Are we really the animal lovers we think we are?

Are we really the animal lovers we think we are?

Lets employ a little logic and reason here:

there are very few moral principles that are embraced by almost everyone.

one such principle is that we should treat animals “humanely” and should not impose “unnecesssary” suffering on them.

This principle is so entrenched in our moral culture that the legal systems of the United States and Great Britain, and other countries have incorporated it into laws known as "animal welfare laws”

We all agree it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering on nonhuman animals.

A prohibition on “unnecessary” suffering must mean, at the very least, that it is wrong to inflict suffering on animals for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience.

But the overwhelming amount of suffering and death that we inflict on nonhumans can be justified ONLY by pleasure, amusement, or convenience.

Our uses of nonhuman animals for entertainment or for sport hunting cannot, by definition be considered as necessary.

The most significant numbers of animal suffering lie in what we use for food- meat dairy, and other animal products.

Not counting the billions of fish and sea creatures we kill, we slaughter more then 10 billion animals for food each year in the US alone.

It is not necessary in any sense to eat meat or animal products.

It is widely accepted that meat and dairy products are detrimental to human health. Animal products are linked to cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Americas biggest killers BY FAR.

Moreover, the most respected environmental scientists have pointed out the tremendous costs to our planet of animal agriculture.

For every kilogram of animal protein produced, animals consume almost 6Kg of plant protein from grain and forage.

It takes more then 26,000 gallons of water to produce 2lbs of beef. It takes 921 gallons to produce 2lbs of chicken. it takes about 200 gallons of water to produce 2 pounds of wheat and 100 gallons of water to produce 2lbs of potato.

Animal Ag consumes enormous amounts of energy, and results in the devastation of topsoil and the pollution of air and water.

Because animal Ag involves such an inefficient use of resources, it condemns a significant portion of the worlds population to starvation.

More then 50% of the US grain and 40% of the world grain is fed to animals to produce meat, rather then being consumed directly by starving humans.

There are, of course political, social, and economical factors that are responsible for world hunger. But animal Ag exacerbates the problem through its inefficient use of resources.

“Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet”
Albert Einstein

Our only justification for the pain, suffering, and death inflicted on these billions of nonhumans is that we enjoy the taste of meat and dairy products.

If we really do take seriously that it is wrong to inflict unecessary suffering on nonhumans, our enjoyment in eating animal products cannot be a morally acceptable justification.

The only use of animals that is not transparently trivial is the use of animals in experiments intended to find cures for serious human illness. Even in this context, there are serious questions about the necessity of animal use.

The bottom Line:
We kill billions of nonhumans every year for reasons that cannot plausibly be considered as “necessary” even though we maintain that we accept that it is wrong to inflict “necessary” suffering on animals.

When it comes to other animals, we humans exhibit what can best be described as moral schizophrenia. We say on thing about how animals should be treated and then turn right around and do another.

This thinking is confused

Many of us have companion animals, such as dogs or cats. We treat these nonhumans as members of our families.

Yet we stick forks into nonhumans who are no different from those who we regard as members of our families.

We need to rethink our relationship with animals

If nonhumans matter, if we really believe that they are not mere things, and that their interests are morally significant then we must accord their interests equal consideration.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming.