The definition of "humane" is characterized by tenderness and compassion. You cannot kill something with tenderness and compassion, except in the case of euthanasia, and in such case the animal cannot be used for consumption.
If you want to argue semantics, that's fine, but in doing so you are ignoring my point entirely.There is a difference
between (a) killing for pleasure and taking some sort of sick high out of causing pain and suffering; versus (b) killing for food and self preservation.
I chose to make that distinction by using the term "humane". If you want to dissect a specific definition of that word and use that as your argument against my position, then there is no point in my attempt at clarification.
This can be considered an outdated and anthropocentric view. There are thousands of scientific studies on non-human animal sentience, intelligence, etc. The animal world is much more complex than we give it credit for, mostly because we do not yet understand it. Yes, I believe humans and animals are equal. Is each species unique? Absolutely. But uniqueness doesn't mean superiority. But let's suppose humans are superior in intelligence, ethics, sophistication. Why are we still slaughtering "lesser" beings? It doesn't sound very ethical or moral to me. We are not primitive men anymore, hunting and foraging for food in order to survive. Just because we did something a hundred or a thousand years ago doesn't mean it's right to continue it. We also used to burn "witches" and marry our cousins and keep slaves. Now we have the ability to not only grow our own vegetation, but even create food in a science lab.
I respect your opinion, but still disagree. Humans and animals are not equal, but if you believe otherwise, then there is no way I am going to change your mind. I'd do just as well to try changing the instinctive carnivorous nature of a lion or tiger or bear, OH MY! Not going to happen. Which ties in to my main point about carnivorous
You make it sound like we can just flip an internal switch and turn off the instinctual craving for meat protein and completely replace that with chemically processed fake laboratory food. Good luck with that effort. It sounds remarkably similar to the ideas of a certain bartender turned congresswoman with a 12 year ticking doomsday clock who thinks we can eliminate all car and air travel and stop all the world's cows from farting and destroying our atmosphere. But it is not that simple. (And if we stop eating all the cows, there will be even more
cow farts to deal with!)
I'll give you this much. If we are eventually able to develop synthetic lab meat that acts and tastes and cooks exactly the same as the real thing... maybe we have a chance to wean ourselves off of real meat over the span of 20,000+ years (maybe even 10,000 if we really put our minds to it). But it is a bit shortsighted to suggest that from Monday to Tuesday we can overpower instinct with intellect simply because some
people believe eating natural protein is offensive. I mean no disrespect in saying this - it is hard to express that idea in written format without sounding like a condescending pompous *bleep*. That it not
where I am trying to come from but I fear it might be what I am projecting.
I think the incest, witch burning, and slavery analogies are comparing apples to oranges. Do we have skeletons in our historical closets? Absolutely. Do we grow and evolve? You bet! But you can't just lump in all historically wrongful actions and blindly equate those to eating meat. Slavery is wrong, plain and simple. Incest is both immoral and a bad genetic idea. Witch burning was close minded fanaticism and bigotry. There is nothing inherently evil about eating a chicken. This video
will probably open up more cans of worms than it solves, but it is an interesting take nonetheless...
There is no reason to continue to cause suffering and harm when we have the knowledge and technology to eliminate it. That is where our "superiority" falls short.
So let's analyze this a bit. The entire planet stops eating meat 100%. In the span of just a few years, the population explosion from the unfettered reproduction of the pigs, cows, and chickens alone would be devastating. Alternatively, look at deer hunting... (something that I do not do and have never done, but fully support the right of those who do) - what would happen to the deer population if left unchecked? Aside from those who would starve to death or get mangled on highways during mating season - deer would completely overrun the gardens where people are growing all of those much-more-worthwhile-to-eat vegetables. Then where would we be? All the vegans would starve from the food shortage (or more likely they would cease to be such self-righteous vegans). Of course, I am exaggerating to make a point...
Point is = if someone is vegan and chooses to live that lifestyle - God Bless you and good luck and have at it. But to heck with anybody who tries to self-righteously force that philosophy on me or to find fault with me because I say I will kill and eat a chicken but I will not kill and eat my cat. That conscious choice does not make
any steak loving pet owner a hypocrite.