How intelligent are some animals?

[lazarus]

And what are the moral implications?

For instance, I've heard some amazing things about the intelligence of Gray parrots. Apparently, they have some cognitive ability, are able to string words together into new and logical patterns, and can match up numbers (symbols) with words and do basic (very basic, human infant-level) math.

I'd like to see more studies on this. We're finding out a lot about animal intelligence.

That's my form of vegetarianism. I won't eat anything that shows unusual intelligence. Dolphin, monkey, octopus (oh, that was hard to give up). The jury's out on my beloved squid.

At what point does an animal become intelligent (cognition, etc.) that we should ethically consider treating it as a different class of animal? I'd say dolphins and chimps and apes are already there. Octopi seem to display remarkable problem solving ability.

I can attest that if my ratties had opposable thumbs, we'd all be in a world of hurt.

Some of this relates to an ethics problem we discussed in a philosophy class long, long ago. What, exactly, separates humans from apes? Language ability? Appearance?

Should we start viewing things on a sliding scale now, instead of just humans at the top, all animals below?

I'm not a vegetarian or a PETA member or anything, but I'd like to think we could have a legitimate discussion about this. Let's keep the flames away, if possible.

[progressiveBadger]

1. What seperates us from apes?

Our far reaching superiority complex.

[shraby]

3. What separates us from the animals

is our appreciation for beauty. No matter how many times I show my dog the gorgeous sunset, he just doesn't get it.

[progressiveBadger]

7. An argument can be made against that statement

We appreciate something's beauty because it is a positive experience for us. It makes us feel good in some way. My dog appreciates his food bowl very much. To him, that bowl is beautiful.

[illflem]

2. Most wild animals are intelligent enough

to run from humans.
That's saying a lot in itself.

[auburngrad82]

41. Years ago I heard a story from a chicken farmer

He said that they put arsenic in the chicken feed because it acted as a growth hormone and the chickens grew very quickly. When a chicken died the farmer would just throw it out behind the chicken house. The problem was that after he started feeding them the feed with the arsenic wild animals would no longer carry the carcass as they did in the past. Apparently wild animals were smart enough not to eat something that was pumped full of poison, while humans will.

Intelligence has to be taken in context. Wild animals do what is in their best interests in regards to survival. Humans take survival for granted.

[qazplm]

45. not true

many animals do whats in their programming to survive. If their programming fits their environment, no problem, all peaches and cream, if not though, then most will continue to do what their programming says, even if not in their best interests.

Another potential dividing line there perhaps, programming versus the ability to adapt quickly to new scenarios...then again, roaches programming is so dang perfect that they come "pre-adapted" to just about any scenario possible, including no "food" (living off postage stamp glue) or nuclear radioactivity that would kill just about every other living being.

[demnan]

4. I've been contemplating this also

Some people say that the pig is as intelligent as a 4 year old child. Makes me wonder if I should give up eating pork, which isn't good for you anyway. Even cattle, goats, sheep, etc seem to me to be intelligent. Chicken and turkey are the only land animals left. Even if I don't mind eating them, doe I want them to spend their short lives in filthy little prisons on a diet of antibotics? - or don't I feel better if they at least had free range and organic food during their short lives?

Something to think about.

[Merlot]

5. If we didn't judge annimals intelligence by

comparing it to our own, we'd find out they are all intelligent. They all have what they need to survive and function. If a parrot can do minor math, does that help it survive in the world?

On the other hand, my pets are able to tell me what they need, it's just a matter of me listening. They have learned to communicate with me, instead of the other way around. Animals adapt to their environment to survive. And if telling me he's hungry means a better chance of survival for him, he's going to figure out how to do it.

[progressiveBadger]

8. I agree.

See my post above about animals appreciating "beauty". I don't think I explained it very well, but I think everything we do must be taken in context.
For example, humans are the ones that are destroying the planet. So if intellegence is survival, then we are not very smart.

[arissa]

6. Thanks for posting this

New animal intelligence is always being discovered. For example, I read a story recently that found that rats can recognize different languages. Fish (generally considered some of the "stupidest" animals) have been found to use low-frequency sounds to communicate, can build "gardens" that cultivate food they like to eat, and can recognize each other.

But the problem is that intelligence, philosophically, is a poor standard to determine if an animal is worthy of respect. If intelligence is the determining factor, should it be acceptable to eat mentally retarded humans? Adult pigs are smarter than three year old humans, as well. You open a pandora's box if intelligence is the reason behind showing respect to animals, not to mention we simply do not know how intelligent most animals really are.

What we should be asking is, can the animal suffer? If you believe the answer is yes, if the animal is capable of feeling pain and being hurt, then in my personal opinion, we have a moral obligation to treat it how we would like to be treated ourselves - and I know I don't want to be eaten. :)

[DemExpat]

10. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with the suffering factor....

instead of intelligence being the desired criteria for respect and care.

I personally have stopped eating any animal flesh from fellow mammals, next is to give up the chicken and turkey.

Fish will be the last to go for me.

DemEx

[Lorien]

51. Try Quorn and Tofurkey products

I've been off mammals for years, but I'm also having a harder time with chicken and fish. The Quorn nuggets are great, and I know many people who swear by Tofurkey.

[neweurope]

9. Intelligence shouldn't be the criteria when it comes to eating them.

All life should be equally valued. I'm speaking as someone who still eats meat. I wish I could stop it though. I try do do as my man says: Don't eat it often but when you do do so with respect and gratefulness.

As to your example with the parrots - I read about birds (unfortunately forgot which) who drop some kind of shells on streets so the heavy cars open them. Now that's intelligent - but even more than that: The birds found out that cars are dangerous. So now they drop their shells on the zebra stripes where cars have to stop! No kidding.

----------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Merlot]

12. I don't think eating meat is inherently wrong

animals eat each other all the time. What is wrong is the way they are treated in their short lives, and how they are killed.

If you can't quit eating meat, why not try organic meat? Better for your health as well.

ps I like this statement: "Don't eat it often but when you do do so with respect and gratefulness."

[arissa]

15. Organic meat is not what you think it is

It by no means indicates the animal lived a good life, or was killed humanely. It just means it wasn't fed hormones, antibiotics, and things like that.

Free range is also not a legally protected phrase. Free range chickens, for example, according to the USDA, just need to have "access" to the outdoors for 5 minutes a day. This means that they're raised in broiler houses just like normal, factory-farmed chickens, and the door to the barn is opened for 5 minutes a day. Most of the chickens are too crowded, overweight, and sick to even attempt to make it outside for those 5 minutes. And free range doesn't mean anything regarding slaughter methods.

Further, wild animals that eat other animals have a biological necessity to do so. Humans, at least humans in the Western, industrialized world, do not. That is the difference.

[lazarus]

17. many of us do

A great many people simply can't survive or be healthy on a vegetarian or Vegan diet. So we need to eat meat to survive and be healthy.

Diet is a self-correcting phenomenon. Those who thrive on a diet will stay on that diet. So most vegetarians who have been that way for some time are healthy, because their body chemistry is suited for that.

I know people who lose a ton of weight doing low fat/high carb. I put on the pounds doing that, but lose weight at an almost unhealthy speed doing high fat/low carb. (yes, my blood levels are great on that, too).

We all need to find the diet that works for us.

[arissa]

21. Your underlying premise is fundamentally incorrect

That the people you know thrived solely because of their meat consumption, or failed to thrive solely because of their lack of meat consumption. Further, your argument is impossible to rebut because you simply use the "I know people" argument, since I cannot possibly know the same people you are claiming to cite as evidence, evaluate their diets and history, I can't possibly "prove" your argument wrong. But that's because your argument does not cite evidence, it cites hearsay.

I've worked in nutrition for three years, I've read piles of literature on the topics, and am required to earn "continuing education" points by attending seminars and keeping up with the latest research.

There are cases of extremely rare diseases where people are literally starving to death for failure to absorb nutrients, and require the high-calorie content of many animal products, but these are extraordinarily rare - extraordinarily.

Never have I read of anyone (barring aforementioned rare diseases) who, on a properly designed and executed (and scientifically monitored) vegetarian diet, fail to thrive or be healthy.

Further, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence indicates that, as a general rule, humans are healthier on vegetarian diets, live longer, and have less instances of most cancers.

I would also like to hear your explanation for why intelligence is the determing factor in treating a creature with respect. If we use only intelligence as the reason to treat a creature with respect, that means it is ok to eat a mentally retarded child for dinner, because they're not as smart as you and I, nor are they as smart as many of the animals you probably eat.

[neweurope]

23. Hm. I'm not speaking of other "people" but of myself.

I am allergic to most - almost all - things I have ever been tested for. I went to a nutrition specialist and asked what I could eat and what she thought of avoiding meat. She said: By all means you have to eat meat. So it might not be as easy as you state.

-----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[arissa]

24. I sympathize with your plight

But I'm not speaking out of my ass here. It is my job to help people with nutrition problems. There are people who have a wide range of food allergies, you're right. I talk to a lot of them and their parents everyday.

What is interesting about this, however, is this is not something that is naturally inherent to humans. It is a product of our culture, in some fashion. There are many theories as to the cause of food allergies, but it is safe to assume that our modern day methods of food production, processing, and consumption, combined with our horribly polluted environment, is what causes this - not our natural biology.

[neweurope]

28. I agree with you. It's hardly a coincidence that allergies even one

generation back were almost unknown (at least here in Germany).

I do not want to paint myself better than I am though: That nutrition adviser did say this to me. But even if she had not I don't think I could totally give up meat yet :(


----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[lazarus]

29. I was afraid this would happen

(Edited to fix link to image)

I'm not responding to the vegetarian debate, because that's not what this thread is about.

For the last paragraph:

I would also like to hear your explanation for why intelligence is the determing factor in treating a creature with respect. Do you also believe that a mentally retarded child should be able to be eaten for dinner, because they're not as smart as you and I, nor are they as smart as many of the animals you probably eat?

No, I don't believe that. I do believe that intelligence in animals should be considered. That's what I said at the beginning.

And not for "treating an animal with respect", but for eating the animal. I can respect an animal and thank it for providing me with nutrients. Your message is mixed up, and I find folding in "retarded" children with this argument to be nothing more than an attempt to spark some sort of emotional response.

Not good debating, in other words.

If you think there's a hypocritical nature to my argument, surely you can find another angle to attack from. And note that I didn't say we could eat anything less intelligent than us. I've got a fairly high IQ, but I don't think I can just start culling less intelligent people to supplement my food budget.

So let's get back to the original post, which was supposed to discuss the intelligence of animals and ethics related to it, and try not to get into Vegan/vegetarian arguments and strawmen about eating children. Trust me, you don't want to go there.

[arissa]

30. You can post attacks against my "angle of attack"

all you want but that does not get us anywhere, and it does not serve to rebut any facts or arguments.

I think you have stated what I am getting at, though:

I do believe that intelligence in animals should be considered.

Basically, you are stating that you're applying an arbitrary line. Animals are animals, and humans aren't animals, and therefore merely the fact that a human is a human makes it better than animals. This is arbitrary, and not sound philosophy or sound science. You have to have a reason to apply that line. You cited intelligence. I am pointing out that intelligence is not a good reason, because many humans are not as intelligent as many animals.

I'm sorry if you think this is bad debating, but I think you're the one who is practicing bad debating - you're applying arbitrary standards without any logical reason.

I also find it difficult to see how you can truly show respect for a creature if you're responsible for killing it and eating it, when you do not need to do so to survive. That is a disrespectful act, in my opinion, I would certainly find it disrespectful if someone killed me and ate me because they liked the taste of my flesh.

I applaud you for what you've done and your willingness to at least have this discussion, but I wish you could see how applying arbitrary standards without backing them up is not good form.

And also understand, I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking what is a flawed standard for evaluating compassion. I will check back on this thread later tonight, I hope we can continue to discuss this. :)

[lazarus]

33. Okay, here we go

You eat vegetables, you're responsible for the deaths of thousands of animals.

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2002/Mar02/vegan.htm

"Vegan diets are not bloodless diets," Davis said. "Millions of animals die every year to provide products used in vegan diets."

Davis presented his research last fall at a meeting of the European Society for Agriculture and Food Ethics, in Florence, Italy. There he questioned the conclusions of animal rights proponents and offered alternatives using the Least Harm Principle. Central to his argument is the unseen mortality that accompanies the production of row crops and grains, staples of a vegan diet, in agricultural systems large enough to sustain the human population.

"Over the years that I have been studying animal rights theories, I have never found anyone who has considered the deaths of - or, the 'harm' to - animals of the field," Davis said. "This, it seems to me, is a serious omission."

Consequently, Davis asks what is the morally relevant difference between the field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill one but not the other so that humans may eat.

Few studies document the losses of rabbits, mice, pheasants, snakes and other field animals in planting and harvesting crops. Said one researcher: "Because most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at all, few scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture's effects on their populations."

Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation, mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause additional harm to animals of the field."

ALL standards are arbitrary. Every single one. I'm still trying to figure out where my personal dividing line should fall, because eating anything causes animal death. Therefore, animal death is not sufficient. Something more has to be applied. I choose to apply intelligence, because I honestly can't think of another way to gauge the ethics of the situation.

[arissa]

35. Excellent, this is good

This is a common argument repeated by the meat lobbying groups, and every indication they are responsible for it as well. Thanks for the opportunity to explain why it's a silly argument.

There are many studies and groups out there that have done thorough debunking of the claims made in this oft-repeated argument, but I'll stick to the easiest one:

Animals are fed anywhere from 3 to 20 pounds of grains for every pound of meat they produce. This means, you're killing 3 to 20 times as many plants for the same weight in food by eating animals. So even if my one pound of brown rice resulted in the death of a field mouse, if I ate one pound of beef, I would be responsible for 3 to 20 times as many field mouse deaths, plus the death of the cow.

To address your concern about where to draw the line, a suggestion on where to draw the line is found in one of my earlier posts: suffering. If the creature is capable of suffering, then I will do everything in my power not to subject it to suffering.

Now I really must get back to work, but this conversation fascinates me! :)

[qazplm]

37. plants are capable of suffering

that's been proven for awhile.

They DO feel.

So now you are really saying DEGREES of suffering arent you?

[arissa]

39. No, it is not proven, and most scientists consider the claim absurd

Plants do not have a nervous system. They do not have a brain. You can't transmit pain without a nervous system, and you can't process the signal without a brain.

I will not waste my time further, arguing such an obvious and widely accepted scientific fact.

[qazplm]

40. Really?

Then I guess when The Journal of Biological Chemistry published a study that said that not only plants feel pain (as a response for example to being attacked or damaged by a hungry herbivore or to stimulate defenses to ant attacks)...but that aspirin, yes aspirin BLOCKS those pain receptors.

"Jasmonic acid is a hormone that is made when plants are in distress. It signals the production of plant-defense compounds -- it works a little like a shot of pain, warning the plant that it is under attack. It can also volatilize and warn nearby plants, a chain reaction that's like a warning signal to other plants. This seems to particularly apply to insect attack, as the alerted plants then produce specific compounds that produce insect gastro-intestinal distress.

"It turns out that aspirin will suppress the formation of this compound (jasmonic acid), so it suppresses the warning signal, like it suppresses pain in animals," Backhaus said."

http://clasdean.la.asu.edu/news/aspirin.htm

don't have a direct link but bottom line is, you dont need a brain (many animals dont even have brains) nor a central nervous system to "feel pain".

But please by all means continue to tell me that the above is simply a crazy theory and plants not feeling pain is an "obvious and widely accepted scientific fact."

[qazplm]

43. heck, I even found a pro-vegetarian site that disagrees with you

"It is very possible that plants have sensitivities that we do not yet understand. Because plants do not have nervous systems and cannot run away from predators, it has generally been assumed that they do not experience pain and suffering. Recent scientific evidence suggests that this assumption may be incorrect."

http://articles.animalconcerns.org/Faqs+Ref/plants_have_feelings.html

It goes on to make decent although unpersuasive arguements why this doesnt matter, but they dont seem to believe either that it is as "obvious" as you are making it.

[qazplm]

44. let me ask this another way

if I devise a way, and this wouldnt be impossible in the slightest, in fact it is what all of us seem to agree on, for an animal to live a quite comfortable life, and to kill it quietly and in its sleep or without any pain or anxiety...

What suffering have I placed on that animal?

[lazarus]

47. So some suffering is okay?

For the purposes of this post, I'll stipulate everything in your post as true.

That means that you have a threshold of pain and suffering and animal slaughter that you find acceptable. Was this threshold arrived at arbitrarily, or through logic?

Do field mice not suffer?

[qazplm]

36. go further

how about the fact that turning over land to farming means land that animals cant have to graze, hunt, build homes, etc.

That means animals die. Does anyone seriously thinks the number of chickens wouldnt go down significantly if we didnt use them as a primary food source? Not as if they are a particular effective form of life (very little in the way of defenses and a whole lot of potential predators).

If we went to an all veggie diet we would have to significantly increase the size and number of farms around the world. Yes, America by itself could probably feed the world ideally, but of transportation issues, spoilage, weather phenomena would mean that you would have to really hedge your bets (after all no meat to fall back on, its veggies and fruits or nada).

Where do the displaced animals go?

[qazplm]

34. well

I would disagree, we dont know enough about animals to be sure that the smartest animal really IS as smart as a newborn, because we have little way of accuarately assessing everything that makes each of those animals "intelligent", in short it's about a lot more than just "what tricks are they clever enough to do".

ANY line applied will be "arbitrary". The very act of selecting a "line" be default makes it "arbitrary" because we have to set up the limiting factors based on what? arbitrary decisions.

I would suggest that you ask yourself if you would feel more pain for your favorite pet being killed or for someone in your family. Would you feel more pain for your favorite pet being killed versus one of your neighbors.

If the answer is yes, why? If the answer is no, why? Either way, you have ascribed a value to one life or the other that outweighs the other. Which would you save if you could only save one, a random human, or your pet dog? Again, why?

The difference it seems to me is a matter of degree, and THAT is...say it with me now..."arbitrary". ;)

[qazplm]

32. no offense

but how many people first of all can afford a properly designed and scientifically monitored vegetarian diet?

How many people working two jobs have to the time to properly executed said diet?

Overwhelming body of scientific evidence also says that if you eat about 2/3rds of what your daily recommended allowance is you will live longer too but I dont think we necessarily make "living longer" as the sole reason for doing it.


Furthermore, i dont think you are right that vegetarians are "healthier" simply because they eat vegetarian diets. Vegetarians first of all tend to be more health conscious anyways, more particular, play closer attention, exercise more, etc.

I think it quite likely that a meat eater who does all of those things, all other things being equal will end up roughly the same. But you compare a very small group (vegetarians) with a very large group (meat eaters) and you should know better that scientifically you can't make the broad generalizations that you are making.

SOME subgroups of meat eaters would do BETTER than vegetarians, athletes for example, and I suspect that subgroup alone is probably at least as big if not bigger than vegetarians.

[unpossibles]

52. actually, this is not correct

many world class atheletes are vegetarians (don't know if it is still true, but in the late 80's the only person to have won the Iron Man three times in a row was a vegan).

Also, all over the world, most people are on low to no meat diets, so the sample is actually larger than you think. Nothing is wrong with eating meat, but do not rationalize your desire to do so based on bad or no data.

A healthy and balanced vegetarian diet is very easy to do, easier than one would think. Most people who do not do well on such a diet (outside of allergies and rare medical conditions), do so because they are picky and choose not to try things which they need, such as beans and rice, etc.

Finally, why would we need more and larger farms if we gave up meat? As stated above, eating meat uses more vegetable matter (thus more crop field acres) than a veggie diet.

Although some of it is dated, read up on the subject if you are interested, and try to get a variety of sources. And try to remember that all of us grew up with nutritional info that was supplied to the schools from the people who sold them the meat. Would you trust the tobacco companies, or any other industry to tell you how healthy their own products are?

[qazplm]

54. first of all

you provide no source for your data, how many world class athletes ARE vegetarians? I would be surprised if the number is high.

All over the world, most people are on poor diets, have disease, all sorts of deficiences in part because their variety of food is limited. Are you really sure you want to use THAT as an example?

A healthy and balanced vegetarian diet may be easy for YOU to do. I suspect you have a good living, make good money, and can afford the supplements and wide variety necessary to insure proper intake of all vital nutrients. The guy in Bangladesh doesnt.

Why would we need larger farms? real easy, you put all your eggs in one basket, you would be awful foolish to not make that basket awful big. A lot of the food made for slop and feed is not exactly human quality food and it is not as if all of that vegetable matter is ready for going on your plate.

I thank you for your condescending advice, but I do not "trust" that ANY industry, meat or otherwise, has anything other than the bottom line at heart. I DO know that:

a. we are made to eat BOTH meat and vegetables. That is an inescapable biological fact
b. While I agree that we eat a lot more meat than we need or biology probably intended, that has nothing to do with whether we should eat meat at all
c. that variety is important, not only to insure that you get all of the natural nutrients your body needs, but to guard against environmental calamity and the issues we still have with transporting foodstuffs.

Vegetarians remind me a lot of libertarians. Ideally their philosophy might have some merit, although I am sold on that either, but in practical terms, it doesnt.

[unpossibles]

56. I think you misunderstood me

I thought I said I have no problem with the idea of eating meat, just that we do it way too much as an American culture.

Look at purely industrial nations in Europe and Asia then - they eat far less meat than we do and have drastically lower instances of most of our major health problems.

If variety is what you seek in diet (a very intelligent and correct choice) than how is meat a solution? With few vitamins, and a handful of varieties of meat vs. the varieties of vegetables available, I do not understand this argument.

Also, for the years I put myself through college, I ate no meat and it was far cheaper to buy groceries as well as eating out.

I do not mean to come across as attacking you. However, keep in mind that we who choose to lower consumption of or to not eat meat get verbally attacked by people all of the time who have not researched the subject at all.

And for the record, I do not take supplements. I eat a varied balanced diet and have read up on what my body needs to live. I don't disagree we are omnivores, but we are not made to eat it in every meal or even every other meal, nor do we need to.

a partial list of athletes who are vegetarian (or have claimed to be):
Aaron, Hank - Baseball
Abele, Richard - winner of 8 national championships in karate
Armstrong, B.J. - Basketball
Badman, Natascha - Ironwoman of Hawaii 1998
Beckles, Al - body builder
Bennett, Michael - Football
Bird, Larry - Basketball
Bonali, Sonia - Ice Skater
Boyer, Jonathan - Cyclist (source: www.miami.com/mld/miami/sports/3645672.htm)
Brock, Peter - race car driver in australia, vegan (source: animal liberation NSW Australia)
Burfoot, Amby - World Class Marathon Runner (source: www.joehenderson.com/lsdbook/200.html)
Burnquist, Bob - Professional Skateboarder
Burwash, Peter - tennis (World Vegetarian Congress 1996)
Cahling, Andreas - (Bodybuilder, source: Andreas's web page, www.andreascahling.com)
Campbell, Chris - 1980 world champion wrestler
Chappell, Greg - Former Australian Cricketer
Conway, Joanna - ice skater
Cope, Simon - cyclist
De Costella, Robert - Marathon runner (source: Australian Veg Magazine)
Cranston, Sylvia - triathlete
Earle, Robbie - Footballer (source: The Vegetarian Society (UK) leaflet)
Eastall, Sally - Marathon runner (UK No 2, vegan)
Edwards, Di - runner, Olympic semi-finalist
Evert, Christine - Tennis Champion (source: Veg Soc)
Fitzgibbon, Katie - marathon runner
Freitas, Louis - body builder
Goldberg, Bill - Professional Wrestler (source: www.peta.org)
Gould, Carol - marathon runner
Gray, Estelle - cyclist (Source: A Teen's Guide to Going Vegetarian)
Heidrich, Dr.Ruth - 3-time Ironman finisher, marathoner, age-group record holder, Pres. Vegetarian Society of Honolulu (vegan) (source: her book A Race for Life)
Hellriegel, Thomas - Iron man (EVU)
Hepburn, Doug - World Champion Weightlifter in 1953, strongman (source: www.doughepburn.com)
Hibberd, Sally - British Women's Mountain Bike Champion
Hilligenn, Roy, - Lifelong vegetarian world class bodybuilder (now 77), (source: www.cbass.com/Hilligenn.htm)
Holmes, Keith - former World Middleweight boxing champion
Hounsell, Sharon - Miss Wales Bodybuilding Champion
Howard, Desmond - formerly w/Washington Redskins, now w/Jacksonville Jaguars (source: PETA)
Hughes, Roger - Welsh National Ski Champion
Johnson, Kathy - Olympic Gymnast
Jurek, Scott - trail runner (six-time defending champion of the Western States 100 Mile Endurance Run, ultrarunning's premiere 100 Mile event), Masters degree in Physical Therapy (source: www.scottjurek.com)
Kaat, Jim - baseball
Kalbermatten, Frederik - professional snowboarder
King, Billie Jean - tennis (Source: A Teen's Guide to Going Vegetarian)
Kowalski, Killer - wrestler (Source: A Teen's Guide to Going Vegetarian)
Kumble, Anil - cricket player
LaLonde, Donnie - Former Light Heavyweight Champion of the World
LaRussa, Tony - manager St. Louis Cardinals
Laumann, Silken - Olympic rower
Lee, Bruce - martial arts, founder of Jeet Kun Do
Lewis, Carl - Olympian
Linares, Sixto - 24 Hour Trialathon (source: Earthsave www.earthsave.org)
Lynn, Jamie - professional snowboarder
Males, Dan - Australian Olympian
Marek, Cheryl - cyclist (source: A Teen's Guide to Going Vegetarian
Mihelich, Taj)
Müller, Nicolas - professional snowboarder
Monbiot, Katherine - world champion
arm wrestler and nutritionist (vegan) (Source: The Vegan Society UK)
Moses, Ed - Olympic Gold medalist swimmer
Müller, Jutta - multiple Windsurfing World Cup Champion
Nava, Ricardo Torres - climber, First Latin American to summit Mount Everest
Navratilova, Martina - tennis
Nurmi, Paavo - Olympic distance runner from Finland
Oakes, Fiona - Olympic cyclist ('92), marathon runner
Parish, Robert - basketball
Pearl, Bill - Mr. Universe '56, '61, '67, '71
Peeler, Anthony - basketball player (source: NBA web site profiles)
Roa, Roa - Soccer Player, Argentina national team goalkeeper
Rowley, Geoff - professional skateboarder
Sanderson, Danielle - marathon runner
Scott, Dave - Six time Ironman world champion and first inductee
into the Ironman Hall of Fame (source: www.davescottinc.com)
Spaeth-Herring, Debbie - Georgia State power-lifter
Sumners, Rosalyn - world champion figure skater
Thomas, Jamie - professional skateboarder
Vaughn, Jacques - All American point guard, #1-ranked Univ of KS Jayhawks
Vialli, Gianluca - football player (source: Newspaper "unionesarda")
Walton, Bill - basketball player
Watson, Emmil - Gladiators’ athlete (UK TV) (Viva!’s Vegetarian Video is Food For Life (EVU) )
Williams, Serena - tennis champion

You'll notice a lot of body builders, Olympic champions and multiple Ironman winners. So much for the wimpy vegetarian stereotype.

[qazplm]

59. the fact that you can fit them all

on one page ought to tell you that there arent a lot of vegetarian athletes.

There are 300 Div 1 college basketball teams. They each have roughly 12 players. Thats over 3000 right there. Now add the 100 div 1 college football teams with almost 100 players. Then the 30+ pro football, baseball and basketball teams. Then add the soccer teams. There are a LOT of professional athletes.

I dont think anyone said anything about a "wimpy vegetarian" in fact at no point in my post did I say ANYTHING about vegetarians actually.
And if you had read my posts you would have seen that I have actually made the comment that I thought we do eat too much meat probably for what we were designed. But yes by variety I DO mean meat.

And no I did not say we need to eat meat at EVERY meal but we were designed to eat some meat, whether a little at every meal or some on occassion. Let's look at industrialized nations in Europe then...England? They eat a good bit of meat. meat pies, beef, etc. Germany, lots of bratwurst and sausage and well i gotta tell ya i think of german food it aint veggies i am envisioning.

Asia? Yes, they have very little meat in their diets. Interesting thing though. Asian-Americans are statistically taller and more muscler than their native raised counterparts, often by several inches. Why is that?

Noone would be foolish enough to argue that we shouldnt but back on our meat intake, then again, we should also cut back on our sugar intake and our fat intake (but then again chocolate bars dont feel pain so no one really is worried about us eating them and they are quite tasty).

The argument here is, in part, how easy is it to simply get rid of meat for the entire world and just live on veggies, and i propose that it is not nearly as easy or as trouble free as vegetarian activists assert.

[unpossibles]

57. almost forgot

and the idea that we need more farms... sure, as of now, the grains in those fields is not suitable for human consumption... that is fairly easily fixed I would think.

Also, consider that the pesticides not suitable for human crops are often considered OK for animal consumption. Guess where a lot of those end up.

If you think it is regulated for our safety, remember this: the mad cow problem we now have is a result of feeding dead diseased meat to cows in order to save money. Last time I checked, cows were not carnivores and cannibalism is not good for anyone.

[qazplm]

60. fairly easily fixed?

you realize you are just guessing on that one right?

what does pesticides have to do with anything. Thats an argument for why we should have pesticide free meat, not for why we shouldnt eat meat. The fact that any pesticide is considered suitable for human consumption is a problem.

I dont think ANY of our foodstuff is regulated any more than the absolute minimum that can be gotten away with.

although the whole mad cow thing is a bit of an overreaction, i would guess more people died from rabies last year than mad cow.

the fact is that we would be putting all of our food eggs into one basket, no pun intended, and so we would need to expand our farms to protect against storms, bad weather, fires, etc.

Also, it is not as if you can get by on just corn, beans, and a few other veggies. if you go all veggie you are going to need quite a variety or supplements to get all your required nutrients. that means many types of veggies that were more "speciality" plants like say brocolli, will have to become staple foods and much more of it grown.

The most common sense diet, the one that works the best for all of us, is a healthy balance of:

lean meats
lots of fruits and vegetables
smidge of dairy (although i admit i love my cereal and milk)
some grains
chocolate

I threw that last one in there, but I defy anyone to tell me that any food that stimulates the same receptors as sex in the brain is bad.

[unpossibles]

61. one more try

ok, I think we've strayed off topic enough, but I still think I am explaining this badly, so I will simplify.

My post was a reaction to your statements that essentially said that a vegetarian diet will not work (or will not work without costly supplements and restructuring).

My point was merely that it does work. The athlete thing was a way to prove that you can be healthy on a meat free diet. I did not try to imply that any majority of athletes were not meat eaters, but if you look at the list, the accomplishments of those people show that it is not only possible, but that they can be quite healthy and compete without meat. Many of the people I listed are pretty much considered in the top rankings in their fields too.

As far as the farmers' fields; I do not understand what you mean. Obviously, if more grains are required to feed cattle and other feed lot animals, why can some the same fields which currently grow their feed not grow grains and vegetables for human consumption instead? Obviously, fewer would be needed than is now needed. People chose what to grow there, so why could they not change what they are growing?

And of course there are European countries with people who eat as much meat as we do and they have similar health problems. Those Japanese people who may be shorter in their own country than here, also tend to weigh less and live 10 years longer on average.

And for the record, I am all for treating all living things with respect AND I am aware that to live, things have to die. I see it is minimizing impact though.

If you choose to eat meat, fine. But do not rationalize it by making it sound like people everywhere would be sickly if they did not. Bad nutrition and an unbalanced diet, regardless of if someone eats meat or not, is a personal choice - I am not trying to convince you not to, but I am trying to convince you that many do it successfully around the world.

And of course we (as a nation) should cut way back on sugar and other junk food; I could not agree more. But again, that is a personal decision.

[qazplm]

63. first

i did not say vegetarian diet "will not work".

I said that it is not a diet that works easily or without supplements or having the sophistication necessary to know WHAT veggies you need to eat and what nutrients found in meat you need to make up for.

MOST people in the world arent that smart, dont have the money for supplements and dont have the access to someone to medical assistance to get it right.

Second, you can be healthy on a diet with meat as well. And it doesnt require that you do anything other than eating it in moderation and not including a lot of fat in with it.

That's a lot easier than what would be required for most for a all vegetarian diet. There ARE nutrients that are mainly provided in meat that are not as much present or in a few cases at all in vegetables.

Of course Japan is a great nation to pick out, but there are another dozen asian nations where the people are shorter AND dont live as long as us.

If you choose not to eat meat, fine. But do not rationalize it by making it sound like people everywhere would be able to easily with no health dangers jump right after you. There are many places around the world where meat is not just a luxury, it is a dream, and in those places the people arent exactly flourishing health-wise.

There is a place for meat in our diets, it may be a sparse place, but it is there none the less.

[Merlot]

46. You may have missed my point

I was not implying that organic means they necessarily lead a better life. In some cases they do, in some cases it's marketing at its worst. But If it wasn't fed hormones, antibiotics and feed made from other animals, it will be a healthier animal, and be in less discomfort. The human will also be a healthier person for eating it.

Not everyone is cut out to be a vegetarian. But if they start by eating one less hamburger a week, it makes a difference to their health and our environment. Everybody does what they can at their own pace. The poster said she wasn't able to give up meat, but eating it concerns her.

I grew up eating steak and roast beef every day as a child. My parents owned a steakhouse restaurant. I moved away when I was 18, and by the time I was 24, I had stopped eating beef, chicken and turkey. Tried to give up fish and found that my body just wasn't ready for that step. It's all a matter of degrees.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. It sounds like the USA needs a better definiton

The UK one is:

Stocking rate in the house is as follows:-

* Chickens = 13 birds but not more than 27.5 kg liveweight per m²;

Age at slaughter must be:-

* Chickens = 56 days or later

In addition, the birds have had during at least half their lifetime continuous daytime access to open-air runs, comprising an area mainly covered by vegetation, of not less than:-

* 1m² per chicken

Hen eggs in small packs bearing the words 'Free range eggs' must be produced in poultry enterprises in which:-

* hens have continuous daytime access at all times to an outdoor range area.
* the ground to which hens have access is mainly covered with vegetation.
* the maximum stocking density is not greater than 2,500 hens per hectare of ground available to the hens or one hen per 4 m².
* the interior of the building must satisfy the conditions specified in the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England)(Amendment) Regulations 2002.

[neweurope]

16. You are right - that's what bothers me the most, the way most animals

have to live and how they are slaughtered. I do try to buy organic stuff - not only meat - whenever I can. And I do try to take care of the animals in my charge - meaning I try to respect their nature and that they have rights, too.

-------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[lazarus]

13. I agree

But I do value intelligence, since that's what separates us. We're not the fastest, the strongest, etc. We're the most intelligent. (Except maybe the dolphin).

I do value all life; I'm a Buddhist (and atheist, we can do that). But I can value life for the nourishment it provides me.

But once an animal reaches a certain level of intelligence, I start to feel queasy. No judgement calls here; everybody has their own level of tolerance. I'm able to eat veal and rabbit, many can't. OTOH, I had to give up my beloved and tasty octopus. I saw too many shows about the intelligence of the octopus (those critters can break out of anything, it's amazing).

I refuse to eat higher level animals like monkey (not a big sacrifice, haven't seen a sale on monkey down at Trader Joe's) or dolphin. I will eat shark or tuna, though.

I think the study of animal intelligence is fascinating, to be honest. But I wonder how much of this intelligence is innate, and how much is adaptation that looks like intelligence, and how much is our Disneyfied subconcious looking for intelligence and seeing it where there isn't any.

[neweurope]

19. I had desert mice once. They had a 11 ft cage and when I was at home

they were allowed to run in the living room. They loved cables, though. So I built all kinds of constructions to keep them away from the stereo. You should have SEEN these mice studying the obstacle and thinking of a way to get around it. No way that was adaptation. That was intelligence. Seeing a problem and studying how to solve it.


--------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Beetwasher]

11. Even Further, Are People Necessarily Human?

Do you have to be human to be considered a person?

[lazarus]

14. I'd say yes, for one reason

Cannibalism is a great taboo. Do you really trust some of these people not to go hunting human when the price of beef gets too high?

:evilgrin:

[McKenzie]

18. this is a philosophical minefield

I am not a veggie though I refuse to eat meat from factory sources. In fact, I rarely eat meat because 1. I think it is a wasteful use of land to rear it as a main food source and 2. It's unhealthy if eaten all the time. Ever notice how older butchers often have red jowls and thread veins in their faces as a result of a lifetime of heavy meat consumption?.

On the other hand, there is a tendency to anthropomorphise. If I snuffed it tomorrow a lot of people would notice whereas if a cow dropped dead in a field its companions would just sniff at it then wander around eating contented. The parrot, the ape and the octopus wouldn't go into mourning either if one of their buddies popped their clogs; no ceremonies, no with regrets cards and certainly no messages in the press. OK, that sounds a tad cheeky; it does illustrate the fundamental differences though between human cognitive abilities and those of animals. Some animals might have some intelligence; whether it is analagous to human intelligence is a moot point. I can't cite empirical studies as evidence - I can cite what I have observed with my own eyes.

There also seems to be a hierarchy based upon whether an animal is photogenic, cuddly etc. For example, few people would disagree that rats are vermin and need to be controlled in the interests of public health. We do not baulk at their extermination despite the fact that they have a societal structure and are reasonably intelligent. Does killing those animals we regard as vermin, intelligence notwithstanding, amount to hypocrisy? How do we select which species are worthy of sparing?

In any case, nature itself is red in tooth and claw. People sometimes forget that. Urbanisation has removed us from the wild to the point where many people think meat started life on the supermarket shelf. I'm not some closet freeper advocating killing animals without thinking and I detest cruelty (opening for a flamer there). But, it is very important to realise that our application of moral values to spare the life of any given species is not shared by the species when considering kiling each other. Fair enough, they do it for food (there are exceptions such as mink) but they kill each other without thought for the simple reason that their behaviour is programmed rather than the end result of intellectual debate.

[neweurope]

22. You are right in some things and wrong in others. For instance

I KNOW that animals mourn. Horses certainly do, so do elephants - all social animals I know actually.

Of course it's true "that nature is red in teeth and claw". We humans however have been given a conscience; we can make decisions. I have been struggling with the following thought: Where actually is the difference between a seed of grain - which contains a living being - and a cow? My solution was: A rabbit knows fear when it is killed. But maybe we just don't know yet that the seed can also feel fear...

As I said: I still eat meat. I had to kill a sick rabbit once, though (myxomatosis). It was horrible because I really didn't have enough strength and the rabbit was not so far gone that he didn't know what was happening. One of the worst experiences of my life. I know this: If I had to kill my meat - then I would not be able to ever eat it again. Our society makes it much too easy - when we buy meat we don't even recognize anymore that it used to be an animal. So my solution for the time being is: Eat it rarely and if I do so I try to do it with respect and gratitude as I said above.


--------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague.

[McKenzie]

25. you are right about the higher animals and

you make some salient points, particularly where our amount of meat consumption is concerned. I think it is wasteful and the fact that it is made so easy is a corollary to cruelty. Well said there and I agree.

I used to shoot and I support it where it involves wild game - I have no truck with rearing tame pheasants then blasting them down. That's silly and a tad sick. Stalking a wild deer is wholly different; one minute it's there the next it's dead, rabbits ditto. An easier death than many humans get and way better than factory farmed beef which is based upon the least time from birth to the consumer's plate. Anyone who opposes shooting wild game should cease eating meat immediately, abandon all animal products, and so on. There is no counter argument to that. Either you accept sport shooting of wild game and eat humanely reared meat, wear leather etc or you do as I suggest to avoid hypocrisy.

As I initially said, a philosophical minefield...

Thanks for your considered reply. BTW, I'm a mix of old fogey and new Europe!

[neweurope]

31. Interesting mix :) I agree with shooting wild game. At least those

animals have lived a happy and natural life. Still I think the best solution would be not to eat animals - but as I said I cannot follow up on this myself. Yet.

:hi:

----------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[qazplm]

27. elephants definitely mourn...

thats pretty much proven. But i think you make a crucial point. Would vegetarians and vegans be against getting rid of vermin? I dont think they would. Why? Because in the end, they would value human life over animal life, thereby saying that yes, one is "worth" more than the other.

I would also argue that animals kill for many other reasons besides food...some animals kill as part of sexual mating practices (mostly insect true), some kill as part of actual war-making (although this practice is somewhat rare), some kill to mark out territory, cats dont always kill to eat, sometimes they kill to train or show their own offspring how to kill.

Bottom line is, I would agree that we have become removed somewhat from nature. I dont think though that I would have a problem killing something and then eating it, but I dont think I would pick a method that detailed more cruelty than was necessary and if no cruelty could be accomplished all the better, even if it took more time or money.

[qazplm]

20. gotta be honest

Dont have a problem with eating meat or animals. Now I agree that the more intelligent an animal is the harder time any of us will have in eating it, dont know if that's just our own conceit in treating some animals as pets or near equals and others as food, or if we simply value intelligence as a something that differentiates life.

Let's be clear...plants feel pain. Yes, they do. But not as much as animals do. So the question is, to me, a matter of degree. We dont mind killing and eating plants because they arent too intelligent and they dont feel as much pain...but not the smarter and more feeling animals? So again I think it goes back to intelligence in a large measure as the dividing line.

Yes, we biologically WERE set up to eat animal flesh AND scavenge for plant life as well. Now understandably we probably werent meant to eat as MUCH meat as we each consume on average daily, but that's just again a matter of degrees.

Now some argue that technologically we dont HAVE to eat meat. Well, that may be true, but I dont see how the morality changes simply because technology does. And a balanced diet is still important, and I dont think we know everything there is to know yet well enough to cast off meat forever and say simply that we can get by with veggies, fruits and supplements. There is a reason our bodies have canine teeth, a reason we can digest meat, a reason we hunger for meat, why it makes our mouth water (well most of us anyways).

Everything is food for something else, its nature, the way things are, now yes I personally have no desire to be eaten but hey I'm sorry but I DO consider humans more important than animals. I may cry a little bit if Fluffy dies but I tell you what there is not a single human life that Fluffy is worth more than.

I certainly agree we can do a LOT more to humanely treat animals. Why treat that badly when you dont have to? Quit treating them as a bottom line and looking to shave every last cent off by cramming them into pens or killing them brutally. I am all aboard for that.

But gotta tell ya, I will bite deeply into my well done steak, and not feel a twinge of anything other than...mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...good! ;)

[McKenzie]

26. we are in broad agreement it seems

besides, if anyone opposes eating meat then they have to remove themselves from ANYTHING that involves the death of an animal. Food, leather, animal by-products and so on.

Factory farming is cruel and sick - eating meat is in our nature. I lived on a farm when I was a kid and I have absolutely no problem in eating humanely reared meat.

[gottaB]

38. asdf

I see three core issues. The ethics of killing, the ethics of destroying another conscioussness, and the ethics of causing pain.

Nobody totally escapes killing other living things, but the problem of killing can be a focus of meditation on fundamental values, and these values can genuinely inform the way people live.

The problem of destroying conscious entities seems to have been underexamined in the West, which is an irony of sorts. Discovery of this problem is probably a big part of the modern vegetarian movement.

The problem of causing pain is related to the existence of other sentient beings, but it can be treated separately. Would a "cruelty-free" hamburger be preferable to a "slow and painful death" hamburger? Sure, for most people.

Is it possible to have an ethics of relating to other conscious entities that is not grounded in empathy? And what are the conditions of possibility for empathy? A consciousness? An endocrinological system? Experience, and all that entails? Interaction?

Is it in the nature of interaction to fall into patterns that primarily exist below the level of consciousness? What implications does that have for how one ought to relate to other forms of consciousness?

Consider the ethics of experimenting on animals as a problem of the structure of our relations to others. Would the moral difficulty of performing harmful experiments on dolphins be the same if humans had no history of interaction with dolphins? Is it ethical for scientists to ignore popular affection for Flipper? Does a pre-emptive exclusion of empathic considerations necessarily reflect a means of advancing knowledge, or is it sometimes a defensive reaction that conceals more reality than it reveals?

And if there are friendly lifeforms, Bambis and Flippers, aren't there also enemy lifeforms? If we are at war with cockroaches and anopheles and other vermin, should science take part? Must it? Can it?

....

[auburngrad82]

42. The intelligence of dogs, from today's news:

http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/183109

A blind dog and its companion communicate through touch.

[underseasurveyor]

48. I am very much of the same mind set as you about this.

I am trying to gradually ween all animal products from my diet anyway but also having been (since I can remember) a person that has always loved and related to animals much easier than people in most cases, I have always felt an aversion to eating anything intelligent. And squid may not be up there in smarts department with the octopusses;-) but squid ( damn now i'm not so sure) I thought were fairly intelligent.

Eating creatures like apes, elephants, dolphins and whales, to me, is nothing less than vile and heinous. And like you, once I found out how intelligent them lil octopusses are I eat them no more.

For me I guess it has something to do with the ability to form deep, lasting life time family bonds spanning generations. Which elephants, whales, dolphins, and apes do. It may not be the best indicator of actual "intelligence" nor does it make it comparable to "human" intelligence, (but it could be) yet there is something there that is sentient and aware. And if they are sentient and aware it means there is some level of emotional awareness with a sense of self and an awareness beyond the self.
That's how I see it :-)

[kaitykaity]

50. Gives a whole new meaning. To "dehumanize"

means you can kill it or do whatever you want to to it
because it's not human to you.

Hm.

Humans are built to eat meat, no question about it. I'm
not a vegetarian or a vegan either. I like a good steak now
and again. So I don't have a problem with predator/prey.

I do think that factory farming and the way we produce this
meat is a problem that needs attention.

I think it's about respecting the resources that you use
and treating them as if they have intrinsic value.

Too much thinking, man. :head hurts now:

[lazarus]

53. Heh

I need to find one of my favourite Far Side cartoons. A student raises his hand and asks to be excused because his brain is full.

[Freebird12004]

55. I live with Parrots

and Golden Retrievers. Animals 'know' more than we used to give them credit for.

[DemExpat]

58. Yes, the awareness of my dogs and my birds

has taught me so much about animals in my life.

DemEx

[nashville_brook]

62. i've heard it said that "smart dogs" have the intelligence of 3 or 4-year

old children. judging from my two italian greyhounds, i'd say that's about right. they also have emotional intelligence -- which is beyond that of most adults :)

[ChairOne]

64. Langauge is what makes people people, and not just homo sapiens...

When another critter starts talking to us - presumably under translation - it's time to stop eating him (no longer it) - because eating people is wrong.

"Talking to us" is the key here. Essentially this is to be judged on Turing-Test style guidlines. And the main thing to watch for is *embedded* uses of sentences, rather than simply standalone occurrences.

There's details to be hashed out, of course, but in outline, that's about all it takes.

[Nihil]

65. Umm ... we have to know how to listen and understand it first ...

There are two problems here:

1) We have to be listening for the right kind of signal and then attempt
to "translate" it (before even starting the fight to convince others of
the creature's intelligence).

2) On a Turing style test, it would be perfectly valid to de-classify
an awful lot of "humans" these days ...

Mind you, there's a lot of good eating on some people ... :evilgrin:

[enki23]

66. anecdotal first hand experience....

pigs and cattle are both very intelligent. pigs may have an edge, though i feel less sure than many seem to be about that. cattle are plenty intelligent. sheep are about as unintelligent as a mammal can get. flip 'em up on their ass, and almost all of 'em go completely blank on you. goats are quite a lot smarter, but nobody in their right mind eats the rancid things anyway.

turkeys are almost brainless, especially the all white varieties. wild turkeys have a bit of low cunning, though it's often overstated by turkey hunters who want to impress you. bronze turkeys are somewhere in between, mostly on the stupid side. ours would do brilliant things like stick their heads through a woven wire fence and run in place. they'd do that all day sometimes and almost never got out, even accidentally (backward being a foreign concept to a turkey). we'd have to "rescue" them fairly regularly when they decided to go bug hunting in a neighbor's alfalfa field. chickens aren't much better. some kinds of chickens are actually fairly bright, but mostly just the japanese ornamental sorts. any chicken you'd buy in the supermarket is barely conscious, from what i can tell, while alive.

guinea fowl are a bit smarter, while peacocks (and peahens) are pretty dumb. ducks are middling, for birds, and geese can be pretty damned bright. quail are stupid, pigeons are little better, doves are D students, and i'm not really sure about pheasants.

so far as exotics go, i've never worked with bison. from what i've heard, they're about as intelligent as cattle. maybe. elk are pretty smart, in their own oddball way, with a lot of goofy habits. very complex social structures and behaviors, which would lead me to believe they're prety intelligent. at least the females. that's mostly hearsay, though, as my experience around them is limited to just a few times working on an elk ranch. i don't know much about ostrich and emus, but they've never seemed all that intelligent. rabbits are C students at best. behaviorally, they remind me of particularly stupid cats.

thing is, i love beef. and, to a lesser extent, pork. i guess if i drew the line high enough i could go along, but i'd pretty much be where i am now. i'm not about to eat dolphin or chimpanzee (or crow, for that matter, pun somewhat intended) anytime soon anyway.