RE: Re: PETA recommendations

[Guest guest]

>Do they advocate a vegetarian diet for cats? I know they do for dogs,

>and have seen it on tv. They recommended a diet based around steamed

>vegetables for dogs.

>

>

Yes they do. In fact, they say, since we can't give our companion

kitties live mice and birds (sez who <weg>), then we must give them

vegan fare, because commercial pet food is nasty. That's a false

dilemma if ever I saw one. Many WAPFers feed their furry pals raw grass

fed meat and other healthy, natural stuff. I give my cats some raw

meat, liver and heart, but with six of them, I can't afford to feed them

that exclusively. They get a natural cat food as well.

Here's the lowdown from their website:

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34

" Some people wonder if it's " unnatural " to omit meat from the diet of a

dog or cat. Animals in the wild commonly eat quite a lot of plant

matter. Besides, to feed them the meat that they would naturally eat,

you would have to serve them whole mice or birds or allow them to hunt

for themselves, an option that is unfair to native species of birds and

other small animals, since companion cats and dogs have been removed

from the food chain and have advantages that free-roaming animals lack.

Vegetarian or vegan dogs and cats enjoy their food and good health, and

a vegetarian diet for your companion animal is ethically consistent with

animal rights philosophy. "

>When I was younger, I ran into a few PETA folks at a Revolutionary

>Communist Party table that I was walking by. I was vegan at the time,

>and surprised that the PETA woman fed her cat tuna fish. She said she

>had to compromise her ideology because it was her (correct)

>understanding that cats couldn't synthesize an amino acid only found

>in animal products.

>

>Chris

>

Well, 'tis very true that indefinite, long term style veganism is an

ideal that one can never quite reach. You can't stop the killing of all

animals. Bugs will get squashed. And the whole idea that it is

unethical to kill for food flat out divorces us from the reality that

many animals kill for food. Is that unethical of them or us to eat in

order to survive?

Anyhoo as a vegan, I fed my cats meaty foods, and I myself used wool and

leather (though I never bought leather whilst vegan). Why take away the

felines' natural diet and supplement unnatural food all to make yourself

feel like you are " ethical " doing so. Nonsensical. The PeTA website

speaks for itself.

http://www.peta.org/

That said, animals should be treated humanely. 's typo was

probably more of a Freudian slip when he said, " Second, PETA is for the

human treatment of animals. " I think that quote may be true.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

>

Deanna:

All of this raises, in my opinion, an interesting or may be

impertinent question: if mice and birds are the natural flesh

foods

for cats, what would the " natural " flesh foods be for humans?

carlos

-------------

Absolutely everything (anything we want). Humans are at the

tip-top of the food chain.

-Mark

_____

[Guest guest]

Nope. Domestic cats. We feed them. Their eco-niche is the dent they make

in the bed after sleeping there all afternoon.

We really aren't the tip top. Our technology is what keeps other animals

from eating us. Without that, big cats, hyenas and bears would eat us. The

tip top of the food chain would be obligate carnivores that eat other

carnivores. There aren't that many and they don't have that big of an

effect on the food chain. Polar bears, killer whales, some birds of prey.

The " top " of the food chain is more " way out there " than " the acme " .

It's not really all that great to be high up on the food chain. Poisons

collect at the top of the food chain. The lower animals each get a little

bit of pesticide or whatever. Whatever eats them gets that poison multiplied

by the number of contaminated prey it eats.

YR

RE: Re: PETA recommendations

>

>

Deanna:

All of this raises, in my opinion, an interesting or may be

impertinent question: if mice and birds are the natural flesh

foods

for cats, what would the " natural " flesh foods be for humans?

carlos

-------------

Absolutely everything (anything we want). Humans are at the

tip-top of the food chain.

-Mark

_____

[Guest guest]

Yup. Our (Human) technology puts us squarely on top, or anywhere

in between that we want. We don't HAVE to eat big game; we can

eat lower plants or microbes if we want. If it's not immediately

edible, we can often process it until it is. And it doesn't hurt

that we are omnivores. But it's our big brains (and resultant

technology) that are our main predatory weapons, and they are no

less of a natural adaptation than big sharp teeth or claws or

strong muscles or wings or gills or venom or speed etc. Big

brains are apparently superior to the defensive/offensive

adaptations of all top predators put together.

-Mark

_____

Nope. Domestic cats. We feed them. Their eco-niche is the dent

they make

in the bed after sleeping there all afternoon.

We really aren't the tip top. Our technology is what keeps other

animals

from eating us. Without that, big cats, hyenas and bears would

eat us. The

tip top of the food chain would be obligate carnivores that eat

other

carnivores. There aren't that many and they don't have that big

of an

effect on the food chain. Polar bears, killer whales, some birds

of prey.

The " top " of the food chain is more " way out there " than " the

acme " .

It's not really all that great to be high up on the food chain.

Poisons

collect at the top of the food chain. The lower animals each get

a little

bit of pesticide or whatever. Whatever eats them gets that poison

multiplied

by the number of contaminated prey it eats.

YR

_____

[Guest guest]

To my way of thinking being tip-top of the food chain is where no other

animal regularly sees you as dinner. The fact that humans can avoid the

other predators (most times) by using brain power makes us tip-top.

Correct me if I am wrong but even without technology, native tribes can

outsmart many predators.

[Guest guest]

mark,

>But it's our big brains (and resultant

>technology) that are our main predatory weapons, and they are no

>less of a natural adaptation than big sharp teeth or claws or

>strong muscles or wings or gills or venom or speed etc. Big

>brains are apparently superior to the defensive/offensive

>adaptations of all top predators put together.

>

Ah, but which came first, the big brain or the technology? From my

understanding, it was the use of tools that allowed a more carnivorous

diet, which gave rise to bigger brains, which brought on better

technology, and so on the cycle goes.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

JC wrote:

>

> Can a monkey throw a stone? If he can, that is technology. The native

> or the " primitive " (whom I would rather call the " illiterate " ) also had

> their own technologies, even if they looked less sophisticated than

> ours. Modern men have simply been assembling the pieces.

>

Ummm......maybe could give us the definition of " technology " ?

Primitive doesn't equate with illiterate, either! I think we've already

touched on this subject, too. Aren't Primives in many ways 'smarter'

than us? Depending on your definition of smarter anyway. Don't we have

evidence that they were at least happier? At least in the terms that

Price put it - without the degenerative societal problems that came with

the decline in our nutrition. Technology increase/health decrease.

[Guest guest]

JC wrote:

>

> Can a monkey throw a stone? If he can, that is technology. The

native

> or the " primitive " (whom I would rather call the " illiterate " )

also had

> their own technologies, even if they looked less sophisticated

than

> ours. Modern men have simply been assembling the pieces.

>

Ummm......maybe could give us the definition of

" technology " ?

Primitive doesn't equate with illiterate, either! I think we've

already

touched on this subject, too. Aren't Primives in many ways

'smarter'

than us? Depending on your definition of smarter anyway. Don't

we have

evidence that they were at least happier? At least in the terms

that

Price put it - without the degenerative societal problems that

came with

the decline in our nutrition. Technology increase/health

decrease.

I would be interested in seeing this evidence of greater

happiness. Most of their babies died.

-Mark

[Guest guest]

> Deanna:

>

> All of this raises, in my opinion, an interesting or may be

> impertinent question: if mice and birds are the natural flesh

> foods

> for cats, what would the " natural " flesh foods be for humans?

>

> carlos

>

For hunter gatherers, prior to trade and commerce it was whatever herbivore,

omnivore or water life there was where they were. Carnivores are rare

exception, like African lion hunters or rattlesnake eaters.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> The fact that humans can avoid the

>other predators (most times) by using brain power makes us tip-top.

>Correct me if I am wrong but even without technology, native tribes can

>outsmart many predators.

>

>

As Asimov is famously quoted though, it remains to be seen

if intelligence is really a good long-term survival trait! Ants and

sharks have been around a lot longer, and neither has the

tendency to destroy their own environment.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>

> > Ummm......maybe could give us the definition

> of " technology " ?

>

José Barbosa wrote:

> * Why ? He is silent, by the way. If I remember well, it was

> Mark (or maybe ) who first mentioned the word " technology " .

Maybe it was only my impression, but appeared to be very good at

providing definitions of words whilst educating us. Ok it was just me.

wrote:

> ...And " illiterate " doesn't mean " stupid " either. Someone can be very

> smart, and still not know how to read. Or a population could be very

> successful, and not have a written language.

This was what I was trying to get at, but now I wonder what's going on

inside my head because I put the two together. On some level I think

that illiterate people aren't as smart as me. How embarrassed am I now?

José Barbosa wrote:

> At least there are no couch potatoes among the

> primitive.

I have read that in a study where they put Australian Aborigines back

into their natural environment and diet that they actually did less

work/exercise that previous to the study. Kangaroos must be easy to

catch! Or maybe the bush has such a plethora of goodies. I envy them.

Out of all the ancient people I would like to have been in a past life,

I think Australian Aborigines and Native Americans are top of the list.

Mostly because they had such a spiritual connection to the universe.

Maybe that's something I need to work on in my life!? It's funny where

my musings have led me lately.

> * As for happiness, I don't know. Perhaps a better word here would be

> bliss, which is, in my opinion, a sort of happiness of which you are

> not aware. Happiness, on the other hand, implies that you experience

> sadness now and then and that you are aware of the fragility of your

> actual condition. Suddenly everything can change. But certainly all

> the primitive people experienced fear, too.

>

> In fact, fear has always been around.

yes definitely bliss. But not sure what you are getting at with

happiness. Do you mean that Primitives or premodern (?) peoples were

not aware of their condition? Surely, modern man is equally as unaware

on the whole? <puzzled look>

>

> José

>

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mark wrote:

> I would be interested in seeing this evidence of greater

> > happiness. Most of their babies died.

Originally I meant that they would have less problems with psychological

disturbances and misfits. Price was saying that nutritional

deficiencies lead to more anti-social behaviour, more depression.. We

need more and more gaol/jail space now.

The loss of a baby for anyone ancient or modern must be very difficult

and cause much unhappiness. I don't want to trivialise that at all.

Ancient times were without a doubt tough. I'm trying to look for an

alternate word to happiness, but I still want to use that. Does anyone

get what I mean? Or am I being too idealistic?

José wrote:

> But in any case it may be wrong to idealize that ancient world very

> much...

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Deanna:

>

> All of this raises, in my opinion, an interesting or may be

> impertinent question: if mice and birds are the natural flesh

> foods

> for cats, what would the " natural " flesh foods be for humans?

>

> carlos

>

For hunter gatherers, prior to trade and commerce it was whatever

herbivore,

omnivore or water life there was where they were. Carnivores are

rare

exception, like African lion hunters or rattlesnake eaters.

Wanita

" Water life " ? Most fish are carnivores.

-mark

_____

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>

> > Ummm......maybe could give us the definition

> of " technology " ?

>

José Barbosa wrote:

> * Why ? He is silent, by the way. If I remember well, it

was

> Mark (or maybe ) who first mentioned the word

" technology " .

Maybe it was only my impression, but appeared to be very

good at

providing definitions of words whilst educating us. Ok it was

just me.

wrote:

> ...And " illiterate " doesn't mean " stupid " either. Someone can

be very

> smart, and still not know how to read. Or a population could

be very

> successful, and not have a written language.

This was what I was trying to get at, but now I wonder what's

going on

inside my head because I put the two together. On some level I

think

that illiterate people aren't as smart as me. How embarrassed

am I now?

José Barbosa wrote:

> At least there are no couch potatoes among the

> primitive.

I have read that in a study where they put Australian Aborigines

back

into their natural environment and diet that they actually did

less

work/exercise that previous to the study. Kangaroos must be easy

to

catch! Or maybe the bush has such a plethora of goodies. I envy

them.

Out of all the ancient people I would like to have been in a past

life,

I think Australian Aborigines and Native Americans are top of the

list.

Mostly because they had such a spiritual connection to the

universe.

Maybe that's something I need to work on in my life!? It's funny

where

my musings have led me lately.

> * As for happiness, I don't know. Perhaps a better word here

would be

> bliss, which is, in my opinion, a sort of happiness of which

you are

> not aware. Happiness, on the other hand, implies that you

experience

> sadness now and then and that you are aware of the fragility of

your

> actual condition. Suddenly everything can change. But certainly

all

> the primitive people experienced fear, too.

>

> In fact, fear has always been around.

yes definitely bliss. But not sure what you are getting at with

happiness. Do you mean that Primitives or premodern (?) peoples

were

not aware of their condition? Surely, modern man is equally as

unaware

on the whole? <puzzled look>

>

> José

>

> >

>

>

_____

Romancing the distant past a little I’d say. Weather didn’t

cooperate; crops failed; people died from small infections and

injuries, not to mention freezing, being eaten alive, being

savagely killed by enemies or stronger tribe members. Few died of

“old age”; infants died from even less (most of them). Are we

denying that these harsh Darwinian realities existed then? There

are very good reason why we invented modern comforts. It’s

because the general experience of Darwinian evolution (survival

of the fittest, etc) is one of painful struggle. Sure, there were

times of plenty, but then came drought and winter. A large reason

why primitive camping is pleasant is because we know we are able

to return home. I’d love to visit our pre-agriculture past, but I

would bet big money that none of us (after staying for a while)

would want to live there.

-Mark

[Guest guest]

> The fact that humans can avoid the

>other predators (most times) by using brain power makes us

tip-top.

>Correct me if I am wrong but even without technology, native

tribes can

>outsmart many predators.

>

>

As Asimov is famously quoted though, it remains to be seen

if intelligence is really a good long-term survival trait! Ants

and

sharks have been around a lot longer, and neither has the

tendency to destroy their own environment.

Heidi Jean

---------------

That may be a bit backwards. Ants do not consciously refrain from

exhausting their environment. Were they to have their way, they

would take over the world, as would any species; as we have

largely done. It is precisely our intelligence that has

threatened to destroy our environment. But that's not a bad

thing. It is because we have succeeded as a species. " But how

could environmental harm be intelligent " you ask. Any species,

given the means, will proceed to exhaust his environment; most

are simply too incompetent to do so. The prime directive

(survival instinct) of all life is to consume and grow/reproduce.

For life, to accomplish an instinct is success, and Homo sapiens

has done that very well. But fear not: the same organ that gave

us our success, and rampantly consumed resources, has the

potential to solve the dwindling-resource problem. We are not

yeast in a wine jug; we are not doomed to consume all our

resources, auto-intoxicate and die. We have a big brain to solve

the biggest problem facing any successful species.

Whether we have beat the competition at the game of surviving is

not at issue. Whether we can retain the title, as Asimov says,

remains to be seen. But failing long term success will/does not

diminish our current success.

All life preys on itself and its environment. There is no such

thing as an environmentally-friendly species of life. All life is

parasitic/consumptive. It moves and transforms things faster. A

" destroyed " environment is only in context of continued life; the

inanimate earth doesn't care into what it is transformed.

Gaia-schmaia!

Just my two cents worth .. .. .. or maybe a little more or less

... .. .. depending on how you look at it.

-Mark

_____

[Guest guest]

Mark wrote:

> I would be interested in seeing this evidence of greater

> > happiness. Most of their babies died.

Originally I meant that they would have less problems with

psychological

disturbances and misfits. Price was saying that nutritional

deficiencies lead to more anti-social behaviour, more

depression.. We

need more and more gaol/jail space now.

The loss of a baby for anyone ancient or modern must be very

difficult

and cause much unhappiness. I don't want to trivialise that at

all.

Ancient times were without a doubt tough. I'm trying to look for

an

alternate word to happiness, but I still want to use that. Does

anyone

get what I mean? Or am I being too idealistic?

José wrote:

> But in any case it may be wrong to idealize that ancient world

very

> much...

>

>

---------------------------

I think we three agree: too idealistic – yes. Maybe a better word

is “romantic”. It’s easy to over-romanticize the past.

-Mark

[Guest guest]

Mark:

>That may be a bit backwards. Ants do not consciously refrain from

>exhausting their environment. Were they to have their way, they

>would take over the world, as would any species; as we have

>largely done. It is precisely our intelligence that has

>threatened to destroy our environment. But that's not a bad

>thing. It is because we have succeeded as a species. " But how

>could environmental harm be intelligent " you ask. Any species,

>given the means, will proceed to exhaust his environment; most

>are simply too incompetent to do so. The prime directive

>(survival instinct) of all life is to consume and grow/reproduce.

>For life, to accomplish an instinct is success, and Homo sapiens

>has done that very well. But fear not: the same organ that gave

>us our success, and rampantly consumed resources, has the

>potential to solve the dwindling-resource problem. We are not

>yeast in a wine jug; we are not doomed to consume all our

>resources, auto-intoxicate and die. We have a big brain to solve

>the biggest problem facing any successful species.

Good points! I guess I would answer that our intelligence is

largely spent in social games, NOT in solving our long-term

survival issues. I mean, your average CEO is worried about

stock options and his next car, not humanity's survival, which

is part of the issue. However, the ant is prevented from taking

over precisely because it has competitors: humanity has wiped

out the competition. Moreover, historically each tribe worked

pretty hard at wiping out other tribes (murder rates were

incredibly high). So our intelligence that allows us to survive

against, say, a jaguar, eventually will wipe out the jaguar, the

forest, and potentially ourselves. The ant doesn't do this,

not because they are morally superior but because, as you

point out, they simply aren't smart enough. Yeast might

take over a wine jug, but they can't destroy the whole

planet (or if the could have, they would have!).

Or we can take the next leap of logic and start thinking

beyond ourselves and our family and start thinking

as a larger group and for goals further in the future.

Asimov's take was that perhaps the reason we don't

get radio beacons from the stars is that every time a

race gets to the point we are at, they manage to self-destruct!

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Mark,

That was very nicely said. I fully agree.

Ron

> That may be a bit backwards. Ants do not consciously refrain from

> exhausting their environment. Were they to have their way, they

> would take over the world, as would any species; as we have

> largely done. It is precisely our intelligence that has

> threatened to destroy our environment. But that's not a bad

> thing. It is because we have succeeded as a species. " But how

> could environmental harm be intelligent " you ask. Any species,

> given the means, will proceed to exhaust his environment; most

> are simply too incompetent to do so. The prime directive

[snip]

[Guest guest]

Mark: You don't usually save a lot of space when you are typing,

do

you? Funny, I find that I have to scroll down all the way to read

your message.

I think your voice and your way of putting forward some questions

were much needed in this group, if I may say so. Well, I don't

want

to sound pretentious. I am not the owner of the group, anyway.

But I

feel you have made an impressive arrival, assuming that you are a

recent member. I don't know.

I will ask the opposite question: do you think our primitive

ancestors would generally want to live in our world? Wouldn't

most of

them choose to run away from all the pointless noise?

Best regards,

José

_____

,

Sorry about the posting style. Thanks for the compliments.

That’s a good question. Of course there are a lot of possible

answers, and most of them start with “it depends”. Although the

question surely relates to our discussion at hand, there would

likely be psychological factors to complicate the answers.

Quickly transporting any person to a foreign environment will

incur stress, no matter the life-supporting features of that

environment - they won’t be immediately appreciated by the

transported.

-Mark

[Guest guest]

Mark:

>You stop short of the whole point. The jug IS the world for the

>yeast.

Good point!

>

>

>No disagreement there as to the value. But it's not really

>necessary for all members of an advanced society to act in unison

>to accomplish a goal. Specialization is superior.

We don't have to act in unison, but at least SOME of the

members (maybe the specialized ones that do " ruling " ) have

to act for the long term not short term. Diamond's

book " Collapse " gets into this in a lot of detail. What made

the Easter Islanders chop down the last tree? Humans have

this idea that if they just keep doing the same thing

and work harder, or have more faith, it will somehow turn

out in the end. Or that if the reasources are going to get

used up, they'll at least get THEIR share first. Someone has

to do long-term planning!

Heidi

[Guest guest]

We don't have to act in unison, but at least SOME of the

members (maybe the specialized ones that do " ruling " ) have

to act for the long term not short term. Diamond's

book " Collapse " gets into this in a lot of detail. What made

the Easter Islanders chop down the last tree? Humans have

this idea that if they just keep doing the same thing

and work harder, or have more faith, it will somehow turn

out in the end. Or that if the reasources are going to get

used up, they'll at least get THEIR share first. Someone has

to do long-term planning!

Heidi

-------------

Heidi,

Much in agreement, but thankfully technology and economics do

more than just aid in exploiting the environment; they also

automatically act as efficiency supervisors (long-term planners).

Of course a lot more foresight is (always) needed, but thanks to

the development of other building materials, we don't have to

chop down all our trees.

-Mark

_____

[Guest guest]

I've worked closely with a lot of different animals and animal

species.

What strikes me as different about humans is just what you guys

are talking

about. All the animals I've ever met can lie, cheat, murder,

hurt others.

Most work predominantly for themselves or their children. This

isn't a

moral judgment, but an observation. If given a choice, most

animals will do

what they think is best for themselves. I can understand that

and respect

it.

What distinguishes humans is how many more of us can transcend

this short

term view to understand the needs and wants of other people,

including those

of other species. *Some* animals do this. Some individual

animals can

transcend their species. Some species work altruistically within

the

species. But I know of no other species that can feel the pain

of others as

deeply as humans do. At least, I know of no other animal that

commonly acts

on those feelings.

So what differentiates us from other animals is not how we

sometimes (often)

strip the environment for our short term needs. Most animals

would do that

if they had our intelligence and abilities. Neither does our

difference

come from the negative ways we treat other humans. Every act of

violence

humans are capable of again has been done by other animals, or

would be if

they could.

What differentiates us is our ability to have compassion. Call

it Jesus

Consciousness or Buddha nature or anything else, but of all human

behaviors,

our ability to care for others, extending to even mindless jelly

fish and

simple plants sometimes!, is what makes us human.

YR

_____

YR,

Very good observations. Although I imagine empathy is technically

a by-product of higher intelligence and the ability to see

farther ahead and make more complex observations like the one you

just made. This includes the realization that our life would be

of much lower quality were other living organisms not in it; from

our loved ones to other exotic species. Here is where the line

between selfish and selfless gets blurry.

I like to specify it as Human Consciousness and generalize it as

Life Consciousness. All life wants all life to survive, but

usually only in context of its own species' survival priorities:

individual first; family members next; friends and relatives

next; special interest groups / community members next; similar

races / sub-species varieties next; all members of same species

next; similar species next; similar genera next; similar families

next; similar orders next; similar kingdoms next; all of life

next. In other words, I want all life to survive - unless it

means that I don't. Rule out competition, as Humanity largely

has, and the species can afford to appreciate all other life

forms (as more than just dinner).

-Mark