HaP: "I noticed you changed my words from "the animals I kill" to "the animals I blast" why the change???"Because that's the lingo, isn't it? A "blast" from a gun? I'm just describing it the way it is. I'm sorry if it makes you feel uncomfortable when I don't use euphemistic language that belies the truth of the gun's explosion. The other day a truck was driving down the road with a deer who had recently been living on the back. It was dripping blood on the road as the truck moved along. If it wasn't "blasted" by a gun then it was some damn big mosquito that bit it.
HaP: "I respect plants animals and humans the same, but the value of their lives are different to me and to you."
Yup. And I can explain the way I justify this: I can think of no OBJECTIVE set of criteria that would make human life have more value than any other form of life. Some people say we're smarter. Firstly, "smart" is a relatively defined term. We defined the terms of "smartness" so of course they are attributes common to us. Secondly, I often question whether, even by our own terms, we are smarter than other animals. According to our own judgement, we do some incredibly stupid things that animals don't do, such as wage war on one another, destroy our environments, exploit each other for slave labour, and allow our neighbours to starve so we can build more weapons of mass destruction and so some overfed millionaires can keep big numbers locked in their desks. Whales are smart, crows are smart, pigs are smart, and so are all animals in their own way. My cats often outsmart me, and I'm a reasonably intelligent human being. Last night I saw a movie with a spider in it who made a bubble of air underwater using only its feet and web. It hauled its dinner in their and ate it... underwater. That's pretty smart. I can't do that, can you?
As far as plants go, I eat 'em. Examining the food chain, plants are producers. They provide the energy link between the sun's energy and the rest of the food chain. Without the sun, their would be no energy in the food chain, and without producers, the enrgy would not be transformed into consumable form. (The miracle of photosynthesis...)
So, plants transform 1% of the energy of the sun that reaches earth into consumable energy (plant flesh.) The remainder is used up not stored. Along comes the primary consumer, who eats the plant. That consumer turns some (10%) of the calories into stored energy (which is consumable by secondary consumers.) The rest of the energy gets used up by the primary consumer simply being.
Each trophic level watches the energy level decrease by 90% (on average) each time. Here's a problem I posed my grade four class:
A farmer has a field of wheat that would give her the same amount of energy as 100 chocolate chip cookies if she ate it. She has a hungry cow that could eat all the field of wheat instead. If the cow eats the wheat, the farmer would then be able to eat the cow.
1. How many cookies worth of energy would the farmer get by letting the cow eat the wheat and then eating the cow herself?
She would get ________________ cookies worth of energy.
2. If she is trying to feed her hungry family and she has little money, which would be wiser for her to do? (Check the one you think is right.)
a) Feed them the wheat. ________
b) Feed the cow the wheat and feed her family the cow. ________
3. Draw a picture of the farmer, the field, and the cow.
I will provide you with the answers if you are stumped. Now, if you want to talk about taking lives or suffering, would fewer or more living beings die if I were to eat a field of wheat or if I were to allow a cow to eat a field of wheat and then eat the cow? Bear in mind that if I ate cows I would have to eat 10 of them to get the same amount of energy as that field of wheat. Oh, and each of them would have to eat a whole field of wheat.
