It's also illegal to own a single guinea pig or parrot (because they are prone to loneliness): https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/guinea-pig-swi...
It is mentioned in the article.
In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster
31–40 of 314 posts
Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Natural death of an animal in the nature can be quite long and very painful. The point is not to simulate natural kill, the point is to kill the animal without torturing it unnecessary.
Yes, sometimes when I hear people talk about how we kill animals inhumanely, I feel like they should watch a little bit of national geographic. Makes a sketchy slaughterhouse seem like a picnic.
This is a dangerous route to take, because at that point you can start comparing yourself to animals. We spent a few centuries developing our world, so I think it's fair to assume higher standards. Animals kill other animals to solve their hunger and they do their best to end it quickly.
Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Dave Arnold, another favorite writer of mine, has a solution to this problem: clove oil anesthetizes lobsters (and fish). Clove oil, knife through the head, then boil. Or, you know, don’t kill them. Not sure why this idea is still considered extreme. Why harm fellow creatures when it is simply unnecessary? As Tolstoy wrote[1], "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats me…
The only animals that don't generally die mostly from predation are those on top of whatever food chain they're a part of (bears, big cats, etc.) And we don't tend to eat those. For the rest, if we aren't eating them, something else is going to eat them. It's not a question of "taking an animal life"—the animal's life is going to get taken, in a messy, bloody, terrifying way. It is considered by some to be an increas…
I don't understand how your argument exists alongside the fact that we farm the animals that we eat.
The chicken that you buy at the grocer isn't one we swiped away just as a wolf was about it eat it. The chicken was grown indoors in a factory, likely hadn't even seen the light of day. Even a wolf-eaten wild chicken gets that courtesy.
Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but dignity is usually related to respect and honor. When was the last time you killed and ate something out of respect? They should change that phrase to "reduce cruelty towards animals" and then it's fine. Say it as it is basically.
I've been struggling with this recently as well. I don't need to kill animals in order to survive and so doing so is just for my pleasure. It's surprisingly easy to put this out of your mind when you're sitting down to a nice dinner, but I do doubt that I'd be able to kill animals if I needed to do it with my own hands. Yet I and most others decide all the time that ending the life of another animal can be justified…
Human meat consumption typically comes from hunting of prey animals or from domesticated livestock. In the former case, a .30-06 through the heart is a much nicer way to go than to be devoured alive by wolves or coyotes or to starve due to overpopulation. In the latter case, the animal is literally genetically predisposed to this life, and the entire lineage would die out if people did not eat them.
I mean, I get that you think your position is kinder to animals, and there's a certain intuitive value to that position. But ceasing consumption of livestock would, in effect, amount to genocide.
Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Dave Arnold, another favorite writer of mine, has a solution to this problem: clove oil anesthetizes lobsters (and fish). Clove oil, knife through the head, then boil. Or, you know, don’t kill them. Not sure why this idea is still considered extreme. Why harm fellow creatures when it is simply unnecessary? As Tolstoy wrote[1], "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats me…
Lots of things aren't necessary. Eating lots of meat, sex without intent to procreate, travel. They sure are fun!
The gp is still pointing out that causing suffering to other creatures is a downside of eating meat. While all items you listed are not necessary, only one of them has that downside.
Unless one argues with the premise that the killing/pain of other creatures is harmful, we'll only be talking past one another.
Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only animals that don't generally die mostly from predation are those on top of whatever food chain they're a part of (bears, big cats, etc.) And we don't tend to eat those. For the rest, if we aren't eating them, something else is going to eat them. It's not a question of "taking an animal life"—the animal's life is going to get taken, in a messy, bloody, terrifying way. It is considered by some to be an increas…
I don't understand how your argument exists alongside the fact that we farm the animals that we eat. The chicken that you buy at the grocer isn't one we swiped away just as a wolf was about it eat it. The chicken was grown indoors in a factory, likely hadn't even seen the light of day. Even a wolf-eaten wild chicken gets that courtesy.
You can be against factory farming and not be a vegan.
Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only animals that don't generally die mostly from predation are those on top of whatever food chain they're a part of (bears, big cats, etc.) And we don't tend to eat those. For the rest, if we aren't eating them, something else is going to eat them. It's not a question of "taking an animal life"—the animal's life is going to get taken, in a messy, bloody, terrifying way. It is considered by some to be an increas…
I don't understand how your argument exists alongside the fact that we farm the animals that we eat. The chicken that you buy at the grocer isn't one we swiped away just as a wolf was about it eat it. The chicken was grown indoors in a factory, likely hadn't even seen the light of day. Even a wolf-eaten wild chicken gets that courtesy.
The argument I have is mostly applicable to fisheries (i.e. this discussion re: lobsters); it doesn't have much to say about farming.
Lobsters, like much of our seafood, are just plucked up out of the ocean. If we don't eat them, an otter or something does.
Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, if you own two and one dies, what happens?
> Rent-A-Guinea Pig Service Takes Off in Switzerland http://m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/hope-for-lonely-...
Lol that is awesome. Thanks for the link.
I feel for the poor introverted guinea pigs of Switzerland though. No chance for a peaceful quiet life free from the squeaking of another pig.
Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster
#39Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Dave Arnold, another favorite writer of mine, has a solution to this problem: clove oil anesthetizes lobsters (and fish). Clove oil, knife through the head, then boil. Or, you know, don’t kill them. Not sure why this idea is still considered extreme. Why harm fellow creatures when it is simply unnecessary? As Tolstoy wrote[1], "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats me…
The only animals that don't generally die mostly from predation are those on top of whatever food chain they're a part of (bears, big cats, etc.) And we don't tend to eat those. For the rest, if we aren't eating them, something else is going to eat them. It's not a question of "taking an animal life"—the animal's life is going to get taken, in a messy, bloody, terrifying way. It is considered by some to be an increas…
The Philosophy around procreation is still much debated, but my understanding is that positive utilitarians generally do not believe that _creating_ more lives is necessarily morally good.
While death is often seen as vastly negative (or infinitely, depending on who you ask), positive utilitarians typically reject the idea that procreating more / having more children increases total utility.