Dear Anonymous,

If eating meat does not feel good to you (i.e. you have some emotional aversion to it), then you are essentially acting in your own self-interest by avoiding it. But let's not confuse that with some kind of altruism or morality.

I'm not sure why you put "humanely" in quotes. There are humane ways to kill and inhumane ways to kill. To lead an animal into the slaughterhouse one at a time to reduce stress and put a quick jolt to the head is humane. To raise an animal in an overcrowded pen where it nevers see the light of day or has room to roam and be pumped full of antibiotic-laced grain and growth hormones, only to be led en masse into a slaughterhouse is not humane.

I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that I was suggesting you should do anything at all. What you should or should not do is of no consequence to me. I was simply stating that vegetarians contribute to a great many animals deaths, many of which I am certain die a much more painful death than a quick bolt to the head, which is almost instantaneous, if done right. Imagine a squirrel or bird mutilated in a combine left to die a slow death in a wheat field so that there is bread for our hummus sandwhiches.

In fact, it could be reasonably argued that a vegetarian diet results in *more* deaths than a meat eaters. If we consider all of the animals and other living creatures that die to produce the rice, soybeans for the soyburgers, wheat, corn, and other products that are produced using modern farming machinery and then consider how many animals die during the harvesting of a grass-fed bison (that would be 1), the results are rather obvious. I realize that does not describe most meat eaters, and I'm certainly not speaking for them, but those options are available. I think it's impossible to tell which results in more deaths, but the point is valid.

You'd have to provide some kind of reasoning as to why raising animals in captivity is improper. I'm not talking about factory farmed animals, but rather free-ranging animals like bison who roam and graze and live an otherwise pretty darn good life I would think by bison standards. Are they in pain? Do they suffer? What makes it improper?

One thing I think we both would agree on is that most people eat way too much meat. Given the current human population, imagine what the world would be like if everyone ate as much meat as the average American or European.

As to hunting, you'll have to explain to me why piercing a deer with an arrow or shooting it wit a gun is more "moral" than raising a chicken for food. You might only wound or maim the animal, if you don't get a direct hit, causing a great deal of suffering and pain for the animal. If you are avoiding meat for moral reasons, then I would think this would be an important point. How is causing more suffering for an animal more humane than ensuring a quick, painless death with a quick, direct jolt to the head?

Not that I have anything against hunting for survival. Were we still living in the hunter/gather era, hunting down and killing animals in that fashion works well. It's just not feasible with 4 billion plus people on the planet -- we all don't have hundreds of acres to hunt wild game like Ted Nugent. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I have no problem with someone living in Alaska killing a caribou, dressing it, quartering it, and freezing the meat for the year's supply of protein. It just doesn't work on large scale is all.

Should the human population somehow get reduced to 4 million instead of 4 billion, then hunting/gathering becomes a perfectly viable lifestyle again. Not an option for those living in London and Manhattan in 2006 though.

Here is an excellent article by the way, which raises some very good points for consideration:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280191.shtml

Good luck with the mercury issue.

Tom