Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • TSR Support Team
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by sophmay)
    Yes we can know how much animals suffer when they are slaughtered. We can measure heart rate
    You could in theory do it - putting it in practice isnt really possible - probably would be higher than normal - but you cant use that as a reliable indicator for suffering - stress, yes. But not suffering, corticosterone - you sure? Its a glucocorticoid meaning that it used in stress, immunity, some biochemistry and also its used to create aldersterone which is involved in vasoconstriction and the amount of renal retention of water, nociceptor response - detecting a single type of neuron response is at best difficult, wing flapping is a response to a bird being killed - many birds who're completely brain dead still flap their wings - its the nerves shutting down.
    None of your points actually make biological sense...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angry cucumber)
    None of your points actually make biological sense...

    Suffering is defined as the feelings of distress and pain. Intense stressors can compromise animal welfare and induce acute distress.So I would say not all forms of stress are unrelated to suffering. Nociceptor response in the skin on the leg has been measured in chickens during shacking and responses suggest that this procedure is painful http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/ufaw/09627286/v9n3/s1.pdf?expires=1364575078&id=735 50040&titleid=75000207&accname=U niversity+of+Glasgow&checksum=26 8568E72DC672749D1CE764E5241A6C).Such a method could possibly applied to pain in slaughter?

    Iam aware of the reactions of a slaughtered chicken and I know theyflap their wings although they are dead. However a lecturer of minecarried out a study on the welfare of hens which were beingslaughtered due to a hypothetical disease outbreak (the birdswere actually past their laying days and were to be slaughteredanyway). 28,000 birds were gassed to death using liquid CO2. Longstory short: there were two periods of wing flapping during theprocess. Once period was after death but one period was before death,about 2 mins into the addition of the CO2 (heart rate andneuroresponse was also measured among other variables). Since theycould not view the birds she is unsure what cause it exactly but shebelieves it could be the birds finding it more difficult to breatheand are distressed. So I feel wing flapping (along with othermeasures) can provide information into suffering during slaughter.

    I would also suggest that the hypercapnic hypoxia controlled atmosphere stunning (70% CO2 in air) causes suffering since, not only can the birds detect CO2 (then panic), it is painful to breathe in at high concentrations, causes seizures, chest pain, convulsions etc.

    I'm aware I've talked about stunning which is not the slaughter itself but if stunning is done correctly (using whichever method) the animals should be insensible to pain and the slaughter carried out soon after should not cause suffering (unless you include loss of life as suffering which is a whole other conversation!).

    Hope I made a bit more sense this time! :P
    • TSR Support Team
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by sophmay)

    Suffering is defined as the feelings of distress and pain. Intense stressors can compromise animal welfare and induce acute distress.So I would say not all forms of stress are unrelated to suffering. [/SIZE][SIZE=3]Nociceptor response in the skin on the leg has been measured in chickens during shacking and responses suggest that this procedure is painful http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/ufaw/09627286/v9n3/s1.pdf?expires=1364575078&id=735 50040&titleid=75000207&accname=U niversity+of+Glasgow&checksum=26 8568E72DC672749D1CE764E5241A6C).Such a method could possibly applied to pain in slaughter?

    Iam aware of the reactions of a slaughtered chicken and I know theyflap their wings although they are dead. However a lecturer of minecarried out a study on the welfare of hens which were beingslaughtered due to a hypothetical disease outbreak (the birdswere actually past their laying days and were to be slaughteredanyway). 28,000 birds were gassed to death using liquid CO2. Longstory short: there were two periods of wing flapping during theprocess. Once period was after death but one period was before death,about 2 mins into the addition of the CO2 (heart rate andneuroresponse was also measured among other variables). Since theycould not view the birds she is unsure what cause it exactly but shebelieves it could be the birds finding it more difficult to breatheand are distressed. So I feel wing flapping (along with othermeasures) can provide information into suffering during slaughter.

    I would also suggest that the hypercapnic hypoxia controlled atmosphere stunning (70% CO2 in air) causes suffering since, not only can the birds detect CO2 (then panic), it is painful to breathe in at high concentrations, causes seizures, chest pain, convulsions etc.

    I'm aware I've talked about stunning which is not the slaughter itself but if stunning is done correctly (using whichever method) the animals should be insensible to pain and the slaughter carried out soon after should not cause suffering (unless you include loss of life as suffering which is a whole other conversation!).

    Hope I made a bit more sense this time! :P
    I get you now - I cant access your link btw - need a login

    In this case I agree with you - killing by gas is painful and does cause suffering - I'm against it. You can prove its painful - when you're swimming and you need to come up for breath - your chest burns due to the excess of CO2.

    However as you said stunning an animal correctly - no suffering should be caused. Most other methods of killing animals use stunning!

    To quote a lecturer of ours "euthanasia isnt a welfare issue, its a moral issue" - you can use that same statement to using animals as food.

    What degree are you doing out of interest?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angry cucumber)
    I get you now - I cant access your link btw - need a login

    In this case I agree with you - killing by gas is painful and does cause suffering - I'm against it. You can prove its painful - when you're swimming and you need to come up for breath - your chest burns due to the excess of CO2.

    However as you said stunning an animal correctly - no suffering should be caused. Most other methods of killing animals use stunning!

    To quote a lecturer of ours "euthanasia isnt a welfare issue, its a moral issue" - you can use that same statement to using animals as food.

    What degree are you doing out of interest?
    Sorry about the paper!! If you have an institutional log in you'll be able to view it.
    Regarding slaughter is the stunning that causes the welfare problems (although I don't believe we have to right to take their lives in the first place it's not gonna stop anytime soon).
    Death is distinct from dying which may involve suffering and death itself precludes all experiences both positive or negative. John Webster said "Death is not a welfare issue" but dying, I feel, definitely is.

    I did my undergrad in Zoology and I'm doing a MSc in Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law atm How about you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My lovely country would starve! Lack of meat in circulation brought the end of the Polish People's Republic by 1989, no way.
    • TSR Support Team
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by sophmay)
    Sorry about the paper!! If you have an institutional log in you'll be able to view it.
    Regarding slaughter is the stunning that causes the welfare problems (although I don't believe we have to right to take their lives in the first place it's not gonna stop anytime soon).
    Death is distinct from dying which may involve suffering and death itself precludes all experiences both positive or negative. John Webster said "Death is not a welfare issue" but dying, I feel, definitely is.
    I'll agree to disagree

    I did my undergrad in Zoology and I'm doing a MSc in Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law atm How about you?
    I'm a vet med student
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grenadier)
    My lovely country would starve! Lack of meat in circulation brought the end of the Polish People's Republic by 1989, no way.
    lol, we're not that bad in meat consumption in comparison to France, Spain etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Don't touch my meat
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QUANTAM)
    Don't touch my meat
    Wouldn't dream of it, old chap.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MarinaAlex)
    Didn't know what forum to post this in, but I am doing my Russian A2 Level and the issue I want to debate on is 'all humans should become vegetarians.'

    What do you think? Personally I think that yes, it would be very beneficial for many reasons such as health, environment and ethical reasons. However I see the problems in culture etc, and would appreciate different points of view.

    P.S. This is not my point of view, I am only doing this topic because I have many things to say and can show off good vocabulary: no negs
    We can start to eat insects, all protein, no fat, and VERY easy to breed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Not quite. You refused to address why I think it's justified -- you just said 'APPEAL TO NATURE OMGZ'. I don't think it's okay JUST because it's natural.
    Well, that was all I was really concerned about at the time. Arguments about meat being necessary are not fallacious (though they aren't quite convincing to me). I was just annoyed that everyone was using a stupid argument. It being natural contributes nothing to its supposed okayness.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    I said it IS natural,
    Which is irrelevant.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    and there is also no proof of moral equivalence between animals. Like I said, if pigs were at the top of the intelligence/food chain and we were the lower species, there is no guarantee of a different higher, moral power making the same decisions we do.
    Yeah, exactly - that's a two wrongs make a right fallacy. Heck, I could use that to justify torture by saying "hey, if those prisoners in Guantanamo Bay had their interrogators captive they'd do the same". But does that make it right? no; we should be the better ones.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    nature, which says we are allowed to eat meat (within reason).
    Nature can't talk...

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    I didn't say it's okay because other omnivores do it. You must be illiterate, I apologise, I'll make it clearer.

    All omnivores kill other animals by depriving them of life. That is the nature of killing, after all. Are you to suggest that this act is barbaric, immoral and just because they have less intelligence it's somehow okay for them to do it and not us?
    Yes it is immoral. However, what are we going to do to prevent them from doing it? I suspect whatever plan we came up with would just result in more suffering. It's not okay for them to do it (unless of course they really need to), it's just that we can't really do anything about it with making things worse. Humans have a lot more empathy than most other animals, so there is no excuse.

    Before you think I'm some radical hippy or whatever (you probably already do, but oh well), I do think we should put the well-being of humans first due to our greater self-awareness, but if the particular action does not harm us, we should think about other living things - again the most self-aware such as elephants, dolphins, great apes etc. first. Eliminating meat consumption would benefit us because vegetable yields are more land intensive and require less water and energy (well, in most parts of the world at least) - that's the main reason I wish I could get myself to stop eating meat.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Yet vegetarians constantly argue that the same intellect is what should make us keep animals alive.
    I'm not a vegetarian. A vegetarian sympathiser maybe, but no - I don't have the mental strength to break the habit, nor the assertiveness to turn down free food from friends/family. Besides, it isn't necessarily the act of eating meat that I was criticising - just a particular argument in favour of it that several people on here were using.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    There is no proof of moral equivalence, it's an abstract human concept and it's impossible to know how animals would act if our roles were switched.
    Nor is there any moral equivalence between two humans. For instance, somebody convicted of murder might believe it is okay for us to kill people, and in all likelihood he would probably kill those imprisoning him given the opportunity, however, does that justify the death penalty? I don't think it does. We should treat people and animals the way we would want to be treated ourselves, unless there is no alternative.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    I never said two wrongs make a right -- I said there is no proof of wrongdoing. Sheesh.
    I didn't mean you did. It's just a logical fallacy you were making. See here:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Two_wro...t_make_a_right

    By the way, I'd like to apologise if I sounded aggressive or anything. I'm not one of those "meat eaters are evil! :devil:" kind of people (I would of course be a hypocrite if I were). I was playing the devil's advocate a bit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've been a vegetarian by choice for most of my life because of ethical reasons. Although I know that is is natural for humans, carnivores, to eat meat I think the modern way we do it is all too often cruel and inhumane. Although I would like to see more veggies about, even I have to admit the world wouldn't function well if everyone was vegetarian. Sadly you can get more food per square metre out of animals than crops, and eventually it would get to a point where it wasn't that feasible
    And yeah, it annoys me too when people gives negatives just because they have a different point of view :fuhrer:
    Didn't realise Hitler was on the emoticon list
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.