The same is true for animal protein. Consumers in America want cheap everything. Energy, clothes, food, etc. to have it where the economies of scale were not applied would cause significant raises in price. Personally I would not have much of a problem as I do not eat much meat, and know the overall health benefits would be huge. We would have to subsidize the poorer folks so they would not be protein deficient, and educate folks on the wonders of all the other food groups, but it would be worthy.

The argument that the economy would suffer, or that range land is not farmable is weak. The money saved from lower cost vegetable alternatives would still be spent in the economy. The savings in healthcare would add up as well.

As for Christianity and animals, stewardship is stressed more than dominion in my opinion in the Bible, but I have never done a detailed comparison. I see God’s hand in all of creation and am awed by the beet as much as the salmon. Any life we take should be appreciated and treated with respect. We ask God to bless our food at each meal and give thanks for the blessing, and for the nourishment; that should say something. I do not know if animals have souls; I do know that they feel pain and pleasure and serve us in so many ways; we ought to be far more grateful than we seem at times. It does not seem to me that the responsibility to earn rights is on the animals, we have the responsibility as they are in our charge. Rights should be afforded to them on that basis, as they do not choose the lot that we have assigned to them, it is incumbent on us. Blessings.

I do enjoy Robert’s remarks, it is not hard to tell when he is being obtuse for the fun of it.

We don’t need to gorge on steak at every meal.

Amen. I’ve never understood why anyone would want a dietary regimen that tedious, anyway. Nothing but the classic 1950s American “Brown, Green ‘N White” dinner night after night ? Feh. Give me a big bowl of homemade lentil-rice salad with fresh veggies and herbs once in awhile to break up the monotony, please !! Vegetarian meals, when prepared right, are ambrosia, especially in hot summer weather. Not to mention that there’s the halfway measure of Asian stir-fries and similar alternatives to the steak;The school of cooking that calls for meat to be one small, harmonius component among many in the dish. It’s not the centerpiece of the meal around with all the lesser elements revolve as an afterthought.

If you personally feel strongly about this issue - and I do - then either become a vegetarian or eat less meat, and that only from “free range” sources. Yes, it’s more expensive, that’s why I said you had to eat less of it, but Americans eat too much meat anyway, according to those who know about nutrition. We don’t need to gorge on steak at every meal.

Robert unwittingly made an interesting point. The lamb he ate in Iran was almost certainly not the product of a factory farm. The good news is that animals (and eggs from animals) who live more natural lives and get out in the sunshine taste much better. My grandmother raised chickens on a distinctly non-factory farm, and her fried chicken was in a whole different league from that tasteless stuff that goes by the name of “chicken” in the supermarket.

You say your personal choices won’t do any good? Well….it’s the personal choices of millions of consumers that have ended us up where we are. Just try casting your vote in the other direction.

You’re just crabby because you didn’t get any of the lamb.

Sorry for being non-substantive. Most threads on Alas! are about such serious and weighty issues that humor or personal reminiscence would seem out of place. This one is an exception, so I cut loose a bit.

I think that the reason there is a perception that PETA is the only voice being heard, even though they are quite marginalized and ineffective, is that this issue is optional for most people.

Amp and I have a mutual friend who is an environmental activist. She is quite moderate and reasoned in her views. She likes having groups like Earth First! around because they give her groups some leverage; she can say “you know, if you don’t talk to us, you’re going to end up talking to the nutjobs at Earth First! Wouldn’t you rather talk to us so that at least you’re dealing with people who don’t think that trees are more important than humans?” And they get some traction from that, because environmental issues are not optional issues. There are different positions and different worldviews, but nobody says “this is crap, this is unimportant, I just don’t care about it”. People have to engage because it’s really important.

Whereas that option is always available re: the tragic plight of the exploited chickens. Most people could give a fuck about the tragic plight of the exploited chickens. The chickens, sad to say, are not very important in an empirical sense: the exploited chickens aren’t going to flood anyone’s seaside home or poison my kids. So the moderates don’t get leverage from having PETA out there; instead, when moderates try and get a hearing for their issue, the people who already are inclined to say “fuck the chickens” can say “oh, God, you’re just another one of those nutjobs like PETA” and ignore the moderate, reasonable proposals coming from the activists.

In fact, I would not be at all surprised (begin conspiracy mode) to find that the worst of the factory farmers send resources PETA’s way, or make it easy for PETA to get publicity, specifically to undermine and discredit the reasonable people who, in the absence of nutjobs like PETA, could get a hearing.

PETA is not entirely at fault here. They screamed the loudest, so the media pays attention them even if centrist groups represent the most. While I’m not willing to absolve PETA since they do the screaming to get the attention to minimize other animal rights views, but the media deserves scorn as well for willingly supporting such cynical tactics.

Sometimes I feel as though you just like to bait people. If you choose to participate in the discussion at hand, please offer something substantive.

With respect, Bstu, what are you talking about here? What debate? What table? In our society, their position is competely marginalized, and has no virtually no impact on law or human behavior. We do have some laws and behavioral patterns that show that the idea of animal welfare and obligation to treat animals more humanely has made some legal and social impact, but the idea that animal rights extremists have some sort of dominance over anything but PETA meetings seems to describe a world I don’t live in.

I don’t care how we put a stop to factory farming; any way is okay with me.

animals that are allowed to live as much of a natural existance as possible will be healthier (less antibiotic use and less losses to diseases that sweep repidly thorugh a barn of crowded animals.) happiner which translates (for all your profit is most important people) into more profits with less expesnse.

also most cattlemen pay very little money to graze cattle on public lands so where is the expense they supposedly save by factory farming? free ranging chickens don’t cost anything as chickens eat insects and seeds that are found around and they are healthier too. so less vet bills. if you factory farm there is more vet bills, drug bills, food bills since they can’t forage for themselves at least in spring and summer so you have to supplement.

also when a animal in factory farm gets sick you worry about all the others who are rubbing shoulders, sick animals free ranging tend to go off by themselves away from others meaning less likly to spread the disease, as well as predators are around to cull them to.

so any money saved in short term by factory farming is lost later on when there is disease and cost of irradicating testing etc of that disease and of course consumers get scared and stop buying the product for a while until the scare is over costing millions of lost sales.

but of course for the principled it is simply very barbaric to be mean to your animals by denying them basic care, clean enviroment, good quality food and water. and air to breath. and at slaughter time human killing.

so factory farming is actually a bad way to go economically and ethically. of course I have heard the horror stories of slaughter houses and how unfeeling the workers there are towards the animals suffering, but if you get repeated exposure to something over and over after a while you learn to tune out the emotions otherwise you go nuts, that is why slaughter houses have a high turn over rate.

RR

Mmmm, lamb. Tasty, tasty lamb.

I had lamb kebabs once when, as a boy, my family lived in Teheran and we went out one evening to a traditional Iranian restaurant - a restaurant where the locals went, not the American military and diplomatic personnel.

Damn, I can still taste it. So good.

PETA craves constant media attention. They picket KFC and speak of its cruelty. This is not only bad marketing, as people rightly know that KFC does not own any factory farms, but bad publicity for animal rights activists. Although it uses deplorable techniques and often chooses inane issues to fight, it is commendable that it has brought attention to the plight of chickens that are debeaked in order to live their short lives in squalor. But this fact is lost in the noise.

I do not think it unwise to stop and examine whether our goals warrant the suffering of other species. The issues of fur coats, carnivorousness, factory farming, and animal testing are ones which have varying, credible positions. I do not think it out of the question to ask sensible people to make deliberate, consistent decisions about those kinds of issues.

Mindless acceptance of the established customs of using animals and the environment to one’s liking until they are gone is the worst possible thing one can do. There are consequences to our actions, both good and bad. Sometimes the long-term loss is much greater than the short-term gain. Some small operations are acceptable environmentally but are devastating in a larger scale. Evaluation of these practices is key if we want to enjoy the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed. We may even have to evaluate our lifestyles and determine if the consequences are worth it. That is all I ask.

I’d suggest that this view represents a clear majority of the public at large, but it is one ill-served by the loud extremes. While both extremes have a right to make their case, I worry that middle majority has been denied a place in the discussion.

I concede your point about rights being most often tied with responsibilities. For people this is undoubtedly true. My point is that we forget that animals are sharing this planet with us. We have no fundamental right to cause their suffering for sheer profit (as most factory farms were developed to maximize). We have no intrinsic right to cause unnecessary harm to animals simply because they are making us money. Just because we have the power to conduct our husbandry practices otherwise does not make it morally acceptable.

Animals have an inherent right to live out their lives as naturally as possible. They are living, breathing creatures that have emotions and can feel pain. You can tie rights such as these only to soul-bearing beings if you want. I tie these rights to fellow beings living on planet Earth.