Hello Todd,

There may be pain,suffering and there is death. If you relate this happening to 
a human being you would say any one of these would surely be unpleasant to 
say the least.

It's interesting on how people can get all worked up about the welfare of their 
pets but can't make the transfer to other animals such as cows/sheep/pigs, 
etc... Maybe in the paleolithic days and with hunter gatherers, hunting was 
and is a sacred activity but frankly I don't see that in large scale production of 
meat. I doubt that in a slaughter-house the people there perform any spiritual 
rituals before or after doing the deed. Of course, maybe in small organic 
operations maybe the people there do feel some connection to their "victims". 
However, given the amount of beef being processed now maybe quick and 
dirty is only possible and only done in large slaughterhouses. 

Of course, as you mentioned it is also the way cattle are raised that is 
disturbing and I realize that aspect could be remedied. 

Well, maybe enough of that argument. Maybe it's best to just disassociate 
meat from it's source, the animal. 

Let me throw this out to you and the other members of the list. 

If it was possible to create a non-meat food that provided all the nutrients of 
meat would you switch to it rather to continue eating meat?

Maybe that's what those vegetarians do now. Try to make up for the 
differences between meat and fruits/vegetables by taking vitamins and 
supplements.

Since I also try to exercise regularly I have also been thinking into looking into 
those "protein" shakes that I see advertised in muscle magazines and 
sometimes see in speciality stores. I need to do more research on their 
ingredients but I assume they are made from milk whey. Definitely, not paleo.
I guess most people would say why go with a processed food when meat is 
complete. I'm only looking at the convenience (need to say Kosher) and the 
cost.

I've also been looking at the fat aspect of the paleo, low-carb diet. So far 
from different books and articles it gets a little confusing. It seems everyone 
agrees on fish oil on being good for its Omega 3 content. Cordain recommends 
canola and flaxseed oil. Some people discourage canola. I looked a bit at one 
of Mary Enig books on fat and she recommends coconut nut (and sort of looks 
down on canola and flaxseed). I doubt coconuts were widely available to our 
ancestors.   

With regards to my current diet I'm trying to concentrate on fish and fowl. 
Before every meal I take an Omega 3 capsule, every other day I eat 1 or 2 
eggs for breakfast, the other breakfasts I eat almond butter on flaxseed 
bread. That and some nuts, mainly brazil,walnuts and almonds. For lunch I 
usually eat a tin of sardines or mackerel with a bit of veggies,some pumpkin 
and sunflower seeds and a fruit for desert. Mid-afternoon , another piece of 
fruit. For supper I've been getting my wife to go along with fish/fowl or beef 
with maybe one meal strictly vegetarian.

I started this "diet" search looking for a way to help with my osteo-arthritis 
and I think this diet has helped me. Currently I'm reading one of those Zone 
books and trying to decipher the science. He mentions maybe borage/primrose 
oil can help as well.

Maybe there is someone out there who has experimented with adding these 
oils to their diet? 

Regards,

Mike


On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:56:43 -0400, [log in to unmask] wrote:

>> Hi Todd,
>>
>>>I think the point that person made was that whether you eat a carrot or a
>>>cow, you must kill what you eat.  You cannot sustain your own life
>>> without
>>>killing other organisms.  I don't think that's controversial.  But I take
>>>it that your point is that you find killing carrots less morally
>>>problematic than killing cows.  Can you explain what you find morally
>>>problematic about killing cows?
>>
>> I realize that in order to eat something must be killed. I think there is
>> a big
>> difference between killing a plant and killing an animal. I don't believe
>> there is
>> any pain and suffering involved in the killing of a plant.
>
>Sorry to take so long resuming this discussion.  I asked what was morally
>problematic because I wanted to be as clear as possible as to what your
>position is; I wasn't baiting you.  From what you wrote, I take it to be
>this: killing cows and other sentient creatures is morally problematic
>because it causes pain and suffering to those creatures.  Is that a fair
>statement of your view?
>
>I notice you mention pain and suffering, but not death.  Was that
>intentional?  Also, do you regard pain and suffering as different from
>each other, or just variations?
>
>Again, I'm not baiting you.  I think it's important to be clear about
>these things.  For example, I would make a distinction between pain and
>suffering.  A person competing in a marathon may experience considerable
>pain, but it's not clear that "suffering" describes that condition.
>Suffering seems to involve extended pain and the despair that it causes.
>For this reason, I'm a bit more skeptical of attributing suffering to
>livestock.  Indeed, the slaughter of animals may be instantaneous,
>involving little or no pain at all.  Your moral scruples may be more
>relevant to the practice of how cattle are raised and slaughtered than to
>the bare fact that they are killed for food.  Does that sound right to
>you?
>
>Todd Moody