'Hugh's Chicken Run' A Moral Dilemna for DFWs?

gt568

bunty109 wrote: »

He did do a series where he taught people how to make homemade versions of ready meals for less (and tasting way better than the processed stuff): it was really interesting but can't remember what it was called....

Wasn't it called the River Cottage Experience?

ZTD

dizzy_lizzie wrote: »

Will post the physiological comparisons between meat-eater, herbivore and human tomorrow. This shows that we are designed more akin to a herbivore and not a meat eater.

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not saying we're a carnivore - we're not - we can't eat several pounds of meat at a single session, it would kill us. What I am saying is that we are not herbivores (either) - we are omnivores. The essence of an omnivore is that we do eat vegetables, and we do eat meat. We are designed to do this, and this did not happen overnight.

dizzy_lizzie wrote: »

Just for now, a meat eaters intestinal tract is 3 times its body length so rapidly decaying meat can pass out quickly. A herbivores is 10-12 times it's body length and a humans is 12 times its body length.

According to this http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/livestocksystems/components/DI0469-02.html a cow's small intestine alone is 20 times longer than it's body. Add the large intestine it'll go to about 25-26 times. I'm not quite sure where you got 10-12 times from.

A carnivores intestinal tract is about 5-6 times it's body length (http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carn_herb_comparison.html).

Human intestines are round about 10 times body length, or about half-way between the two. (OK, half way is about 15, or 50% longer than humans, but if I wave my arms quickly enough and smile, I'm sure no-one will notice the gratuitous and flagrant rounding )

Omnivores are a compromise - hence our intermediate intestine length. Hence we can't eat loads of meat like a carnivore, and our selection of food plants are limited - grass anyone?

ZTD

wherediditallgo wrote: »

If someone gave him the impression or actually told him that they were going to kill him on 10 March, giving him a feather bed to sleep on & all manner of expensive gadgets & food between now & then to keep him entertained wouldn't change the fact that they were going to kill him on or around a certain date. If that person wanted him to have a good life, they would let him live until he met his end naturally, not just live until a date that suits them. If people are saying they care about how the chicken lives but are happy to see it die because they want to eat it (as opposed to need to eat it), that rather weakens their professed concern for the animal, because liking chicken doesn't justify its death. I found it hard to argue with that point of view, because it's not essential for most people to eat chicken.

If chickens are not economically useful - then they don't get to live in the first place. For the millions of chickens that are in this country - how many are male?

Shineyhappy

I am a veggie and I do have very strong views on this, even when times have been really tough I have always bought organic milk and eggs. I have had to in the past cut back on other areas to afford this. Its only since my OH has been staying with me that I have the internet at home, I dont have Sky although thanks to OH I have a freeview box. I would like to point out that a lot of people who say they cant afford the extra still have Sky, buy treat food, lunches at work, coffee from shops etc so its not really a I genuinely cant afford it, just a I would rather spend my treat money on something else.

That is really up to them but I think they should be more honest about it. OH and I argue about this and its the only thing we really bicker about. He likes his meat and I feel uncomfortable having meat cooked in my flat and tbh if it wasnt for having a lodger who is a meat eater, I doubt he would have any here.

As someone else said about buying clothes made from kids, I dont buy designer trainers and after watching a program about Cokeacola I dont buy that any more. I try not to buy unethical goods and as I dont buy any new clothes myself, but ask for Marks gift vouchers or clothes from there from my family, as I think they have quite an ethical stance. I do try to live as much as possible without hurting anyone. But yes I do shop in supermarkets and I do have a car and I dont suppose there are any ethical petrol companies.

Lemon_Tree

I guess i feel lucky, because of where i live i have easy access to reasonably priced free range eggs, from outside the farmers gate and there is also a farm shop round here where all the meat is free range or very well looked after and the best bit is you pay the same as you would for a chicken breast in a supermarket but the one from the farm shop is twice the size.
At the moment i have no choice but to buy the cheapest if i'm buying from a supermarket but once i'm debt free i think i'll stick to free range at a higher cost.

wherediditallgo

ZTD wrote: »

If chickens are not economically useful - then they don't get to live in the first place. For the millions of chickens that are in this country - how many are male?

No idea. But I as a woman wouldn't be any too chuffed if someone said something along the lines of "The good news is, I've got you all the goodies you could wish for, as I want you to be as happy & comfy as you can be. The bad news is the 90-day warranty on the refurbs will still be running when you're not."

ZTD

wherediditallgo wrote: »

No idea. But I as a woman wouldn't be any too chuffed if someone said something along the lines of "The good news is, I've got you all the goodies you could wish for, as I want you to be as happy & comfy as you can be. The bad news is the 90-day warranty on the refurbs will still be running when you're not."

Virtually none of them - males don't lay eggs. They're ground up a day or two after hatching and being sexed.

So now you have the choice: Live a good, but time-limited life as economically useful - or don't live at all. Humans have little tolerance for creatures that are not economically useful. As an example, the UK used to have wolves.

fc123

Shineyhappy wrote: »

As someone else said about buying clothes made from kids

:eek: :eek:

ZTD

fc123 wrote: »

:eek: :eek:

Could be soft goat-skin...

dizzy_lizzie

ZTD wrote: »

It takes many thousands of years for a new tooth to be developed, so we've been eating meat for at least long enough for our bodies to have changed design for it.quote]

It was your quote above I was referring to...I remember reading the comparisons from a book by the 'Society for Krishna Consciousness
So maybe a cows small and large intestine may be larger than I qouted? but it still shows the comparison between a meat eaters.
Meat eater has claws for tearing flesh from animals.
Herbivore no claws.
Human no claws.
Meat eater no skin pores, perspires through the tongue.
Herbivore perspires through skin pores.
Human perspires through skin pores.
Meat eater sharp front teeth for tearing, no flat molar teeth.
Herbivore no sharp front teeth has flat rear molars.
Human as herbivore.
Humans lack the sharp front teeth for tearing flesh that are characteristic of carnivores. Meat eaters generally swallow their food without chewing it and therefore do not require molars or a jaw capable of moving sideways.
Also the human hand, with no sharp claws and with it's opposable thumb, is better suited to harvesting fruits and vegetables (not just grass) than to killing prey.The kidney is also adversely affected by toxins from meat.Moderate meat eaters demand three times more work from their kidneys than non meat eaters and as one grows older the risk of kidney disease and failure can greatly increase.
There is a link (sorry you have to download takes a few seconds) to an interview with James Gold former bone specialist now body builder who explains this a lot better in how our body is not designed to eat meat. (In his opinion) I do appreciate your reply and of course we all have our varying thoughts on things that matter to us but for myself I do feel that we are more akin to a herbivore than a carnivore, which is what my post was about.

http://www.veggievision.co.uk/james_gold_part1.htm

After looking at the comparisons what are your thoughts.
Dizzy x