Instant Survey: Pets

Our dogs and even our some of our cats are clearly suited just to be pets. I have a cat who is as scared of mice as any human has ever been. He's never caught anything, not even a bug, and his favorite toy is a distinctly unnatural laser pointer. What's the point of saying he should be returned to the wild?

I love my pets, I have 6 rescued dogs, and 3 cats, all of which are well cared for and live inside. Some of the exotic animals are the one's I feel sorry for, wild cats like Oscolots, skunks, sugar gliders. Animals that really aren't domesticated. I can't see how large wild cats can be happy in a pen, not hunting their own food and so on. But as for domesticated dogs and cats, so many of them are in shelters and need homes. They can't live on their own any more. It's great to take in a rescued animal. Also, I would never actually buy a dog or cat. The purchase of pets just encourages breeders, many of who do not know a lot about breeding or run puppy mills. With so many in shelters it's silly to go buy a purebread animal.

If its inhumane to keep pets regardless of how the idea came to be, then, by the same logic, it is inhumane to keep plants in the house too, regardless of how the idea came to be.
Keeping a domesticated animal as a pet is the only humane thing to do. Its better than letting it starve to death alone on some city street, and much better than euthanasia. Just get them fixed so they can't reproduce.

Jared Diamond writes that society as we know it, based on the human race's achievements since the last ice age, simply would not exist without the domestication of animals - and countless other scientists agree.

So, those who find keeping pets to be unacceptable should offer justification as well as a plan as to what they would do with the domesticated species worldwide (since they obviously feel we are done evolving, and no longer need them). Do they propose euthanizing every dog, cat, ferret, and rabbit? Every farm animal as well? Speak up!

To counter, I couldn't even begin to list the benefits of being raised with pets. Children brought up with animals have more immunities and far fewer allergies than those who aren't, and that's beside the social lessons of responsibility, etc.

My only concern with pets is the size of some of them. When dogs get bigger, obviously their food intake increases. And since they are carnivores, that meat has to come from somewhere. Yes, a lot of it is a by product of meat processed for human consumption. There is also the processing of these by products to make the food. My vote would be to promote smaller breeds. Or to go with a vegetarian pet, like a rabbit. You can grow their food right in the backyard, and their waste is extremely good for composting, unlike dogs and cats.

I've had loads of pets, and I grew up on a farm where we raised animals for pets and food. Currently, my wife has two cats and a bird. If I chose, I would have none. With the exception of cats and dogs, most animals people choose as pets are not acclimated to being pets, especially predators - they are generally more intelligent and prefer to roam free. I definitely think that any pet that has to be kept in a cage/tank, is not a pet, but a slave, of sorts.

Farm-raised exotic pets only create demand that fuels the smuggling market.

I love animals, but they were born to live in a specific natural environment, and that's where they belong.

BTW: I believe the only other species to domesticate/enslave other creatures are ants. They keep aphids as 'cattle', which they 'milk' a fluid from, and they commonly enslave other ants.

"If its inhumane to keep pets regardless of how the idea came to be, then, by the same logic, it is inhumane to keep plants in the house too, regardless of how the idea came to be."

There is no logical connection because animals have brains and are mobile. You own the animal, set boundaries on where it can go and when, what it can eat and weather it can reproduce.

Some domesticated animals LOVE to work, like dog guides or hearing ear dogs (aka signal dogs). Or even just to have the priviledge of accompanying their masters outside of their living quarters. I don't really think it is wise for animals, even domesticated ones, to be cooped up in a house/apartment for long stretches of time without their masters day in and day out.

I adopted two cats (a total of four in my life) from shelters and such. How is that wrong? They can't hunt or survive in the wild, and in a desert aren't adapted anyway. What else is anyone supposed to do?
Objecting to humans keeping dogs and cats is just stupid.

Can I vote for "a totally acceptable practice, one that should be encouraged, provided the animals are well cared for"? Both human and animal lives can be enriched by cohabitation.

My only concern with pets is that they stay indoors. I love cats, but a cat that can go outside is a can who can hunt. The impact on local wildlife can be dramatic.

FAA. I think your points are great.
Anonymous. Yes of course you are correct as well.
I'm sure FAA doesn't ethically compare plants and animals. But there could be a good case against humans breeding and relocating/controlling anything that does not directly effect their survival. e.g. nutrition. (So non-native, un-edible plants are out).
Are emotional bonds with pets a good enough excuse to keep them?
There are a lot of things we seem to do that make us feel better/calm our fears/give us nostalgia etc which in the end are adding to our/the worlds problems. Are pets one of these? Do the emotional connections with pets aid our appreciation for their long distant wild cousins or are they just a human created distraction from the world as it should be. It could be interesting if we start to genetically engineer, not just breed pets. Especially if we find the need to ad some of ourselves in order to create the perfect pet.
Picture a cartoon of a person sitting next to "nature" on a park bench, having a chat. They are trying to work out who "owns" pets. "Nature" says to the human, "They're yours now". What obligations do we have to these creatures we have created?

There is a point I forgot to make earlier, people should not have a pet if they can't afford to take care of it. I work for a vet and am so discouraged and sick of people whining about the cost of pet care. If one doesn't have the finances they shouldn't get a pet. I like everyone elses points too and am glad that others agree about dogs and cats - at this point they're domesticated to do anything else. Mine also love their "jobs", the poodle allerts everyone, the doberman is the boss, the husky mix mothers everyone, the coon hound likes to find things, the rotweiler mix is the protector of all. As for having time to spend with them, I'm home most of the day 4 days a week, and even though they're inside dogs we go out and play a lot and they have free reign of the whole house. My husband and I let them sleep with us so it's more of a den like environment.

As a long time cat owner, I certainly draw a heavy line between the "ownership" of a DOMESTICATED animal for compainionship or work (cat/dog/horse), or food (chicken/cow/rabbit), versus keeping WILD animals.

Although the point brought up in the zoo survey the other day - that zoos are sometimes the only way to keep endangered wild animals safe from humans - is a very strong point.

"a totally unacceptable practice that should be discouraged no matter what"

Who are you people? Post some of your reasons already, right now there are 172 of you.

My knee-jerk reaction to someone who would subscribe to such an extremist and INHUMANE viewpoint is: your continued ability to reproduce is "a totally unacceptable practice that should be discouraged no matter what". Please show me I am wrong with some intelligent explanations as to why you feel this way.

Alright I’ll speak up. In response to:
FAA at October 21, 2005 11:24 AM
It is accurate that domesticated animals have contributed a great deal to the advancement of human kind. Although it is also true that human slaves contributed a great deal to the success of other human societies. Just because humans benefit from another creature this does not make this form of exploitation necessarily valid.
Just because these slaves (or animals) have contributed a great deal in the past does not mean that a society without slaves (or domesticated animals) is impossible. Living a vegan lifestyle is in many ways more sustainable then a lifestyle dependent on animals. You simply cut out the middle man and reduce consumption.
The plan the vegan community has is to find alternatives to living in a society that is dependent on animals. So far this approach has been wildly successful. Please read any number of books on veganism and you will find a rich knowledge on how to live properly without exploiting animals. We, the vegan community, are by no means done ‘evolving’ as you have put it. We are the people who are ‘evolving’ and embracing a lifestyle more in sync with the environment and our own bodies. People embracing a more traditional lifestyle are in fact the ones not evolving.
As an individual, not representing vegans or any cause, I do propose eliminating any invasive species of animal that has disrupted the native environment. Just as rabbits should not be in Australia, dogs and cats should not be in North America. I, as an individual, propose euthanizing all dogs, cats, and farm animals or placing them in a more suitable environment. My views are a bit radical but I’m allowed to have them.
Finally, I’m certain there are several benefits to being raised with animals, there are benefits to nearly everything. However, there also several disadvantages that outweigh those benefits. For example large amounts of dangerous diseases originated in domesticated animals and were transmitted to humans as Diamond also points out. Think Avian Influenza. Also those animals have a significant impact on the environment you already exist in. How many native birds has you cat killed? It would be much more of a learning experience if you were to educate your child on the already existing animals in you natural environment, instead of import more exotic animals.
This is really just my initial reaction to your statement. I’m sure a more through analysis is needed but I don’t have the time. I hope this helps you understand the vegan cause a bit more.
Sorry for the length.

"Please show me I am wrong with some intelligent explanations as to why you feel this way."

Don't hold your breath. I don't believe any such intelligent explanation exists.

Well, Adam, your views are right inline with one of history's more prominent figures: Adolph Hitler. He believed that no Jewish people belonged in his Greater Germany and were an invasive sub-species. He advocated and implemented his viewpoint with deportations to "more suitable environments" and followed up with what he called "euthanasia".

Adam, you and your views are in good company.

So anyone else want to give my request a shot?

Wow, I'm surprised how many people are against other people having a cat or dog.

I love my cat and I bought him! Yes, I bought him when he was just 2mos. at a pet store for $99(us) and if I could go back in time I'd have paid $5,000 for him! (I don't even have $5,000 but if I did I'd pay it!). And I love him and he loves me. He is not a slave and if anything he is spoiled and very happy. I don't think he would last a month outside all alone. He would probably get run over or freeze to death. He has always been an indoor cat and he has the entire place to himself (well with me and my boyfriend) and he sleeps with us everyday and wakes me up by jumping on my chest and laying on me like he's done for the past 3yrs. almost everyday! I doubt he would be as happy or even alive if I had gotten him from the pet store and threw him out into the woods 3yrs ago.
He is very happy and I don't abuse him or treat him like a slave. I don't see why anybody would be against pets as long as they aren't abused of course. I definitely think my life is much better with him than it would be without him and I plan on taking care of him as long as we both live. he is my friend(kid) more than a pet. We are both happy and everybody that meets him thinks he is the friendliest cat ever (he really is very friendly I know everybody must say that but he really is!). I think he is one of the best things to ever happen to me I don't understand how somebody could say it's wrong.

I find your response insulting. It is obvious you lack any fundamental understanding of the world we live in or how damaging invasive species of animals are to native species. Using a quick comparison to Hitler is also childish and side steps the issue at hand. I could just as easily say the factory farmers are similar to concentration camps, but I wish to elevate the dialogue a bit. I suggest you read up on the effects of invasive species before you make another comment like that. Ever heard of the dodo? Ever wondered why it disappeared? Read a book.

"Well, Adam, your views are right inline with one of history's more prominent figures: Adolph Hitler."

No no, I asked for an INTELLIGENT argument.

I think it is very difficult to make moral cases (apart from those related to the resources it takes to maintain animals) for or against keeping pets. This might sound silly, but it sounds like those who are certain that keeping pets is wrong assume that the animals would agree. In fact, we are not aware that they have any kind of moral system that favors freedom over captivity, domestication over wildness. Don't laugh--I'm actually serious here.

Also, not to get off the subject (and not to attack James), but I feel as though I'm constantly hearing people in this community pitting the notion of "human-created distraction" against the notion of "the world as it should be." How should the world be? Must we infer that "natural" (whatever that means) is absolutely equal to "good"? I consider myself a treehugger in every sense, but I don't think this is sound logic--in fact, that we are so guided by murky feelings that we have about things that "just aren't natural" (any discussion about peak oil is riddled with these kinds of vagaries) really concerns me. How is it helping us? Are we really being as objective and methodical as we could be?

My cat I rescued from an animal rescue shelter where she had been stawing unwanted for six months. Being an all white cat, and that her foolish previous 'care-takers' kept her out doors all the time, she had developed skin cancer and had had her ears amputated. (thus the lack of popularity at the shelter) Had I not picked her up, she would likely have been euhtnaized by now. Now she is indoors only, never having to fear for cars, predators, diseases, nor being shot at by 'ditch couger' hunters. The only things afraid of her are my hair-ties.

A non-Hitler comparing reason to keep an animal: Building a bond with a pet improves empathy for other living things in this world. It improves health, especially blood pressure.

That we regularly keep pets, and other domesticated animals (if well cared for) defines and elevates our humanity.

The pets aren't the slaves, we are.

"Just because humans benefit from another creature this does not make this form of exploitation necessarily valid."

Nor does it make it invalid. You haven't made an argument here.

"Just because these slaves (or animals) have contributed a great deal in the past does not mean that a society without slaves (or domesticated animals) is impossible."

Again, you make no argument, you simply try to conflate animal husbandry with slavery.

"The plan the vegan community has is to find alternatives to living in a society that is dependent on animals."

Uh huh. You gonna pollinate the flowers yourself?

"So far this approach has been wildly successful."

Oh? Then just let nature take its course, and you don't even need to argue your case.

"Please read any number of books on veganism and you will find a rich knowledge on how to live properly without exploiting animals."

Appeal to authority. This is an empty statement.

"We are the people who are ‘evolving’ and embracing a lifestyle more in sync with the environment and our own bodies."

This is a meaningless statement with respect to domesticated animals. Are you equally opposed to the numerous symbiotic relationships that are seen throughout nature?

"My views are a bit radical but I’m allowed to have them."

No doubt. We'll only have an issue when you wish to enforce your views.

"Think Avian Influenza."

Yeah. How many people die from diseases transmitted by dogs and cats? You need a better argument.

"How many native birds has you cat killed?"

Zero. They're indoor cats. What does the number of birds killed have to do with the discussion at hand?

Despite the other poster's revision to Hitler, I think your arguments don't hold a lot of water.

And if you'd like to come to my house to attempt to euthanize my cats, you'd better bring a lot of friends.

re: Lee G.
yeah, you can have my little Princess when you pry her form my cold dead hands. :D

I think it was American economist, Veblen who termed "Conspicuous Consumption" and at one point indicated that pets were such.

But he also had a dog.

I agree that it's Conspicuous Consumption to breed and keep pets, but of course I have a pet mouse.

And I love her and spoil her and she must have a mile of tubes to explore and plenty of food and water.

I can't see how having a spoiled pet mouse would be 'bad'.

I can certainly understand not wanting a pet, but this poll indicates, at least to me, that many people think owning a pet is morally wrong. I am shocked by this, pets are called domesticated animals for a reason.

I leave my cat to roam outside, yet curiously, he comes back home every day, happy to be in the warmth of the house with loving owners. If this is "unacceptable", what would you have me do? Release him into the wild to die? What would be the "acceptable" course of action now that I already have a pet?

Thank you, Lee Gibson, for practically submitting my response to Adam the vegan before I had a chance to do so. You missed a couple:

"People embracing a more traditional lifestyle are in fact the ones not evolving."

Let's make a couple lists of Nobel Laureate types who have made invaluable contributions to humanity through politics, science, etc.; one will be of "traditional" folk - and the other will be people such as yourself. Guess which one is longer?

Sorry, if that was ultimately as empty as your arguments. I only mean to demonstrate that people in a present tense can not measure their own evolution. Having read Diamond, you should know this.

"Just as rabbits should not be in Australia"

According to this argument, there should be no people in Australia either. Migration, whether at the hands of a domesticator or any other means, happens. There are countless examples of species other than humans affecting another species environment or living patterns, so don't try and blame humanity for any and all changes.

Now I have to wash my hands, dirty from responding to someone who actually attested to my modest proposal type question of "Do you propose euthanizing every domesticated animal?"

I still await a response as to what a responsible and sane person against domestication would propose to do with millions of animals. There are 174 of you here as of now. Speak up!

In response to Adam's post about the vegan cause I'd like to say that the 'vegan cause' isn't quite so defined. As a vegan, I understand, as I'm sure many of the non-vegans on this board do, the reasons you and I have chose to live this lifestyle. With your argument would I not be vegan or be less of a vegan because I have adopted a dog from a local shelter? Does the vegan cause really disagree with that? To my understanding veganism really just comes down to preventing as much suffering as you possibly can. Obviously a core of it is refraining from animal products but to say that living with an animal is not in line with the vegan cause is merely your interpretation of the vegan cause. it is not the vegan cause.

Fellow Treehuggers, why are you all so angry? Look at what's been written here: personal attacks on ones opinions, comparisons of persons to Hilter, cat calls to those who think differently, insults that my children would no better then to say, etc. For God's sake, this isn't even really an issue, it's more a matter of personal conviction.


How are we supposed to convince others that sustainability and environmentalism is a good thing, when we can't even agree among ourselves that's it's okay to have differing idea's of what sustainability and environmentalism are? How are we supposed to win elections with attitudes like these? Is this how you all talk to your friends when they question your Treehugger ideals? I sure hope not.


The reason none of those people are responding to your heckles is because they know you're here waiting to attack anything they say. You won't read it with an open mind, contemplate their words and think of a conscientious rebuttal; instead, you'll tear apart their ideas one by one and call them childish names while comparing them to the most detested person of the last century and using NRA slogans to goad them. Way to encourage open communication in a friendly community. Funny, Isn't that how Republicans do it?


C'mon, can't we all just get along? Or at the very least stop insulting each other?

The issue is not about existing domesticated animals (these obviously should be cared for and loved), but whether we should continue to breed them.

The ecological footprint of a house cat

Cats are domesticated animals, and together with food animals and humans, contribute to the earth becoming increasingly out of balance. Wilderness areas (and the wildlife it contained) have been displaced by agriculture to grow food for the increasing numbers of non-wild animals on the planet. Every non-wild being has an ecological footprint that is mostly made up of the farmland it takes to feed them. Carnivores need far more land than vegetarians because they eat other domesticated animals that have ecological footprints themselves.

Other ecological considerations are kitty litter, product packaging and transportation, and shelter. Heating and cooling may also be a factor by putting a constraint on how much you can adjust your thermostat while away or at work.

After living with other people's cats on two occasions, I wrote this article: Living with cats
People sensitive to vegetarian and environmental issues may find that owning a cat presents some tough ethical dilemmas.

Above is an excerpt

-RE:"If its inhumane to keep pets regardless of
-how the idea came to be, then, by the same logic,
-it is inhumane to keep plants in the house too,
-regardless of how the idea came to be.'

-There is no logical connection because animals
-have brains and are mobile. You own the animal,
-set boundaries on where it can go and when, what
-it can eat and weather it can reproduce."

You own the plant too, and also control where it can go and when, what it can eat and whether it can reproduce. In fact, plants even have a nervous system of sorts..just look at the venus fly trap.

I am so pleased to see that extremists like Adam are not the majority on Treehugger.

Lee Gibson and FAA did more than an incredible job of easily refuting such blanket assumptions and insults from him.

This arrogant view of complete sectioned isolationism across the entire globe is unrealistic and extremely self-destructive. As many before have stated, drawing a baseless correlation between any relationship between humans and animals as entirely slavery is plain and simple ignorance.

Hello
I selected "a totally unacceptable practice that should be discouraged no matter what", although I would have preferred the option "breeding is a totally unacceptable practice, but those domesticated animals currently living should be well cared for".

Basically, stop breeding animals, but care for those that are still alive.

I have helped care for animals from fin to feather to fur to scale. All were cataways, and I will continue to adopt animals from shelters, but never will I purchase from a breeder or store.

Am I so selfish that I believe that animals should exist for my entertainment? No.

So although, I have had many wonderful experiences interacting with these animals, I would prefer that the industry went away.

cheers!

I stand by my comparison of Adam to Adolph Hitler. His viewpoint is one of extreme inhumanity and excessive brutality. My comparison may be viewed as an extreme case, but it is spot on none the less. A position of "all _____ must be removed or exterminated" is not acceptable, whether in reference to human beings, domesticated animals, or any other living thing. Individuals (I do not use the word "people" in this case) who advocate this type of action at any level are flawed, deviant, and text book sociopaths.

Now, if the other 170+ respondents are of the same mindset as Adam, indeed they should stay silent, for I will certainly make the same comparison. If, however, any of them has a more compelling argument/solution, I'm all ears. My mind has been changed before, why not step up to the challenge?

Finally, I am glad some vegans took issue with this brute. I must say that it would be near impossible for me to find a vegan who advocated mass euthanasia for any living creature. Adam, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.

I think it's ideal that the pets be adopted from shelters or from accidental litters (no puppy mills, please!), but I see no reason to think it's terrible to keep a pet if it's well taken care of. My own cat has the run of the house, and she's more my friend than my pet. She's my baby, I love her to teeny little pieces, and I always always always try to do what's best for her.

I think the contemptous debate arises from wording of the poll itself.

To respond to the poster treehugger who said "For God's sake, this isn't even really an issue, it's more a matter of personal conviction."

I'd agree that it isn't an issue, as I am sure many who voted on the poll would as well. However, the poll is worded in such a way as to make it an issue, one that "should be discouraged no matter what"

As noted by the poster consumer_q, the real issue here that many might object to, is the continued breeding of domesticated animals, not the keeping of pets -- there is a distinction.

If all of those who voted "totally unacceptable" because they didn't think people should keep pets, even those adopted from a shelter, I would be surprised, and even annoyed.

However, I think this disagreement largely boils down to a poorly worded poll.

To Dave:

Please consider keeping your cat indoors. Yes, I know, that doesn't give them the neighborhood to play in, but they do a lot of damage to native bird populations. If you don't think you can do this but still need a companion, consider being a dog person. Dogs for the most part stay in the yard.

"How are we supposed to convince others that sustainability and environmentalism is a good thing, when we can't even agree among ourselves that's it's okay to have differing idea's of what sustainability and environmentalism are? How are we supposed to win elections with attitudes like these? Is this how you all talk to your friends when they question your Treehugger ideals?"

Huh. I must have missed the manifesto somewhere. I don't subscribe to groupthink. I came here to learn, and to discuss. If this site is simply about parroting some sort of party line, its usefulness to me is zero.

There are parts of the sustainability ethos that I find attractive. There are parts that I think are pretty silly. Isn't it up to each of us which is which? Aren't we all responsible to develop our own understanding of our place on Earth?

I wouldn't characterize myself as a Treehugger. That doesn't mean I can't learn anything from people who do. Are my views welcome here, or not? I'm proud to put my name on my thoughts. Are you?

I think that "winning elections" is the least relevant possible dimension of responsible living.

Eeep! I think I missed a clause in my unseemly haste.

"How are we supposed to convince others that sustainability and environmentalism is a good thing, when we can't even agree among ourselves that's it's okay to have differing idea's of what sustainability and environmentalism are?"

Treehugger, I couldn't agree with you more. You're absolutely right: When we adopt an "I'm Right and you're Evil!" attitude, bad decisions ensue.

I stand by the rest of my post. The way to make the world a better place is by personal action, not politics. I truly believe that the political system will never reliably achieve good ends while it is controlled by two entrenched parties.

Which is why I'd love to move to Mars and come up with a new Constitution, but that's another discussion.

Be bold in your thoughts. Be audacious in your arguments. Say what you mean, and stand up for what you believe. I hope we can all learn from each other here.

(for the record, I've got leather shoes on, and probably a bit of hamburger in my teeth. I like being an omnivore at the top of the food chain.)

in regards to the ecological footprint of a housecat:
my cat doesnt use kitty litter
there is no heating and cooling involved
transportation is by foot
shelter is shared with the human who would be there anyways

you have no solid argument here

Dave is right. I've seen several badly written surveys on TH. Survey writing is an art, not to be haphazardly slapped together.

Perhaps there are some online resources that the TH contributors could read to improve their writing technique. A misleading survey produces useless data.

Treehugger, as worded in the poll it's not an issue - but by being posted here it's easy to see why it's thought of as one.

I don't aim to goad anyone into a textual lashing, even if I shout "speak up". I really would like to hear a well thought out opposition to having pets. I've heard arguments in the past, but they were more personal/moral than someone trying to sell you their religion - except even less substantiated.

It may be matter of conviction, but that doesn't downplay it any. I rescue and foster animals, making sure everyone goes to as quality a home as possible, and it (gladly) takes up a great deal of my time. If anyone can make a solid argument against pets to me, and offer a thought out plan as to what is to happen to these creatures in lieu of domestication, then it would certainly give me hope should I have the opportunity to try and convince a Hummer driving oil executive to downsize and switch to biodiesel (the odds are nearly even).

And Lee Gibson, stop thinking/typing my thoughts. You're scaring me.

Carl, to be blunt, I can't remember the last time I've seen a survey on Treehugger that WASN'T poorly written. They're all missing at least one option that more often than not represents a significant voting pool.

I'm a bit surprised, too, considering how generally well written their articles are.

Hmm. Fun reading all. It seems the bottom line is that the most invasive species is us!

To not keep pets because it somehow enslaves them does not take into account that our modifications of the environment make free roaming and free thought of dogs and cats a moot point. If you doubt this, simply check the bumpers of the cars that plow over free roaming animals daily. "Keeping" pets is about the only way to avoid their extinction.

The reality is that dogs, cats and humans form a mutually beneficial relationship when they occupy the same space. In fact, the American Heart Association has done studies which prove that pet companionship significantly reduces stress-related increases in blood pressure and curbs heart attack. In other words, owning a pet is good for your health.

Speaking of health, on the vegan points made above, the flaw that always strikes me in the concept of removing animal protein from the human diet is that the planet simply could not produce enough high-quality plant protein to meet the needs of the current mass of humanity (much less future growth). Growing enough soybeans, for example, would deforest the planet and be completely unsustainable. Cows and other ruminants can digest grasses and other plant materials in ways we can't, thus converting them to human-usable material.

(As to the notion that we could convert wheat and grain land - supplemental cattle feed - into protein plant crops such as soy overlooks the fact that other animals have an interest in that food too! To keep crop yields, we would have to pursue aggressive hunting and poisoning regimes against birds, deer, and other herbavores attracted to crop land. At least with carnivorism, we make use of these losses.)

That leaves two alternatives: (a) bio-engineered foods (GMOs) -- a dirty concept in most activist circles or (b) depopulation -- a fairly unappealing concept to pretty much anyone with a conscience. There's an interesting conundrum. Could it be that the only path to sustainable universal veganism is genocide?

Sometimes I come to this site a little excited about the polls, only because people post so much on them. Then I read responses, and I become sad. It's unfortunate so many people attack one another and make in my opinion ill-suited comparisons, and name calling, much like Treehugger stated above.

I'll throw my 2 or 3 cents in though.

I think so far the comments with respect to Adam were rather harsh.

I didn't know how to vote on this poll, because I don't know which I really aggree with. I'm not fond of absolutes, but perhaps I'm more inclined to the last option as something to be avoided. I also have a problem with "keeping an animal as a pet".

As a vegan I am not fond of most animal products or uses. I think veganism in general is a progressive step, put perhaps not the the extreme of euthanasia. As a note I'd like to say Adam did say the euthanizing or putting all those animals in a more suitable environment, not just to euthanize them.

I have no problem with cohabitation with animals however. I cohabitate with my girlfriend, so that's not a problem. I feel real sorry for the cats who are "indoor" (as in not allowed or rarely allowed to go outside) cats. Often times I see them sitting in the window looking outside, or if the door is open whoever the cat lives in the house of gets worked up because the cat almost got out the door. Another case is when a dog is changed up in the back yard, or fenced in a small area. It barks, paces a path around the inside of the fence, or at the end of the chain. Another would be fish in a tiny tank. I used to have a fish tank, and I felt horrible when I stopped. I remember when the pet stores and so on would tell me that a well filtered tank can support about 2 inches of fish per gallon (I believe). I think that is crazy. I don't think animals are meant to live like that. If the cat or dog or whatever comes and goes, then I don't see a problem with it. Again I don't mind cohabitation.

I don't agree with the domestication idea/agrument that is often supplied to support an animal as a "pet". That an animal as a species is domesticated and can no longer live on its own. This must be false, since there are so many stray cats and dogs which seem to breed and live just fine on their own. I agree there are specific individual cats, dogs, etc who can't live on their own. There's also humans who couldn't live on their own without a grocery store, but in either case it's a specific which shouldn't be generalized.

I also don't like the fall back ideas/arguments concerning things we (as a species or as individuals) used to do, making it alright now and in the future. I'm sure we can all think of things we used to do, but would not be appropriate now. Like going to the bathroom in my underwear.

I guess I am rambling.

Sometimes I feel everyone has their own opinion on what morals are, what the refer to, who or what should be included in them. But even if asked it seems no one has really a clue as to what are morals. I'm not talking about quoting a definition, but what it means to oneself. Are things good or bad? True or false? Black or white? Any other dichotomies? Or are things fuzzy?

I don't really know what moral progress really means.

I used to be strong that non-native species should be introduced to other places. But I'd be a hippocrite, I guess. Every species is a non-native species in its local. Whatever that means. It's only after a time we define it as native. Who's to be the judge on what classifies as native or not? Are humans native, and to where? How long does a species have to live in an area to be "native"? I hear how people get worked up because of the non-native birds or cats or rabbits, etc played havoc on the local environment. Humans have done that, but most life has as well.

Rambling again I guess. Sorry I had several starts and stops here.

I don't agree with breeding programs of animals. I also dislike pet stores. I don't think animals should be used for our pleasure or entertainment or even knowledge (zoos, etc).

I think animal shelters are okay in general. I don't mind cohabitation of animals (humans included in that). I think animals should get the choice to be were they want. If they want out, then let them out. It would be unfortunate if it was killed. I have lived with cats and dogs and fish, and cried when they died, however it happened. Which reminds me of something that makes sense to me, a life is more important than being alive. "Life" as meaning living a life who you, or whatever creature wants to live.

You know, sometimes I think having a pet shouldn't be allowed or shouldn't happen at all. But sometimes I'm not sure. So here's a question. What about a sensible argument as to why animals should be pets. Besides what I stated above as being what I will say now as silly.

I would agree cats are overly effective predators to be allowed outdoors.

I have three cats and a dog. How many birds have my cats killed? None since I rescued them, they are not allowed outside.

I would distinguish between animals allowed to roam, and animals kept inside where they can neither harm local wildlife nor be harmed BY local wildlife.

To Scott in response to:
"Speaking of health, on the vegan points made above, the flaw that always strikes me in the concept of removing animal protein from the human diet is that the planet simply could not produce enough high-quality plant protein to meet the needs of the current mass of humanity (much less future growth)."

I don't agree at all, my research indicates otherwise. Please by all means since you are making this claim list your references, and what calculations you used to make this claim.

On this topic, do you know what "protein" really is? Do you know the daily recommended amount of "protein"? Did you know there is "protein" in most of the non-meat or animal derived food people consume? Soybeans aren't the only source of "protein".

What is wrong with depopulation? We spay and neuter our "pets" to keep their populations low. Why not institute spaying and neutering of humans. I bet we could get the population down.

I can see it now, "Please have your friend spayed or neutered."

"Speaking of health, on the vegan points made above, the flaw that always strikes me in the concept of removing animal protein from the human diet is that the planet simply could not produce enough high-quality plant protein to meet the needs of the current mass of humanity (much less future growth)."

That's just flat-out wrong and actually the opposite of reality. The lower you eat on the food chain, the smaller your ecological footprint is.

What you need to realize is that animals eat too, and that they eat tons and tons of plants during their lifetime; these plants require quite a bit of arable land and water, and that for many years. Eating the plants directly is tons more efficient.

I suggest you read this:

http://www.alternet.org/story/12162

I'm not particularly concerned about the ecological footprint of the animals I like to eat. I eat them because they're tasty, and I am fortunate enough to be able to afford to buy meat. If the situation changes, I will adapt. In the mean time, I'm glad to be an omnivore.

If you wish to pursue a vegetarian or vegan diet/lifestyle, I think that's grand. If you wish ME to pursue such a lifestyle, keep wishin'.

""Speaking of health, on the vegan points made above, the flaw that always strikes me in the concept of removing animal protein from the human diet is that the planet simply could not produce enough high-quality plant protein to meet the needs of the current mass of humanity (much less future growth).""

Good point. I now change my answer to "eat the cats and dogs". This way the animals roaming the streets and in shelters are not just killed with the meat gone to waste. A simple solution!
:)

Jason,

I can only hope your "neuter or spay a friend" was meant as a bit of humor!

Regarding your questions, here's some data in no particular order:

First, I used Soy as an example because it is the only plant protein that comes with all nine essential amino acids. A complete protein contains all nine of the essential amino acids humans need to use protein; a protein missing one or more of these is called an "incomplete" protein.

Foods that come from species closest to humans (i.e., animal foods) contain complete proteins, since animal tissues have an amino acid composition similar to our own. While grains and legumes contain protein, they do not contain all of the essential amino acids, again except for soybeans. It is this biological fact that made our becoming carnivores so essential to evolution.

As an aside, the fats and other nutrients found in animal foods are also uniquely essential to human development, in particular for young children. These include iron, zinc (beef is the number one source of this nutrient in the American diet) and B12. Leucine, an amino acid rarer in plants, is particularly essential for developing and maintaining muscle tissue. So, if not through meat-eating, these elements are best received through big servings of dairy and eggs, a practice not espoused by vegans.

A second point is that eating plant protein is not as efficient. Biologists evaluate proteins by their "biological value" (BV), meaning not only how rich it is in essential amino acids, but also how well it can be digested by the human intestines. Animal proteins are around 95 percent digestible, while plants range between 80 and 90 percent digestible. Hence my comment that you can't do a straight comparison between cattle feed and human needs.

In essence, the animals humans eat are "perfect protein" factories. Choosing to not eat meat means, in essence, you have to become your own cow: blending all the necessary amino acids through a higher volume and variety of forage.

It's worth noting that I have absolutely nothing against vegitarianism! I think it's great. I just don't think it's humanly possible for everyone to make that choice.

As to the production of enough plant material to satisfy the needs of the globe's popution and you asked specifically for math and statistics. Let's start from the top.

The oceans cover 70% of the earth's surface and contain 97% of the earth's water. Most of the land's nutrients are eventually swept into this water system, feeding the majority of life on the planet: marine animals.

Vegan's don't eat fish, so to move the entire human population to veganism would mean the removal from the food chain of a vast supply of protein. FAO (a department of the UN) statistics show, worldwide, humanity gets 16 percent of its protein from marine animal sources. (This does not include fresh-water catches!)

So, in short, not eating fish would mean we'd need to replace 16% of our protein needs through the growth of new crops on land. Since we process plant protein less efficiently, and we require greater diversity of plant material, this means we'd have to grown roughly 20-25% more plant protein to support the current world population.

As an aside, removing fish from human consumption would have the nasty ancillary problem of removing between 200 and 500 million jobs from the global economy. This is the number of people who depend on fisheries for a living (again UN). That's a lot of people unable to affort produce at the local market.

Beyond fish, consider one of the greatest, yet most overlooked source of land-based protein: insects. The primary consumer of insects are lower-level carnivores and birds. Vegans eat neither. So, removing birds (insects, for example, are a staple in the diet of free-range chickens) and wild game that feed on insects yet again decreases the volume of protein in the system.

This all begs the question: where do we go about growing all the plant material to replace this loss from the system? Currently, 37% of earth's land mass is considered "arable" by modern techniques. Of that, about 1/3 is used for human food production, the rest is used to grow feed crop or as pasture land.

At first blush, the numbers suggest that, without cattle, pigs, chickens, etc., we could grow more food for humans, but this is deceptive. Increasing use of feed grains does not appear to have damaged production of cereals and other plant material for human consumption (American Association for the Advancement of Science or AAAS). The reason for this is simple: we've been able to increase food production to meet population growth only because of (a) monoculture and (b) chemical farming. Neither of these are conducive to the production of complete human protein sources.

Let's consider these points closer. The yeild demands on modern agriculature requires we modify natural ecosystems into a highly simplified and nutrient-rich state. As such, only a handful of plants, bred into entirely new strains to optimize yield and pest resistance, have become the dominant plants on the planet (monoculture). The four main grain crops -- wheat, rice, maize and barley -- occupy a the vast majority of farm land and none of these are particularly useful in providing complete protein resouces to humans.

Because they dominant land does not mean that the land they use could redily be converted to other crops. Growing these crops relies heavily on chemical fertilizers and monocultural cropping practices that allow decreased fallow times and competitive species control. The downside, of course, is that these practices increase erosion (sending nutrients to the sea) and degrades local water supplies (fertilizer run-off).

Moving to a broader diversity of plant material in agriculture, therefore, would (a) reduce yields and (b) likely require a higher use of pesticide and genetic modification to protect crops. This switch, therefore, would further reduce the available protein in the system.

In order to produce the SAME volume of more diversified, protein-rich plant food, humanity would have to increase planting land. To do so outside of the arable land already in use would require an inordinate amount of fresh water (which we don't have to spare), as well as decrease the overall diversity of wildlife and ecosystems planet-wide. Further, it would likely require an exponential growth in artificial fertilizer and pesticide and herbicide use.

Since the question regarded specific stats, however, consider that worldwide pesticide use has also soared since 1970, reaching 5 million tons annually by the late 1990s (AAAS). The reason we use these chemicals is to protect plant food crops. These chemicals kill the non-edible plants that compete for soil nutrients and water, as well as the insects that otherwise eat our needed yields. (See my notes on insects above.)

Let's assume we did increase the space and volume dedicated to diversified plant production. What do we do about the animals that find that material equally attractive forage? One needs only talk to a home gardener that shares land with rabbits, gophers and deer to get this concept without statistics. In suburban parts of many states, there's an "urban bow season" on deer just to protect landscaping! What do you think we'd have to do if they weren't just eating our visual feast, but our actual feast as well?

(Since vegans don't eat venison, this further protein would go to waste. In many countries wild animals, or bushmeat, remain a significant source of protein. A 1999 science journal published a study that wild animal protein consumption in equatorial Africa alone is 1 million tons a year.)

In sum, if were to increase plant food production in both the diversity and volume that moving everyone to a vegan diet globally would require, we would have to grow on vastly more land (deforestation beyond current levels), use vastly more water (fouling and drought), increase the volume of applied artificial fertilizer and pesticide geometrically (poisoning the environment) and reduce animal and insect species diversity (to avoid competition for crops). I hope this sheds some light on my comments regarding sustainability.

One way to support a vegan lifestyle without taxing the system would be to farm what you need for personal use. It is very possible to do so in many parts of the globe and this is a very great goal. This takes time, however, a resource most don't have in the modern economy. It also takes arable land ownership, something sadly only a tiny minority of humans enjoy.

It might also require buying a bow and arrow, but that's a discussion for another post.

consumer_q,

te he he! :) It is my understanding that your idea has made it into asian cuisine.

Scott, I'm sorry to say, but what you say is a bunch of crap.

"Foods that come from species closest to humans (i.e., animal foods) contain complete proteins, since animal tissues have an amino acid composition similar to our own. While grains and legumes contain protein, they do not contain all of the essential amino acids, again except for soybeans. It is this biological fact that made our becoming carnivores so essential to evolution."

Humans are not carnivore biologically. What made us eat meat is our freakish intelligence. Our intestines are too long, we have the wrong teeth (even herbivore gorillas have better "meat-eating" teeth than us), no claws or ways to catch food, and eating raw meat will make us sick and probably kill us after a while. It's only our use of fire and weapons that got us over our biological reality.

You talk about "the animals closest to us". I'd remind you that the animals closest to us are not carnivores either.

As for the quality of proteins, you are making this A LOT more complicated than it is. If plants were so deficient, how do you think all the mammals (like us) that eat them would do to survive and grow? As a vegetarian, and knowing tons of vegans, I can tell you that it is easy as hell to get enough protein, you don't even have to think about it.

"As an aside, the fats and other nutrients found in animal foods are also uniquely essential to human development, in particular for young children. These include iron, zinc (beef is the number one source of this nutrient in the American diet) and B12. "

Uniquely essential? Bullshit. The only one of these that is a bit harder to find is B12 but you can manage just fine (your body produces most of what you need and your liver stocks many years worth of supply).

As for the rest of your calculations, bullshit too. We already have huge surpluses of food; the problem on this planet is distribution. It's all about money. You grow grains and crops, and you "add value" by feeding it to animals that you then kill and sell to the rich in first world country, thus making a lot more money. Each year 40 billion animals are killed worldwide -- and we have enough food to feed these 40 billion animals for 5-6 years each before they are slaughtered (10 billion just in north america). Yet you think we don't have enough to feed 6 billion humans?

Please read this:

http://www.alternet.org/story/12162

Scott said,
"Speaking of health, on the vegan points made above, the flaw that always strikes me in the concept of removing animal protein from the human diet is that the planet simply could not produce enough high-quality plant protein to meet the needs of the current mass of humanity (much less future growth)."

MGR replied:
'That's just flat-out wrong and actually the opposite of reality. The lower you eat on the food chain, the smaller your ecological footprint is.'

You are both correct to an extent. Soybeans, rice, corn, wheat (stable crops, basically) are very greedy plants and require lots of fertilizer to replace what they strip out of the soil. On the other hand, beans and other legumes are fairly rich in protein and are apart of the nitrogen cycle, which regenerates the soil naturally. Our current fertilizers are a byproduct of petroleum. Fossil fuels are obviously not sustainable.

Americans and most Europeans could probably do well to eat less meat, but there are parts of the world where the populations depend on meat for the majority of their diets. I think veganism as a personal choice is very acceptable and commendable, but it doesn't belong as a global variable. For example, in the US, we've eliminated or crippled the native top-carnivore populations, so it's only with human intervention that we keep such things as the deer populations under control so that the deer don't destroy the remaining ecosystems. I've heard that scientists are using birth control shots (estrogen) to start controlling deer populations in the US and koala bears in Australia, but unfortunately adding estrogen to the environment (ends up in the water) has detrimental effects on lower creatures, especially frogs, and maybe even on humans.

Jason said:
'What is wrong with depopulation? We spay and neuter our "pets" to keep their populations low. Why not institute spaying and neutering of humans. I bet we could get the population down.'

The difference being that we are K-strategists and cats and dogs are r-strategists. Though we have overcome our carrying capacities and have become a pest species, I'm very against human population controls. This hasn't worked out so well for China. In some parts of China there is a shortage of women. In the US, we'd probably practice eugenics, which is just repugnant to me. Besides once we pass the oil-peak and prices go up for all fossil fuel related activities, I think populations will begin to fall. I just hope that it won't be a devasting food shortage and consequential massive die-offs.

Jason also said:
'You know, sometimes I think having a pet shouldn't be allowed or shouldn't happen at all. But sometimes I'm not sure. So here's a question. What about a sensible argument as to why animals should be pets. Besides what I stated above as being what I will say now as silly.'

Eliminating pest species is next to impossible (and I really hate privet and Japanese grass and kudzu). They are highly adaptable, have large niches in which to live, and reproduce at high rates. And sure, feral cat and dog colonies do exist, and they get on just fine, but they are susceptible to carrying diseases, have shorter lifespans (roadkill, disease, etc), unchecked populations, and kill local (not necessarily native) wildlife. One cat kills an average of one bird or small rodent per day. Cats have pretty small territories, so that can be devasting for an area.

Pets do just fine indoors. They live longer and healthier lives than their outdoor counterparts. Dogs do need go outdoors, and I think they should be leashed at all times. Cats can be made very happy indoors. I think the Humane Society website has many articles on keeping your pets indoor.

Organic polycultures actually have higher yields than our current industrial monocrop agriculture, and it is regenerative to the soil if well done.

The only loser if that switch is made are the companies that sell - at very high prices - the fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and such.

Scott,

Again, do you have any references? I see none. Oh you do state, "1999 science journal published a study that wild animal protein consumption in equatorial Africa alone is 1 million tons a year" and a comment about "FOA" neither of which is a reference! It ranks marginally better than "They say" statements.

Your data is made up of guesswork and assumptions, your reasoning is overly simplistic, and you leave out important information along the way.

There is debate about protein. For example it is not certain the "essential amino acid," histidine, is really essential or only essential for infants. If true there are more "complete" protein sources. Not to mention just eating a variety plant foods yield all the amino acids needed.

You talk about removing protein from the diet in the form of fish and birds, yet do not even state that currently humans consume far more protein than needed. The daily recommended amount is 0.4 grams/lb (of your weight) per day. For an average person a 6 ounce cut of beef would provide that. In the western culture, most consume far more than that daily, not only in animal products, but in all the plants they eat too.

Also you don't take into account the usage of protein of cows. They're not perfect converters, any system will have waste. Humans could consume the grains fed to farm raised animals. Also as a note not all cows, chickens, pigs are "free-range" animals meaning they live out in some field. Not by a long shot.

To Mae,

Mae stated:
"Soybeans, rice, corn, wheat (stable crops, basically) are very greedy plants and require lots of fertilizer to replace what they strip out of the soil"

They "require" do they? Have you heard about organic sustainable farming? What did we do before we had these modern fertilizers? They haven't been around for more than 100 years, yet we seem to have been growing them, even to the point of forcing their evolution for some 20,000 years during the course of agriculture. Yet now they "require" the fertilizer.

"The difference being that we are K-strategists and cats and dogs are r-strategists."

I don't see how this has much bearing on my question or comments.

Mae stated:
"I'm very against human population controls."

But you seem to be all for population controls for other species? So somehow human are exempt from the standards we place on everything else. Out population goes uncheck, because "it's okay"

Mae stated:
"For example, in the US, we've eliminated or crippled the native top-carnivore populations, so it's only with human intervention that we keep such things as the deer populations under control so that the deer don't destroy the remaining ecosystems."

So humans have crippled the top carnivores and now we have to fix that, but now that we are intervening to keep deer populations under control we should feel good about that? Yet we keep these same native carnivores populations low by hunting or simply killing them?

Mae stated:
"Besides once we pass the oil-peak and prices go up for all fossil fuel related activities, I think populations will begin to fall."

That's a pretty big hope. Why not take responsibility now (not talking about you per se, but humans in general) and invoke human population controls? We do it with every other species which we either consume or conflicts with human growth and consumption. That to me is irresponsible.

Mae stated:
"Pets do just fine indoors. They live longer and healthier lives than their outdoor counterparts. Dogs do need go outdoors, and I think they should be leashed at all times. Cats can be made very happy indoors. I think the Humane Society website has many articles on keeping your pets indoor."

By who's standards do they live just fine indoors? Longevity does not equate healthy. It only means they were able to live longer. Do you really think the quality of life of a cat who sits in a window and stares outside all day long, and who tries to run out the door when it's open, or that of a bird in a bird cage is truely better than if they were allowed to go where they wanted? That is mind boggling to me.

My research indicates that the direct ecological footprint of a vegetarian or vegan is about 7 times smaller than for someone on a standard western diet.

Please see: http://www.veg.ca/issues/enintro.html

I have used stats from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, Agriculture Canada, USDA, and other sources. Links are provided.

First let me say; Wow. This is the most postings I have ever seen on Treehugger. And being what most at Treehugger would label as "right wing" or "conservative" let me say that it is nice to see that the "Left" is as un-able to march lock step as the "right". (My disagreement with the "religious right" keeps me from being well received in most "right" circles.)

Second; Though off topic, it may behove Treehugger to switch to slashcode. Slashcode is the open source code base for slashdot, arguably the single most read website on the internet today. (having a link to your site on slashdot can simulate a DOS attack in a phenomenon known as the slashdot effect.) Switching to this code base would allow for large, heated and interactive threads like this one to be easier to read. The moderation system allows for trolls (like people that think a website should switch its content software ;-)) to be modded down so no one has to read their hate speech.

Finally; I have three cats rescued from shelters. I hate puppy/cat/[insert pet here] mills as much as the next animal lover. Humans like companionship. Pets give us companionship on an unconditional level that we can not expect from another human. This gives many of us a solid emotional foundation upon which we can build ourselves to be better people. With out pets some of us would degrade into scourge.

Compassion can not be compulsory. Morality can not be mandated.

I find it quite ironic that I’m being asked for specific citations from someone who posts as Anonymous.

Anyway, Anon, you are free to find all of the data I discussed on the websites of the organizations I quoted, all in parentheses in my text.

Since you question my comments, start here for specifics:

1. US Department of Agriculture, World Markets and Trends, any year.
2. FAO, Livestock-Environment Interactions, 1996.
3. FAOSTAT, July 2004.
4. IFPRI, The World Food Situation.
5. UNEP, Global Environment Outlook 2000.
6. UNEP, Earthscan 1999.
7. WRI, World Resources 2001-2002.
8. Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management Report, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 1999.
10. Brown, Beyond Malthus, W.W. Norton, 1999.

As for the data on protein, I am not able to take the time to cite the decades of medical journal investigations available for common review. Try Google.

I’m pleased you find my argument simple: it is. There’s no way the earth can feed the current human population sufficiently with just plant material. I state clearly why current agriculture is not suited to provide plant material for sufficient human nutrition, as well as why a change to more diversified crops would greatly reduce yields. If you disagree and can prove it, please post for the benefit of all readers.

You mention I’ve overlooked a few things. I should hope so; it was a short post! That doesn’t make the argument wrong. Just terse. I look forward to your complete summation, with footnotes, on how to feed the entire world with just plants.

The United Nations (I'll go digging if you insist) estimates that 10 Million people annually die from malnutrition -- the very condition caused by cereal-only diets around the world. The concept that we can feed humans with cattle feed is, um, simplistic, not to mention simply unappetizing.

The notion that we can keep people to eating less for the benefit of mankind is right up there with everyone should ride a bike and live in a hut. These are economic consumption and psychology issues, not food issues.

Oh, and it's a medical fact that vegan mothers who do not take massive doses of dietary supplements subject their children to brain development issues. Read here:

http://www.mercola.com/2003/feb/12/breastfeeding_diet.htm

The notion that my argument fails because we could all raise farm animals is wildly 1st world arrogant. As I stated in my post, the percentage of arable land is a fraction of land mass and ownership of that, because of its value, is concentrated in the hands of a tiny number of people. The reality is the vast majority of humanity cannot grow what it need: that’s why (again from my post) so much wild meat is harvested for sustenance in third world counties.

BTW, MGR commented that there are no uniquely required nutrients in animal products. That’s correct. I did not mean that they are unique to animal products only, rather that animal products make them available in a unique way. Sorry for the confusion. See my link above regarding the need for supplements. Also, you should look into the issues of lysine and leucine concentrations and availability in plants. It takes a diverse and well-monitored diet to acquire everything you need naturally. You’re not going to get these easily on a diet of monocrop grains – the vast majority of plant material grown for humanity.

MGR, I read your post with care and, unfortunately, I can't agree with some of your points. For starters, our freakish brains are the result of eating other animals, not the other way around. I will try to find you the anthropological writing on this subject in a convenient post, but the bottom line is our decision to eat meat is what got us here. (The teeth, by the way, we evolved into. We didn't just get them and say, "crap, all I can it is this lousy animal. Guess I'm stuck.")

You're right that those below us are better at digesting and extracting nutrients from forage. That's because they have things like two stomachs and they regurgitate their cud. A cow can live on grass and become a big, fat ball of flesh. Watch a human try that. We can't. Thats because we did not evolve to live that way. Eating cows is more efficient than eating grass or corn. There's no getting around this fact.

Look, my point wasn't that ONE human can't live just great on plant material alone, nor that a GROUP of humans can't as well. My point was simply that not ALL humans can. Hence my observation that moving everyone to veganism would require depopulation. Why is this so hard for some people to accept?

I'm still unclear why so many people have labeled animal-stewardship (or parenthood) as 'morally wrong'. Is this all really about 'the food-chain'?

For anyone who did check this option, I just don't know what planet you live on, or speak for, but I have news: animals exist. I think most people would prefer to have my dog (found stray, shepard mix) neutered and cared for by me, than roaming the streets.

Back to the issue - which was the question, right? PETS. I posted earlier about green housing options, and put in a nod for old houses in urban neighborhoods (mine is multi-occupancy/condo), and mentioned how I never drive anywhere. Why? Because of my DOG.

Dogs are great. They reduce stress, they are loving, they can detect cancer, the bad-man, they make you laugh a thousand times a day, give you something other than sports and weather to talk about with your neighbors and make sure you get excercise and fresh air every day.

I think that living with an animal reminds you that our human percepetion is not the only way (wow - to think I would say this to a bunch of 'treehuggers', crazy). Cheers.

Scott,

Actually, chimpanzees (almost identical digestive systems to ours) live primarily on plants, and only eat meat on occasion. Due to their hierarchical social system, some chimps almost never get any meat, and yet live otherwise healthy lives.

Gorillas (still with only one stomach) live entirely on leaves and stalks of plants. They accomodate this nutriment-poor diet by simply grazing constantly and moving about very little.

Nearly all animals on the surface of the planet get their food from plants. Predators and omnivores simply skip the plant-eating part, and feed on animals that have spent a long time bulking up on plants.

This means that there is a quantifiable amount of plant life needed to maintain all life - herbivore or herbivore hunters alike.

What I have learned shows that herbivores make more efficient use of the plant life they consume, and that predators simply chose a path that is more convenient, and requires less effort (That's right, Leo the lion has alot in common with most of my relatives....). That means, if we all consume lots of meat, while human population grows exponentially, we're gonna find that quantifiable limit of plant life that is needed to sustain life sometime soon.

I eat meat myself, but I usually just eat it for one meal a day or less. That's still more than our great ape relatives seem to need. Many human populations live on a minimum of meat consumption, and they live happy, healthy lives.

Oops, well that Anonymous at October 22, 2005 01:50 PM, that Scott was refering to was me. I forgot to put my name in.

Anyways, sorry about getting sidetracked from the topic at hand, of pets, not veganism.

I only believe Scott is incorrect in his assumptions and his line of reasoning about veganism. His facts which are stated are often incorrect. Case in point, he stated,
"Oh, and it's a medical fact that vegan mothers who do not take massive doses of dietary supplements subject their children to brain development issues. Read here:

http://www.mercola.com/2003/feb/12/breastfeeding_diet.htm"

Now if you go to the article, it is titled "Mom’s Animal-Protein-Deficient Diet May Cause Brain Damage in Babies". With a 'may' in there. Also read the first two lines:

"Mothers who do not eat any animal products could damage their newborn’s health through a vitamin B12 deficiency.

Reportedly, two breast-fed infants whose mothers’ diets did not include any animal products developed brain abnormalities due to a vitamin B12 deficiency."

Do you see the 'could' in the first sentence, and the 'Reportedly' in the second?

So how is some doctor posting on a website about how reportedly two veganism mother's breast fed their infants, which MAY or COULD cause brain abnormalities a medical FACT? Scott misquotes and does an injustice. I too have done my share of "medical journal investigations" Vitamin B-12 is still a controversy and unclear what, if any problems there are with it. Most anyone can "Google" something, but just because it is posted online doesn't make it true. I have found sites stating how Mother's who eat meat and breast fed their infants caused the infants to develop problems too.

Scot is on a rant about veganism it seems. I believe his original statement was to say how if every human was a vegan, the world could not support that kind of life. I disagree, and I stated his argument was "overly simplistic" which is a far cry from "simple".

I've heard the argument before, and only wanted clarification about where he obtained his information from and his calculations, which I saw little if any. His only link was misquoted.

Yes I am a vegan in that I obstain as best I can, from consuming animal products and I avoid where I can, by using animal products. I don't agree that humans are apart from nature, I think we are a product of nature and in being so are a part of it.

However if we are to separate ourselves from nature because of our intelligence, abilities, creativity, I think we must act accordlingly. If we're so much better than the rest of the "natural" world, or if we are to assume that we it is up to us to help the world and "nature", I don't see how hunting animals, putting chickens, pigs, cows, etc in concentration like conditions only to feed our sorry selves, or to buy a "pet" for our pleasure, enjoyment, education, and set it in a cage, or a fish tank, or keep it indoors most of it's life and call the animal, "healthy," "educational," "happy," sets us apart at all.

Yes the "natural" world is ruthless. It appears humans are too. Which brings me back to what I said earlier. Humans aren't apart from nature, we are a part of it. In doing so, we should apply similar standards to humans as we do to other animals.

Population control being a big one. Again "Spay and neuter yourselves and your friends." Or perhaps just shoot them. We are either a part of nature, or are not, we can't have it both ways.

Using humans as educational tools. Let's put the different races in cages on each continent/area so each race can see what the other races are like.

Perhaps people should adopt a child, keep it indoors all its life, so it can't be hit by a car, or murdered, or abused. Then she/he could lead a very happy life inside a house. We'll give it all the food it ever needs, it will be happy, and give us companionship. It will live longer *on average* just like many animals in captivity do, only because many of the sources of death are removed. I think the quality of life is diminished though. Do you agree?

I'm sure anyone could come up with other equally disturbing things.

In being a vegan, I never said everyone should be a vegan. Yes, I think it would be nice if the human race pulled its head out of a dark place and practiced what it preached. Try to emulate the noble claims it makes. And no I never said Scott or anyone one specifically said any of that. It is a common theme however. "Humans" must control the deer, cougar, beer, wolf, mouse, cat, dog, etc populations. Why? Why is it up to us? Because we are better? I think not.

If we are better than the natural world, we should act accordingly. Not make claims and reasoning which are overly simplistic even naive, only to "prove" some point we want to be true.

If we're not better than the natural world, and are a part of it, perhaps with all of our so called intelligence we should apply similar measures to ourselves.

Pets are like booze in the sense that if you were to outlaw them out of moral consideration, they would simply go underground.

Cats, dogs and humans have been evolving together in a symbiotic partnership for some time. Can we be more thoughtful about our side of the deal? For sure. Can we pay careful attention to the impact of pet care on the environment? For sure. But being thoughtful about these relationships is not the same as refusing to have them at all.

It's possible to mount a "No More Pets" campaign, but I think the cats would get totally up in arms about it: "What? You are going to take away the food, the cat nip, the admiring attention and the tickling? Why, I shall claw you to death as soon as I pry my ass off this warm couch!"

In Australia, cats get so out of hand, as do rabbits, and are ferral a lot. I think having native animals as pets is great (like the quoll!), and this in fact will raise awareness and help people learn about them. (They only found out that the male quoll has two penises when someone had kept one as a pet and happened upon it sleeping.)

I think the focus on "native" is completely absurd. "Native" at what date, at what age in the history of our Earth?? Nature is always evolving and changing and what makes this world beautiful is it's changing. If I let my cats out today they would likely be catching sparrows, starlings, and pigeons which are also on the "enemy, non-native, invasive species list". I live in the city and those are the main birds around here. In the winter I feed these birds in inspite of their lowly social status and my cats and I very much enjoy watching them. I agree with Jason above, we need to focus on neutering some humans. Nature will do just fine without our help so long as we leave some open space.