On Feb 25, 6:56*pm, chico > wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:37:13 -0800 (PST) Buxqi > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 5:53*pm, chico > wrote:
> > > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:18:57 -0800 (PST) Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 22, 6:33*pm, Prisoner at War > wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 20, 2:34 pm, "Justin E. Miller" <justinmiller87> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Actually, my dogs are vegetarians just like me.
>
> > > > > Eh?? *So what does he eat, grains? *Tofu?? *Seriously, cats and dogs
> > > > > can survive on wheat gluten and such??
>
> > > > My understanding is that dogs are omnivores like us and can survive on
> > > > vegan diets.
>
> > > If you have any agreement with the propositions of the animal rights activists, why would you force your "values" on any > animal rather than give it a choice?
>
> > The dog has no knowledge of where the food comes from and even if he
> > did
> > he would not be able to understand the ethical considerations.
>
> There are no ethical considerations, except you idiots see fit to impose your sham "principles" onto helpless pets.
>
> > In many ways
> > we are in a better position than the dog to make informed decisions
> > about what to feed him.
>
> Denying meat on grounds that YOU choose to be a vegan isn't an informed decision, it's projecting your authoritarian values on other species.

Poppycock!
>
> > > Offer a dog a can of meat-based dog food and a bowl of "vegan" dog food. Which will it choose? Meat. Every ****ing time.
>
> > Offer the dog enough food it needs to keep him healthy and enough to
> > make him fat and which will he choose.
> > Getting fat. Every ****ing time.
>
> Don't move the goalpost. The issue isn't about overfeeding or underfeeding, it's about appropriate choices for another species based on lazy urbanite ways of thinking about the world.

It's another example to show that what the animal wants need
not be the only consideration.
>
> > > > You can even buy vegan dog food!
>
> > > Dogs are not vegan. Humans with eating disorders and ridiculous sense of "ethics" shouldn't try to make dogs into "vegans."
>
> > > > Cats on the other hand
> > > > are carnivores and lack the ability to synthesise the essential animo
> > > > acid, taurine.
>
> > > No animal should be subjected to abuse by vegans who are so authoritarian and zealous that they project their "values" onto what their animals eat..
>
> > I find it curious that you seem to find it bizarre that some people
> > would object to
> > breeding and raising animals to fatten so fast as to put potentially
> > discomforting
> > strain on legs and heart, rear them in cramped, barren, urine-filled
> > sheds and then
> > killing them and yet you get incensed that these same people would not
> > give their
> > dogs the foods they found the tastiest.
>
> The conditions you described are the exception to the rule.

Really? The conditions described are what I understand a
typical broiler chicken unit to be. This perception is informed
mainly by AW organisations -CIWF to be specific, I treat
AR organisations much more sceptically. It is also backed
up by the ocassional newspaper article or TV documentary.
If you feel you have more reliable sources please share them.
BTW would you find it objectionable if you thought the
description above were accurate?

I don't find it bizarre that people like you can only deal with such
issues in graphic extremes -- after all, veganism, like other
passivist "solutions" to complex problems, cannot thrive where people
have to actually use their brains. So you paint in the most emotive
terms and with the broadest possible brush you can find against all
livestock production. That gives you an out when it comes to
alternatives that include meat, even for another species, and allows
you to maintain your extremist pose.
>
> > If the dogs were showing signs of dissatisfaction or malnutrition as a
> > result then
> > that would be a different issue but that the owner's are denying them
> > choice seems
> > to be enough to invoke your disapproval.
>
> Malnutrition is rarely "acute" or immediate. It generally shows up as gradual decline marked with myriad symptoms.

True. If I wanted to avoid all animal products for ethical reasons and
also
wanted a dog I would do some research first to make sure thier
nutrition
was adequately provided for. Assuming the vegan alternative is
sufficiently
nutritious and palatable, as I have been led to believe, I really
don't see the
problem!

My disapproval is over projection of one's personal convictions about
such matters onto a member of another species without regard for the
best interests of the other species.

Why is it only pets whose interests you seem to advocate here?
Why do you find it so repugnant to attempt to balance the best
interests
of one's dog with the best interests of other (eg farm) animals?

That's not very compassionate. It's authoritarian and patently
unnatural. But so is veg*ism

"Natural" is a fairly nebulous and over rated consideration in this
context.

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Feb 25, 7:32*pm, Prisoner at War > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 7:51 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The act of using the milk or eggs does no harm in itself but there are
> > issues
> > related to the production of these things
>
> Yes, I was afraid of that.
>
> > but if you are concerned
> > with the
> > killing of animals for food then you might want to consider the fact
> > that
> > surplus male calves/chicks and cows/chickens that are too old to be
> > productive
> > are killed, even when they are not destined to be eaten.
>
> Surplus?? *Too old?? *You mean the ones they kept around for the milk
> and eggs?

Yup.
>
> I shudder to think that they use 'em as feed...for other cows and
> chickens....

to be honest I don't know where they end up. Probably most of
those that aren't deemed suitable for human consumption end up
in pet feed.
>
> > Much of our
> > veal and beef
> > is in some sense a byproduct of the beef industry. Egg laying chickens
> > are not
> > normally used for human consumption.
>
> But are destroyed after they've served their usefulness, eh? *I
> wonder...just what do they do with those free-range egg-laying
> chickens?? *Might those free-range farms simply sell off their old
> unproductive "units"??

Well, a farmer can't really afford to house them or feed them when
they no longer pay their rent so to speak and there isn't much demand
for them as pets...

> > There are additional animal welfare problems associated with the dairy
> > industry.
> > According to a leading UK animal rights organisation CIWF, most have
> > the cows
> > used are bred and fed to maximize milk yields and this results in
> > disturbingly higher
> > incidence of mastitis, a painful udder infection. Lameness is another
> > problem,
> > associated with winter/nighttime accomodation that is poorly designed
> > to meet the
> > needs of relatively large, modern cattle. Also the calves are
> > seperated from their mothers
> > at a very early stage and both show considerable signs of distress as
> > a result.
>
> That's really perverse.

I have seen it claimed that a calf left in the care of a high
production cow will become sick through overfeeding.
However They can be kept on opposite sides of a fence
where they can still see each other...
>
> > Some dieticians believe that but it isn't a position endorsed by any
> > nutrition
> > organisation that I respect.
>
> Whew, glad to hear that, at least! *Can't imagine being vegan. *Just
> can't. *Lacto-ovo, yes, well, it's coming
> along...slowly...somewhat...sometimes...soon....

An aesthetic matter. Personally I find the variety and tastiness of
plant
food quite satisfactory. It can be a bit awkward eating out sometimes
but you can always choose to be flexible...
>
> > Bear in mind though that although these are the standard methods of
> > raising animals, they are not universal. Just as you can choose free
> > range eggs
> > instead of the battery kind, you can do the same sort of thing for
> > meat and keep
> > your conscience clear without restricting your diet too much.
>
> Yes, well, the first thing is to at least support those companies that
> try to be humane, as opposed to treating them like industrial
> widgets. *Do you have any particular companies in mind? *My local
> Pathmark used to carry these "Laura's Free-Range Beef" meats but
> stopped. *They're still offering the free-range eggs, though.

I'm other side of the pond to you so I think most of the companies
would be different. Generally I look for the organic or at least the
free range logo. Checking out local farms and buying direct from
farmers who seem to have a good philosophy of animal rearing is
a good idea if you have the time.

> Ultimately, though, I'd still be a bit bothered by the whole notion of
> a life produced just to be fodder for humans,

I can certainly sympathise with that. The animal still gets a life
even so...

> but "humane conditions"
> would help me to not think about such things, yes.
>
> > Apparantly it is possible for a vegetarian or even a vegan diet to
> > provide all the nutrients a body builder needs, though you would
> > probably need to plan more than you do at the moment.
>
> Yes, well, I'm still researching the matter, both by flirting with
> vegetarian or vegan days every week and by reading here and there.
> Unfortunately, everybody says to plan carefully and comprehensively.

To be honest I don't think you'd go that far wrong as long as you make
sure you eat a decent range of plant foods. Nuts and seeds are useful
and healthy source of concentrated nutrition. You would probably end
up having to eat more beans, pulses and tofu than you do now.
Wholegrains and vegetables seem to be recommended staples of
any diet, vegan or otherwise. You need supplements or fortified food
for
B12 because there are no reliable plant sources of it. Animal foods
are
more concentrated in protein but you can only convert so much to
muscle per day in any case. Some suggested links:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/
http://www.nutrition.org.uk/home.asp...Id=299&which=1

These are general nutrition resources not written for vegans but
do have sections on vegetarian diets if I remember correctly.
I tend to prefer sources like these than specifically veg*n ones which
are likely to be biased and preachy.

http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Vegan...35336&sr= 8-1

I own a copy of this book and would be happy to recommend it to you.
The authors have also written "Becoming Vegetarian".

> > It is an unconventional opinion but for reasons already given, I don't
> > see the
> > point in cutting out meat, simply to replace it with dairy (though I
> > have no
> > problem with free range eggs). If you want to reduce your complicity
> > in animal
> > abuses without going all out vegan, wouldn't it be better to simply to
> > consume
> > fewer and/or more carefully sourced animal products? Out of curiousity
> > what's
> > your position on fish?
>
> A bit more complicated since they're not mammals,

I feel more or less the same way about birds as I do about mammals.
Most of the evidence seems to suggest they have similar emotional
responses and like mammals they share the same brain structures
with us that neuro-scientists hold responsible for emotional
awareness.

> but the general
> feeling about the sanctity of life (not that I'm a Jain or something)
> also makes me question myself. *Definitely against the farm-raised
> stuff if I can help it...it's just seems to disgusting to treat
> sentient life that way, you know?
>
> But I don't think mussels, clams, oysters, and so forth are in the
> same category, so I think I'll always have clam chowder!

That seems fair. I'm less concerned about fish because I'm less
convinced of their sentience although I still think it's a distinct
possibility and the method of death does not sound very humane.
On the other hand I also have this concept of "spreading my
ecological footprint out" over land and sea...
>
> > Not that I have any nutritional qualifications but my answer to that
> > is
> > no but it is harder for children than adults. They have higher
> > requirements for
> > fat and protein, both of which are abundant in animal products and
> > they
> > are rather fussier eaters in general, which can be a problem...
>
> Hmmm. *Much more complicated picture, I see.
>
> Didn't scientists grow chicken meat in vitro last year??

Probably.

> If only they
> could just clone meat, just the particular parts (as opposed to a
> whole living organism)...wow, could technology render veganism
> obsolete one day??

I think we would be able to develop that technology one day.
I'm not sure how well it would take off though. People would feel
uneasy(suspicious) about something that unnatural and some
would have ethical objections to it, although I don't really
understand why.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:55:19 +0000 (UTC), Elflord > wrote:

>On 2008-02-26, dh@. <dh@.> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, a floundering Goober attempted
>> pathetically to disagree with himself:
>
>First, your attribution is incorrect, I didn't write the
>"you're full of shit" comment. Second, I didn't write anything
>you're quoting in this thread.

It was a response to the Goober, who did write
everything I quoted. In case you're not familiar with
"who" Goo is, Goo posts and thinks of himself as
any and all of the following "people", and mo

Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog

elvira
Dieter
"Dieter "
>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
****tard
Apoo
Ted Bell

Jay Santos

Rudy Canoza
Trappist

Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
Eden
Sylvia Stevens
chico chupacabra

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon - lied
and presented no challenge:

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:55:19 +0000 (UTC), Elflord > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon - lied and presented no challenge:
>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> First, your attribution is incorrect, I didn't write the
>> "you're full of shit" comment. Second, I didn't write anything
>> you're quoting in this thread.
>
> It was a dishonest, bullshit response to Rudy, who

Coming into existence is not a "benefit", Goo. It
cannot be.

On Feb 27, 1:21 pm, Dave > wrote:
>
>
>
> to be honest I don't know where they end up. Probably most of
> those that aren't deemed suitable for human consumption end up
> in pet feed.

Weird why I feel this way...I mean, on the one hand, I can see how,
hey, it's just a collection of atoms in a particular arrangement, no
big deal...but on the other hand, damn, it seems wrong for some
reason.

> Well, a farmer can't really afford to house them or feed them when
> they no longer pay their rent so to speak and there isn't much demand
> for them as pets...

Yeah, I know, that's why farmers can be such taciturn characters, I
imagine.

I think that Ghandi was right when he said something to the effect
that a society's morality is determined by how it treats its animals.

> I have seen it claimed that a calf left in the care of a high
> production cow will become sick through overfeeding.
> However They can be kept on opposite sides of a fence
> where they can still see each other...

Huh? Overfeeding?? You know, I would think that the very young can't
overfeed...notice how babies and toddlers just stop eating? And if
you force them, they protest and start crying? It's my pet theory
that young kids naturally have a good sense of balance, but that for
some reason -- likely environmental -- they learn to overeat.

I would've thought that the same applies to baby animals.

> An aesthetic matter. Personally I find the variety and tastiness of
> plant
> food quite satisfactory. It can be a bit awkward eating out sometimes
> but you can always choose to be flexible...

Oh, it's easy being flexible, still. But the main thing is to think
of eating itself as a discipline...like working out! To think of
eating itself as a training regimen....

> I'm other side of the pond to you so I think most of the companies
> would be different. Generally I look for the organic or at least the
> free range logo. Checking out local farms and buying direct from
> farmers who seem to have a good philosophy of animal rearing is
> a good idea if you have the time.

Geez, might almost raise 'em myself, for all that bother! ;-) Almost
simpler to go wholly vegan....

> I can certainly sympathise with that. The animal still gets a life
> even so...

I'm not one of these people who think life is inherently sacrosanct --
which might seem odd, considering my awakening sympathies, but such a
"value-neutral" or, even, "nihilistic" view of life actually
reinforces my sense of sympathy for animals...mainly in the abstract
right now, but it's a rather regular thought these days.

> To be honest I don't think you'd go that far wrong as long as you make
> sure you eat a decent range of plant foods. Nuts and seeds are useful
> and healthy source of concentrated nutrition. You would probably end
> up having to eat more beans, pulses and tofu than you do now.
> Wholegrains and vegetables seem to be recommended staples of
> any diet, vegan or otherwise. You need supplements or fortified food
> for
> B12 because there are no reliable plant sources of it. Animal foods
> are
> more concentrated in protein but you can only convert so much to
> muscle per day in any case. Some suggested links:
>
> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...Id=299&which=1
>
> These are general nutrition resources not written for vegans but
> do have sections on vegetarian diets if I remember correctly.
> I tend to prefer sources like these than specifically veg*n ones which
> are likely to be biased and preachy.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Vegan...Plant-Based/dp...
>
> I own a copy of this book and would be happy to recommend it to you.
> The authors have also written "Becoming Vegetarian".

Many thanks. I'm reading up on this stuff at my leisure, and eating
less and less meat considering the week as a whole. I've noticed that
my lips have started to dry out a bit, shrivel like they've been
blasted by arctic air (though we do have a cold spell currently in
NYC), which I notice every time I cut back the fats on a diet. I've
bought a bottle of fish oil capsules so I'll see if supplementing with
them helps out in that regard.

> I feel more or less the same way about birds as I do about mammals.
> Most of the evidence seems to suggest they have similar emotional
> responses and like mammals they share the same brain structures
> with us that neuro-scientists hold responsible for emotional
> awareness.

So is it simply a matter of how closely we can identify with them --
how anthropomorphicable they are??

> That seems fair. I'm less concerned about fish because I'm less
> convinced of their sentience although I still think it's a distinct
> possibility and the method of death does not sound very humane.
> On the other hand I also have this concept of "spreading my
> ecological footprint out" over land and sea...

Yeah, at some point one simply must draw boundaries, even if only for
"logistical" purposes.

Did you read that scientists recently determined that lobsters don't
feel pain? Even though the react, apparently they don't actually have
the neurological apparatus to feel pain, actually...don't know how
they determined it...but, you know, it seems that the feeling of pain
would be a sign of a certain degree of sentience, no? I wonder what a
Zen Buddhist would say...besides "mu," of course...they seem to think
that pain is a psychological illusion (which it certainly can be, as
when amputees still feel pain in their lost limbs)....

> Probably.

That's what I can't stand -- a story like that pops up in the news,
and then you never hear anything again and you wonder whether you
heard it at all in the first place...like the other story about video
on paper -- yeah, moving images on real paper! Some University of
Arizona lab came up with inks that react somehow such that images on
some kind of paper can move....

> I think we would be able to develop that technology one day.
> I'm not sure how well it would take off though. People would feel
> uneasy(suspicious) about something that unnatural and some
> would have ethical objections to it, although I don't really
> understand why.

Well, it will meet with initial skepticism, sure.

"Prisoner at War" > wrote in message
...
> On Feb 27, 1:21 pm, Dave > wrote:
...
> > http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Vegan...Plant-Based/dp...
> >
> > I own a copy of this book and would be happy to recommend it to you.
> > The authors have also written "Becoming Vegetarian".
>
> Many thanks. I'm reading up on this stuff at my leisure, and eating
> less and less meat considering the week as a whole. I've noticed that
> my lips have started to dry out a bit, shrivel like they've been
> blasted by arctic air (though we do have a cold spell currently in
> NYC), which I notice every time I cut back the fats on a diet. I've
> bought a bottle of fish oil capsules so I'll see if supplementing with
> them helps out in that regard.

Try a handful of walnuts / pumpkin & hemp seeds, daily (instead).

...
> > On the other hand I also have this concept of "spreading my
> > ecological footprint out" over land and sea...
>
> Yeah, at some point one simply must draw boundaries, even if only for
> "logistical" purposes.

'The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the
state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report is
generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of
problems but does show the main issues. In general it can be
stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind time
of the real situation.

52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
20% are moderately exploited
17% are overexploited
7% are depleted
1% is recovering from depletion

The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks
are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully
exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation
(maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a
total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-
exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about
90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone.
...
We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result
the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and
at risk of collapse.
...'
http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_..._a_problem.php

> Did you read that scientists recently determined that lobsters don't
> feel pain? Even though the react, apparently they don't actually have
> the neurological apparatus to feel pain, actually...don't know how
> they determined it...but, you know, it seems that the feeling of pain
> would be a sign of a certain degree of sentience, no?

'Scientists have discovered that lobsters have pain receptors
and neurotransmitters that are very much like our own.
University of Pennsylvania neurobiologist Dr. Tom Abrams
says that lobsters have "a full array of senses," and these
senses include the ability to detect noxious chemicals and
changes in water temperature and feel pain. Scientist John
R. Baker states, "The nervous systems of lobsters and crabs
.. are complex; their sensory organs are highly developed;
their responses to certain stimuli are immediate and vigorous."

Dr. Nedim Buyukmihci, professor of veterinary surgery at
the University of California at Davis, explains, "There is no
question that lobsters have the ability to feel pain and suffer
.. Lobsters have a brain and a nervous system and are
responsive to noxious (painful) stimuli. . [i]t would be
inappropriate to do something to lobsters that you would
not consider doing to conscious dogs, cats, or humans."
..
It's difficult to imagine that lobsters would have survived in
the harsh underwater world without the ability to feel pain.
Pain protects animals from danger-when they feel pain,
they know to stay away from whatever caused the discomfort.
In order for lobsters or any animal to have survived through
the millennia, they must be able to sense pain and avoid it.

Even More Vulnerable to Pain

Besides having sensitive pain receptors, lobsters also lack
the pain-dulling mechanisms that our own nervous systems
use to protect us from severe pain. This means that lobsters
may feel even more agony than we would in similar situations.
Explains Wallace, "[L]obsters are maybe even more vulnerable
to pain, since they lack mammalian nervous systems' built-in
analgesia ."

Invertebrate zoologist Dr. Jaren G. Horsley agrees that lobsters
may feel even more pain than we do, saying, "The lobster does
not have an autonomic nervous system that puts it into a state
of shock when it is harmed. . [T]he lobster is in a great deal
of pain from being cut open. . [It] feels all the pain until its
nervous system is destroyed" during cooking.
...'
http://www.lobsterlib.com/feat/lobst...ain/facing.asp

On Feb 29, 8:16*pm, Prisoner at War > wrote:
> On Feb 27, 1:21 pm, Dave > wrote:
>
>
>
> > to be honest I don't know where they end up. Probably most of
> > those that aren't deemed suitable for human consumption end up
> > in pet feed.
>
> Weird why I feel this way...I mean, on the one hand, I can see how,
> hey, it's just a collection of atoms in a particular arrangement, no
> big deal...but on the other hand, damn, it seems wrong for some
> reason.

Life may be nothing more than a collection of atoms but
even if so it is a collection of atoms arranged in such a
way as to produce characteristics that make it worthy
of special reverence.
>
> > Well, a farmer can't really afford to house them or feed them when
> > they no longer pay their rent so to speak and there isn't much demand
> > for them as pets...
>
> Yeah, I know, that's why farmers can be such taciturn characters, I
> imagine.

I hadn't noticed that farmers are especially taciturn myself.

> I think that Ghandi was right when he said something to the effect
> that a society's morality is determined by how it treats its animals.

He might have done. I don't know.

> > I have seen it claimed that a calf left in the care of a high
> > production cow will become sick through overfeeding.
> > However They can be kept on opposite sides of a fence
> > where they can still see each other...
>
> Huh? *Overfeeding?? *You know, I would think that the very young can't
> overfeed...notice how babies and toddlers just stop eating? *And if
> you force them, they protest and start crying? *It's my pet theory
> that young kids naturally have a good sense of balance, but that for
> some reason -- likely environmental -- they learn to overeat.
>
> I would've thought that the same applies to baby animals.

I would have thought so but I have been informed otherwise
(by a dairy farmer). It is plausible though because dairy cows
have been selectively bred to produce several times more milk
than their forebears over a time scale that was rather short from
an evolutionary standpoint...

> > An aesthetic matter. Personally I find the variety and tastiness of
> > plant
> > food quite satisfactory. It can be a bit awkward eating out sometimes
> > but you can always choose to be flexible...
>
> Oh, it's easy being flexible, still. *But the main thing is to think
> of eating itself as a discipline...like working out! *To think of
> eating itself as a training regimen....

Yeah that's one approach. If it works for you...

> > I'm other side of the pond to you so I think most of the companies
> > would be different. Generally I look for the organic or at least the
> > free range logo. Checking out local farms and buying direct from
> > farmers who seem to have a good philosophy of animal rearing is
> > a good idea if you have the time.
>
> Geez, might almost raise 'em myself, for all that bother! *;-) *Almost
> simpler to go wholly vegan....

If you like...
>
> > I can certainly sympathise with that. The animal still gets a life
> > even so...
>
> I'm not one of these people who think life is inherently sacrosanct --
> which might seem odd, considering my awakening sympathies, but such a
> "value-neutral" or, even, "nihilistic" view of life actually
> reinforces my sense of sympathy for animals...mainly in the abstract
> right now, but it's a rather regular thought these days.

I didn't mean to sound value-neutral. Life is a precious thing but
everything that is alive has to die sometime.

> > To be honest I don't think you'd go that far wrong as long as you make
> > sure you eat a decent range of plant foods. Nuts and seeds are useful
> > and healthy source of concentrated nutrition. You would probably end
> > up having to eat more beans, pulses and tofu than you do now.
> > Wholegrains and vegetables seem to be recommended staples of
> > any diet, vegan or otherwise. You need supplements or fortified food
> > for
> > B12 because there are no reliable plant sources of it. Animal foods
> > are
> > more concentrated in protein but you can only convert so much to
> > muscle per day in any case. *Some suggested links:
>
> >http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio....nutrition.org....
>
> > These are general nutrition resources not written for vegans but
> > do have sections on vegetarian diets if I remember correctly.
> > I tend to prefer sources like these than specifically veg*n ones which
> > are likely to be biased and preachy.
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Vegan...Plant-Based/dp...
>
> > I own a copy of this book and would be happy to recommend it to you.
> > The authors have also written "Becoming Vegetarian".
>
> Many thanks. *I'm reading up on this stuff at my leisure, and eating
> less and less meat considering the week as a whole. *I've noticed that
> my lips have started to dry out a bit, shrivel like they've been
> blasted by arctic air (though we do have a cold spell currently in
> NYC), which I notice every time I cut back the fats on a diet. *I've
> bought a bottle of fish oil capsules so I'll see if supplementing with
> them helps out in that regard.

I'm not sure what nutritional deficiencies that would indicate. The
fact
that fats help is suggestive. I seem to remember vitamin E being
critical to good skin health. It is also a fat soluble vitamin which
is
often found in fatty foods! Nuts, seeds, cold pressed plant oils,
avocados and olives are good healthy sources of fats.... So is fish
oil
of course

> > I feel more or less the same way about birds as I do about mammals.
> > Most of the evidence seems to suggest they have similar emotional
> > responses and like mammals they share the same brain structures
> > with us that neuro-scientists hold responsible for emotional
> > awareness.
>
> So is it simply a matter of how closely we can identify with them --
> how anthropomorphicable they are??

Sort of. It's a matter of whether they share the characteristics that
make humanity so precious

> > That seems fair. I'm less concerned about fish because I'm less
> > convinced of their sentience although I still think it's a distinct
> > possibility and the method of death does not sound very humane.
> > On the other hand I also have this concept of "spreading my
> > ecological footprint out" over land and sea...
>
> Yeah, at some point one simply must draw boundaries, even if only for
> "logistical" purposes.
>
> Did you read that scientists recently determined that lobsters don't
> feel pain? *

Yes although I would regard the evidence as suggestive rather
than definitive.

> Even though the react, apparently they don't actually have
> the neurological apparatus to feel pain,

This seemed unlikely to me until someone asked me what
happens if I accidentally put my hand on a dangerously hot
surface. Does my body wait for the pain signals to reach the
brain before moving my hand? Hell, no!

> actually...don't know how
> they determined it...but, you know, it seems that the feeling of pain
> would be a sign of a certain degree of sentience, no?

I don't know much about neuroscience either but I know
they have equipment that can measure brain activity.
When showed pictures or engaging in activities that we
would describle as pleasurable, fearsome, etc, certain
areas of the brain light up on the scans. Also brain damaged
patients exhibit characterstics defined by the part of the
brain that has been damaged. In this way scientists
can map our brains.

Anyway, the parts of our brains associated with emotions
are not present in lobsters. However no one has demonstrated
that lobsters do have not have some other mechanism for
feeling as far as I am aware.

> *I wonder what a
> Zen Buddhist would say...besides "mu," of course...they seem to think
> that pain is a psychological illusion (which it certainly can be, as
> when amputees still feel pain in their lost limbs)....

It's not cos of psycohological illusions. It's cos the nerves
previously
connected to the leg that are responsible for relaying pain signals to
the brain are still intact.

> > Probably.
>
> That's what I can't stand -- a story like that pops up in the news,
> and then you never hear anything again and you wonder whether you
> heard it at all in the first place...like the other story about video
> on paper -- yeah, moving images on real paper! *Some University of
> Arizona lab came up with inks that react somehow such that images on
> some kind of paper can move....

Wow! Maybe you can still find it on google....

> > I think we would be able to develop that technology one day.
> > I'm not sure how well it would take off though. People would feel
> > uneasy(suspicious) about something that unnatural and some
> > would have ethical objections to it, although I don't really
> > understand why.
>
> Well, it will meet with initial skepticism, sure.

I think it will meet with skepticism until (if) we become
such a crowded land that it is the only way of feeding
ourselves, then eventually people will start taking it for granted.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Goo wrote:

>Coming into existence is not a "benefit", Goo. It
>cannot be.

How do you think that could prevent all livestock
from benefitting from lives of positive value, Goo, do
you have any clue?

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE Goober of all Goobers
- lied and presented no challenge:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Rudy A. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Coming into existence is not a "benefit", Goo. It
>> cannot be.
>
> How do you think that could prevent all livestock
> from benefitting from lives of positive value

Coming into existence is not a "benefit", Goo. You've
been saying it is for nine years, and you're wrong.
You have no reason left to be here.

On Mar 3, 3:23*pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> "Prisoner at War" > wrote in ...
>
> > On Feb 27, 1:21 pm, Dave > wrote:
> ..
> > >http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Vegan...Plant-Based/dp....
>
> > > I own a copy of this book and would be happy to recommend it to you.
> > > The authors have also written "Becoming Vegetarian".
>
> > Many thanks. *I'm reading up on this stuff at my leisure, and eating
> > less and less meat considering the week as a whole. *I've noticed that
> > my lips have started to dry out a bit, shrivel like they've been
> > blasted by arctic air (though we do have a cold spell currently in
> > NYC), which I notice every time I cut back the fats on a diet. *I've
> > bought a bottle of fish oil capsules so I'll see if supplementing with
> > them helps out in that regard.
>
> Try a handful of walnuts / pumpkin & hemp seeds, daily (instead).
>
> ..
>
> > > On the other hand I also have this concept of "spreading my
> > > ecological footprint out" over land and sea...
>
> > Yeah, at some point one simply must draw boundaries, even if only for
> > "logistical" purposes.
>
> 'The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the
> state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report is
> generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of
> problems but does show the main issues. In general it can be
> stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind time
> of the real situation.
>
> 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
> 20% are moderately exploited
> 17% are overexploited
> 7% are depleted
> 1% is recovering from depletion
>
> The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks
> are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully
> exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation
> (maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a
> total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-
> exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about
> 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone.
> ..
> We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result
> the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and
> at risk of collapse.
> ..'http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_overfishing_a_problem.php

This is not an indication that we can't dish sustainably but
that in many cases we don't. It seems highly improbable that
from an area of over 1 billion cubic kilometres of water, there is
not enough fish to make a meaningful contribution to our diet.
Indeed we have harvested the oceans for millenia and it's only
in recent years that overfishing has become a problem.

Nor is the problem simply down to population growth - if it were
we could simply reduce fish consumption per person so that
total fish consumption remained constant. Problems: fishing
is now highly efficient, and can easily locate and wipe out whole
swarms at a time. Modern methods: (a) have significant bycatch,
which is wasteful if nothing else, (b) in some cases damage the
seabed thus harming populations not directly affected (c) target
a limited number of species heavily. There are over 100 edible
species surrounding the UK shores. How many do we eat in
significant quantities? (d) frequently target long-living,
slow-reproducing species

However just as with meat and vegetables, one can choose
which fish to eat thus avoiding the problems described above.
At the very least we can eat less popular species and/or
species with greater reproduction rates. We can choose line
caught fish or hand picked shellfish. We can choose fish that
is recognized by the marine stewardship conservastion trust
as being from sustainable sources.
[i]
> > Did you read that scientists recently determined that lobsters don't
> > feel pain? *Even though the react, apparently they don't actually have
> > the neurological apparatus to feel pain, actually...don't know how
> > they determined it...but, you know, it seems that the feeling of pain
> > would be a sign of a certain degree of sentience, no?
>
> 'Scientists have discovered that lobsters have pain receptors
> and neurotransmitters that are very much like our own.
> University of Pennsylvania neurobiologist Dr. Tom Abrams
> says that lobsters have "a full array of senses," and these
> senses include the ability to detect noxious chemicals and
> changes in water temperature and feel pain. Scientist John
> R. Baker states, "The nervous systems of lobsters and crabs
> . are complex; their sensory organs are highly developed;
> their responses to certain stimuli are immediate and vigorous."
>
> Dr. Nedim Buyukmihci, professor of veterinary surgery at
> the University of California at Davis, explains, "There is no
> question that lobsters have the ability to feel pain and suffer
> . Lobsters have a brain and a nervous system and are
> responsive to noxious (painful) stimuli. . t would be
> inappropriate to do something to lobsters that you would
> not consider doing to conscious dogs, cats, or humans."
> *..
> It's difficult to imagine that lobsters would have survived in
> the harsh underwater world without the ability to feel pain.
> Pain protects animals from danger-when they feel pain,
> they know to stay away from whatever caused the discomfort.
> In order for lobsters or any animal to have survived through
> the millennia, they must be able to sense pain and avoid it.
>
> Even More Vulnerable to Pain
>
> Besides having sensitive pain receptors, lobsters also lack
> the pain-dulling mechanisms that our own nervous systems
> use to protect us from severe pain. This means that lobsters
> may feel even more agony than we would in similar situations.
> Explains Wallace, "[L]obsters are maybe even more vulnerable
> to pain, since they lack mammalian nervous systems' built-in
> analgesia ."
>
> Invertebrate zoologist Dr. Jaren G. Horsley agrees that lobsters
> may feel even more pain than we do, saying, "The lobster does
> not have an autonomic nervous system that puts it into a state
> of shock when it is harmed. . [T]he lobster is in a great deal
> of pain from being cut open. . [It] feels all the pain until its
> nervous system is destroyed" during cooking.
> ..'http://www.lobsterlib.com/feat/lobstersfeelpain/facing.asp