[split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."

[JustLikeYou]

If you think animals don't have a conscious opinion on the matter, go to a slaughterhouse and see if the cows/pigs want to be killed.

All life seeks to persevere. That is one of the inborn directives of 2D. I'm saying that most do not choose so for themselves because it is a choice one can only consciously make. Think of a dog that dies of grief. That dog has chosen to die; it is not simply responding to an instinctive directive because the directive is to live.

You don't need to kill ants. All you have to do is keep your house clean and keep all the food put away. If there is nothing to eat they will leave.

Yeah, you'd think that would be enough, but they find the weirdest things to eat, like cat food and toothpaste. I really didn't mind them until I was informed that as many ants as we had entering the house, we'd begin to see structural damage from their lines.

The bottom line is: what is necessary? Is it necessary to use fish to grow plants hydroponically? No. So why kill them? When is killing life forms EVER a good thing? Some think they may be being of service to do so—well, have at it if it makes anyone feel better about taking life.

I'm still not sure why killing is a bad thing. It becomes a fantastic thing when we have a pathogenic illness or a parasitic infection. In those cases, there's nothing we want more than to kill the critters.

How do you define necessary? Is it necessary to build our houses out of wood? Is it necessary to turn the soil that worms and mites live in, thus destroying their homes? Is it necessary to walk a trail on grass, thus killing that specific portion? Is it necessary to turn trees into books? Or fire? What would you strip away from our culture in the name of necessity?

Monica is knocking down a strawman because the practices she rails against are mass-production practices. I find the inhumane treatment of animals in these factories as offensive as anyone else. That's not what I'm talking about. That plus she introduces all manner of fallacious rhetorical devices like burning alive and rape. I have no desire either to change your mind or to defend my position against all attack.

What follows is in response to Monica and Diana, but it's not really written for them because I don't expect to change their minds. What follows is written for those less decided on the matter. Perhaps my own experience and reflection can help.

Why it is STO to kill livestock

1. Mercy killing is STO.

Perhaps it would help if I explain a little better how killing animals is actually a service to them. Consider Peta. I don't like the organization for reasons I'm sure I don't need to get into. In any case, they do a lot of mercy killing. The motivation behind the mercy killing is that if they do not put these strays down, they will starve out on the streets and die of hunger, illness, or trauma. That is to say, death is better than the lives they will lead.

While members here may not believe in mercy killing, it is a logical consequence of consciously seeking to alleviate suffering: if you can't take care of an animal that you can see is destined for a painful or even cruel end, killing it becomes an act of service. On the flip side of this coin, I've known people who wanted to alleviate the suffering of animals but couldn't suffer the killing. One of them had ten cats and two dogs in a one bedroom apartment. They ruled her life because she couldn't say no.

2. Not all animals are fit to be pets.

Monica gave a string of instances of persons making unusual animals into pets. That was a red herring. Of course you can make just about anything into a pet. That's not what's at issue here. What is at issue is that most animals that incarnate are not at a stage in their evolution that is conducive to pethood. That is to say, the animal species soul chooses how its individuated mind/body complexes will incarnate, with an eye toward giving that unique signature of self the experience appropriate to it. Those who become pets were probably ready to become pets. I have direct experience with this, myself. My first wife and I used to take in stray cats. We gave shelter to a pregnant one so that we could keep or give away the litter. One of the kittens, though, was different. You couldn't domesticate her. It was as if she was born feral: she'd bite and scratch you for no reason than that you were near, she wasn't interested in a litterbox, and probably other unsavory behaviors that I can't remember. We had to put her out of the house: she was unfit to be a pet. Monica's examples do not shed light on the phenomenon that some animals just aren't suitable pets.

My experience, and the experience of most I think, is that pets will choose their masters. When she was younger, my fiancée knew a family who raised sheep. She was particularly attached to one of them who had a name and would go in and out of the house. One day, she came over and noticed that the family was grilling lamb chops and that her friend was nowhere to be found. They had slaughtered the pet. While this particular pet was meant to be livestock, it chose to be a pet. I am trusting that animals who are ready for pethood make it known.

3. All animals benefit from human investment.

What, then, are we to do with animals not suitable for pethood? Peta's solution is mercy killings. Another solution is to maintain a sharp distinction between the City and the Wild. We could interact with only pets. All other animals would then belong in their natural wild habitat. This, however, does not leave space for broad human interaction with animals. It would be a service to animals if we found a middle-ground between wilderness and pethood. That middle-ground is humanely raised livestock. We do not cultivate pet relationships with livestock, but we do care for them and tend them as we would a garden. This is investment and, considering that 3D investment is necessary for 2D graduation, it is a service even to those animals who are not harvestable. The same extends to dairy cows and chickens raised for eggs, as long as they are humanely treated.

4. If we did not kill livestock, we would not raise livestock.

This one is pretty obvious. The opportunity for an intermediate form of human investment can only exist within a certain paradigm: we would never keep so many non-pet animals in a domestic setting if they were not furnishing us with food. We could, perhaps, go visit animals in the wild, but that context is dramatically different. In the wild, we do not protect and feed the animals; rather, we are merely visitors. Visiting an animal in the wild is a also an intermediate stage of human investment, but it is further removed than livestock.

5. Therefore, It is a service to raise livestock and a service to kill livestock.

It is a service to kill livestock because if we did not, they would multiply beyond our means to keep them. The same is true of eggs. In killing livestock and eating eggs, we preserve the integrity of a context in which animals unready for pethood can benefit from human investment. If we set livestock free in the wild or allowed them to live out their lives to old age, they would meet with famine and disease. Frankly, I still fail to see where the cruelty of this way of life for an animal lies. Death is not suffering. Suffering is something that happens while you're alive, and humane treatment of animals on a farm is an excellent midpoint between wild and pethood.

In this context, asking "Is eating meat necessary?" misses the point. It doesn't matter whether it's necessary. What matters is that we render a service unto each other. It's true that livestock cannot inform us that they are willing to feed us if we treat them well, but I trust that the exchange is equal and acceptable. The litmus test for my act of faith on the matter is how settled I am about it. And I am settled.

Besides, I find it perfectly plausible that an animal that was livestock in one life incarnates as a pet in the next.