Pigs are as smart as dogs. Why do we eat one and love the other?
vox.com
vox.com
Well, we don't eat people with mental issues either, or think it's OK to eat them just because they aren't "smart".
It was never about the smartness, it's about the utility (including being a guardian, keeping company, etc), breeding capabilities/size, and/or taste.
Plus customs. Some cultures do eat dogs. Some don't eat pigs.
Anecdote: my inlaws in Colorado 50 years ago used to grow potatoes for market and raise pigs for themselves. They showed me an enormous cast iron pot dug into an earthen stove where they'd cook potato "slop" for the pigs. To this day the family cooks with lard instead of oil.
Please be aware of our little friends can and should eat.
For the record, I avoid giving my dog anything that is considered in-appropriate by American standards.
However, people have eaten coyote here in the states, and one thing is the glands can make the meat taste pretty horrid at times. If you’re choosing an animal as livestock you probably want the meat to be edible every time. Canines meat can vary too much because the various glands they have can effect the meat depending on how the animal was feeling.
Let alone the cultural issues about eating a companion. Like horse meat can be taboo just because that in a lot of areas.
I thought horses were supposed to be smart, but TV may have influenced my thinking...
> As actor Alan Young recounted: "It was initially done by putting a piece of nylon thread in his mouth. But Ed actually learned to move his lips on cue when the trainer touched his hoof. In fact, he soon learned to do it when I stopped talking during a scene! Ed was very smart."
Weak is not the best word. Soft is probably a better description.
Pigs are way smarter than dogs.
Dogs are a very gamey meat and are expensive.
In Asia they only eat it rarely for special occasions or health. It costs to much.
I'm not a big fan, but maybe if I had it more it'd become an every day meat like pig. But I think not. They are not bred to be eaten. They are carnivores. And bred to look emotional to humans.
What interesting with this restaurant dog thief article to me is they are poor, but they do it for beer. People need something in life to live for.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xymkgw/eating-with-the-do...
Not many animals are treated more cruelly than pigs raised for food consumption with the exception of chickens perhaps.
The problem is that culturally around the world, all kinds of animals end up on dinner plates that are unacceptable to other cultures.
There is no right or wrong. The only solution is compassion for other animals suffering, and then making a conscious choice.
If a person is really compassionate, they will not eat any animals. Until then, articles like this highlight the hypocrisy but that alone is not enough to enable change within human society on a whole.
BTW, it is established that we do not need to eat meat to survive. People choose to eat meat because they like the taste, not for any other reason.
I had the opportunity to live in an impoverished area of the Phillipines for several years- I met many kinds of people, some of whom were the most compassionate and selfless individuals I've ever known. After seeing the meals of dogs and cats they need to eat to survive because they can't afford any other lifestyle, I can say with no reservations at all that it's absolutely ludicrous to assert that compassion and carnivorism are mutually exclusive. Your sweeping generalization is wrong, my friend; perhaps you should try to empathize with the people you deride.
The reason why people choose a vegetarian/vegan diet is also varied and sometimes has nothing to do with wanting to stop the suffering of animals. Losing weight, a healthier body, peer group pressure are alternate motivations.
The decisive factor is not poverty.
I was also in the Philippines, and I was able to eat quite well for my 3 months there. I ate rice, beans, fruits and vegetables. My costs were the same as a local.
What you are describing is a type of isolated compassion but it is relegated to homo-sapiens, it is not a universal compassion of which i am referring to, to which the Buddha refers to.
Compassion is sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it. This is the dictionary definition.
This is essentially just referring to people's distress, of which you witnessed. Empathy.
However, compassion is more complicated and detailed. "In Buddhism, the ideal of practice is to selflessly act to alleviate suffering wherever it appears." Note, wherever it appears, not just humans, everything.
Suffering and compassion go hand in hand. If you see any suffering of any creature, you want to alleviate it.
In The Essence of the Heart Sutra, His Holiness the Dalai Lama wrote,
"According to Buddhism, compassion is an aspiration, a state of mind, wanting others to be free from suffering. It's not passive — it's not empathy alone — but rather an empathetic altruism that actively strives to free others from suffering. Genuine compassion must have both wisdom and lovingkindness. That is to say, one must understand the nature of the suffering from which we wish to free others (this is wisdom), and one must experience deep intimacy and empathy with other sentient beings (this is lovingkindness)."
Still not convinced? I can tell. Don't take my word. Listen to Master Thich Nhat Hanh explain:
As a proctection they also evolved to be less tasty. "Tastes like piss" said older Noko, because in the Lappland War 1944, there was food shortage, and they ate everything. Except humans only occasionally. There are several reports of human fingernails in the spam-cans, that German distributed freely to their allies in Finland.
Dogs are technically omnivores, but good luck fattening a herd of dogs cheaply on vegetables.
And I'm pretty sure the arctic explorers both loved and ate their dogs.
As for a place where you can eat dogs but not pigs, where is that? Most muslims certainly don't eat dogs, since they are considered dirty under Islam.
Is it because most Vietnamese traditionally did not like the taste/concept, or because many today were affected by western culture (movies, series, etc.) focusing on dogs as pets?
>As for a place where you can eat dogs but not pigs, where is that? Most muslims certainly don't eat dogs, since they are considered dirty under Islam.
Well, Indonesia is mostly muslim, and they do eat dogs:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/9/a-taste-for-dog-ind...
Also dog meat doesn't taste good. We eat both in many parts of the world.
Also pigs are kept as pets.
But, she’s still the sweetest little potato ever.
What about plants? Do they enjoy being uprooted and eaten? Well, there is no chemical process that we call "suffering" so it must be okay. But, these mammals you see, they're so close to us! And we don't like it when humans suffer. Even worse, most people hate when something cute suffers, even more so then a human.
There is no real greater ethical meaning here, just arbitrary lines drawn in the sand by people with strong feelings one way or the other. And yes, the same goes for the suffering of us humans.
In either case, if plants did feel pain, would a person cause more suffering by eating plants or by eating animals that eat plants?
If at some time in the future it can be proven that plants feel pain, then it will depend upon their level of pain as they do not have a central nervous system nor brain as animals/insects.
Everyone will have to decide for themselves what course of action to follow, as we do need to consume food in order to survive.
Star Trek replicators would solve all these philosophical quandaries.
Deep question. Seems like it's usually more of a postulate of ethics than a logical conclusion. Treat others as you'd like to be treated, for example.
If you're looking for a scientific answer, it's probably that empathy makes you suffer when you see it in others. And empathy is instinctive behavior that presumably evolved for the good of the species. Though evolution might be "selfish" in its own way, preferring to protect some species which are useful to us in other ways while eating others.