Final paper and thoughts

An interesting discovery was made today! Sperm Whales and a deformed dolphin were observed together nuzzling each other and traveling together.

In other news, my final draft of the paper is here:

          After visiting Japan, the land of the rising sun, and lacking access to red meats for 12 days, I thought I would challenge myself to completely forgo the consumption of red meats (mammalian flesh). In Japan, there was a scarcity of chicken, and a very plentiful supply of fish and plants. It amazed me how good one could feel eating a bowl of rice, a slab of seaweed and some miso soup with fish flavoring. It was then that I decided, I could live a pescetarian life.  After much discussion in my classes at MCLA, I also determined that there are many other reasons to forgo the consumption of animal flesh in favor of plants. It is then that I decided, I should strive for vegetarianism. Following my internal moral compass of “don’t cause harm to anything if you can avoid it,” I am trying to adopt that into my diet, and I am also trying to implement the thought of the animal I am about to consume’s past life, though it is difficult for me to do so for reasons unknown to me that I will try to define. 

               Through much discussion, we as a class have decided that animals of all species deserve to be treated with some form of respect, and thus we should err on the side of caution when considering harming such creatures. I personally do my best to respect every form of life, from a spider in the corner of my closet, to a bird flying gracefully above my head before releasing its waste upon my car, and even the coyotes that wander the woods and occasionally enter my back yard. However when it comes to eating “corpse” I find myself all too willing to grab the phone and call up China Buffet to order some General Tso’s Chicken. I believe this action stems from a sense of habit. 

             Humans can become habituated, as any animal can, into doing amazing things without thinking. The idea of “autopiolet” is a strong example where a human can talk to their lover while driving in the rain on a windy road, and navigate just fine, both conversationally and physically. The daily grind of a human can be exhausting physically and mentally, even though little conscious thought was put into the day. Just as we become used to a day full of stress because “that is how it has been and will be”, we too can become used to a specific taste. Alcoholism is an example where someone willingly ingests a toxin just so they can consume it the next time with less thought about the taste and physiological strain on their body, and thus alcohol tolerance is gained. 

         How tolerance relates to me is my consumption of chicken. Entering Aramark’s cafeteria, I go to the salad bar and look for beans, whether I find them or not, I will still go to the grill and search for a chicken patty to sate my appetite, I then consume the chicken patty because, “it tastes how it always has and I always have eaten them, they fill me up, so why stop?” This is problematic because I become so entranced in consuming the flesh of a poor chicken that I fail to allow my self-conscious the time to think about what I am doing and regain control over my body to prevent said action. Since I never have the thought, I never feel guilt until someone brings it up directly later on and I recall scarfing down one or two patties.

      I understand that animals feel pain, I also believe that animals are fully conscious of their surroundings. By fully conscious, I mean they are fully able to interoperate signals such as pain, light, and pressure, and relate it to their lives. Whether they can relate it to other animals like us humans and arguably cetaceans and primates can do, I doubt, but that is besides the point. The point is that animals can feel pain, and that it is not right to harm a being that can feel pain. Relating that to the human self, we have come up with the idea of the “golden rule” which dictates that one should do unto others that which he(she) wishes to be dealt to unto himself(herself). I try to live my life by this principal, leading people by example, sacrificing my time to assist others in hopes they they will pay it foreword onto someone else and better the world that way. It is that line of thinking that has me worried about myself and my consumption of animals. 

         I feel remorse when I personally harm a living being, even stepping on an ant, I will say a little prayer in my head wishing that I hadn’t done that and that the ant can forgive me for quashing its life candle. I can even feel remorse towards objects, not necessarily their owner, but if I drop something, I will apologize to the object, for reasons I question to this day. 

               Indirect harm is another thing. I will feel remorse if I witness another being being harmed, such as a rabid beaver that was chasing kids getting shot in the skull by a .22. It didn’t try to terrorize and harm those children, it was just possessed and influenced by the rabies. which makes me a little relieved that, at least the beaver won’t have to live its life suffering from the disease. If I am unable to see said harmed animal however, I find myself thinking less and less of the suffering the animal must be going through. I still understand that suffering occurs in slaughter houses, but without actually coming into contact with an animal prior to its evisceration, or witnessing the defiling of it’s body, I do not feel guilt. It is an odd concept that I have reflected deeply on after eating 3 chicken patties in a row, but not during the consumption of said flesh.

           Perhaps it is the proof of harm I hunger for more then the animal’s flesh itself? I have heard of dolphins being captured and killed by fishing nets mistakenly, however when I eat fish I feel absolutely no guilt until I hear a news story concerning dolphins, then I think on how to better the practice of fishing, and think about fish farms, but then I remember another news story about how horrible fish farms are and get frustrated as there seems to be no real “moral” answer. Concerning fish, I could honestly, regardless of my morals, never forgo the succulent taste of sushi. I could give up all other forms of meat but I do not think, even if I owned a fish and it was taken from me and cut up into sushi, I would still consume it.

          I would probably be hesitant as I think back to the good times of the enjoyment it has provided me voyeuristically watching it and teaching it how to eat food out of my hands, but if I am not slaughtering the fish, and if I knew it was slaughtered humanely, I would consume it. If it wasn’t slaughtered humanely, I would think on how it was brutalized, but its death would be entirely in vain if it was just cut up and thrown away due to my morals saying “don’t eat it” and I feel it would be a service to it to end its life within my gut rather then degrading slowly in the ground because at least something would benefit from its death.

          I believe vegetarianism and, to a “greater” degree, veganism, is a fantastic ideal that can be and should be strived for by many, but I can never see myself forgoing at least seafood in a diet. I have been trying to limit my chicken consumption, and increase my fish and bean consumption as a form of protein while keeping greens the majority of my meals, but it is hard with so little time to eat in a day. I feel vegetarianism is morally justified, yet not morally obligated in our society as there will always be meat as long as corporations posses the funds and market shares. For me personally, I will strive for pescetarian while keeping an ideal that perhaps one day, with an extreme amount of effort, I could be a vegetarian, and that is why I believe vegetarianism is morally justified and should be a goal for myself and other empathetic individuals.

Final Countdown

I have decided to post my present copy of my paper:

       I am not morally obligated to become a vegetarian, though I would like to believe it is in a human’s best interest to try. I personally cannot ascribe to a vegetarian diet not due to medical reasons, nor due to overwhelming empathy for animals, but because I cannot forgo, in my present life and food availabilities, some form of meat. I have worked to give up on red meats (wild mammal, bovine and porcine flesh) yet I cannot forgo white meats (chicken, turkey, and duck) and seafood (fish, arthropods, mollusks). I fully actualize the implications of eating red meat, but I did not forbid myself from eating it for a moral reason, I simply decided after my visit to Japan during spring break, and after eating mainly fish with the occasional fowl, I would try to live without it because, I can survive 12 days off of plants, fish and white meat without getting sick, why not continue the trend? 

       Reflecting back on the idea of the horrible treatment of animals in slaughter houses, I do feel empathetic for their present state, however it is not enough to drive me from consuming their flesh for that reason alone. I plan on exploring the moral, economic, ecological, and medical implications of a fully vegetarian, or at lest pescetarian diet, of which I would like to believe I could ascribe myself to, yet cannot at this present point in my life.

     Through much discussion, we as a class have decided that animals of all species deserve to be treated with some form of respect, and thus we should err on the side of caution when considering harming such creatures. I personally do my best to respect every form of life, from a spider in the corner of my closet, to a bird flying gracefully above my head before releasing its waste upon my car, and even the coyotes that wander the woods and occasionally enter my back yard. However when it comes to eating “corpse” I find myself all to willing to grab the phone and call up China Buffet to order some General Tso’s Chicken. 

      In my life I have always been busy and a snackivore, if I have the ability to acquire quick proteins and energy, I will take that chance, no matter what that means, from eating a can of beans as I study to going to McDonalds on the way to work and eating a few hamburgers. I picture myself having the time to sit down and enjoy cooking pastas, the occasional fish, salads, stuffed shells, and possibly a large, hearty meal for all my friends, but that is a distant illusion when one has but two free, non class or work-related hours total between 9:00 and 21:00 on any given day. I believe the main reason why, despite my love of all creatures, and my sympathy towards livestock, I can still consume a chicken patty sandwich from Aramark without guilt or remorse, sometimes 2-3 of them if I am particularly hungry and low on blood sugar. 

      I understand that animals feel pain, I also believe that animals are fully conscious of their surroundings. Do they posses the awareness of chimps and cetaceans I don’t believe so, but I do feel that animals can understand empathetic and electrical responses given off by other creatures, and they can reciprocate them towards other beings. I feel remorse when I personally harm a living being, even stepping on an ant, I will say a little prayer in my head wishing that I hadn’t done that and that the ant can forgive me for quashing its life candle. I can even feel remorse towards objects, not necessarily their owner, but if I drop something, I will apologize to the object, for reasons I question to this day. 

      Indirect harm is another thing. I will feel remorse if I witness another being being harmed, such as a rabid beaver that was chasing kids getting shot in the skull by a .22, it didn’t try to terrorize and potentially harm those children, it was just possessed and influenced by the rabies. which makes me a little relieved that, at least the beaver won’t have to live its life suffering from the disease. If I am unable to see said harmed animal however, I find myself thinking less and less of the suffering the animal must be going through. I still understand that suffering occurs in slaughter houses, but without actually coming into contact with an animal prior to its evisceration, or witnessing the defiling of it’s body, I do not feel guilt. It is an odd concept that I have reflected deeply on after eating 3 chicken patties in a row, but not during the consumption.
      Perhaps it is the proof of harm I hunger for more then the animal’s flesh itself? I have heard of dolphins being captured and killed by fishing nets mistakenly, however when I eat fish I feel absolutely no guilt until I hear a news story concerning dolphins, then I think “oh the poor dolphins.” This mentality I feel is the same as the majority of the USA with regards to boycotts and similar movements, “it doesn’t concern me, and I am such a small contribution to this action that I won’t do anything if I am there or not there.” This is problematic as a single stone can’t always start an avalanche, meaning that if I say “I won’t eat this meat”, and I don’t eat meat, I believe it will do nothing for the animal rights movement as a whole, since such a problem requires a gradual escalation of awareness and constant thought from the entire population to do anything. A very pessimistic thought, and since I like to be as optimistic as I can, I try not to think of the suffering that I am unaware of. It is a selfish mentality, but I like to think that, in the lifestyle I live now, eating no mammals, I am leading by example rather then action.

      Morality aside, looking from an ecological perspective, producers such as plants, produce a ton of energy from the sun. This energy is then eaten by a primary consumer and that consumer gains about 10% of the energy that the producer converted.(in our society, this is the cow), that cow is then eaten by a secondary consumer (humans or ground up into pig’s slaw) and 10% of that energy is then converted up to the secondary consumer meaning we as secondary consumers gain only about 1% of the energy that plants produce. In my botany class we discussed that it takes about 15 cows worth of energy to sustain a human for a day, while if we relied on plants, we would be in much better shape energy efficiency wise. 

       The ecological benefits don’t stop there. Millions of acres of forests have been cleared to make room for grazers such as cows, while those acres of flat grassland could be repurposed into fields of fruits and vegetables that could feed twice the population that the cows provide. In this age of rapidly growing populations, it is crucial to have enough food for your population, and crops, if not grown in monocultures and grown with more “organic”(I personally detest that word as a label for plants but that is another argument) practices, could sustain this population growth. 

       I believe vegetarianism is a fantastic ideal that can be and should be reached by many, but I can never see myself forgoing at least seafood. I have been trying to limit my chicken consumption, and increase my fish consumption while keeping greens the majority of my meals, but it is hard with so little time to eat in a day. I feel vegetarianism is morally justified, yet not morally obligated in our society, and I believe it never will be an obligation in my life, just a choice that I plan to keep going towards, even if I can never make it.

Freedom!

A Response and Further Brainstorming to Mr. Finnivan

I would probably not use a computer again if I saw this every day...

Responding to my initial brainstorming, Mr. Finnivan brought up some good points about animal activism and encouraged me that my "reason" or lack-there-of for trying to shift to pescetarianism and eventually vegetarianism is not just a "whim" but has the potential to lead by example. Upon further reflection, I can attest much of what I am doing to my housemate who, after witnessing Food Inc., he was disgusted at the idea of eating "corpse" and thus he doesn't eat red meat, or chicken anymore. He still eats fish, however, but I admired his dedication when I taunted him with tantalizing teriyaki chicken, and my long-time personal favorite, (I still have dreams about eating it sometimes even though I refuse to eat it when I see it sitting there) Pulled Pork. I also admire how he had a similar response whenever I asked him "why are you a pescetarian?" he would respond with "I don't really know, I'm not doing it for making a statement, I just don't like eating corpse."

Maybe my view on if vegitarianism is morally requires is up to the person in question on an individual case, rather then a generalized case. I feel that is it was a moral requirement, it wouldn't work out, as there will ALWAYS be people going against morals, wether on a whim, or to make a point, or to get revenge, every law will be broken, questioned, and re-worked. That's why we have laws and why we acknowledge those examples of laws being broken.

An example:
Prostitution is illegal. People can easily ask "why" and the simple answer is, "it's the ownership of a person and goes against their ethical rights" but there will be individuals who still practice it for the sake of convenience, desperation, or to make ends meet. Take the poor, starving teenager who has been disowned by her parents for having a child. She must find some way to pay for her own life and her child's, and prostitution is an easy trade for her, and makes quite a bit of money, therefore she goes against the rules and is able to survive.

Though prohibition of prostitution is a little different from morally requiring people to forgo the practice of eating animals, the basic principal that "it is morally wrong to own a person, and to sell said person's flesh." goes hand-and-hand with the argument for vegetarianism  Even if cows, pigs, chicken etc. are not considered moral persons like whales and apes are, it still goes without saying that it is a cruelty to said animals.

Even though it is a cruelty, there are conditions where is is absolutely justifiable, like an many boreal and arctic regions where conditions for agriculture are scarce if non-existant, and food security is anywhere from 5%-35% anualy. Food security being the % of the population that lives without the risk or fear of starvation. These people rely on hunting and gathering for most of their sustenance and don't have access to readily available dietary supplements that could give them the required nutrients for survival. This is saddening, but the worse part is, with such a high dependance on meat, they suffer from many more food-borne illnesses, and parasites. Poor meat regulation, poor conditions, hunting, poor cooking and poor education has lead to outbreaks of parasites much worse then your "giardia" from contaminated water, or even tapeworms. How about a worm that lives in-between your cells and will slowly destroy your muscles to keep itself warm?

Parasites are actually another reason why I don't really like the idea of eating beef or pork.  Even though the parasites are cute, I wouldn't want them living within me. It doesn't unnerve me as much as others, but I really would like to go without a tapeworm, or ascaris,  or Trichinella, but sometimes it is unavoidable.

I have gone though a rant, and have decided that I will try to mention these ideas:

Reasons for Vegitarianism-
-> Ethical Treatment
Animals as Subjects-of-a-Life
Relation to Prostitution

-> Disregarding "Ethics"
Parasites/ Health
Economic Concerns
Ecological Concerns

Reasons why it should be a case-by-case basis
Economic Availability
Hunter/Gatherer Communities
Restricted Product Availability

He's Nuts!

The Final Count Down

Our final assignment is to, in no more then 3 pages (doublespaced), attempt to finish either of he following statements:
I am morally obliged to be a vegetarian because...
I am not morally obliged to be a vegetarian because...

This seems a daunting task since I usually attempt to argue against others to "stir the pot" of ideas and provide counter arguments. Since I have been doing this for most of my life I am not quite good at coming up with my own ideas, and especially not arguing for or against them. It is here that I will write most if not all of my thoughts and ponderings so be prepared for useless thoughts that will hopefully become some form of communicable idea.

So here begins the brainstorming process, I will decide on what vegetarianism constitutes.

Vegetarianism is eating (not consuming for later reasons) only plant based products as a primary source of food. Eggs, and dairy products are acceptable. I presently practice a semi-vegetarian lifestyle, eating poultry, eggs, fish and consuming milk and other dairy products, but I hope to shift to pescatarinism.
-> The lacto-ovo vegetarian does not eat the flesh of animals, but does eat both eggs and dairy such as milk and cheese from cows or goats. The ovo-vegetarian eats eggs but not meat. The lacto-vegetarian is similar to the lacto-ovo-vegetarian, but excludes eggs from his diet. A vegan not only excludes meat, but also all dairy products, eggs and foods which contain any product from animals, even gelatin. Pescatarians eat eggs and fish, but no beef, pork or poultry, while a semi-vegetarian generally follows a vegetarian lifestyle, but occasionally eats animal flesh.

i do this mainly because I have decided that, since I survived in Japan for 12 days without red meat, I think I can live without it. I am still iffy on ham... I love it so, but I consider it red meat due to it's porcine origin. Soon, I hope to exclude poultry (mainly chickens) from my diet. Looking at that statement  I feel this could be a moral shift towards vegetarianism  but then I  evaluated if there was a deeper reason why I a doing this, and I found none other then the potential dislike of Taenia solium and Taenia saginata, two tapeworms that have cute scolecies, yet... who wants tapeworms. I do care for life, but I unfortunately can't ever see myself picketing by a farm. I'm too passive to be an activist. It does give me a little sense of moral light to say "I am not eating this meat, therefore some animal somewhere doesn't need to die.

In Botany we discussed Food chains and looking at an example of energy efficiency. If we act as a primary consumer (eating plants) we would be able to support about 12 times the population as where we act as secondary consumers (eating meat from grazers, ruminants, insects etc) as energy is not conserved, only about 10% of the total energy is transferred between each level, so eating a cow yields more energy then a lion (assuming both were the same size) which is probably why we don't eat lion meat, because it would cause extinction of lions to feed all of the people of the earth.

This makes me wonder how many cows go into one hamburger... I don't exactly want to think about that... the cows probably form one huge burger tree from which burger pods are released, and the burgers can be plucked from the tree by McDonalds farmers who then slice the burgers into smaller, edible patties. So it seems that all the meat is put into one big vat and turned into burgers, so many cows make one burger!

Hello there! I'm just a drifter looking for a new home!
(Taenia Saginata, the beef tapeworm! Hope I didn't gross people out!)

Response to Mr. Fitzpatrick

After reading 'Property' under law, I thought on what was said regarding animal "ownership" and Brian brings up a good point about economic use of animals, that being, there shouldn't be any. As he puts it, "animals are not capable of entering into a contract and therefore any utilization of them in an economic setting is forced labor."

Now, I am not a political science major by any means, but I wanted to look into this idea of "what is defined as forced labor and I found out that in the USA constitution, 13th amendment  forced labor is defined as "Labor or service obtained by: threats of serious harm or physical restraint, any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe he would suffer serious harm or physical restraint if he did not perform such labor or services, and/or the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process."

Looking at animals such as pets or test subjects, or food animals being used for forced labor... I don't believe they fall into that category. We are not actively threatening them or making them believe that, if they don't function well, they will receive harm. They probably can't even link "good performance = no harm" rather "this action = harm" I would say that, assuming animals have rights, it isn't a forced labor situation, but more a case of exploitation, extortion, and exaction. The flesh and organs being property of the animal and, since there is no legal way to sign away your organs as an animal (like we can through organ donating), we are taking their bodies and using it for ourselves as though they have no rights to their own property.

I believe that there needs to be a compromise when it comes to animal property rights, since animal products are still useful in our society, even though we are making progress towards separating animals as economic items, yet there are somethings that we have trouble going without, such as drugs and, under current laws, we are required as scientists to test on the lowest form of life, getting progressively higher and higher in the photogenic tree before reaching human testing. If we can find a way to diverge from that to human testing, we would save many animals, yet we would be faced with the predicament of "well, this may kill you or not, we will see" which we want to avoid. It is an interesting world we live in now, but we will see where technologies advance us. For now, I feel it is important to try and respect animals as much as possible, but I feel the economics of animal use can't go without some exploitation.

PETA needs some Chicken!

Recently I watched my favorite youtube series, Sci Show, and saw this video which i felt was relivent to our class! For those less biologically lexically literate  in vitro refers to grown in the laboratory and in vivo refers to in a living host (such as animals) Enjoy!

Following a School of Fish: A Respose to Mr. Keefner and Mr. Kelley

Based off of Mr. Keefner's initial commentary of: Captivity and Boredom, and Mr. Kelley's commentary: Response to Kurtiss, I would like to add my own input on the idea of captivity and boredom. When visiting the NE Aquarium (New England), I saw many fish just floating by, not actively looking for anything, not being dead, just kinda floating there. I was disappointed at the lack seeming lack of excitement in their life, but more disappointed in the onlooking children who would gape for a second, tap the glass (even though there are signs that say "don't tap the glass, it will infuriate the Paranas!") and when they saw no immediate movement, they would move on to the next tank. Exactly as we discussed in class about short attention spans to things that are not actively attracting attention or "cute". I found everything fascinating, even looking at a scared fish run from an electric eel as the eel cornered the poor thing in the corner of the tank before killing it, sending the "electricity meter" into the red (killing prey) from the yellow (hunting prey) which suddenly made every kid in the area rush over to the tank after there was a flash of red from the "voltage hitting the red zone." Shortly after the eel had its meal, the kids dispersed as the meter went to green (relaxing/calm) and then to blue (idle/ sleeping) and stayed there for quite a while.

Isn't he just so adorable?

I felt sorry for the eel, being the subject of so many electromagnetic fields then having nothing, and suddenly EVERYTHING is full of electricity (not just the water) all the brain firings of the onlookers trying to intemperate what they missed and play it out int heir heads before they grew bored and completely abandoned the eel. It must have sucked for the eel to suddenly feel so alone. (If you can consider the presence or absence of electromagnetic fields, in addition to an eel being able to feel) There was also an exhibit that made me a little sad... A HUGE goosefish, probably a good 2-3 feet long seemed to take up 1/2 of the width of the tank it was in. Unfortunately for such a large fish, that means it takes a huge effort and swimming sideways for a bit just to turn around. The fish was facing backwards, its eyes away from the crowd, yet open, staring off into space gaping its mouth in an attempt to attract the top-feeding fish in the tall tank to come down and nibble at its upper lip....

Keep a stiff upper lip, buddy. Everything will be okay... I hope!

I felt that most of the fish, with the exclusion of about 3 tanks, were set up in okay, if a little overpopulated environments. But I still felt pretty bad for the fish.