Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA
(1) You wrote: "In the given scenario regardless of what animal-like parts she has she'll always be the daughter, a direct offspring. This is totally different than the relationship we have between other animals." In the song I dispensed with the notion that direct genetic lineage is necessary by saying that if the child were adopted the dad would still love her, so whether she is a direct offspring or not doesn't matter. People love adopted children as much as their biological children. I added this into the song because I wanted to show that extreme genetic similarity is not required in order to have feelings of love for some being.
You seem to be overlooking that some people love not just human children but also non-human animals, both pets and "livestock." Their feelings for animals is not that different from the relationship with human children and in many cases, I would argue, is the same. Some people want non-human animals to have long and happy lives, not for the sole benefit of humans, but for the benefit of the animals themselves.
|
I don't think some fringe extremist values should change how rational people view the situation. Meat is healthy for consumption and our bodies have evolved to digest it. If people love animals that is fine. I have no issue with those sentiments. I have 3 cats which I love, although I don't view them as my children. I do know that they have emotional needs, like humans, but at the same time I value my life over theirs. So yes, I agree someone can love other animals for the most part I value human lives more.
Quote:
|
(2) You wrote, "Paternal and maternal instincts use a different set of interests than the survivalist instincts we'd use to determine what animals should or shouldn't be eaten." While I agree parental instinctual feelings can be very strong, I feel it is incorrect to say that there are "survivalist instincts" beyond "it tastes good" that we humans use to determine what animals should or shouldn't be eaten. Throughout history, humans have eaten members of every single edible species they could get their fingers and opposable thumbs on...ranging from Neanderthals (based on evidence of bone scrapes that appear to be knife cuts) to other humans (cannibalism), to dogs, cats, dolphins, gorillas, chimps, parrots, etc. etc. However, which animals a particular person views as food is determined primarily by culture. People are *taught* what animals, if any, are viewed as "food animals," and people can decide based on a variety of reasons which, if any, they wish to eat.
|
This doesn't really hold sway one way or the other. This could just as easily be claimed as evidence that early man needed to eat meat to survive, and had to try various kinds based on conditioning.
Quote:
|
If eating particular species of animals were "instinct," then we would not need to teach people which animals to eat. This is why the following video, an advertisement by an Australian red meat group, is so funny: the argument it makes is that eating red meat is "instinctive," yet if eating red meat were truly instinct then the group would not be paying lots of money to try to convince people of their supposed "instinct" for wanting and eating red meat:
|
Being afraid of fire is instinctive so we shouldn't need to teach kids not to play with it. That is why I find fire safety ads to be a hilarious waste of money.
Quote:
|
Here is a good quote from a philosophy book that discusses the biological fact that food survivalist instincts do not include exactly what types of animals we humans eat (or whether we eat animals at all):
|
I assume this is more a regional thing anyway. I don't eat certain animals because it isn't customary for one reason or another. For example, if a Korean buffet served real Korean dog meat I'd give it a try. If I were in Japan I'd eat kalamari. However, I assume that both of these animals have nutritional value.
Quote:
|
Unfan, my reason for discussing all this is to show that I feel your opposition to the subject matter of "Path" is based on misunderstandings of human nature and emotional capacities.
|
The quote given doesn't discredit my claim that we eat animals for survival, it just notes that we also find animals tasty. The nutritional value of meat can't be denied.