Sexism. Racism. Now speciesism. It seems humans are the most biased animals on the face of this earth.
Except not.
Animal rights activists use this term to try and pretend that they alone are pure, unbiased and all-caring, when in fact they are the ones shunning their own species for another who, quite frankly, doesn't give a flying fuck.
Speciesism is defined as "Human intolerance or discrimination on the basis of species, especially as manifested by cruelty to or exploitation of animals. " www.all-creatures.org/articles/act-gloss.html
Here's the big "oops"-ALL animals are speciesist. There isn't an animal on the face of the earth that won't put his own species above and before another. It doesn't happen that way, sorry. Hell, animals are even intolerant of members of their own species who are a different color (sound familiar?). Ever wonder why albinos don't often survive, even in a herd? It's because their loving, caring, unbiased herd kicked his white ass out because he stuck out.
So why aren't we "speciesist"? We are. It's hardwired into our brain that OUR species must survive, at the expense of others. Horses do it. Wolves do it. Deer do it. Hell, even fish do it. It's not speciesist to put your own species above others, it's natural. If anything, we are the most unspeciesist animals on the face of this earth. We have members of our own species who care about other species, often more than their own, and increasingly often at the expense of their own.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Love the dog cont.
Rather than re editing my last post, I'll simply continue it here.
We've already established that what animals we eat and what animals we deem as companions is strictly a cultural preference. But there's still more to it than that.
The animals we choose as companions are not always strictly companions. When a horse gets too old to plow the fields or carry a rider, he is often eaten. It's not because we didn't care about him, or appreciate what he did for us, it's because we were in a situation where that horse could provide one last useful thing, even if it was only feeding us for a winter. Better we eat than scrounge to find food for us and him.
But why don't we eat dogs and cats when they get old and are no longer "useful"? As I stated previously, these animals aren't often chosen for food when they are considered companion animals because they are more useful alive, they don't require as much care as a horse, and they're certainly easier to dispose of when they've died. A hole for a dog is much smaller than a hole for a horse.
But you still have to remember that dogs are indeed a food source, even if it is on the other side of the world. They're bred solely for what they can provide in the way of food, rather than companionship (ever wonder where the word chow came from?) Several breeds were actually created because of their use as meat dogs, such as the now-extinct Hawaiian Poi.
As for someone who "politely" mentioned the fact that all animals are equal-why, yes, they are. There isn't a single companion animal who isn't considered a delicacy somewhere else, and there isn't a single food animal who isn't considered a pet somewhere else. All animals are equal to us, whether they're carrying us or feeding us. There is no real bias towards animals like that, only what location and conditions deemed necessary for us to survive.
We've already established that what animals we eat and what animals we deem as companions is strictly a cultural preference. But there's still more to it than that.
The animals we choose as companions are not always strictly companions. When a horse gets too old to plow the fields or carry a rider, he is often eaten. It's not because we didn't care about him, or appreciate what he did for us, it's because we were in a situation where that horse could provide one last useful thing, even if it was only feeding us for a winter. Better we eat than scrounge to find food for us and him.
But why don't we eat dogs and cats when they get old and are no longer "useful"? As I stated previously, these animals aren't often chosen for food when they are considered companion animals because they are more useful alive, they don't require as much care as a horse, and they're certainly easier to dispose of when they've died. A hole for a dog is much smaller than a hole for a horse.
But you still have to remember that dogs are indeed a food source, even if it is on the other side of the world. They're bred solely for what they can provide in the way of food, rather than companionship (ever wonder where the word chow came from?) Several breeds were actually created because of their use as meat dogs, such as the now-extinct Hawaiian Poi.
As for someone who "politely" mentioned the fact that all animals are equal-why, yes, they are. There isn't a single companion animal who isn't considered a delicacy somewhere else, and there isn't a single food animal who isn't considered a pet somewhere else. All animals are equal to us, whether they're carrying us or feeding us. There is no real bias towards animals like that, only what location and conditions deemed necessary for us to survive.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Love the pig, eat the dog?
Many vegans claim that it's immoral to eat meat based on the fact that we are biased towards the animals we eat, and that all animals are the same, and it's no different if we eat a pig than if we eat a dog.
While they may be right in some aspects, they seem to have forgotten the rest of the world exists. Here in America, we eat cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, chicken, turkeys, geese, bison and other, more exotic meats, while we will not eat horses, dogs, cats, and other animals we deem to be pets. Is this normal? Yes. We eat what we do based on our culture and what worked for us. Pigs grew quickly, and produced a lot of meat, without offering much more. Dogs on the other hand, worked for us, and didn't provide much in the way of meat, not even with larger breeds, so we saw fit to keep dogs alive and pigs on our plate.
In other countries, such as India, animals we see as food aren't thought of as food animals, such as cattle. Jewish people won't eat pigs, and many Asian countries see horses and dogs as delicacies, rather than pets.
Animals people eat end up being eaten because they are worth more that way. A horse who can't work is worth more on someone's plate than sitting in the pasture requiring feed and other expenses, same as a pig who isn't capable of working is worth more as food.
ARAs and vegans may think there is no difference between the pig and the dog, but we here in America see quite differently, and so does the rest of the world. What we eat is based on our geographical location and our culture, not a biased, speciesist love affair with eating the pig, but loving the dog.
While they may be right in some aspects, they seem to have forgotten the rest of the world exists. Here in America, we eat cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, chicken, turkeys, geese, bison and other, more exotic meats, while we will not eat horses, dogs, cats, and other animals we deem to be pets. Is this normal? Yes. We eat what we do based on our culture and what worked for us. Pigs grew quickly, and produced a lot of meat, without offering much more. Dogs on the other hand, worked for us, and didn't provide much in the way of meat, not even with larger breeds, so we saw fit to keep dogs alive and pigs on our plate.
In other countries, such as India, animals we see as food aren't thought of as food animals, such as cattle. Jewish people won't eat pigs, and many Asian countries see horses and dogs as delicacies, rather than pets.
Animals people eat end up being eaten because they are worth more that way. A horse who can't work is worth more on someone's plate than sitting in the pasture requiring feed and other expenses, same as a pig who isn't capable of working is worth more as food.
ARAs and vegans may think there is no difference between the pig and the dog, but we here in America see quite differently, and so does the rest of the world. What we eat is based on our geographical location and our culture, not a biased, speciesist love affair with eating the pig, but loving the dog.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)