Keeping Bees vs. Keeping Pets

 
    • sewable sa...
    • Användare
    • 23 jan 2012, 17:58

    Keeping Bees vs. Keeping Pets

    I feel conflicted about this.

    I guess this question mainly concerns morally-motivated vegans, but I would love to hear input from everyone.

    Several of my veg friends keep pets, but vegans will refuse honey on the grounds that bees are mistreated and exploited for their labor.

    It seems to me that keeping any other living thing around (and removing it from it's natural state) simply for our own enjoyment is equally reprehensible, but let's face it: cats and dogs are adorable.

    I've also heard the argument that cats chose us, but it still seems arrogant to decide that an animal is happier domesticated than wild.

    • mrsqrrl sa...
    • Användare
    • 24 jan 2012, 13:35
    Although I haven't quite made my mind up about wether it can be ethically acceptable (for vegans as well as non-vegans) to keep pets, it is clear to me that there is an obvious distinction between 'owning' (ofcourse that word makes you question already if such practices can be justified) a pet and keeping bees for honey: The bees are working, having their minds set on creating a winter-foodsupply, for your benefit and you give them lousy sugar-water in return. While a regular pet, on the other hand, is relatively free. At least most pets will have way better lives than animals in factory farming. As will most animals in zoos, actually. And yet, zoos are mostly regarded as morally incorrect by vegans, because it's about keeping animals imprisoned for human entertainment. But then, how are pets so very different from that?

    Anyway, there's something that bugs me a lot more concerning vegans keeping pets and that is feeding them food that the owner him- or herself would never eat. So in that sense I think it's virtually unthinkable for a vegan to have cats as pets since they are carnivores. And if you keep a dog you should, as far as I'm concerned, feed him or her vegan as well. Because why would you apply different morals to the food you buy for your pet?

    • Rhyme79 sa...
    • Användare
    • 24 jan 2012, 18:08
    mrsqrrl said:
    And yet, zoos are mostly regarded as morally incorrect by vegans, because it's about keeping animals imprisoned for human entertainment. But then, how are pets so very different from that?

    Zoos are about recreation yes, but also about education and conservation. Zoos co-operate internationally in order to create and maintain successful breeding programs for endangered species. The zoos make money for these programs through admission to the public, ( and grants and private funding too.) The moral issue there I suppose is; is it OK to allow a few individual animals to live in captivity if it will benefit the entire species? I think that yes, morally it is important to protect the whole.

    mrsqrrl said:
    Anyway, there's something that bugs me a lot more concerning vegans keeping pets and that is feeding them food that the owner him- or herself would never eat. So in that sense I think it's virtually unthinkable for a vegan to have cats as pets since they are carnivores. And if you keep a dog you should, as far as I'm concerned, feed him or her vegan as well. Because why would you apply different morals to the food you buy for your pet?

    Veganism is a choice, unless you have a talking pet, they can't tell you that they want to be vegan. Who can say that they have the right to make that decision for an animal? Besides that, cats require a large amount of protein compared to a human. Humans need about 0.8g per kg of body weight per day, which is only one fifth of a cat's 4g per kg per day requirement. The second paragraph of this page of the Marck Veterinary Manual here shows that it would de difficult to create a suitable vegan diet for a feline.

    As for the bees thing, I'm not sure what I think about that. I'll come back.

    "Without The Ancient (Dis)Order of the Last.FM Platinum Round Table, the Beatles never would have made it." - Sir James Paul McCartney.
    • mrsqrrl sa...
    • Användare
    • 25 jan 2012, 15:45
    You have some true words, but I can't help but feeling that you're actually defending my points rather than contradicting them (not that I have any problem with that :)).
    Rhyme79 said:Zoos are about recreation yes, but also about education and conservation. Zoos co-operate internationally in order to create and maintain successful breeding programs for endangered species. The zoos make money for these programs through admission to the public, ( and grants and private funding too.) The moral issue there I suppose is; is it OK to allow a few individual animals to live in captivity if it will benefit the entire species? I think that yes, morally it is important to protect the whole.
    That keeping animals in zoos is defensible is exaclty what I was trying to say. Like you, I disagree with the consensus under vegans that not supporting zoos is necessarily a part of veganism. I probably should have been a bit clearer on that.
    Rhyme79Besides that, cats require a large amount of protein compared to a human. Humans need about 0.8g per kg of body weight per day, which is only one fifth of a cat's 4g per kg per day requirement. The second paragraph of this page of the Marck Veterinary Manual here shows that it would de difficult to create a suitable vegan diet for a feline.
    Again, the fact that it's virtually impossible to feed a cat vegan, was precisely my point. And to me, that means vegans can't have cats as pets.
    Rhyme79Veganism is a choice, unless you have a talking pet, they can't tell you that they want to be vegan. Who can say that they have the right to make that decision for an animal?
    I think this is the only thing here we have very diffferent opinions on :)

    • Satzbau sa...
    • Användare
    • 26 jan 2012, 23:24
    fuck yeah honey.

    • slosd sa...
    • Användare
    • 1 feb 2012, 08:58

    Re: Keeping Bees vs. Keeping Pets

    sewable said:
    Several of my veg friends keep pets, but vegans will refuse honey on the grounds that bees are mistreated and exploited for their labor.

    I'm not vegan so I don't feel that strongly about this kind of stuff, but I do understand the rationale behind avoiding milk and eggs. The thing about honey is not really clear for me. Only an overproduction of honey is taken
    from the bees, as otherwise the beekeeper would harm the bee population.

    sewable said:
    It seems to me that keeping any other living thing around (and removing it from it's natural state) simply for our own enjoyment is equally reprehensible, but let's face it: cats and dogs are adorable.

    I've also heard the argument that cats chose us, but it still seems arrogant to decide that an animal is happier domesticated than wild.

    Well first, cats and dogs are domesticated animals. I would argue that if you released them into "the wild" many wouldn't have that much of a great time.
    The only problem I see is when people get pets and don't know anything about how to treat them and generally don't invest much time in them. This is especially true for dogs. I love huskies. They are great dogs, but you need to
    spend much time caring about them. I also think that I wouldn't get a dog if I lived in a city. What I want to add is, that (most) people don't see their dogs as amusement but as a dear comrade (or at least that's how I feel).
    The point I want to make is that I'm sure that you can create a good environment for a pet if you know how.
    Most importantly: If you want to get a pet, get it from an animal shelter. These are unfortunate animals that surely would appreciate your care.

    • mrsqrrl sa...
    • Användare
    • 4 feb 2012, 13:46

    Re: Re: Keeping Bees vs. Keeping Pets

    slosdThe thing about honey is not really clear for me. Only an overproduction of honey is taken from the bees, as otherwise the beekeeper would harm the bee population. Wow, wait just a minute. Reality is that most (in the case of organic honey) and almost all (with regular) honey is taken away and replaced by sugarwater. Needless to say that this is nowhere as nutricious as the nectar they collect themselves. What is taken away is not overproduction. Why would the bees produce more than neccesary anyway? A beekeeper that would only take so little that te bees could still feed themselves and their larvae on honey alone can never be profitable.

    Don't get me wrong: I do not believe it is as morally incorrect to consume honey as it is to buy dairy and egges. There is a significant difference between them and I would easier go back to eating honey than to dairy and eggs. Bees that make your honey are 'mere' slaves, while cows and chickens that keep the dairy and eggs coming undoubtetly have far worse living conditions and are allmost without exeption slaughtered when production rate declines. But I don't nearly miss honey enough to justify what the bees have to go through.

    • slosd sa...
    • Användare
    • 5 feb 2012, 17:46

    Re: Re: Re: Keeping Bees vs. Keeping Pets

    mrsqrrl said:
    But I don't nearly miss honey enough to justify what the bees have to go through.

    As always it burns down to whether the being one is talking about can experience feelings like or at least simillar to how humans do. Although some people probably don't care about that but would grant every being the right to not be killed or used in other ways for ones purpose. However, I don't feel any sympathy towards insects, but that's just my own attitude.
    (I don't want to get totally off topic so I stop writing now ;) )

    • mrsqrrl sa...
    • Användare
    • 6 feb 2012, 11:28
    Although I don't think I agree, I can see why you make the distinction between insects and other animals and I suppose it makes sense to a certain extent. All I wanted to say is that the honey that is taken away by the beekeeper is absolutely not overproduction.

    • Altruism sa...
    • Användare
    • 8 feb 2012, 15:38

    Re: Keeping Bees vs. Keeping Pets


    It seems to me that keeping any other living thing around (and removing it from it's natural state) simply for our own enjoyment is equally reprehensible


    People who care for companion animals do so for a variety of reasons, not just 'simply for their own enjoyment'. Many people I know, vegans and non-vegans alike, have taken in rescued or otherwise unfortunate animals. To me adopting an animal can be a direct way to make a positive difference in the life of a sentient being. Will a dog or cat ever lead a perfect or optimal life in the company of people? Probably not, but neither are our lives perfect, nor is an animal's life in their 'natural state' - whatever that is exactly for animal that have been domesticated for centuries. You can, however, do many things to make life pleasant and worthwhile for a companion animal - and make it a lot better than it was.

    I do agree that -from the vegan standpoint anyway- it only makes sense that companion animals aren't fed other animals. For the slaughtered animals there is no difference in whether their flesh is consumed by human beings, dogs or cats. This is also why I have chosen to only give (enriched) plant foods to my dog. Gladly, she seems to enjoy her food very much and she has plenty of variety in tastes too. :)

    • Altruism sa...
    • Användare
    • 8 feb 2012, 15:50
    Rhyme79 said:
    Veganism is a choice, unless you have a talking pet, they can't tell you that they want to be vegan. Who can say that they have the right to make that decision for an animal?


    You will make the choice (regarding their food) either way - that's what caring for and looking after entails. The choice makes perfect moral sense in that is non-selective.

    'Rights' are a human concept. Let's say I would not have the right to 'make my dog a vegan'; then she would still be pining away at an overcrowded shelter near the Mediterranean because too few people care. I do care, but not at the expense of other (as in multiple) animals who would've otherwise died if I chose to feed her a non-vegan diet. Now she has a warm and loving home, human and canine friends and plenty of long walks, playtime and still food that she likes and enjoys. :)

    • dth3tr sa...
    • Användare
    • 5 mar 2012, 04:44
    It irks me that the entire top shelf on the peanut butter/jelly aisle in a typical supermarket is dedicated to honey. For the typical consumer, isn't honey one of those things bought once and forgotten in the back of the pantry? I know tea drinkers like it and it's called for semi-frequently in baking, but the market is still so clearly over-saturated. So much of the honey goes to waste. What's wrong with agave nectar?

    The bees aren't behaving as they would without human interference. Encountering pesticides is troublesome enough, but to have to constantly be on the clock as each new yield is ripped away and poured into plastic bears or turned into hipster lip balms...it's not sustainable. They're dropping dead. We need them healthy and behaving naturally and travelling and pollinating plants.

    RE: Cats...it is a conundrum. There is a website that sells what they claim is a suitable dietary workaround for cats, but it has proven dodgy - especially for males. I find it difficult to criticize someone who adopts a shelter cat, regardless of the unfortunate dependence on byproducts of other species. Keep them indoors, though. Outside cats are ecosystem wreckers.

    • juliacsd sa...
    • Användare
    • 12 mar 2012, 21:42
    "Keeping bees" has exploitation purposes. And we don't need to enslave any animal for our survival.

    "Keeping pets" have some more reasoning:
    • Never buy animals (every kid who ask his parents to buy him a dog should know the consequences of animal trafficking).
    • If you want the company of an animal from a different species (which is more than understandable) ADOPT it from a shelter (you'll safe two lives), but only adopt an animal that will be happy in your environment.
    • Don't keep fishes. They need more space than the biggest aquarium you can get (find a safe place and set them free)
    • Actually, any animal that you have to keep "jailed", small rodents, birds, reptiles, etc. Set them free in their natural habitat. Also goes for exotic animals.
    • Then, only animals without a natural environment can be adopted (e.g. dogs & cats), their species are so domesticated that they don't have a natural habitat any more. And their adoption should be only if you can provide a happy life for them. Also, have some common sense like not keeping a siberian husky in the tropic, respect what nature they have left.


    About the off topics of this thread...

    Human beings have a metabolism that can work with or without meat so we can choose, but making a dog or cat vegetarian is completely out of question :(

    About Zoos, I have to answer to this:

    Rhyme79 said:
    ; is it OK to allow a few individual animals to live in captivity if it will benefit the entire species? I think that yes, morally it is important to protect the whole.


    If you have to be in jail for all your live watching kids shouting at you for no reason just to save your species, would you do it? I wouldn't.

    The good work of the zoos is very well done by natural reserves and their animal care centers. The problem is that a natural reserve is too big and we want to build and exploit every centimeter of this planet. In the zoos animals don't have enough space for anything: if the cage is too big the kid can't see the lion close enough. That's how they work, and of course not all the zoos provide that service of protecting species, they also capture wild animals separating them from their families to put them in the zoo.

    Sorry for the long post (it's my first post here:) but I have strong feeling in this field.

    Julia

    Julia
    • dth3tr sa...
    • Användare
    • 12 mar 2012, 22:08
    juliacsd said: Human beings have a metabolism that can work with or without meat so we can choose, but making a dog or cat vegetarian is completely out of question :(

    Wrong. It's not recommended for cats, but dogs take swimmingly to a vegetarian/vegan diet.

    • juliacsd sa...
    • Användare
    • 13 mar 2012, 06:54
    Well, I don't have pets but if I decided to adopt I would need more than that to put a dog under veg*an diet :)

    Julia
    • dth3tr sa...
    • Användare
    • 13 mar 2012, 15:57
    Do they not have Google in Finland?

    • Rhyme79 sa...
    • Användare
    • 13 mar 2012, 16:50
    juliacsd said:
    • Don't keep fishes. They need more space than the biggest aquarium you can get (find a safe place and set them free)
    • Actually, any animal that you have to keep "jailed", small rodents, birds, reptiles, etc. Set them free in their natural habitat. Also goes for exotic animals.

    Err, setting animals free is not a good idea for several reasons. Firstly, releasing an animal bred in capitivity with no idea of how to survive for itself is basically just killing them. Secondly, releasing animals into the eco system that wouldn't otherwise be there regardless of whether it is 'their natural habitat' can cause real problems for the natural balance that maintains that ecosystem and every lifeform within it. You just need to look at Australia to see what can happen when people, entirely out of ignorance, do things like this.
    I'm sure there are a load more reasons why telling people to set their animals free is really stupid advice, but I'm not an expert on either ecology or bio-diversity or animal welfare etc etc..

    juliacsd said:
    About Zoos, I have to answer to this:

    Rhyme79 said:
    is it OK to allow a few individual animals to live in captivity if it will benefit the entire species? I think that yes, morally it is important to protect the whole.

    juliacsd said:
    If you have to be in jail for all your live watching kids shouting at you for no reason just to save your species, would you do it? I wouldn't.

    Really?? You wouldn't sacrifice yourself, numbering just one to be 'shouted at by kids', in order to save the entire human race numbering just over 7 billion? That's pretty selfish!

    "Without The Ancient (Dis)Order of the Last.FM Platinum Round Table, the Beatles never would have made it." - Sir James Paul McCartney.
    • juliacsd sa...
    • Användare
    • 13 mar 2012, 19:29
    Rhyme79 said:
    juliacsd said:
    • Don't keep fishes. They need more space than the biggest aquarium you can get (find a safe place and set them free)
    • Actually, any animal that you have to keep "jailed", small rodents, birds, reptiles, etc. Set them free in their natural habitat. Also goes for exotic animals.

    Err, setting animals free is not a good idea for several reasons. Firstly, releasing an animal bred in capitivity with no idea of how to survive for itself is basically just killing them. Secondly, releasing animals into the eco system that wouldn't otherwise be there regardless of whether it is 'their natural habitat' can cause real problems for the natural balance that maintains that ecosystem and every lifeform within it. You just need to look at Australia to see what can happen when people, entirely out of ignorance, do things like this.
    I'm sure there are a load more reasons why telling people to set their animals free is really stupid advice, but I'm not an expert on either ecology or bio-diversity or animal welfare etc etc..


    Of course, I couldn't agree more, there are centers to reintroduce animals or, if that is not possible (for the reasons you mentioned), then we'll have to provide an artificial environment bigger than the typical home aquarium (I know a couple of these where they take care of species that cannot be released here).

    Rhyme79 said:
    juliacsd said:
    About Zoos, I have to answer to this:

    Rhyme79 said:
    is it OK to allow a few individual animals to live in captivity if it will benefit the entire species? I think that yes, morally it is important to protect the whole.

    juliacsd said:
    If you have to be in jail for all your live watching kids shouting at you for no reason just to save your species, would you do it? I wouldn't.

    Really?? You wouldn't sacrifice yourself, numbering just one to be 'shouted at by kids', in order to save the entire human race numbering just over 7 billion? That's pretty selfish!


    Yes, I consider myself selfish. Evolutionarily speaking, the individual that sacrificed itself for the group sure didn't have more offspring because of that, so selfishness is just a genetically inherited trait. But, we can reason to make this kind of decisions, and I wouldn't spend my whole life in a cage to save the human race... Why sacrifice your life (and we only live once) to save something that will destroy itself? Enjoy your life, try not to help this self-destruction, do your part as citizen to improve the situation but overall be happy... And don't confine yourself in a cage, at least not for me :)

    dth3tr said:
    Do they not have Google in Finland?


    Good point but I'm too lazy to check ;) if I adopt a pet I'll see if this diet would be healthy, I promise ^^

    Julia
    • Arake sa...
    • Användare
    • 19 mar 2012, 03:15
    I'm with Julia on this. Its hard to weigh a life against two or more lives.

    Would you be okay knowing you are free because someone had to die? or had to be held captive? I certainly wouldn't...

    and anyway, It's different from human sacrifice. I could take a bullet for my mom! but that's my choice. These animals doesn't really have a choice... we are choosing for them...


    about the cat/dog thing, if I remember it right (I graduated in biology in 2009), a dog can live without meat, just like us, and cats can't. something about the way our intestines are made, i'd have to check on my physiology books... i'm sure google has it easier! :)

    • Arake sa...
    • Användare
    • 19 mar 2012, 03:22
    Rhyme79 disse:

    Veganism is a choice, unless you have a talking pet, they can't tell you that they want to be vegan. Who can say that they have the right to make that decision for an animal?




    actually, he will let you know.
    If you really love your pet, you'll know whether you are putting him through something bad for him or not... its not just because an animal can't talk that he can't communicate with you

    • Rhyme79 sa...
    • Användare
    • 19 mar 2012, 14:28
    Arake said:
    Rhyme79 disse:

    Veganism is a choice, unless you have a talking pet, they can't tell you that they want to be vegan. Who can say that they have the right to make that decision for an animal?


    actually, he will let you know.
    If you really love your pet, you'll know whether you are putting him through something bad for him or not... its not just because an animal can't talk that he can't communicate with you

    Yes, that's true. When you get to know an animal they sure do let you know when they want something, but sometimes it's not always obvious what it is!


    juliacsd said: ...Evolutionarily speaking, the individual that sacrificed itself for the group sure didn't have more offspring because of that, so selfishness is just a genetically inherited trait...

    I don't think that selfishness, if it is seen as a genetic trait is such a good thing for the human race, as it perpetuates a self- centric view rather than a humanistic and altruistic one. Perhaps it is this selfishness trait that is leading to the destruction of the human race you mentioned juliacsd? As people are becoming more concerned with their own life and ignoring their community which, in my view, is leading to a break down in society, (well at least in the UK) . Just because a trait enables survival for an individual, doesn't mean it's a good thing for the species.

    OK, what does this have to do with bees again? O.o I think we've gone off on a bit of a tangent!

    "Without The Ancient (Dis)Order of the Last.FM Platinum Round Table, the Beatles never would have made it." - Sir James Paul McCartney.
    • juliacsd sa...
    • Användare
    • 19 mar 2012, 16:44
    Rhyme79 said:
    [...]. Perhaps it is this selfishness trait that is leading to the destruction of the human race you mentioned juliacsd? As people are becoming more concerned with their own life and ignoring their community which, in my view, is leading to a break down in society, (well at least in the UK) . Just because a trait enables survival for an individual, doesn't mean it's a good thing for the species.

    I don't know if being selfish is good or bad... It's difficult to reduce everything to good or bad and white and black. Of course, we can reason "against" our instincts, that's up to each individual. As I said, enjoy your life, try not to help this self-destruction, do your part as citizen to improve the situation but overall be happy, and I do it selfishly :P If everyone did just a little bit to improve the situation then I won't have to worry about the future too much, so I do my part ^_^ (but I do it for me... ok, maybe for my family and friends too).

    The only problem I see is that many people don't have enough information (education/logical thinking/call it what you want) to make the right decision for themselves. If they saw that what they are doing will harm them eventually they'd stop, I would.

    Rhyme79 said:
    OK, what does this have to do with bees again? O.o I think we've gone off on a bit of a tangent!

    True! :)

    Julia
    • Rhyme79 sa...
    • Användare
    • 19 mar 2012, 18:57
    juliacsd said:
    The only problem I see is that many people don't have enough information (education/logical thinking/call it what you want) to make the right decision for themselves. If they saw that what they are doing will harm them eventually they'd stop, I would.

    I don't agree. For some, especially in developing countries certain practices harmful to the planet may occur as a result of ignorance or just purely in an effort to survive. But otherwise, I think people are just too selfish and/or lazy to change.
    Most people know damn well that car emissions affect air quality etc and that recycling household waste is a good thing to do, but do they always do it? No not always. Why not? Because they either don't give a shit and/or they they can't be arsed. They're just selfish and lazy.
    People know about the mess our planet is in, it's all over the headlines, popular media of all kinds, academia etc. It can't be ignorance within the developed world, either about the causes, reasons or importance of it. People are just selfish and/or lazy, now whether that is human nature, and caused by genetic traits, or just human habit and established behaviour, well I have my opinion on that, as I'm sure you do too.
    Unless anyone can think of another reason?

    "Without The Ancient (Dis)Order of the Last.FM Platinum Round Table, the Beatles never would have made it." - Sir James Paul McCartney.
    • dth3tr sa...
    • Användare
    • 19 mar 2012, 22:49
    Don't discount the fact that many people are stupid or at the very least ignorant. Denying climate change is the nouveau denial of evolution for simpletons and crackpots who insist on forcing all new acquired information through a filter of politicization.

    At least denying evolution harms little else than one's own credibility. Denying man's role in climate change while seemingly intentionally ramping up the waste as some kind of sick passive-aggressive protest/jingoistic ode to "the way things used to be"...well that hurts us all.

    As far as staying on topic goes, maybe we should make another thread. Though dead bees are one of many byproducts of a deteriorating ecosystem so perhaps it ties in.

Anonyma användare kan inte skriva inlägg. Vänligen logga in eller skapa ett konto för att göra inlägg i forumen.