Intelligence and Food Animals

[The Spartan]

I was thinking the other day about what animals I would be willing to eat and those that I wouldn't and I realized that most, if not all, of my will eat/won't eat selections are based upon cultural customs and taboos and not on the animals intelligence. As such, my criteria are poorly defined at best for what I would or wouldn't eat in a non-emergency sort of situation.

For instance, I won't eat dog but I will eat pork products even though pigs are arguably as intelligent than dogs, if not more so. However, as I said that is more of a social convention than a conclusion based upon intelligence.

So, what would you eat? More specifically, where do you draw the line? What, if anything, do you use as your criteria? Again, this is not in an emergency situation, this is for day-to-day eating.

[PeZook]

I submit wholly to my cultural conditioning, and eat pigs, cows, chickens, fish, geese, duck...

I definitely wouldn't eat a dog, cat, rat, mouse, gerbil, guinea pig or any kind of insect, but I won't pretend there's a rational reason for it: I've been conditioned and brainwashed to consider those icky.

It's just not a thing worth fighting through, IMHO.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I have actually been puzzling over the same problem, and have been trying to reconcile my internalized ethics (a composite form of utilitarianism) which prohibits me from eating intelligent animals, with my predatory drive and cultural influence that compel me to violate it

I am moving away from beef and pork completely and moving pretty strictly to sheep, poultry, and fish. My eventual goal is to be pyschologically able to refuse a steak, but that is a long way coming.

[salm]

I guess my barriers are a mix of intelligence and ickyness. Species designated as pets i don´t find problematic to also eat.
I´d eat pretty much any animal that has less intelligence than, say, dolphins or monkeys (unless it´s an endangered species).
I would eat dogs, cats and other animals that are considered pet animals around here. I have not problem with that. In fact i used to have a pet rabbit as a kid but i never had problems with eating other rabbits.
I would eat insects and most rodents only if ground up and made into a meat loaf. Snails, leeches and similar stuff on the other hand, i couldn´t bring myself to eat, no matter in which form and shape.

[Junghalli]

More specifically, where do you draw the line?

In day-to-day situations, well I probably wouldn't eat something with bugs in it or things along those lines, because of the simple ick factor. Basically I just go with the "gross/not gross" standards I've taken from my culture, the main exception being organ meats like tripe, because I just find the way a lot of people get grossed out by them really silly.

From an ethical viewpoint I draw the line at human, though I might also be reluctant to eat something from a particularly intelligent animal, like a chimp.

[Rye]

I eat what I think I'd be able to kill so long as it's lived a reasonably "better than wild" life and wasn't killed too harshly. This prevents me eating needlessly cruel things like fois gras and veal, which I cannot justify for my experience.

I would eat human if the person had consented to being made into food. At least, I would attempt to eat human, I don't know if I'd lose my nerve at the last minute.

[NoXion]

I would eat dog and cat if I knew it had been prepared to the same standard as pork should be - I hear cats and dogs have parasites like some pigs, and don't particularly fancy ingesting any live specimens or getting infected myself. The same consideration apply for more unusual things such as lizards and reptiles. My personal philosophy is to at least try unusual foodstuffs once.

I hear horse is actually quite nice.

Now, insects and most other arthropods have a considerable ick factor and I would be very hesitant to eat them - I'm not expecting them to taste disgusting (in fact I hear that most arthropods are tasty), but I expect their texture to be revolting simply through sheer unfamiliarity. Certain examples, such as any kind of maggot (including screw-worms) or housefly-like creatures I would refuse to eat point-blank, my personal perception of them as "dirty" creatures is just too great.

As for munching on humans, I'd like to think my only consideration would be ethical - did the eaten agree to be so? Although I acknowledge the possibility that I might shy away from it due to pure social conditioning.

Unless processed into some other form or texture, I refuse to eat internal organs because of their truly revolting texture. I suspect most of the cheap hot dogs I eat consist mainly of offal, but since they taste nice and have a familiar texture, I couldn't care less.

[Kanastrous]

From "Haiku for Cats..."

They say that pigs are
much smarter than cats or dogs
care for more bacon?

[Alyrium Denryle]

More specifically, where do you draw the line?

In day-to-day situations, well I probably wouldn't eat something with bugs in it or things along those lines, because of the simple ick factor. Basically I just go with the "gross/not gross" standards I've taken from my culture, the main exception being organ meats like tripe, because I just find the way a lot of people get grossed out by them really silly.

From an ethical viewpoint I draw the line at human, though I might also be reluctant to eat something from a particularly intelligent animal, like a chimp.

Only... reluctant...to eat chimp? How do you justify eating an animal that is on par with small children in terms of intelligence?

[Surlethe]

At the end of the day, the animals we are reluctant to eat are the ones we sympathize with most. This is because we then impart to the animal our particular cultural taboos on what to do with the body after death. Which animals we sympathize with is also governed largely by culture -- dogs are "man's best friend", cats are pets, but pigs are just beasts that romp around in shit. If you look across cultures, you can find different values informing what sort of animals you'd eat; some have no taboos one eating even humans after death, while others might devalue dogs, and even others would eat monkeys or apes as bushmeat.

From a purely ethical standpoint, after an organism is dead there is no harm to it in eating it. Rather, the chief ethical question is one of consent to die for the purpose of eating -- which creatures are able to (and do) give that consent?

[Darth Wong]

Dogs aren't just smart; they've been humanity's partner for tens of thousands of years. There's no reason why ethics should ignore the concept of loyalty. Cats, on the other hand ...

The fact is that most of our meat products are not needs; they are wants. We could get by just fine with a tenth of our current typical first-world meat intake, consuming mostly fruits, grains, and vegetables. So the idea that we should not discriminate about which kinds of meats we eat is ridiculous. Of course we should discriminate for emotional reasons; 90% of the meat we eat is for luxury purposes anyway.

[Vehrec]

I've never given it much thought before, but here's a go at it. Bigger animals produce more meat than smaller ones, so I don't need to kill a dozen cats if one pig will provide enough for the meal, and left over besides. Horse is a definate possibility, but too many people have strong feelings about them for that to be practical. Also, horse would require long low heat to tenderize the meat since it gets a work-out. On the other hand, I've got no compunctions about a clam-bake, so maybe that only applies to things that are bigger than my fist.

I also discriminate for marrow, which I consider to be one of the most delicious things in any animal, but one I seldom get to eat unless it comes with a bone-in Ham.

[Edi]

Dogs aren't just smart; they've been humanity's partner for tens of thousands of years. There's no reason why ethics should ignore the concept of loyalty. Cats, on the other hand ...

...are opportunists. They appeared among human habitation shortly after widespread agriculture, drawn by all the rodents (their natural prey) that congregated near the plentiful food sources provided by human agriculture. Since cats were useful, they were kept around. In western society, especially among urbanized population, they do not serve their original function as pest exterminators but as pets instead. In an urban environment, cats and dogs do not have a very different function from each other where humans in the West are concerned and it comes largely down to personal preference which makes a better pet for a given person.

[Akhlut]

Day to day would depend upon how rare the animal is. Therefore, I'd be willing to eat pretty much any domesticated animal on earth, and many wild ones that have large populations (a lot of cervids, wild boar, etc.).

[Akhlut]

I have actually been puzzling over the same problem, and have been trying to reconcile my internalized ethics (a composite form of utilitarianism) which prohibits me from eating intelligent animals, with my predatory drive and cultural influence that compel me to violate it

I am moving away from beef and pork completely and moving pretty strictly to sheep, poultry, and fish. My eventual goal is to be pyschologically able to refuse a steak, but that is a long way coming.

Why are sheep and poultry exempt, from your ethical perspective? Sheep are at least as intelligent as cows, and are highly social animals. They can recognize over fifty other sheep faces and dozens of human faces and can discriminate amongst them accordingly (i.e. avoid assholes and hang out with the nice guys). Same with a lot of poultry. A lot of social animals are fairly smart, all things considered, its just that their instincts don't help them in a domestic situation because it contravenes all their instincts.

[Ender]

If these animals were as intelligent as you claim, they would have the good sense to not be so tasty. Take the octopus for example. There is growing evidence that they are conscious beings, albeit in a manner so far removed from us we couldn't recognize it. But octopi also don't taste very good - their tough, rubbery flesh makes them an acquired taste, so few people eat them (though I am one, I love me some calamari).

[Akhlut]

If these animals were as intelligent as you claim, they would have the good sense to not be so tasty.

Only baby sheep taste good though; mutton's tough and gamy. So, obviously, they're born stupid, then they wise up.

Don't know where chickens went wrong, though.

[The Grim Squeaker]

If these animals were as intelligent as you claim, they would have the good sense to not be so tasty.

Why that's nonsense, if so then a truly intelligent animal would try to eat highly unhealthy foods (saturated fats, immense quantites of salts and processed foods), accumulating fat instead of meat and not exercising or developing their bodies...
Dang. Americans really are ahead of the rest of life

Alternative wit: Hey, it's not their fault they taste good, but it is their fault that they're not poisonous or extinct/endangered/cuddly already as well .

[Ender]

If these animals were as intelligent as you claim, they would have the good sense to not be so tasty.

Only baby sheep taste good though; mutton's tough and gamy. So, obviously, they're born stupid, then they wise up.

That's a recipe issue. Slow roasted sheep is god damn delicious and I will eat it until my pants are ready to give every time.

[FSTargetDrone]

I don't eat any meat at all, but if I was in, say, an emergency situation, I would probably attempt to eat something I could catch easily. That might mean insects. Revolting, but necessary. I wouldn't want to expend a lot of energy running around trying to find something else unless I had a weapon or could construct some sort of trap to catch a rabbit or other rodent.

Even If I were a meat-eater, I couldn't justify eating anything other than beef, pork or something else specifically bred for food purposes. Certainly nothing "exotic" such as whale or dolphin. However,

The fact is that most of our meat products are not needs; they are wants. We could get by just fine with a tenth of our current typical first-world meat intake, consuming mostly fruits, grains, and vegetables. So the idea that we should not discriminate about which kinds of meats we eat is ridiculous. Of course we should discriminate for emotional reasons; 90% of the meat we eat is for luxury purposes anyway.

And meat production is quite dirty (pollution-wise) with our methods used to produce it:

Meat production 'beefs up emissions'

* Ian Sample, science correspondent
* guardian.co.uk,
* Thursday July 19 2007 14:26 BST

Reducing your carbon footprint may have to mean giving up steak.

Producing 1kg of beef results in more CO2 emissions than going for a three-hour drive while leaving all the lights on at home, scientists said today.

A team led by Akifumi Ogino at the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan, trawled through data on aspects of beef production including calf raising, animal management and the effects of producing and transporting feed.

They are calling for an overhaul of the beef industry, after their audit revealed producing the meat caused substantial amounts of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

Most of the greenhouse gas emissions are emitted in the form of methane from belching cattle, but the meat production process also releases fertilising compounds that can wreak havoc in river and lake ecosystems.

Warming potential

The study, which is published in today's New Scientist magazine, shows that the production of 1kg of beef releases greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 36.4kg of carbon dioxide.

The production process also led to fertilising compounds equivalent to 340g of sulphur dioxide and 59g of phosphate, and consumed 169 megajoules of energy.

Over two-thirds of the energy is spent on producing and moving cattle feed.

The emissions are equivalent to the amount of CO2 released by an average car every 160 miles, and the energy consumption is equal to a 100W bulb being left on for 20 days, says New Scientist.

But the total environmental impact will be higher than the study suggests because the calculations do not include emissions from managing farm equipment and transporting the meat.

The scientists behind the study are calling for a range of measures to reduce the carbon footprint of the industry.

These include better waste management and reducing the interval between calving by a month, which the authors say could reduce the environmental impact by nearly 6%.

A Swedish study conducted in 2003 claimed that raising organic beef on grass rather than feed, reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 40% and consumed 85% less energy.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I have actually been puzzling over the same problem, and have been trying to reconcile my internalized ethics (a composite form of utilitarianism) which prohibits me from eating intelligent animals, with my predatory drive and cultural influence that compel me to violate it

I am moving away from beef and pork completely and moving pretty strictly to sheep, poultry, and fish. My eventual goal is to be pyschologically able to refuse a steak, but that is a long way coming.

Why are sheep and poultry exempt, from your ethical perspective? Sheep are at least as intelligent as cows, and are highly social animals. They can recognize over fifty other sheep faces and dozens of human faces and can discriminate amongst them accordingly (i.e. avoid assholes and hang out with the nice guys). Same with a lot of poultry. A lot of social animals are fairly smart, all things considered, its just that their instincts don't help them in a domestic situation because it contravenes all their instincts.

Intelligence exists on a gradient. I dont eat some animals for different reasons than intelligence. Just based on their intelligence I am comfortable eating cows. I try not to eat them for ecological reasons. (should have mentioned that prior)

But because they do terrible things for ecosystems upon which they are grazed, I would prefer to avoid paying for their production.

I am pretty sure poultry and sheep are not smart enough to process their own deaths prior to it happening. I am an act/preference utilitarian (which basically equates to a form of ethical pragmatism). Provided the animals are killed and raised suffering free and with min pollution, I am perfectly fine eating them. Their preferences might matter, but I am pretty sure that they are not smart enough to form a preference for their own lives, at least not one that carries meaning. I suppose the preference of a person that the sheep live counts. But I am not sure that that can be a proxy for the sheeps preferences. Otherwise we could act as a proxy for bacteria and that is just silly.

The problem is the killing and living suffering free.... which is why eventually I want to raise my own chickens, ducks and the occassional goat.

[Rye]

Dogs aren't just smart; they've been humanity's partner for tens of thousands of years. There's no reason why ethics should ignore the concept of loyalty. Cats, on the other hand ...

Don't kill defenceless children and provide plague defences and joy to families the world over when they're not being burned alive by christians.

The fact is that most of our meat products are not needs; they are wants. We could get by just fine with a tenth of our current typical first-world meat intake, consuming mostly fruits, grains, and vegetables. So the idea that we should not discriminate about which kinds of meats we eat is ridiculous. Of course we should discriminate for emotional reasons; 90% of the meat we eat is for luxury purposes anyway.

I don't see why "emotional reasons" follow from what you were saying before that. Presumably, we should discriminate based on economic reasons, since they fuel the system we buy our luxury from.

[Kanastrous]

Intelligence doesn't really make that much difference to me. I have come to suspect that cows are a lot smarter (and more emotionally developed) than usually credited, but I'm still eating the occasional steak...

For lack of a better place to draw it, I'll draw the line at members of my own species, except under our-plane-crashed-high-in-the-Andes-and-all-the-dry-roasted-peanuts-are-gone type circumstances.

[Dahak]

I don't eat animals I have a personal relationship with, like pets. I would find it a bit hard to eat an animal I have spent some time with and given a name...
Dogs and cats are a bit of the above, only stronger. I grew up with dogs and cats, so they have a special place in my heart and I'd have to think about them if I was to eat one...

And I don't eat anything I find icky or gross (or have been "taught" to find so) like insects...

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't eat animals I have a personal relationship with, like pets. I would find it a bit hard to eat an animal I have spent some time with and given a name...
Dogs and cats are a bit of the above, only stronger. I grew up with dogs and cats, so they have a special place in my heart and I'd have to think about them if I was to eat one...

And I don't eat anything I find icky or gross (or have been "taught" to find so) like insects...

See for me, insects are the ideal protein source, I just cant easily get them in a store under healthy conditions. I dont want to be eating something loaded with parasites like what you get at say, a pet store. But if I could find a place to get food grade termites... I could roast them pumpkin seeds