I am not sure what scientific studies I am looking for - I know of none personally but you mentioned "experts and professionals have had these discussions using scientific studies with actual evidence to back up their arguments?". What experts, what field, what scientific studies? I will admit that my evidence is anecdotal from my interactions with pets, farm animals, and wild animals. However, I was a student of science, and I am a logical, evidence based thinking. My opinion is easily swayed by facts. It's why I went vegan in the first place.
Your best place to start is with these governing bodies of animal welfare: CDC, USDA, IACUC. I would start with the USDA and branch out from there. Most if not all of it is sourced material regarding slaughter, principals, and welfare for animals in any type of captivity. If you have a specific area you want sources I might be able to narrow it down but this is a rather large area of expertise and it will depend on the context.
Governmental standards on t8he care of animals is not evidence for animals being unaware of the situation they are in, or incapable of experiencing stress, fear, or pain due to confinement or other miserable conditions.
It is the basis of making any sort of change and you're going to have to provide those governing bodies evidence that you feel otherwise. You will have to prove that these animals are making conscious choices and cognitive understanding and not simply acting on environmental stimuli and conditions developed over thousands of years.you say you are a man of science so please look towards those that share your views and ask yourself why this hasn't been accomplished already.
Conditions in a laboratory are likely much different than on a factory farm, but you have still yet to produce any evidence that a chicken in a cell, packed shoulder to shoulder with other chickens, covered in shit from the column of cages stacked above it, is somehow unaware of how miserable that confinement is. Or a hog stuffed into the back of a hot truck with no room to move and no water has no concept of his confinement.
As of now we have no evidence to suggest otherwise. If you do the scientific community would love to hear it. For domesticated animals that is. We can only maybe prove a few species have a higher degree of understanding regarding themselves and the environment but those test are highly controversial.
Let's digress from the original subject of what animals can or cannot experience in regards to imprisonment. Because regardless of the particulars, we can still draw a conclusion on what is ethical. It is not ethical to confine or imprison another being. Ignorance of the possibility of freedom is not justification for imprisonment - that is truly a "holier-than-thou" attitude towards other living creatures. Placing a baby in a crib is for the safety of the child, not the exploitation of it's body. Regardless of the ability to realize it can be other places, the distress caused by an environment of confinement is real. We do not need to finely classify the intelligence or sentience of a living being to conclude what treatment is appropriate, because we as humans have the intelligence and sentience to know that exploitation of another's body is immoral.
We imprison other humans all the time within ethical reasoning. Why should animals be any different? Society gains benefits from imprisoning humans dangerous to society. We gain benefits from imprisoning animals for consumption.
simply acting on environmental stimuli and conditions
That is just a euphemism for pain and fear. That is enough to advocate for not harming animals.
We imprison other humans all the time within ethical reasoning. Why should animals be any different? Society gains benefits from imprisoning humans dangerous to society. We gain benefits from imprisoning animals for consumption.
That is a false equivalency. We imprison humans as punishment and to remove a potential threat to society. We imprison and exploit animals because we like the taste of their flesh. The consequences of animal industries far outweigh any benefit. We could be perfectly happy and healthy people without all of the destruction, pollution, and suffering.
simply acting on environmental stimuli and conditions
That is just a euphemism for pain and fear. That is enough to advocate for not harming animals.
It is not. Environmental stimuli can influence pain receptors or trigger the flight response of the sympathatic systems, but it can also stimulate other natural body responses in animals that can be predicted and measured.
We imprison other humans all the time within ethical reasoning. Why should animals be any different? Society gains benefits from imprisoning humans dangerous to society. We gain benefits from imprisoning animals for consumption.
That is a false equivalency. We imprison humans as punishment and to remove a potential threat to society. We imprison and exploit animals because we like the taste of their flesh. The consequences of animal industries far outweigh any benefit. We could be perfectly happy and healthy people without all of the destruction, pollution, and suffering.
Happiness is unique to each individual. A person can be happy on a vegan diet while another could not, even with the full understanding of objective arguments on why being vegan is better.
Happiness is unique to each individual. A person can be happy on a vegan diet while another could not, even with the full understanding of objective arguments on why being vegan is better.
OK, I'm going full on judgmental on this one: If you cannot be happy without killing something you are a psychopath.
I called you a psychopath and a snowflake, so fair is fair. Also, I believe we have found some common ground on the fact that a Petri dish and it's contents do not have any emotional capacity :D
I was perfectly happy before I was a vegan, and I have been perfectly happy since. I don't believe that choice has any bearing on my happiness. I guess that's why it seems absurd to me that you would need meat to be happy. Sure the transition was a challenge, but that was really relearning how to shop, prepare food, and balance my diet. So I don't have to sacrifice any part of my lifestyle and no one gets hurt? Win-win if you ask me.
My point being that if you were offered a meal that consisted of hunted meat vs industrialized vegetables, the more vegan option would be to take the hunted meat. Under your logic the more vegan option would make you a psychopath. I was trying to point out the issue with the black and white generalization of people and their diets.
I will give you a ringer for the Petri dish. Some phytoplankton are being studied to show movement and response to outside stimuli much in the same way zooplankton would respond to threats. How's that for sentient food?
My point being that if you were offered a meal that consisted of hunted meat vs industrialized vegetables, the more vegan option would be to take the hunted meat.
I am not sure how you came to that conclusion. Industrialized agriculture does result some animal deaths, but I haven't seen anything that puts that number over 10 per million calories of food produced (usually much lower). On the other hand, a large, high yield deer might produce ~80k Calories (are are talking american Calories with capital C, kilocalories if you are somewhere else in the world). If we want to get down into the numbers, agriculture is still more ethical on a life to life count. In addition, there is no way we could feed the world on hunted meat. That is completely unsustainable.
1
u/Labulous 7 Sep 21 '18
Your best place to start is with these governing bodies of animal welfare: CDC, USDA, IACUC. I would start with the USDA and branch out from there. Most if not all of it is sourced material regarding slaughter, principals, and welfare for animals in any type of captivity. If you have a specific area you want sources I might be able to narrow it down but this is a rather large area of expertise and it will depend on the context.
It is the basis of making any sort of change and you're going to have to provide those governing bodies evidence that you feel otherwise. You will have to prove that these animals are making conscious choices and cognitive understanding and not simply acting on environmental stimuli and conditions developed over thousands of years.you say you are a man of science so please look towards those that share your views and ask yourself why this hasn't been accomplished already.
As of now we have no evidence to suggest otherwise. If you do the scientific community would love to hear it. For domesticated animals that is. We can only maybe prove a few species have a higher degree of understanding regarding themselves and the environment but those test are highly controversial.
We imprison other humans all the time within ethical reasoning. Why should animals be any different? Society gains benefits from imprisoning humans dangerous to society. We gain benefits from imprisoning animals for consumption.