issue of brain size is clouded in junk science, here's another nice piece that explodes a few more myths:
  
  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407910618635
  
  8 months ago report
4. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.nutr.27.061406.093659?journalCode=nutr
  http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2744104?uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101203061831
  http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123210?journalCode=anthro
  Brain size? More like the need for energy to run the more complex brain, which required a more nutrient rich diet which had to be balanced by a change in gut size. H. erectus gave us that, as shown by brain, teeth and gut evidence.
  And of course now we still need the meat for development:
  http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.nu.08.070188.002505
  http://www.jlr.org/content/45/8/1375.short
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.1985.tb06889.x/abstract
  
  8 months ago report
5. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Tim Scanlon
  
  Tim, your first 3 references are precisely to the stuff that has now been consigned to the dustbin of overhyped claims ... see my earlier link.
  
  Your second claim that we need meat is disproven by almost every person on the planet. Every one of us begins life as a vegetarian, and many remain vegetarian during most of that crucial first 12 months when our brains are growing fastest. In addition, many millions develope normally on vegan infant formula (soy). The experts who actually know about such…
  Read more
  
  Tim, your first 3 references are precisely to the stuff that has now been consigned to the dustbin of overhyped claims ... see my earlier link.
  
  Your second claim that we need meat is disproven by almost every person on the planet. Every one of us begins life as a vegetarian, and many remain vegetarian during most of that crucial first 12 months when our brains are growing fastest. In addition, many millions develope normally on vegan infant formula (soy). The experts who actually know about such things don't demand long chain PUFAs in infant formula (they are optional), because they aren't necessary ... normal infants make them.
  
  So any claim that we "need meat" for development is simply false with literally billions of counter examples. Even in Kenya, with a great deal of malnutrition and childhood stunting, all of which is due to an absence of food and frequent lack of clean water (rather than any lack of meat) ... the Flynn effect operating ... the kids are getting smarter:
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12741743
  
  8 months ago report
6. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  Milk is vegetarian is it? Not an animal product hey? Do you see where you're going wrong here?
  
  The first three references are good examples of exactly why you are wrong. You are talking about brain size, that isn't the issue, it is nutrient requirement for a more complex brain that is energy hungry that is the issue. Read the references, in fact read the reference you cited which is where I got these references from in the first place.
  
  Next point is that you are grossly generalising about the…
  Read more
  
  Milk is vegetarian is it? Not an animal product hey? Do you see where you're going wrong here?
  
  The first three references are good examples of exactly why you are wrong. You are talking about brain size, that isn't the issue, it is nutrient requirement for a more complex brain that is energy hungry that is the issue. Read the references, in fact read the reference you cited which is where I got these references from in the first place.
  
  Next point is that you are grossly generalising about the subject of infant nutrition. Remobilisation of nutrients, scavenging of nutrients, fortified foods, etc, all play a role and also show that on average that vegan children sit on the lower end of the bell curve for development. So all of that supposed greatness of the diet is actually limiting, but it if fortunate that kids are fed milk and get nutrients from mothers in the womb.
  
  Your last point, oh boy. You reference Kenya, well guess what, their average IQ is rather low, due in no small part to their poor nutrition. Average Aussie = 98, average Kenyan = 80. How about another comparison? Lets compare a nation who are more commonly vegetarian/vegan with one that rarely is: India IQ = 82, Australia = 98. Now, I'm not going to claim cause and effect like you just did, but my references actually do show that nutritional deficiencies do cause developmental problems that limit the brain, and that those nutrients are more prolific in meat based diets. Thus an omnivorous diet is better for developing bodies.
  
  8 months ago report
7. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Tim Scanlon
  
  Breast milk isn't meat. You said meat was essential. It isn't. Breast milk is also extremely low in protein, far lower than meat. And I also mentioned soy milk because that is vegan and works well. Breast is best, but the problems of bottle feeding aren't really nutritional in nature and aren't fixed by meat or cow's milk.
  
  Sure, you may have got the links from the paleovegan article but you recited them without explaining that they
  had been demolished ... not by the paleovegan article but in…
  Read more
  
  Breast milk isn't meat. You said meat was essential. It isn't. Breast milk is also extremely low in protein, far lower than meat. And I also mentioned soy milk because that is vegan and works well. Breast is best, but the problems of bottle feeding aren't really nutritional in nature and aren't fixed by meat or cow's milk.
  
  Sure, you may have got the links from the paleovegan article but you recited them without explaining that they
  had been demolished ... not by the paleovegan article but in Nature. The PV article simply explains the science for lay readers, it doesn't pretend to be the science.
  
  Where's your data on the vegans being at the lower end of the bell curve for development?
  Do you mean just smaller? Yes, that's true. But "adult attained height" is a cause of cancer (see WCRF 2007
  report), so being smaller may well have advantages ... big guys don't win the Tour de France.
  
  And the Hadza? Hunter gatherers, eat lots of meat. Average adult male weight, 50 kg. Where are they on your bell curve?
  
  http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0040503?imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0040503.t001
  
  Lastly, malnutrition has bugger all to do with what you eat, just how much and having clean water.
  Here's a 125 page report by experts in malnutrition in developing countries. You won't find a single use of
  the word protein in the entire report ... or meat. Indians and Kenyans need more food and clean water and better education for women. Your attempt to explain their problems as down to not enough animal products was transparent devoid of supporting data ...
  
  http://www.ifpri.org/publication/explaining-child-malnutrition-developing-countries-0
  
  8 months ago report
8. Steve Brown
  
  logged in via email @yahoo.com.au
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  "And I also mentioned soy milk because that is vegan and works well"
  
  If by 'works well' you mean sexual dysfunction, male breasts and hypothyroidism, then I agree.
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18558591
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21353476
  http://www.westonaprice.org/soy-alert/studies-showing-adverse-effects-of-soy
  
  All soy milk I have seen in this country contains added vegetable oil. It causes brain damage in animals.
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/663662
  
  Any doctor who tells a mother to use soy milk should be struck off.
  
  8 months ago report
9. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Steve Brown
  
  Our NHMRC, like every other national regulatory body, is EXTREMELY fussy about what goes in infant formula, and unlike you, they don't base decisions on two case studies of a single person with an unusual problem following the drinking of soy milk ... and a 1978 rat study. Nor will you find Weston A Price in their list of authoritative sources.
  
  Given the amount of soy based infant formula sold over the past decades around the planet, not to mention dairy formula without any long chain omega-3s, its an absolute wonder IQ's haven't plummeted and that anybody can still procreate and that there aren't more male bra shops around.
  
  And I almost forgot. I mentioned the rising IQs above, the Flynn effect ... named after James Flynn, not by him. Here's what Flynn has to say about IQ and nutrition ... the name says it all: "Requiem for nutrition as the cause of IQ gains: Raven's gains in Britain 1938-2008".
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19251490
  
  8 months ago report
10. Steve Brown
  
  logged in via email @yahoo.com.au
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  I accept that it is the default position of many people simply to trust what they've been told from authority figures instead thinking for themselves but it's hardly a compelling an argument to bring to a discussion about science, Geoff.
  
  You obviously didn't read what I posted properly or simply wanted to misrepresent it. The source of those studies was not 'Weston A Price'. They are from an assortment of medical journals merely cited on a Weston A Price article.
  
  As for your contention that…
  Read more
  
  I accept that it is the default position of many people simply to trust what they've been told from authority figures instead thinking for themselves but it's hardly a compelling an argument to bring to a discussion about science, Geoff.
  
  You obviously didn't read what I posted properly or simply wanted to misrepresent it. The source of those studies was not 'Weston A Price'. They are from an assortment of medical journals merely cited on a Weston A Price article.
  
  As for your contention that the brain edema study I posted is invalid because it's a) from 1978 and b) on rats, you might want to take the time to explore the detrimental effects the polyunsaturated fats have on humans, it mirrors the effects on animals. Just because our health authorities continue to recommend them does not mean they are safe.
  
  "Given the amount of soy based infant formula sold over the past decades around the planet, not to mention dairy formula without any long chain omega-3s, its an absolute wonder IQ's haven't plummeted and that anybody can still procreate and that there aren't more male bra shops around"
  
  1.Omega 3 has nothing to do with intelligence, or brain health. It is however immunosurpressive, among other things. Which is why infants born to mothers who supplement with them have more allergies
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14987297
  http://www.functionalps.com/blog/2011/11/26/fish-oil-toxicity/
  
  2.Using IQ as a measure of somebody's intelligence is unreliable. Lewis Terman's work showed that children who had lower IQs were more successful in many ways that children who had high IQs were not.
  
  3. It obviously makes no sense try and tie infant feeding of soy to gynecomastia or lack thereof. Men and boys can get it from consuming soy however, as the case study I posted showed.
  
  4. Soy is quite possibly having a large scale effects at a population level. Read the Weston A Price link again. Many girls are experiencing puberty at an early age, soy is a possible cause.
  
  5. Your claim that the lack of male bra shops and infertility proves soy is safe is of course very poor reasoning. The evidence is quite clear.
  
  http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/11/2584.abstract
  
  8 months ago report
11. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Steve Brown
  
  If you had good epidemiology and biochemistry for your claims why did you bother with 2 links to single person case studies and a 1978 rat study?
  
  You claimed that soy milk infant formula caused male breasts, among other things. Ok, where are they? Given the amount of soy infant formula sold, I should be able to spot these male breasts just about anywhere. So what's the rate? 1 in a million? 1 in 100 million? Where are all these guys with male breasts? Why hasn't a single one of my tofu eating vegan mates got them? Where are all the infertile Chinese? Why did they bother with a one child policy when all they had to do was increase the soy intake?
  
  8 months ago report
12. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/4/341.short
  "but the contribution from naturally occurring xenoestrogens such as phytoestrogens found in large concentrations in certain plants and mycoestrogens from fungi must also be considered. This is especially relevant in soy-based formulae containing high levels of phytoestrogens given to infants in a critical developmental period."
  Pretty conclusive that soy is classed as a phytoestrogen and that this negatively impacts child development. The rates of gyno are not usually studied until someone presents with concerns about them, so you will always get a biased sample group, something you should be aware of Geoff. But one thing is clear, a quick Google search will show that it is being treated more commonly now than previously.
  
  8 months ago report
13. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Steve Brown
  
  Let's look at a real causal relationship. In 2007, the World Cancer Research Fund finally confirmed that the relationship between red and processed meat and bowel cancer was causal. This was based on a vast amount of research ... not case studies like yours.
  
  http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_research/cup/index.php
  
  This explains the massive rise in bowel cancer when the Japanese added more red and processed meat to their diet. They used to have about 20,000 cases per year and then as a result of the red and processed meat (there being no other proven and relevant causal factor), the rate rose to its current level of over 100,000 per year.
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17059355
  
  So while you say that soy causes male breasts but are having trouble actually finding any, the red meat cancer link is rock solid
  and responsible for a large proportion of those extra 80,000 bowel cancers every single year. That's a real causal relationship.
  
  8 months ago report
14. Steve Brown
  
  logged in via email @yahoo.com.au
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  Geoff, I'm not sure what red meat and it's supposed carcinogenicity has to do with soy, but I'll address it anyway.
  
  For starters, the WHO and all the other red meat critics are only citing observational studies which can never prove a causal link. Clinical trials can, yet unsurprisingly there are none showing red meat causes cancer. Secondly, they are ignoring the observational data which says the opposite of what they claim to be solid fact. They are just cherry picking:
  
  http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts…
  Read more
  
  Geoff, I'm not sure what red meat and it's supposed carcinogenicity has to do with soy, but I'll address it anyway.
  
  For starters, the WHO and all the other red meat critics are only citing observational studies which can never prove a causal link. Clinical trials can, yet unsurprisingly there are none showing red meat causes cancer. Secondly, they are ignoring the observational data which says the opposite of what they claim to be solid fact. They are just cherry picking:
  
  http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/abstract/2004/1/113
  http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/4/1274.full
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1349-7006.2007.00425.x/abstract
  http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=beef-and-veal-meat&graph=per-capita-consumption
  http://globocan.iarc.fr/factsheets/cancers/colorectal.asp
  
  I've provided you with a case study of a man who developed breasts from drinking lots of soy. It went away when he stopped drinking it. To act like there is no evidence is a bit weird.
  
  And I posted much more than the two case studies and one rat study. I gave you a link to a raft of evidence from the journals, which you ignored and continue to do so.
  
  As for your friends and their lack of breasts, I imagine if they consumed a lot more they would develop them too. Simply because they might look OK (for now) doesn't mean soy is safe, clearly there is a lot of evidence which demonstrates the opposite to be true.
  
  As for the Chinese, I have never seen any evidence showing that soy has been traditionally consumed in large amounts in their culture, or any other Asian culture for that matter. Historically it was planted alongside their other crops to improve the nitrogen in the soil. It was only after they discovered fermentation techniques that they began to eat it, probably because they knew how poisonous it was.
  
  Even if there was epidemiological data available for soy foods I wouldn't use it because it's such an unreliable way of proving anything.
  
  8 months ago report
15. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Steve Brown
  
  It's not the WHO, its the WCRF, I gave you a link. They don't only have statistics. You couldn't say that if you read the report. People like Tim Scanlon keep saying this but that doesn't make it true. They have about as close to the full biochemical causal chain as you get. Endogenously produced nitrosamines are formed when you digest red meat. You can feed people red meat and look not only at the DNA damage in colon cells in their feces, but people know the TYPE of damage and its the same type as that in bowel cancer patients. They are investigating the precise factors in the meat that turn that DNA damage into cancer.
  
  I should know better than to bother with people who think Weston A Price is a font of scientific wisdom.
  
  Enjoy the rest of your life.
  
  8 months ago report
16. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  Stop with the strawman Geoff. You know very well what my argument is. You are drawing causal link from correlations which even the reports and science articles you cite cannot and do not make.
  
  If it really was so simple as you claim, then countries in South America and Germany (high consumers of meat and processed meat respectively) would have high rates of colorectal cancer, which they don't.
  
  This is why you are an animal rights campaigner and not a scientist, you prefer to cherry pick to suit your agenda and not the facts.
  
  8 months ago report
17. Djesse Ninth-Planet
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Tim Scanlon
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378106
  
  8 months ago report
18. Djesse Ninth-Planet
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Steve Brown
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22641754
  
  So any doctor recommending anything non Human Breast Milk should be struck off as well?
  
  8 months ago report
Tim Scanlon

Debunker

Um, so people not having any understanding of where their food comes from is bad? What has that got to do with meat, that is food in general. People are shocked where their vegetables come from, like broccoli trees and strawberry bushes.

Just because modern society is set up differently, doesn't make agriculture a bad thing. Without agriculture we wouldn't have modern society.

8 months ago report
1. Helen Addison-Smith
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Tim Scanlon
  
  I'm certainly not anti-agriculture, but there are many different forms of agriculture. The one that we are currently experiencing is more mono-cultural and more removed from people's lives than ever before. It is possible to utilise other systems that do not rely on such a divide between 'us' and 'them' (our food).
  
  8 months ago report
2. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Helen Addison-Smith
  
  What is with the anti-agriculture statements the past few days?
  
  There is nothing wrong with monocultures, we've been using them for millennia. There aren't different forms of agriculture, there just is agriculture, with various systems under it that suit differing environmental and crop/animal production systems.
  
  I agree that there is an 'us and them' divide currently, but this is because agriculture is done in rural areas and people live in cities. This is as much a physical divide as it is knowledge and understanding. I don't expect city people to suddenly understand everything about agriculture, but it would be nice if they appreciated the efforts that farmers, scientists and agribusiness put into keeping them alive.
  
  8 months ago report
3. Sharon Hutchings
  
  logged in via Twitter
  
  In reply to Tim Scanlon
  
  Sorry Tim, but there are very different forms of agriculture. Animal ag is very different to plant ag. Factory farming is very different to free-range. Large-scale monoculture if managed in a truly sustainable way can be OK.
  
  The 'us and them' divide is driven by the greed, environmental harm and animal cruelty.
  
  I rely heavily on farmers for my plant-based diet, and totally respect those who are using humane sustainable intelligent agriculture practices. I have NO respect for farmers and big agriculture corporations who abuse animals and our environment for maximum profit, and are reluctant to have the truth exposed about their methods and motives.
  
  8 months ago report
4. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Sharon Hutchings
  
  Simply incorrect.
  
  You are mistaking intensive agriculture for something else. You are also misunderstanding what the marketing term free range is, as it is intensive agriculture as well. Also, we have been doing large scale monocultures for thousands of years, in a modern context we have been doing it since the modern plough was invented. The term sustainable is an oft used and meaningless term, but under the measures of agriculture, modern agriculture is sustainable.
  
  As for greed, I'm sorry…
  Read more
  
  Simply incorrect.
  
  You are mistaking intensive agriculture for something else. You are also misunderstanding what the marketing term free range is, as it is intensive agriculture as well. Also, we have been doing large scale monocultures for thousands of years, in a modern context we have been doing it since the modern plough was invented. The term sustainable is an oft used and meaningless term, but under the measures of agriculture, modern agriculture is sustainable.
  
  As for greed, I'm sorry but that is a particularly derogatory statement to make about farmers. Environmental harm? You do realise that over 95% of Australian farms are family farms, a great many of them have been in the same family for several generations, with many continuing to maintain that lineage? You do also realise that rural environmentalism started, not with environmentalists and other organisations, but with farmers? Animal cruelty is also often thrown around, usually by people who have never seen farm conditions, or by people who see one day in an animal's life. Do you know what happens to old sheep, flyblown sheep, stressed sheep, etc? Because farmers do and they make their money from making sure those sheep are happy so that they can continue to keep those animals healthy and happy.
  
  Also, what big agricultural corporations exactly? Which companies are abusing animals? Name them. In fact, name the big agricultural corporations that directly run day to day farm operations. Show me the evidence. Not one off instances, the actual evidence for the claims you make, that these companies are cruel and inhumane (anthropomorphism aside) on a daily basis to make profit and environmental damage. And once you have named them, report them. My work colleague is a card carrying member of the RSPCA and vet, he will be more than happy to act on your information and level charges.
  
  8 months ago report
5. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Tim Scanlon
  
  It is not difficult to deduce, Tim, where you work. You have asked some very good questions. And provided some very accurate insights into agriculture and the farming of animals.
  
  Farmers are so often maligned by city folk who have very little insight to the farming experience. None of the farmers I know neglect the health and "happiness" of their animals. It is simply not in their interest to do so.
  
  And it is stupid for anyone to suggest that as a group farmers are greedy. The return on their capital investment puts the lie to such arguments.
  
  Without exception, among my farmer friends, farming is more of a lifestyle decision. But they also have a reasonable expectation to return an income that maintains that lifestyle.
  
  8 months ago report
6. Helen Addison-Smith
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  Y'know, part of my wonderings about death and animals stem from moving from the country to the city. I am now in a world without seeing death of any sort, whereas when I grew up in the country, I saw dead animals all the time, and killed a few myself. Death was a part of life.
  
  I think its important (but difficult) for people to know and remember where there meat comes from: I don't mean this in a bourgeois "Gippsland, freerange, almond fed chicken" kindof way. Just that they know it is a dead…
  Read more
  
  Y'know, part of my wonderings about death and animals stem from moving from the country to the city. I am now in a world without seeing death of any sort, whereas when I grew up in the country, I saw dead animals all the time, and killed a few myself. Death was a part of life.
  
  I think its important (but difficult) for people to know and remember where there meat comes from: I don't mean this in a bourgeois "Gippsland, freerange, almond fed chicken" kindof way. Just that they know it is a dead animal. But I also think it's important to remember that as Donna Haraway puts it, "Outside of Eden, eating also means killing, directly or indirectly". You cannot completely remove yourself from the suffering of other creatures just by stopping eating meat. We live in an ecosystem, with the emphasis on system, and agriculture inevitably displaces other creatures' habitats, and hence makes them suffer.
  
  The vast majority of Australians are meat eaters, but this doesn't mean that they are cruel to or dislike animals. Just that the origins of their meat is pretty much totally obscure to them, and people prefer it that way, because they don't want to encounter death on a daily basis. That's fine, except it can make for systems in which animals suffer needlessly. Suffering and dying are not the same thing, and it is the suffering that (for me anyway) is the most pressing issue. I agree that the lives of most sheep and cows in Australia is pretty good: not so with intensively farmed pigs and chickens. . . . And I think the abattoir system (including the transport to the abattoir) could definitely be improved.
  
  8 months ago report
7. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Helen Addison-Smith
  
  I agree that there is a dissociation of urban communities from the systems that produce the food they eat. This dissociation is not confined to food. It extends into water supply, sewage disposal and energy supply. Personally I think this is a significant problem which reflects badly on our education system.
  
  And I agree that we need to be wary so that systems which create needless suffering are avoided.
  
  We also need to be aware of the cruelty of nature itself. Most of us will have experienced a cat toying with a mouse. Few will have experienced animals attacking and consuming their prey in the wild.
  
  My primary reason for wanting removal of cruelty or needless suffering from meat production agriculture is that systems that allow this can desensitise the human participants too - which is hardly healthy.
  
  Again, all the farmers I know think likewise - they actually do care for their animals.
  
  8 months ago report
8. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  True, I don't know that we'd have farmers at all without the lifestyle factor. The return on investment is normally too low and the risk too large for it to make straight financial sense.
  
  8 months ago report
9. Sharon Hutchings
  
  logged in via Twitter
  
  In reply to Tim Scanlon
  
  So are you seriously trying to suggest that there is nothing cruel about intensive animal ag systems like battery cage sheds, sow stalls, farrowing crates, intensive piggeries, broiler sheds, the live export trade, feedlots, mulesing and castration without anaesthetic or pain relief, dairy calves removed from their mothers in their first week of life, etc. etc. Also, are you really trying to suggest that intensive systems are not greed-driven? Please don't try and tell me they are driven by concern…
  Read more
  
  So are you seriously trying to suggest that there is nothing cruel about intensive animal ag systems like battery cage sheds, sow stalls, farrowing crates, intensive piggeries, broiler sheds, the live export trade, feedlots, mulesing and castration without anaesthetic or pain relief, dairy calves removed from their mothers in their first week of life, etc. etc. Also, are you really trying to suggest that intensive systems are not greed-driven? Please don't try and tell me they are driven by concern for animal welfare and happiness.
  
  Yes Tim, I have spent several years in rural Australia and witnessed far more than a day in the life of a typical farmed animal.
  
  Yes I have seen the horror of flystrike. Sheep are not native to Australia and are not suited to our harsh hot climate which is the primary cause of flystrike. Farmers who mules without anaesthetic or pain relief are inflicting unacceptable suffering to save money.
  
  If you read my comment again you will see that I state "I have NO respect for farmers and big agriculture corporations who abuse animals and our environment for maximum profit, and are reluctant to have the truth exposed about their methods and motives." So those who are not behaving in this manner are not the target of my statement.
  
  You know full well that there are many large agribusinesses that supply meat and animal products on a large scale to fast food chains and the retail market, many of which utlise intensive systems for maximum profit. I could name several of them but won't due to fear of legal action. You would also be well aware that our individual state animal welfare legislation expressly excludes farmed animals from the same protections afforded others, and in fact actually specifically allows intensive production systems and many other barbaric practices. In my opinion, and that of the RSPCA, Animals Australia, Compassion in World Farming. any other credible animal welfare organisation or veterinarians with animal welfare are their sole motive, intensive animal production systems are inherently cruel and must be phased out.
  
  I suspect you are not going to agree with my view, and I certainly don't agree with yours. What I do find heartening is the continual growth in public awareness of the hidden truth behind animal products, and the growing shift toward more humane and sustainable choices.
  
  8 months ago report
10. John Phillip
  
  John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Grumpy Old Man
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  Peter S, where does Tim work?
  
  8 months ago report
11. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Sharon Hutchings
  
  I never claimed any such thing. Read what I said, you are confounding half a dozen different issues and labelling them under a sweeping generalisation.
  
  8 months ago report
12. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to John Phillip
  
  Agricultural scientist.
  
  8 months ago report
13. John Phillip
  
  John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Grumpy Old Man
  
  In reply to Tim Scanlon
  
  Taa, Tim. I think your arguments are well-reasoned and make sense. Peter was being presumptuous so I thought I'd ask. Cheers
  
  8 months ago report
14. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to John Phillip
  
  John,
  That is not for me to reveal. Your query is better directed to Tim. :-)
  
  8 months ago report
15. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to John Phillip
  
  I didn't see Tim's reply. I was not being presumptuous.
  
  8 months ago report
16. John Phillip
  
  John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Grumpy Old Man
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  Sorry, my mistake. :)
  
  8 months ago report
17. Catriona Nicholls
  
  Agricultural communicator
  
  In reply to Helen Addison-Smith
  
  You obviously don't get out onto farms very much. Very few Australian farms are monocultural, with a strong emphasis on mixed farming systems, crop and pasture rotations and biodiverse perennial pastures.
  
  8 months ago report
18. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Catriona Nicholls
  
  Yes they do use the term monoculture incorrectly. A single paddock will be a monoculture in one season, but, I agree, rotations and mixed enterprises are the norm.
  
  8 months ago report
19. Helen Addison-Smith
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Catriona Nicholls
  
  I didn't say that they were monocultures, I said they were increasingly monocultural. Please to be reading all of my words. I am not slagging off agriculture, I'm talking about the cultural and emotional effects on many people due to the increasing lack of daily interaction between humans, non-human animals and plants, due to human population growth and the rise of the city.
  
  By the way, I come from a family of farmers.
  
  8 months ago report
Paul Wittwer

Orchardist

We certainly need to rethink our meat. Most of us eat too much of it.
If we think of chickens and pigs as turning household waste into useful food we are making a good start.
If we think of cattle, sheep and goats as being a source of food during a frozen winter or a dry summer, ticking over like a freezer on the grain and hay produced during a favourable growing season, until they are needed for food, then we are well on the way towards a sustainable vision for meat eating.
Clearly modern…
Read more

We certainly need to rethink our meat. Most of us eat too much of it.
If we think of chickens and pigs as turning household waste into useful food we are making a good start.
If we think of cattle, sheep and goats as being a source of food during a frozen winter or a dry summer, ticking over like a freezer on the grain and hay produced during a favourable growing season, until they are needed for food, then we are well on the way towards a sustainable vision for meat eating.
Clearly modern meat production has become another example of our self indulgent and unsustainable society, an end to itself rather than a vital tool for sustainability, efficiency and survival.
As a footnote, this post extends to our indulgence in pets. Pets once turned household scraps into companionship, protection, warmth and in the worst of times, food. Now, in the developed world pets have become largely just another part of consumer society, a waste of resources and finding food for them another threat to the natural world.

8 months ago report
1. John Phillip
  
  John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Grumpy Old Man
  
  In reply to Paul Wittwer
  
  Paul, I think in this country at least, we should add kangaroos to that list. To have so many culled annually and NOT use them for meat (& leather) is an apalling waste of one of our renewable resources..
  
  8 months ago report
2. Steve Brown
  
  logged in via email @yahoo.com.au
  
  In reply to Paul Wittwer
  
  "Most of us eat too much of it. "
  
  I think that is total nonsense.
  
  8 months ago report
3. Helen Addison-Smith
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Paul Wittwer
  
  I used to feel that way about pets, but reading Donna Haraway made me think again. She talks about dogs (in particular) and humans as companion species, and speaks about our co-evolution: that is, there would be no human society without dogs, and no dog society without humans. We made each other. That made my brain go wobbly for a bit, but it's very interesting! I think this means that we have really no chance of convincing people not to have pets. Life without other animals is very lonely and has…
  Read more
  
  I used to feel that way about pets, but reading Donna Haraway made me think again. She talks about dogs (in particular) and humans as companion species, and speaks about our co-evolution: that is, there would be no human society without dogs, and no dog society without humans. We made each other. That made my brain go wobbly for a bit, but it's very interesting! I think this means that we have really no chance of convincing people not to have pets. Life without other animals is very lonely and has such a short history. One thing that the internet has told us (weirdly enough) is that people really value their daily interactions with animals. If we think of ourselves and other species as being all in this together, we can perhaps work towards a better, more sustainable way for people to live with animals that is not the current one where some animals (pets) are extremely pampered and many others (meat animals) are ignored and sometimes abused. Maybe we need better pets. Maybe we need more delicious pets! Hang on, that might be a bit traumatic, and I can feel my six year old daughter being horrified at the very suggestion. . . . Anyway, our guinea pigs are both well loved pets and little composting machines. . .
  
  8 months ago report
Peter Sommerville

Scientist & Technologist

I am struggling to understand the point of this article. Exactly what is the message the author wishes to deliver? Eat meat or not eat meat? Understand the source of our protein or choose to ignore? The separation of civilians within modern industrial societies from the food chain that sustains them is only one aspect of this problem. Few really understand the technology and processes that make life comfortable for them. Carl Sagan in "this Demon Haunted Earth" identified this problem years ago.

8 months ago report
1. Helen Addison-Smith
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  Well, in the words of Hemmingway, "if I wanted to deliver a message, I'd go to the post office". This article is a very tiny beginning to rethink of our relationship to being meat. It's an identification rather than a solution. I would say, however, that meat production processes are not difficult to understand. It doesn't take tertiary education to understand an abattoir.
  
  8 months ago report
2. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Helen Addison-Smith
  
  Too obscure for me. It is a long time since I have read something so totally incomprehensible. But maybe that was your intention!
  
  8 months ago report
3. Helen Addison-Smith
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  It wasn't my intention, and I apologise if you find my writing style incomprehensible. I am not advocating that people either do or don't eat meat. I am advocating that animals need to have better living conditions, much, much better living conditions. And that abattoirs need to kill animals in a way that engenders much less suffering.
  
  8 months ago report
4. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Helen Addison-Smith
  
  Thanks for the clarification. It is appreciated. Sometimes plain and direct language works best. Once again, thanks.
  
  8 months ago report
5. Wil B
  
  B.Sc, GDipAppSci, MEnvSc, Environmental Planner
  
  In reply to Helen Addison-Smith
  
  with respect artisan meatballs, I think you've got this one "And that abattoirs need to kill animals in a way that engenders much less suffering" arse about.
  
  Abattoirs are in fact pretty well regulated and animals typically go through it all very quickly and with very little suffering. I am far more concerned about practices on chicken meat broiler farms and intensive piggeries - if you want to look for animal cruelty, that would be where I would start.
  
  As to the general point of the article…
  Read more
  
  with respect artisan meatballs, I think you've got this one "And that abattoirs need to kill animals in a way that engenders much less suffering" arse about.
  
  Abattoirs are in fact pretty well regulated and animals typically go through it all very quickly and with very little suffering. I am far more concerned about practices on chicken meat broiler farms and intensive piggeries - if you want to look for animal cruelty, that would be where I would start.
  
  As to the general point of the article, yes well it escapes me. (Some) people are completely divorced from the physical realities of how food turns up on their plate, and that's kinda weird and it bothers me a little too. But it's not specific to meat production, and it's something that parents should be responsible for.
  
  My family's meat consumption is now much closer to the Simon Fairlie etc ethical meat eating practices view of the world. Strictly free range chicken and pork, little beef, some kangaroo, and we grow our own lambs for slaughter - which my children are quite aware of what's happening.
  
  Anyone wants to question my ethics, I will laugh in your face. I have as much respect for your position as you do for mine. I'm very comfortable with my position, which I have thought out.
  
  8 months ago report
6. Helen Addison-Smith
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Wil B
  
  Maybe the point of this article is in this messy debate that everyone is having now. After all, I was writing for something called 'The Conversation' not 'The Answer'. Animal welfare and our relationship to life and death are ummmm, pretty big topics, ones difficult to cover in 500 words. . . .
  
  Of course I am most concerned with intensive pig and chicken farming. Abattoirs vary, but animals transportation to said abattoirs continues to be a problem.
  
  I am neither a vegetarian, nor a committed city dweller, nor anti-farmer, nor anti-agriculture. I am a mother and a chef and sometimes they let me in to the academy to write some pointless articles. . .
  
  8 months ago report
Bea Elliott

logged in via Facebook

The meat/dairy/egg industries spends hundreds of millions of dollars lying to the public about their product. But no amount of false propaganda can sanitize meat. The facts are absolutely clear: Eating meat is bad for human health, catastrophic for the environment, and a living nightmare for animals. There's never been more compelling reasons or a better time to opt for a plant based diet.
Want to create a better world? Eat like you mean it - Go Vegan
http://www.nonviolenceunited.org/veganvideo.html
http://10billionlives.com/

8 months ago report
Sharon Hutchings

logged in via Twitter

Thanks for the insightful article Helen.

I was raised in a typical Australian meat n 3 veg family and spent several years in a country town including time on farms witnessing animal husbandry and slaughter. It awakened my young senses, and as a human capable of compassion and empathy, I started to gradually become more aware of what was put on my plate each day. It wasn't til adulthood that I realised I didn't HAVE to eat meat, or any animal products. No one provided me with the truth about meat…
Read more

Thanks for the insightful article Helen.

I was raised in a typical Australian meat n 3 veg family and spent several years in a country town including time on farms witnessing animal husbandry and slaughter. It awakened my young senses, and as a human capable of compassion and empathy, I started to gradually become more aware of what was put on my plate each day. It wasn't til adulthood that I realised I didn't HAVE to eat meat, or any animal products. No one provided me with the truth about meat let alone the option of vegetarianism. I am so proud now to say that having educated myself and followed my conscience, I have been vegan for the past 12 years, vegetarian for 6 years prior. My husband and I are raising two amazing compassionate boys who have never eaten meat and are now 11 and 9. We've told them the truth in a very gentle manner and they love and respect all life. When I suggest to them that they may choose to eat meat when they are older, they respond with a horrified "no way, we love animals." Some may say this is "brain-washing", but I say it is being honest. Don't our children deserve that at least?

8 months ago report
1. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Sharon Hutchings
  
  Well done Sharon. I respect you views. I hope you are equally respective of my enjoyment of meat. I have raised animals that I have subsequently eaten, and intend to continue to do so. But I have no problem with your choices - I trust you have no problem with mine.
  
  8 months ago report
2. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  Respect? Respect has two main meanings ... 1) "refrain from interference with"? Sure, violence is a horrible way of solving differences, even if it is sometimes necessary in extreme circumstances as a last resort ... or 2) "hold in esteem or honour"? Not at all. I have zero esteem for your views. Do you honour and esteem cultures where it is considered to be a right to maltreat women and children (e.g., western culture until relatively recently)? I certainly hope not. It isn't about your choice when there are other parties involved. They do not go quietly to their deaths in glowing respect of your choices.
  
  8 months ago report
3. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  An interesting riposte with some very weird metaphors - you are welcome to your views. Fortunately, you are unable to force them on me. Not yet, anyway. Have a great day.
  
  8 months ago report
4. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  Weird metaphors? It's an analogy and not a metaphor. Men in some societies did and do believe that it is an infringement on their freedom to choose to abuse women, just as you believe it should be your free choice to unnecessarily kill animals because you like eating them. An animal isn't a brick. You are free to do what you like to bricks because the brick doesn't care. The animal does.
  
  The law is currently on your side with regard to animals just as it is currently on the side of those who…
  Read more
  
  Weird metaphors? It's an analogy and not a metaphor. Men in some societies did and do believe that it is an infringement on their freedom to choose to abuse women, just as you believe it should be your free choice to unnecessarily kill animals because you like eating them. An animal isn't a brick. You are free to do what you like to bricks because the brick doesn't care. The animal does.
  
  The law is currently on your side with regard to animals just as it is currently on the side of those who abuse women in some countries. But it is changing. Animals are no long simply property before the law, they have some very clear rights except, as Sharon says, when they are being raised for food. In this case cruelty is explicitly legally allowed and practiced. Most meat eaten in Australia comes from animals who suffer physically and psychologically for most of their lives and the law explicitly grants exemptions to farmers to mistreat animals in ways that would be illegal for non-livestock animals. This is obvious for pigs and chickens, but the law allows cruelty to extensive animals also. You are allowed to stick an angle grinder in a sheep's mouth and grind its teeth. Farmers don't generally do this anymore because it doesn't work ... some idiot thought he could sharpen the teeth of old sheep and so he prevailed upon law makers to allow it and the practice had a splurge as lots of "nice farmers" attacked their sheep's teeth with angle grinders. It's still allowed under the code of practice (but not recommended).
  
  8 months ago report
5. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  Analogy? Metaphor? It hardly matters. Which ever way you spin it your argument is weird and certainly drawing a long bow. Somewhat akin to Cory Berdardi's linking of homosexual marriage with bestiality. But if that is your belief - okay. You are entitled to use whatever analogies or metaphors you deem appropriate. But fortunately at the moment I and others like me can safely ignore your views. Thank heavens for that.
  
  8 months ago report
6. Ashley Hooper
  
  Farm worker
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  Geoff's point - that our supposed justifications for ignoring animals' interests are non-existent or at best baseless - seems to me well made with his example of a brick. When a course of action involves harm to a sentient being, it's not at all the simple matter of personal preference which you attempt to portray it as.
  
  This is apparently surprisingly difficult to grasp for many participants in the debate over the ethics of animal farming.
  
  8 months ago report
7. John Phillip
  
  John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Grumpy Old Man
  
  In reply to Ashley Hooper
  
  Ashley, are you saying that the treatment of farmed animals needs to improve or that they shouldn't be eaten?
  
  8 months ago report
8. Chris Watkins
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  The analogy is sound, and Geoff explained his analogy with clear and sound arguments. Peter, the ball is in your court.
  
  8 months ago report
9. Chris Watkins
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to John Phillip
  
  John, Ashley wasn't saying either. I hope you're not going to judge the validity of someone's arguments based on whether they agree with you on a question that you designate?
  
  8 months ago report
10. John Phillip
  
  John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Grumpy Old Man
  
  In reply to Chris Watkins
  
  No, no, not all. I was just seeking clarification.
  
  8 months ago report
11. Chris Watkins
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to John Phillip
  
  Ok. Hope I didn't sound too grumpy ;-).
  
  Whatever Ashley's opinions are, I have to agree that "When a course of action involves harm to a sentient being, it's not at all the simple matter of personal preference which you [Peter] attempt to portray it as."
  
  8 months ago report
12. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Ashley Hooper
  
  Ashley,
  The analogy is dumb. There is no way I would ever consider eating a brick.
  
  8 months ago report
13. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Chris Watkins
  
  The answer is no!
  
  8 months ago report
14. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Chris Watkins
  
  Chris,
  I wonder whether or not you have ever seen an animal predator hunt and kill its prey. It is not pretty. I know from personal experience that animals killed in abattoirs are dispatched far more humanely than what happens in nature. Just watch a python crushing its prey - it is an edifying experience of the suffering nature inflicts on "sentient beings".
  
  We have intelligence - which enables us to utilise animals as a source of
  Protein with far more consideration than nature itself provides.
  
  8 months ago report
15. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Chris Watkins
  
  As stated previously - the analogy is dumb. There is no way on earth that I would ever contemplate eating a brick.
  
  8 months ago report
16. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  Noone cares what you do to a loaf of bread either.
  
  Most people understand that animals have an interest in staying alive and you don't need to eat them to be healthy.
  
  Anyway. Further time on this conversation is probably not well spent. Bye.
  
  8 months ago report
17. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  But at least I now understand your real agenda. You are entitled to it. It is not for me to moralise on your convictions, nor is it for you to moralise on mine. We each have different views - in a tolerant society that means mutual respect must be the order of the day. Ciao
  
  8 months ago report
Ian Donald Lowe

Seeker of Truth

So, I was sitting on a beach in far North Queensland one sunny day when a tourist couple came strolling along with towels draped over their shoulders. They stopped and the man asked me "Are there any sharks in the water here?"
"No mate," I replied "the croc's ate them all."

8 months ago report
Seamus Gardiner

Citizen

Is the objection to eating meat a moral one? If so, I am curious to know on what basis animals are deemed to unsuitable for consumption.

8 months ago report
Norm Stone

logged in via Facebook

This is a somewhat confused article followed by some strange comments. Disassociation from fundamental realities is part and parcel of urban dwelling and directly related to lifestyle choices. Hard to hunt down a soy latte in the wild but easy to pay for one in the bistro. Speaking as a farmer who hasn't been in a butcher shop for 20 years it looks to me as though intensive animal industries have been fostered and developed in academic institutions and multinational boardrooms rather than anywhere else. Makes the positions adopted by academics somewhat invidious when you consider the "agriculture" promoted by some Melbourne Uni land and food staff. I will be thinking about these urban conundrums as I slit the next rooster's throat. I know where my low fat chicken meat is comming from do you?

8 months ago report
Sandra Kwa

Grad Cert Ethics and Legal Studies, CSU

When he was about 6, my son and I had a conversation that went along these lines:
"Mummy, if people think it's OK to eat animals, why do they think it's not OK to eat people?"
"They would have to kill the person first and that would be wrong."
"Then why do they think it's OK to kill animals?"
"Most people think people are more important than animals because people are smarter, so that makes it OK."
"Are all people smarter than all animals?"
"Well, no, there are some people born with brains…
Read more

When he was about 6, my son and I had a conversation that went along these lines:
"Mummy, if people think it's OK to eat animals, why do they think it's not OK to eat people?"
"They would have to kill the person first and that would be wrong."
"Then why do they think it's OK to kill animals?"
"Most people think people are more important than animals because people are smarter, so that makes it OK."
"Are all people smarter than all animals?"
"Well, no, there are some people born with brains that don't work so well, and some who have accidents later on and damage their brains."
"So would it be OK to kill and eat them?"
"No, of course not."
"Well what if someone just dies by himself - would it be wrong to eat him?"
"Yep."
"So, why do people think it's OK to kill animals, but not to eat people who are already dead?"
"Well, some people think God made people special and different to animals. They think God made animals to be food for people, but people are too important to be eaten."
"Does it hurt animals to be killed?"
"A lot of the time it does, but not always."
"If God made animals to be food for people, why did he make them alive? Why didn't he make them like vegetables so they can't feel anything?"
"Not everyone believes in God, Ben."
"Well if they don't, then why .... ?" (back to start, repeat and fade)

8 months ago report
1. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Sandra Kwa
  
  Smart kid!
  
  8 months ago report
2. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  Poor logic
  
  8 months ago report
Chris Owens

Professional

The Simpsons said it most eloquently.

http://spaceplatypus.deviantart.com/art/Simpsons-Food-Chain-103219755

8 months ago report
1. Helen Addison-Smith
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Chris Owens
  
  Ah yes, I love that diagram! And I've used the Troy McClure 'Meat and You' video that it comes from in many a lecture. . . .
  
  8 months ago report
John Harland

bicycle technician

So, human beings hunted meat two million years ago? Surely an underestimate because chimpanzees and baboons also hunt meat.

Which also questions the relevance of hunting to specifically human evolution. Why do baboons and chimpanzees lack our encephalisation? Why, too, are bears and wolves so far behind us in that respect, too, when they eat even more meat than we do?

And the intelligence that helped us hunt animals is surely a little marooned in a 21st-century society where few people understand whence their food comes. How clever and skilled a hunter do you need to be to snare meat at the supermarket?

I don't oppose eating meat but some of the rationalisation of meat-eating reads very poorly. So do some of the arguments against eating meat.

But is this discussion a replay or a playoff? Surely we have the same teams, even the same players, engaged in the same debate as just a few months ago.

8 months ago report
Catriona Nicholls

Agricultural communicator

I appreciate the views put forth, what I don't appreciate is the practical ignorance of many of the statements.
Being farmers and scientists we fully understand the complexities of the mixed farming systems that are literally our (and your) lifeblood. We appreciate the concerns of those who do not feed the nation (and the globe) and carry out our daily activities with a true understanding of the impacts of our actions on both the plants and animals, edible and otherwise that exist within our farming…
Read more

I appreciate the views put forth, what I don't appreciate is the practical ignorance of many of the statements.
Being farmers and scientists we fully understand the complexities of the mixed farming systems that are literally our (and your) lifeblood. We appreciate the concerns of those who do not feed the nation (and the globe) and carry out our daily activities with a true understanding of the impacts of our actions on both the plants and animals, edible and otherwise that exist within our farming systems.
As I look out my window and see ewes and lambs grazing peacefully on a biodiverse perennial pasture I struggle to see the torture in their eyes and hearts. They are managed and handled with respect and empathy and a complete appreciation that they will end up on my plate.
I have been a regular visitor to the export-grade processing facilities that slaughter these animals and I am comfortable with the standards and processes that are undertaken.
While I celebrate that I live in a nation of free speech and I am active in trying to ensure all our children and their parents have a balanced understanding of where their food and fibre comes from, I regret that many of those who have shown their ignorance in these comments make them knowing that they do not produce enough food in their backyards to feed themselves, let along their suburb, their city or their country.
There are far worse crimes occurring in this world than the sustainable food and fibre production that occurs every day in this country.

8 months ago report
1. Peter Gerard
  
  Retired medical practitioner
  
  In reply to Catriona Nicholls
  
  Catriona,
  
  Producers of our food are greatly appreciated but very few, if any, do it for altruistic reasons. They farm and graze animals to make a living and for the life style.
  The export-grade facilities you visited are not universal; if they were there would be far less controversy regarding the live-export trade.
  The industry has been let down by unethical managers in bodies such as the MLA and, I feel even more so, by our gutless political representatives. Primary producers have also…
  Read more
  
  Catriona,
  
  Producers of our food are greatly appreciated but very few, if any, do it for altruistic reasons. They farm and graze animals to make a living and for the life style.
  The export-grade facilities you visited are not universal; if they were there would be far less controversy regarding the live-export trade.
  The industry has been let down by unethical managers in bodies such as the MLA and, I feel even more so, by our gutless political representatives. Primary producers have also known of the abuses their animals have experienced overseas; what have they done over the years to remedy the situation? I've not read about or heard any public protestations by these people before the exposure of gross cruelty by Animals Australia.
  The fact that humans commit atrocities against their own kind doesn't justify humans inflicting suffering on defenseless and voiceless animals who have done us no harm. Animals that supply us with food deserve respect and compassion. The live-export trade in sheep and cattle, as we have seen on out TV screens multiple times, has resulted in a large number of these animals being treated abysmally. We cannot control, fully, what happens in out own abattoirs let alone those overseas. We need to convert, over a few years, to slaughtering all animals in Australia and exporting the carcasses. If these overseas countries refuse to accept this change then so be it; our local grazing industry will have to adjust accordingly as we cannot, in all conscience, make money at the expense of animal suffering.
  
  8 months ago report
Sandra Kwa

Grad Cert Ethics and Legal Studies, CSU

But the article is asking by what logic are humans set apart as special? I just spent all day in a "People Centred Planning" workshop for disability service providers, finding out how to find out what my intellectually disabled music students want, when many of them can't communicate well verbally.

Some love to sing - mostly out of tune - perhaps not unlike the gibbons in yesterday's Conversation article, or my old dog who sang to my brother's clarinet.

Some love to dance - mostly without…
Read more

But the article is asking by what logic are humans set apart as special? I just spent all day in a "People Centred Planning" workshop for disability service providers, finding out how to find out what my intellectually disabled music students want, when many of them can't communicate well verbally.

Some love to sing - mostly out of tune - perhaps not unlike the gibbons in yesterday's Conversation article, or my old dog who sang to my brother's clarinet.

Some love to dance - mostly without rhythm - as my current poodle-cross will do, up on hind legs, when excited and happy. I've seen highly trained dressage horses and dolphins move in far better time to music.

None of my students are able to cross a road safety unassisted, as a trained guide dog can.

But they can all smile, so I know when they are happy, just like I know when my dog is happy by her tail-wagging. I know they love their music class. We have a great support service in this town, and they are well cared for and happy, as content as Catriona's ewes and lambs, and in some cases about as self-aware.

I've heard some say animals' lives are of no intrinsic value because they don't plan for the future. When my dog sits at our gate waiting for my return, or my hens gather at feeding time, it appears they were anticipating a future pleasure. Many of the species we eat are very capable of significant enjoyments, which we take away from them when we end their lives prematurely for our own culinary pleasure. We all agree they have a right to welfare, but what attributes give a species a right to life itself?

Ultimately, where we each draw the line is a rather arbitrary matter of personal ethics, fraught with inconsistencies of logic, and shackled to cultural practices. Do most of us feel dogs and cats are above sheep and pigs and therefore above the line? I've heard pigs are even more intelligent than dogs. Other cultures tuck into dog, cat, horse, dolphin, gorilla etc meat.

No doubt some will find my comparison of disabled people with animals offensive and wonder why I am allowed to work in the field! But I try to treat all beings of a similar cognitive level in a similar way. I can see the intrinsic value that their lives mean to them, so I don't feel it is my place to take it from them if I have a choice. Choosing not to eat them, I think, has not left me too weak and unhealthy. (Most people think I am much younger than I really am and my BMI is in the ideal range.)

8 months ago report
1. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Sandra Kwa
  
  Sandra,
  
  I am watching a show on SBS - "Becoming Human". It is describing the evolution of human intelligence and the importance of protein, obtained from meat, in that process.
  
  However, I have a number of friends, who like you are vegetarians. Their rationale for this varies, but have commonality with the point of view you have so eloquently espoused.
  
  The cultural differences you mention are also familiar to me. Many Indians are vegetarians - it is part of their religious beliefs. On the…
  Read more
  
  Sandra,
  
  I am watching a show on SBS - "Becoming Human". It is describing the evolution of human intelligence and the importance of protein, obtained from meat, in that process.
  
  However, I have a number of friends, who like you are vegetarians. Their rationale for this varies, but have commonality with the point of view you have so eloquently espoused.
  
  The cultural differences you mention are also familiar to me. Many Indians are vegetarians - it is part of their religious beliefs. On the other hand the Chinese eat anything and everything - perhaps a reflection of population pressures. We "Europeans" in the main lie somewhere in between - we don't eat our pets but we are more than happy to eat other herd animals we have domesticated.
  
  One of the benefits of our modern world is that if you want you can choose to source your protein requirements from plants rather than animals. Some like you make that decision. Others like me choose not to.
  
  My only problem with these choices is when an argument is advanced that suggests one choice is more "ethical" than the other. Within nature ethics is a human construct, an outcome of our evolution, assisted by our capability as a species to "harvest" protein from other species and thereby develop intelligence.
  
  The reality is that in our world animals and insects "harvest" protein from other species - it is natural that they do so because that is how they have evolved. And they do so with great brutality, because that is the only way they can.
  
  But our "intelligence" should compel us to ensure that the brutality our ancestors employed, and that most of the natural world still employs, is not part of our modern farming systems. In the main it is not.
  
  8 months ago report
Peter Gerard

Retired medical practitioner

Excellent article Helen.
One of the problems with eating meat is that it comes at a terrible cost to the animal that supply us with this product. The animal husbandry industry is inherently cruel, even in Australia despite a multitude of animal welfare legislation. In many areas of the world, as we learn on a regular basis, concern for and treatment of animals that provide us with meat is woefully inadequate. The Middle East and SEA for example.
Unfortunately, as we are more intelligent than other…
Read more

Excellent article Helen.
One of the problems with eating meat is that it comes at a terrible cost to the animal that supply us with this product. The animal husbandry industry is inherently cruel, even in Australia despite a multitude of animal welfare legislation. In many areas of the world, as we learn on a regular basis, concern for and treatment of animals that provide us with meat is woefully inadequate. The Middle East and SEA for example.
Unfortunately, as we are more intelligent than other animals and as many of us believe in the concept of a God given soul [ non-human animals of course miss out on this differentiating possession], we treat animal as inferior even to the point of regarding them as not capable of experiencing pain and terror and other feelings. Those who have owned a dog or cat or dealt with sheep, cattle or our wildlife knows this to be hogwash.
Albert Schweitzer's philosophy of 'reverence for life', that is all life and not just the human species, is an ethical principle that encompasses every aspect of our lives. He not only worked tirelessly for the benefit of humans but treated non- human animals with respect and compassion
The infamous Meat and Livestock Australia, of course, is one of the industry bodies that knowingly, over decades, built up the live -export trade in cattle and sheep on foundations of greed and insensitivity to animal suffering.
Eating less meat will help reduce animal suffering...this is the last thing MLA wants us to do.

8 months ago report
1. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Peter Gerard
  
  An interesting comment Peter.
  
  It does of course incorporate some incredibly simplistic allegations, totally without substance.
  
  "The animal husbandry industry is inherently cruel". Nonsense. The real world where animal eats animal certainly is inherently cruel but that does not make it wrong, as I am sure you will agree.
  
  I have a problem with the argument you employ. I doubt if you have any experience at all about how nature operates. You are entitled to your view. Please don't try and push it on to the rest of us.
  
  8 months ago report
2. Peter Gerard
  
  Retired medical practitioner
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  Peter,
  I've lived in rural areas most of my adult life and have been involved in the husbandry practices that relate to sheep and cattle: dehorning and castration of cattle, marking of lambs and shearing can all involve significant pain.You are, of course, well aware of the undeniably cruel treatment of cattle and sheep sent to various countries to our north and the Middle East. Even in well -regulated Australia two abattoirs have recently been closed down for acts of gross cruelty. How many similar…
  Read more
  
  Peter,
  I've lived in rural areas most of my adult life and have been involved in the husbandry practices that relate to sheep and cattle: dehorning and castration of cattle, marking of lambs and shearing can all involve significant pain.You are, of course, well aware of the undeniably cruel treatment of cattle and sheep sent to various countries to our north and the Middle East. Even in well -regulated Australia two abattoirs have recently been closed down for acts of gross cruelty. How many similar occurrences go undetected?
  You use the word 'cruel' quite incorrectly when you describe what happens when one animal eats another. Cruelty implies 'indfifference to another's pain' [ Oxford Dictionary]. As animals don't think in this way there actions are neither cruel nor wrong. Humans, though, knowing what happens to animals in the production of food have a choice; we do not need to eat animal flesh and to do so implicitly supports the suffering animals experience during their short lives. Admittedly, in Australia, cattle and sheep are treated reasonably humanely, but they still suffer.
  Also you cannot not deny the suffering experienced by caged hens in the production of eggs, or that of sows in tight farrowing pens nor the horror of the chicken meat industry to name a few examples.
  Some of the these practices are banned in Western European countries and the UK and, in Australia, similar moves are afoot reflecting a gathering consensus that of all animals, those we raise to provide us with food, should be shown respect and compassion. Not eating meat and making other ethical food choices is one way, albeit small , to reduce some of the suffering
  Peter, you play the role of the 'Devil's Advocate' very well but you seem to protest a little too much in my opinion. I wonder whether your vegetarian friends have sown the seeds of doubt in your own mind?
  
  8 months ago report
3. Sandra Kwa
  
  Grad Cert Ethics and Legal Studies, CSU
  
  In reply to Peter Gerard
  
  Peter S, I always enjoy the robust debates this topic brings up in The Conversation (at least this forum has not been closed off like the Clive Hamilton Conversation yesterday! Dear editor - what happened there?!) and actually I respect both sides although I am certainly not a fence-sitter myself. Saying "please don't try to push it on to the rest of us" seems to me a little at odds with the spirit of robust debate, of which you have been a tenacious participant, for which you have my respect. Let…
  Read more
  
  Peter S, I always enjoy the robust debates this topic brings up in The Conversation (at least this forum has not been closed off like the Clive Hamilton Conversation yesterday! Dear editor - what happened there?!) and actually I respect both sides although I am certainly not a fence-sitter myself. Saying "please don't try to push it on to the rest of us" seems to me a little at odds with the spirit of robust debate, of which you have been a tenacious participant, for which you have my respect. Let's not suppress that spirit but do it always with grace and etiquette.
  
  Peter G, my position is aligned with yours. However, Peter S has a point in saying animal husbandry is not inherently cruel, and many farmers commenting on TC have objected to being portrayed as inherently cruel people. The industry is under enormous economic pressures - my bona-fide-free-range egg friends, organic dairy friends, and bio-dynamic beef friends, shake their heads in utter dismay at the prices they have to try and compete with. The free market is inherently cruel - I challenge anyone to challenge this assertion.
  
  Peter G has extensively listed the realities of society's failings in delivering on animal welfare objectives, but at least, in this country anyway, they are increasingly recognised as legitimate objectives. I did a whole assignment on the MLA/live export in my "Business Ethics" unit (and yes, it's in the biggest little list of oxymorons!). The MLA behaves like many individuals who have a strong interest in consuming meat - they don't go out seeking breaches with any real enthusiasm but will all agree it's terrible and something must be done when confronted with the evidence. It seems it's up to committed vegetarians with a strong stomach and nerves of steel to go, with handheld cameras, where authorities, and CCTV monitoring, fear to tread. Whilst Indonesian abattoirs are undeniably under-resourced, a recent govt audit also found welfare breaches in every NSW abattoir. The live export supply chain assurance scheme (ESCAS) is a self-regulation mechanism and is, again, failing on welfare objectives. Measures to alleviate animal pain are a pain in the butt for the bottom line, so shortcuts will always be a temptation when animals are a commodity.
  
  8 months ago report
4. Peter Gerard
  
  Retired medical practitioner
  
  In reply to Sandra Kwa
  
  Sandra,
  I agree with your comments above and in your other entries, but I feel you let the MLA [ and similar organisations] and a large proportion of the cattle and sheep producers off lightly. The Indonesia live-export trade has been developed over more a decade or more and the sheep exports to the Middle East have a longer history. The MLA and others, including livestock producers have known about the abuses for a long time and if they ever experienced a flicker of empathy for the suffering…
  Read more
  
  Sandra,
  I agree with your comments above and in your other entries, but I feel you let the MLA [ and similar organisations] and a large proportion of the cattle and sheep producers off lightly. The Indonesia live-export trade has been developed over more a decade or more and the sheep exports to the Middle East have a longer history. The MLA and others, including livestock producers have known about the abuses for a long time and if they ever experienced a flicker of empathy for the suffering of these animals it was quickly quenched by the millions of dollars rolling into their bank accounts.
  The federal and state Primary Industries Ministers are also plainly culpable, as they oversee legislation in this field and bear the ultimate responsibility for the mess this industry finds itself in. There have been two recent publications on the suffering experienced by sheep, killed without stunning, before their throats are cut[ DAFF, " Animal Welfare Branch Report' 2008, and " A Scientific Comment on the Welfare of Sheep Slaughtered Without prior Stunning, 2009] which conclude that stunning, prior to the throat cut, entirely eliminates the pain of the killing process]. It seems our Primary Industries Ministers have ignored these findings or found them too hard to insist on when it came to the live- export trade. Also,at state level, cowardice and servility allows hundreds of cattle and sheep, yearly, to be slaughtered without stunning, prior to having their throats cut, to accommodate people of the Jewish and Islamic faiths.
  One shouldn't be surprised, though, at what happens in the political sphere when the Model Codes of Practice for the Welfare of Animals[ NCCAW 36 Report, last reviewed 13/4/07] used as a guide in deliberating on these issues excludes, from consideration, cruelty caused to animals when framing legislation.
  The fact that it has been Animals Australia and the RSPCA who have primarily been responsible for exposing and attempting to remedy the gross abuses in the live-export trade merely reflects the abysmal ethical standards of the ruling political class. Australia is a leading Western nation with much to be proud of but we lack an overarching philosophy in respect to non-human animals. We seem to regard them as 'things' to be used and abused at will, and this applies not only to animals raised for the production of food but to those animals used in the arenas of entertainment.
  I think Albert Schweitzer's inclusive philosophy of 'reverence for all life' is an ideal to live by; and he not only included non-human animals in his thinking but inanimate life as well.
  
  8 months ago report
5. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Sandra Kwa
  
  Thanks for the comment Sandra - I have been away helping a relative complete some chores on her "farmlet" and arrived back earlier this week to a massive number of "Conversation" comments. It takes time to work through them especially when one has other priorities.
  
  There was an interesting Opinion piece by Professor Mark Bekoff in the New Scientist, 22 Sept 2012, Issue 2012 which both you and Peter would appreciate. It will reinforce your views, as in a different way, mine too. I recommend you read it.
  
  In saying "please don't try to push it on to the rest of us" I was merely commenting on a spectrum of views, some of which are advocating exactly that. It was not meant to be personal - my apologies if it seemed that way.
  
  We could continue this discussion, but I am not sure this is an appropriate forum. I think we all understand each others positions. Hence the decline in continuing contributions. Thank you.
  
  8 months ago report
6. Peter Gerard
  
  Retired medical practitioner
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  Peter,
  Thank you for the New Scientist reference. I've looked it up and will, when I have time, follow the links. I've known about the NS but never read it....I will consider subscribing.
  Regards.
  
  8 months ago report
7. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Peter Gerard
  
  Peter,
  I know it is a pay wall site. As a subscriber I have access. Here is the text of the article:
  
  "Now that scientists have belatedly declared that mammals, birds and many other animals are conscious, it is time for society to act
  
  ARE animals conscious? This question has a long and venerable history. Charles Darwin asked it when pondering the evolution of consciousness. His ideas about evolutionary continuity - that differences between species are differences in degree rather than kind…
  Read more
  
  Peter,
  I know it is a pay wall site. As a subscriber I have access. Here is the text of the article:
  
  "Now that scientists have belatedly declared that mammals, birds and many other animals are conscious, it is time for society to act
  
  ARE animals conscious? This question has a long and venerable history. Charles Darwin asked it when pondering the evolution of consciousness. His ideas about evolutionary continuity - that differences between species are differences in degree rather than kind - lead to a firm conclusion that if we have something, "they" (other animals) have it too.
  
  In July of this year, the question was discussed in detail by a group of scientists gathered at the University of Cambridge for the first annual Francis Crick Memorial Conference. Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, spent the latter part of his career studying consciousness and in 1994 published a book about it, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul.
  
  The upshot of the meeting was the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which was publicly proclaimed by three eminent neuroscientists, David Edelman of the Neurosciences Institute in La Jolla, California, Philip Low of Stanford University and Christof Koch of the California Institute of Technology.
  
  The declaration concludes that "non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."
  
  My first take on the declaration was incredulity. Did we really need this statement of the obvious? Many renowned researchers reached the same conclusion years ago.
  
  The declaration also contains some omissions. All but one of the signatories are lab researchers; the declaration would have benefited from perspectives from researchers who have done long-term studies of wild animals, including nonhuman primates, social carnivores, cetaceans, rodents and birds.
  
  I was also disappointed that the declaration did not include fish, because the evidence supporting consciousness in this group of vertebrates is also compelling.
  
  Nevertheless, we should applaud them for doing this. The declaration is not aimed at scientists: as its author, Low, said prior to the declaration: "We came to a consensus that now was perhaps the time to make a statement for the public... It might be obvious to everybody in this room that animals have consciousness; it is not obvious to the rest of the world."
  
  The important question now is: will this declaration make a difference? What are these scientists and others going to do now that they agree that consciousness is widespread in the animal kingdom?
  
  I hope the declaration will be used to protect animals from being treated abusively and inhumanely. All too often, sound scientific knowledge about animal cognition, emotions and consciousness is not recognised in animal welfare laws. We know, for example, that mice, rats and chickens display empathy, but this knowledge has not been factored into the US Federal Animal Welfare Act. Around 25 million of these animals, including fish, are used in invasive research each year. They account for more than 95 per cent of animals used in research in the US. I'm constantly astounded that those who decide on regulations on animal use have ignored these data.
  
  Not all legislation ignores the science. The European Union's Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force on 1 December 2009, recognises that animals are sentient beings and calls on member states to "pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals" in agriculture, fisheries, transport, research and development and space policies.
  
  There are still scientific sceptics about animal consciousness. In his book, Crick wrote "it is sentimental to idealize animals" and that for many animals life in captivity is better, longer and less brutal than life in the wild.
  
  Similar views still prevail in some quarters. In her recent book Why Animals Matter: Animal consciousness, animal welfare, and human well-being, Marian Stamp Dawkins at the University of Oxford claims we still don't really know if other animals are conscious and that we should "remain skeptical and agnostic... Militantly agnostic if necessary."
  
  Dawkins inexplicably ignores the data that those at the meeting used to formulate their declaration, and goes so far as to claim that it is actually harmful to animals to base welfare decisions on their being conscious.
  
  I consider this irresponsible. Those who choose to harm animals can easily use Dawkins's position to justify their actions. Perhaps given the conclusions of the Cambridge gathering, what I call "Dawkins's Dangerous Idea" will finally be shelved. I don't see how anyone who keeps abreast of the literature on animal pain, sentience and consciousness - and has worked closely with any of a wide array of animals - could remain sceptical and agnostic about whether they are conscious.
  
  Let us applaud the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness and work hard to get animals the protection they deserve. And let us hope that the declaration is not simply a grandstanding gesture but rather something with teeth, something that leads to action. We should all take this opportunity to stop the abuse of millions upon millions of conscious animals in the name of science, education, food, clothing and entertainment. We owe it to them to use what we know on their behalf and to factor compassion and empathy into our treatment of them."
  
  Marc Bekoff is an emeritus professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He has written many essays and books about animal emotions, animal consciousness and animal protection
  
  8 months ago report
8. Peter Sommerville
  
  Scientist & Technologist
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  I hope you find it illuminating
  
  8 months ago report
9. Peter Gerard
  
  Retired medical practitioner
  
  In reply to Peter Sommerville
  
  Thanks Peter for the download.Very informative and underlines the fact that animal welfare issues are being taken much more seriously around the world. There is a demonstration being organised in Sydney this weekend by Animals Australia; I'm too far away to attend but lets hope there is a big turn out.
  I'm forwarding the above article to friends and family.
  
  8 months ago report

Want to follow The Conversation?

Republish

Join the conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter