Food ethics: How do you choose what species are morally wrong to eat?

Quote:

Am i correct that the aborigines did not domesticate plants and animals? I have read that even the dingo derives from dogs imported from the Indonesian archipelago.

this depends on your point of view. aus aboriginals used what is now refered to as firestick farming and mosaic burning. when a particular area was seen to have a reduced population it would be burnt and allowed to regenerate, some times not being harvested again for several years. fire regenrated soil constituents and assisted germination.

i have no specific knowledge of domesticated dogs or any other animals.

0 Replies

So they were sort of in a pre-domesticate stage? Burning over areas in which they typically gathered?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Ethonbotanists all disagree on which was the first "corn" plant to be domesticated (Teosinte, or Chopolote, All species of ZEA spp)
But they agree that, original growing of grains began in the Meso American cultures, then into the US , as far N as the Hopewell cultures . Woodland Culture tribes of the NE US had become agrarian but noone is sure when they acquired the Zea spp. There is evidence of Wild "rice" being domesticated by tribes around the Great Lakes.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Interesting, i didn't know about the rice thing, although it certainly makes sense. The Hurons and their Algonquian neighbors lived high on the hog in the area of the Lakes. I think (but don't recall exactly) that maize was coming into the valleys of the St. Laurent and the Ottawa at about the time the French arrived. The Jesuits don't mention it until about a generation after they started their missions. I'm hazy on all of this because it is about twenty years or so since i read all of this stuff, inspired by Parkman's history of the French in North America.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Fortunately there are enough specimens of Zea in places like the Ohio Valley Hopewell sites, Kahokia, SW pueblos and into Woodland Culture sites so that ethnobotany studies of zea mays genetics can be inferred from plant "crosses".

I think that most arheologists state that the corn culture made its way North and passed through the Ohio Valley tribes before it came to the woodland sites of the NE.

reason being is that the NE, even as recent as 5000 years ago, was still rebounding from glacial retreat, (the ground rebounds well after all the glaciers retreated). In the NY state museum is an exhibit diorama that shows the areas down the Hudson valley and into the finger lakes and displays them as muskeggy swamps and peat bogs . HArdly a good spot to grow anything until it defrosted and dried up . I always thought of the more recent times (,5000 years bP) as being just like we see it now, but evidence says different.

Most of this comes from pollen data taken from peat bogs that are constantly being found during excavation for subdivisions and shopping centers.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

So they were sort of in a pre-domesticate stage?

i think of this as a white mans or northern hemisphere view. what exactly is domestication? planting seed year after year in the same place? harvesting and selective replanting of best seed?

if they had done nothing to assit plant growth i would agree, however i believe the burning was selective enough that it would qualify as a form of domestication. burning provided assited germination, fertilisation. Aboriginals were returning to the same place at the same time of year (middens) for thousands of years. tribal groupings had a well defined boundary to territory they could use.
Granted it was somewhat larger than a "farm" but this was a necesaary function of a low rainfall environment and in my view no different to having a cornfield located in the same place each year that could be fallowed every so often.

we're a bit off topic here but its still interesting.

0 Replies

Cool, DP, thanks. I believe that ethnologists consider this "pre-domesticate," because they don't plant it. I agree with your assessment, though, that it qualifies as a form of agriculture. I've read that in Papua-New Guinea, some of the tribes will hang around an area which produces a plant they gather, "cultivating" it until it can be left to its own devices, and then going off to hunt and gather elsewhere, returning when it is ready to harvest.

The difference, perhaps, between this and the domestication in China and the middle east ten thousand years ago is that in both of those places, there was sufficient game and "gatherable" produce that the people became more or less stationary, or moved within a restricted range, and therefore had more time to put in the process of domestication. The middle east had a huge population of gazelles, of which a tiny residue remains. I don't believe the deer upon which the early Han people relied has survived in a modern form. I have read that the ancestral form of every plant which has been domesticated remains to this day.

Very likely, Australia was too dry, and game to scarce to lead to the more or less sedentary life style which was possible in the game and plant rich middle east.

I know we're digressing in this thread, but i think it has long left its topic--at any event, if we're upsetting RG, i'm sure he'll let us know.

0 Replies

Quote:

The difference, perhaps, between this and the domestication in China and the middle east ten thousand years ago is that in both of those places, there was sufficient game and "gatherable" produce that the people became more or less stationary

i was thinkinking exactly the opposite. why would you need to domesticate plants or animals if they are plentiful wherever you went and at most times of year? In addition the less servere weather here min (temp -6) would lead to less need for a sustantial shelter (house). even less need as you move north and inland toward the center of Aust.

0 Replies

The climate in the middle east ten thousand years ago was very much different than it is today. Relative to that time, we live in a much colder climate. The middle east was mostly grassland, with some gallery forests in river valley--and it got a lot more rainfall than it does today. I suspect that people settled down because it takes less energy than traipsing around the countryside, and why do it if you don't have to.

I should note that in saying that people became more sedentary then as a result of the plentiful game and gathering plants, i am repeating what i have read. I don't say that to claim a higher authority, but just to point out that i don't have a dog in the fight.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

What do you mean "no?" I said they had no alcohol.

True - I was agreeing with you and only meant to include aborigines of Australia and New Zealand to the North American Indians, whom you had already covered. The Tasmanians got cut off when their land became an island after sea levels rose, so they developed differently.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Upon what do you base such ethics (and as long as you want others not to be allowed to whale it is an ethic)?

AW weve been over this ad nauseum. Youre style is one of a deposition in that, if you dont get an answer that suits your own thesis, you will try to reask and compare others statements to elicit a totally different answer that you can then cherry pick..THATS BORING DEBATE .

You really haven't ever articulated your food ethics farmerman, so we haven't been over this ad nauseum. You just keep going back to the IWC and whaling disputes ad nauseum yes.

Quote:

One more from the top and Ill use the Japanese . THE JApanese have no long term investment on whales as a prinicpal source of food. The meiji had adopted eating of whale as a Royal Delicacy in the 1800's. AFter WWII (and with some dumb advice from the US after the surrender was signed by US and Japan) the Japanese took up the industry (like several other nations took up killing entirely new species like Hagfish, Monkfish, Chilean Sea "Bass", Mola Mola, river dolphins, ) and of course whales.

How is repeating this an answer to the question of what your food ethics are? As you can see from the title of the thread I am asking people to describe how they base their decisions on what are acceptable species to eat. Nowhere does this repetition answer that so I don't get why you think this bears repeating.

Quote:

YOPURE entire argument of feigned incredulity is that you believe that Minke whales are being sustainably hunted. Thats about as uninformed a statement as you can make. EVEN the IWC is unsure about the environments "carrying Capacity" for Minkes and , on top of that, WHAT DOES SUSTAINABLE MEAN FOR THAT SPECIES?

I've not said anything on this thread about what constitutes sustainability for Minke whales. I am asking people to describe their food ethics much more broadly.

Let me repeat that, I have not made a single argument on this thread for or against hunting Minke whales. I want to know what criteria members here base their food ethics on.

Quote:

YOU do not know, so dont please parade some false air that you do know.
1. I think that IWC should be allowed to develop what is a sustainable catch of Minkes and other species (Whaling should cease in that meantime because the entire estimates of populations are based only upon "catch reports"

2. Once a sustainability number and carrying capacity number is derived, then let the IWC apportion these among the subsistence whaling nations first. (Inuit, Icelanders, Norwegians).
At the end of the train IMHO lie the Japanese whose unilateral trashing of the Southern Sanctuary is the primary source of thsi kerfuffel.

3. Id prefer that whales not be hunted at all except by Inuit (who cant really be part of the world ag trade). And the world whale populations should be allowed to recover (as well as stocks of other fish and sea mammals). However, I recognize that special interests rule the planet and species security as a "Right thing to do" will probably never be achieved as long as theres a market for some product that these species provide.

Like I said, here we go with the IWC and what constitutes sustainability again, we should probably do a whaling specific thread to talk about that sometime but here I'm trying to get your philosophy on food, and for this purpose determining what constitutes sustainability isn't as important. So let me try to translate this into the kind ethics I was looking for. From what I can tell:

1) You prefer restrictions on killing animals on the basis of sustainability.
2) You accept cultural tradition (and yes I know you don't think Japan fits, which you've told me many times despite my never mentioning or disputing this because this is not a significant factor for me) exceptions to general proscriptions.
3) You prefer that whales not be killed, and beyond the sustainability part I am interested in why you feel this way and how those reasons might apply to other animals.

Get what I am going for now? You also seem to have expressed support for the notion that we should only kill and eat animals we raise, but I don't want to speak for you and will let you elaborate, but what I am going for are such criteria you base your ethics on.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

There is little as soothing as lying in the garden in the sun, watching ecstatic chooks dust-bathing, or or enjoying the sight and sound of them clucking softly and contentedly as they forage happily in the garden in the sun.

That is a kind of beauty I think just about any animal possesses. I find watching almost any animal fascinating, even ants. Hell especially ants.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Ever read TH White's (Mistress Masham's Repose) accounts of watching ants?

He marked them and all, so he could recognize one from another.

They only get more fascinating as we know more.

There's a wee island off the coast here, Kangaroo Island, where you used to be able to walk amongst sea-lions as they raised their babies and just sea-lioned about.

We spent hours and hours there, just sitting quietly, with pups coming up to us and exploring us, (you keep pretty still then...in case the mums get worried) and just watching the land aspects of their lives unfold.

Dumb behaviour by tourists means you apparently now have to watch from a fenced off boardwalk....but being in amongst these wild creatures was a pure joy.

We used to have big pieces of slate resting on sand. Underneath, the ants used to bring their eggs and cocoons up to warm.

It felt mean, because they'd get quite upset, but it was fascinating to look for a few moments at them as they tended, then rushed to take below again, their precious babies.

Then you'd carefully put the lid to their world back on!

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Humans are animals, too. Is killing humans a carrying capacity issue, not a moral issue?
Try to limit yer smartass comments to the topic.

This is very much part of the topic farmerman. Any philosophical discussion on animal ethics that doesn't touch on animal rights would be incomplete. Many philosophers have argued that non-human animals should be afforded more rights that were traditionally reserved for humans and this concept is a large part of animal welfare and the animal liberation movements. You said that killing non-human animals was not a moral issue, and Thomas' question is very relevant:

Thomas wrote:

[...] if killing us human animals is a moral issue -- why isn't killing non-human animals a moral issue, too?

2 Replies

@dlowan,

Is that in the Bass Strait? I ask because i believed that there had been sealers and whalers in Bass Strait for quite a long time, even before the First Fleet arrived. If i recall correctly, when smallpox appeared among aborigines the surgeon of the First Fleet said that it must have come up from the south, from contacts with sealers in the Bass Strait, because they did not bring it with them.

Are, perhaps, sea lions now protected in the Bass Strait? Have seals and sea lions and such recovered to the point that they are no longer afraid of humans?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert, If you cannot follow my train of logic and whats behind my contributions, then you can continue your deposition and try, by fishing, to obtain the answer you wish.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I said in a past post

Quote:

Killing animals is a carrying capacity issue, not a moral one

Killing animals for food from a "POOL" of husbanded and herded organisms and then disclaiming any support of that practice is illogical to me.

Vegetarianism based upon a mantra of "save the veals" is also illogical to me

Dont make it appear that my point in this debate is anything less than the above . Even when I agree that whales are "cute", I followed up with a statement that I would have to reluctantly accept whaling for FOOD if it was done truly sustainably AND the culture doing it had a decent tradition of whaling (Japanese IMHO , do not)

To which THOMAS replied by merely doing some silly quote mining
Thomas said

Quote:

Humans are animals, too. Is killing humans a carrying capacity issue, not a moral issue?

To me, there was not even a good point of congruence. Thomas merely wished to insert a "gotcha" when my previous post was an example of killing animals for food. We have societal laws and mores that govern when and where its evil to kill people.
SO, the comment was really kinda childish, in my mind, and to keep stirring it up without acknowledging that it was an out of context "quote mine" is a serious oversight Mr moderator.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Thomas wrote:
[...] if killing us human animals is a moral issue -- why isn't killing non-human animals a moral issue, too?

. So here, when Thomas asks the question one way, he turns it around so to "cover his bases" on his quote mine.

Ive answered that in the manner that I feel was accurate, I used a bit a sarcasm.

In the coming month, we will engage in first degree buitchery of a SImental, perhaps I may be arrested and tried. I am probably guilty of first degree buitshery because I have contracted the deed out to a "Hit man" and one who will dispose of the body by converting it into freezer sized wraps of corpus delecti.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

"Animal rights" is a term that I dont much use as it seems to attempt to mount a moral hilltop and prejudge everyone else. I am a farmer, I raise sheep and cattle. I am a STEWARD of my charges. I have a responsibility to raise them in a clean comfortable well fed condition with no cruelty involved. Thats "My RESPONSIBILITY" its not an animals "RIGHT"

Nture's own midless care of animals is writ in tooth and claw and , in the wild, animals are either predatrors, or part of the food chain.
Your attempts at adding some "anthropo" drama to this thread is interesting , while still naive, in my mind.

Do you enjoy a good hamburger? How about other meat? Do you have any idea where meat comes from? (and please dont say the ACME).

In the states, we have several model laws governing the standards of care for pets and livestock. These laws are routinely enforced in PA , often with dramatic "raids" on "PET FACTORIES" where hundreds of animals are kept in filthy conditions in tiny cages and the animals are kept in sad sanitary conditions with bad food. These animals are raised to serve the pet industry with "pure bred" dogs and cats , so that some kid can be sold the "latest flavor of the day dog" like Jack Russles or English Bulldogs. These Pet Factories are usually out in the deep rural areas where its difficult to find and only by aerial surveillance do the perps get caught. When they do, the animals are usually, cleaned , washed, fed, kept for a while, and then euthanized. It would tear your heart out knowing how this business goes on. The owners are usually subject to a small fine and a slap on the wrist. Whats the morality issue here?

How about capture of tropical birds and fish for the pet industry (YES ITS A HUUGE INDUSTRY).

Animals, all over the world, have culturally different assigned views by their nearest neighbors. We need to recognize that your thread, by being an either or kind of debate, will automatically drwa some naive comments by people who arent familiar with a Mafdagascarian view of marmsets, or a Gaucho's view of a Santa Gertrudis, or a Mississippean fishermans view on blue catfish.
We assocuiate ourselves with animals in every day life, we eat em, we care for em, we use em for industry and draft, There are myriads of uses including worship. I dont know where youire gonna go from here but, I hope my position isnt taken out of context and displayed with rather naive assignments.

Ive gotta go out to the barn and take care of the cows cause its raining and they would just stand out in the field getting soaked cause they are intellectually ill equipped to understand the concept of "indoors" or "ouitdoors"

I

1 Reply

@farmerman,

And I leave ya with kind wishes from the High Kings

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhJp0W0ku2w

0 Replies

Food ethics: How do you choose what species are morally wrong to eat?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know