Mark:
>It may be semantics, but then again it may not.  I just think it is
>important that we not deceive ourselves into thinking we are somehow
>performing some noble deed on the animal's behalf when we use words like
>"merciful" and "compassionate."

It may be that life has only three "natural" purposes:

1] homeostasis
2] to reproduce (very related to 1)
3] to be food for another organism

To what degree even a brainy mammal is conscious of these "purposes" is
debateable. To what degree they are really separate purposes (as opposed to
separate points-of-view) is also debateable. Yet..

It may be that we are deceiving ourselves by thinking that we are somehow
performing a noble deed by _not_ eating animals. "Merciful" and
"Compassionate" are indeed rather abstract terms with roots in the emotions
of our mammalian maternal instinct and need. While the idea that we extend
our compassion beyond our immediate family and even beyond our species to
include any and all animal life, "sounds good", it does seem a precarious
choice if we are indeed best served by an omnivorous diet. If that is the
case, then we are denying ourselves and our offspring their "natural right"
to proper food. Perhaps those who do so feel it is a fair trade off, and
that they are "more advanced" somehow. But...denying a brainy young mammal
its inherent mammalian needs (including proper nourishment) is likely to
enable neurotic ideation later on--perhaps even including the ability to
externalize their unmet need for compassionate parents who show mercy on
their sufferring.

I personally have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER eating animals. I revel in it and
myself and my participation in my own inheritance. I am gladly less
advanced than those more merciful and compassionate. OK? I'll gladly let
you be more compassionate than I am. Will you let me be less so? _please_ ;)

>If extraterrestrials visited our planet
>and began gathering up humans to kill and eat, they too might say they were
>doing so with compassion and mercy, but it would be more to assuage their
>own feelings of guilt than out of any true compassion for the humans.
>Would the families of the people that were eaten feel gratitude that their
>loved ones were killed with "mercy" and "compassion" because they weren't
>tortured?  I'm afraid I wouldn't be so charitable.  If the ETs felt true
>compassion for us, they wouldn't kill us.

Animal rights folks seem much more perseverated on compassion and mercy
than anyone else. What feelings might they be assuaging?

Or put another way: why should ETs give two hoots about our notions of
compassion and mercy, much less desire our gratitude!? I find no examples
of these things in nature regarding lunch.

FWIW, I would _very_ much appreciate not being tortured if I was to be
another's lunch--whether the other is a lion, a microbe, or an ET. Further,
I would wish no torture for my loved ones, and even "all other living
creatures". How could it not make a difference to you? Are you not
compassionate? Have you no mercy? Further, I would fight to the death ;) to
avoid being another's lunch. Am I not compassionate? Have I no mercy?

Cheers,
Kirt