Europe Is Not Saving Its Bacon
show comments
  • vanderleun

    Might be time to think more about citizens but, as we learn in the sacred book of Animal Farm, in Europe some pigs are more equal than others.

  • Jim.

    Animal welfare activism is inconsistent with human welfare. Repealing PETA-endorsed regulation is one of the clearest and easiest ways to ease undue pressure on business and improve not only the overall economy but also real human standards of living.

  • Ah, but although all pigs are created equal – not counting any humans – some are more equal than others, even as the leaders of the humans see it.

  • Pedro Marquez

    Good. The British are fat and getting fatter and that means the NHS will need more and more funds.

    Your consistent disregard for animal welfare is disconcerting, Prof Mead. There’s no justification for inhumane sow stalls.

  • “Animal welfare activism is inconsistent with human welfare. Repealing PETA-endorsed regulation is one of the clearest and easiest ways to ease undue pressure on business and improve not only the overall economy but also real human standards of living.”

    Please don’t confuse Animal Welfare with Animal Rights.

    While there is some overlap (both AR and AW would condemn cock fighting and torching kittens), the Animal Rights group believes that the moral value of a human and non-human life are equal. (If it is immoral to do something to a human, it is no less immoral to do it to an animal; that to discriminate on the basis of species differences is no less immoral than to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, age, etc. So you don’t eat animals, keep them as pets, etc. [yet they still champion spaying and neutering . . . AR is incoherent to those who really pay attention].)

    AW people believe no such thing . . . and are open to eating animals, hunting, pet-owning, animal husbandry, using animals in research, zoos and circuses, etc.

    While AR expresses itself in many ways, stealth is one of its most effective strategies. AR people try to hide behind AW, pretending they’re only interested in AW, and in this guise try to further their agenda through incremental changes, changes which individually seem innocuous. (WRT research, who could oppose requiring that scientists house their rats in larger cages? [Answer: 20 million cages times what, $30 each?])

    I suspect this pig action is one such insidious move.

  • Ben Palmer

    I read your daily and I can say that I have learned a lot from it.

    But, for the first time in a very long time I don’t like your post.

    Production will fall by 5-10%? That’s a problem? Rising feed costs due to drought is a only short term difficulty for farmers.

    Walter, is there no other food that people can eat? Try a vegetable!

    Your logic is warped in this case. Basically you saying that it is good to let animals suffer in order for us to have a cheaper breakfast. Again, you imply that there are no substitutes for pork products.

    Also. please cut the nonsense about the poor consumer struggling with high food prices. How many of those same consumers have plenty of money to buy alcohol, cigarettes and lottery tickets.

  • vanderleun

    ” There’s no justification for inhumane sow stalls.”

    Said like a man, Pedro, who has never missed a meal. If you had and missed enough your “caring” would be long gone.

  • Jacksonian Libertarian

    OMG! This could be the end of civilization! The BACON must Flow! The fact is clear, “Bacon is Meat Candy” and “Everything is Better with Bacon” both illustrate the fact that life just isn’t worth living without Bacon.

  • Kris

    So first them Zionists insist on being allowed to mutilate children, and now…

    [/hum]

    [email protected]: “yet they still champion spaying and neutering . . . AR is incoherent to those who really pay attention”

    I wonder whether this position is one on which they actually discriminate on the basis of species.

  • Kris August 15, 2012 at 12:22 am
    [email protected]: “yet they still champion spaying and neutering . . . AR is incoherent to those who really pay attention”

    “I wonder whether this position is one on which they actually discriminate on the basis of species.”

    Are they guilty of “species-ism” (their word, meaning to discriminate on the basis of species differences)? Not necessarily . . .

    It’s true that PeTA (for example) strongly advocates spaying and neutering dogs and cats on the grounds that there is an overpopulation problem. But it is not “species-ism” if they would advocate spaying and neutering humans for the same reasons. And how chilling is that?

    I like to say, using loaded words worthy of the AR movement itself: “PeTA would force unwilling non-human persons (yes, that’s what some AR zealots call animals) to undergo a surgical procedure to mutilate their organs of reproduction, thus exposing them to the risks of forced surgery, condemning them to docility and passivity, violating their reproductive rights and denying them the pleasures of the sexual experience and the pleasures of rearing their offspring. Would PeTA advocate the same treatment of people for the same reasons?”

    How ’bout them apples?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.