I disagree. Chicken have been seen as food for the majority of our existence on this planet, not pets. That now we see them as pet as well talks about the complexity and capacity for contradiction and paradoxes of our culture and our minds. I accept that biologically I thrive on chicken meat yet I am intellectually capable of thinking chicken are very lovely animals. Humans are walking contradictions.
As much as many people try, there is often no simple black and white answer to humanity's most complex issues.
But often the black and white answer is the one that's printed on the slogan.
>I accept that biologically I thrive on chicken meat yet I am intellectually capable of thinking chicken are very lovely animals.
But today you have the capacity to biologically thrive equally as well without needing to eat chick en meat, so "lovely beings" are being slaughtered for no more than a few moments of sensory pleasure. A terrible price for such a lowly payoff.
No, I do not thrive on a meatless diet. I do not want to go into the particulars of my digestion and body, but it certainly isn't the diet for me.
In general my opinion is meatless diets are possible, but not as healthy as omnivore ones. Thus the complexity of the matter, whose answer is not that simple. That said, I honestly do not think this is the place for such a debate.
The science is anything but clear. And science is never final, especially dietary science, rife with subpar studies and economic lobbying.
One thing is certain: there is more money on the meatless bandwagon than outside of it.
Please let's agree to disagree, as I said this is not the place for such an argument and these days it's become like discussing our favourite football teams. I don't care for it.
Seeing that colorful jungle fowl reminds me of a conversation I had with my friend about pigeons and doves.
We consider doves to be an "elegant" bird, all white, used in religious imagery and magicians' tricks, and so on, while we consider pigeons to be a "dirty" bird, mostly known for scavenging food in cities, even though they're basically the same type of bird. People chase them around for fun.
But if someone had only ever seen white doves and suddenly saw a much more colorful version of the bird that we call pigeons, they'd probably consider it to be the more fanciful, impressive-looking bird.
Just because something is a lovely animal doesn't mean I won't put a round through it's heart and butcher it's corpse to sustain my life. Elk are beautiful animals, but I have no problem killing one and eating it. We are the greatest predator Nature has ever evolved and I can accept that. More's the pity others can't.
> Do you actually do this, or are you just virtue signaling? You never buy factory-farmed animal products from the store?
I grew up in a town in Mississippi of about 2000 people. Everyone hunts. My grandfather's best friend was a butcher with his own shop. Everyone around us had cows because most of the people around us were farmers. I now live in Fort Worth, or as it's affectionately known to its residents - Cowtown. I don't have to buy meat from the grocer because there's ranchers all around me. I can - and do - get sides of beef regularly.
I go hunting in Alaska with friends about twice a year, depending on what's happening with work and our schedules. One elk has a tremendous amount of meat.
> But it's not necessary for survival, so why would you?
So you don't eat anything? How are you still alive? I'm pretty sure eating is necessary for survival.
> Interesting thought. I wonder how great of predator you are faced with a lion, or even that elk, but disarmed of technology.
This is kind of a stupid thought. In fact, I would hope your friends would tell you that you're beneath this level of incredibly poor reasoning. We are the greatest predator because of our mastery of technology.
As much as many people try, there is often no simple black and white answer to humanity's most complex issues.
But often the black and white answer is the one that's printed on the slogan.