Goose Down, Humane?

[Ryan Linn]

"Biting, aggressive, squawking, pooping machines is what they are!"

That perfectly describes some people I know :-D

[Dewey Riesterer]

I would point out two issues here. The first is that some of us live where the use of cold weather clothing is NOT a mere choice as may be the case in some places. So, we have to use what works. Others, I am among these, worked where protective clothing was all you had between your tender hide and rapid death by freezing…not fun!

The Hindu and Buddhist tradtions are fine, it rather reminds me of the former Police Chief in Saignon blowing that guy's cerebral contents all over the street with a S&W Chief's Special during the Vietnam fracas….he said, "Buddha will understand"…… In short, the MOST severely polluted and destructively-impacted by human activity regions on Earth ARE these very Hindu and Buddhist areas………..

No offence intended here to anyone, but, I am not a big fan of the supposedly "superior" and "Earth friendly" Asian philosophies, as I do not see them being so, in terms of actual ecosystem impacts.

[EndoftheTrail]

nm

[Lynn Tramper]

Problems in Asia and the rest of the world have nothing to do with religious philosophies. Over-population is the problem.

Aside from that, as an (ex) vegan for 20 years, I have thought about tis many times. It is a bad presumption to assume that geese and ducks raised either for food or down are necessarily humanely treated, and I can assure you the majority are not. At least by my standards. Eider down is probably the most humane, but Buddhist principles, at least some major branches, believe that animals should not be exploited at all…ever…for any reason. Others such as the Tibetans take a more practical approach-they would starve to death if all they had was horticultural food sources.

So there is no one answer to the question except to find a level of animal exploitation that you are comfortable with, whether that's not at all, or down only, or down and leather, or let's have the meat lover's pizza tonight ;)

[Dave T]

.

[Ryan Linn]

"too bad you NMed it, since i would have loved to see what your response to that specious nonsense was."

Nah. Internet arguments rarely go anyplace good for either side. They tend to just lead to higher blood pressure for everyone involved, almost never change anyone's opinions, and just make everyone seem like the "squawking, biting, pooping machines" mentioned above. I applaud your restraint, Ben.

[Dave T]

.

[cary bertoncini]

The practitioners of the conscientious, philosophical Hiduism and Buddhism that are analagous to practioners of veganism in the "West" are a minority of the population. Asia is a vast and extremely heterogenous region. Even within a single country, the practice of Hinduism or Buddhism has many different approaches,variants, sects. But those who practice the forms respectful of all animal life are indeed practicing a high ethic with regards to animal life and impacts.

It is just as possible anywhere in Asia to be indifferent and callous towards life as it is here; all humans have the power to choose to varying degrees. Some choices are limited regionally or economically, but there are still choices. Most of the Hindu and Buddhist "vegans" are not wealthy and do not live where it is particularly convenient to live as they do, but they make that choice still.

I do consider the Hindu-Buddhist genre of philosophies/religions inherently more ethical with regards to all animals than the judeo-christian-islamic genre because the former is at least inherently suggestive of compassion for all animals, whereas the latter is not. A practitioner of the former or latter may choose to practice compassion for all animals or may not, but in the case of the former, there is a significant scriptural/thematic basis within the philosophy/religion, whereas in the case of the latter, there is not.

[EndoftheTrail]

And all this verbiage has to do with the G Spot how?

C'mon Roger, throw the switch! :)

[Dewey Riesterer]

How quick some are to see what is not there…..

Perhaps, we might consider the substantial effect of religious philosophies/practices ON what is termed, in WESTERN cultures, "over-population"? This reminds me of Dr. Paul Ehrlich's credo in "The Population Bomb" and his subsequent works, which were mandatory reading in my Ecology 30? course some 40 years ago.

By WESTERN standards, such as we usually employ in social commentary here in North America and in "the Antipodes", nations such as China and India ARE "over-populated" and these are the major Hindu and Buddhist societies, although not exclusively so, that is my point.

There is a certain "whiff" of fascism about "environmentalism", most especially that sort which attempts to supercede national self-determination in respect of resource development, allocation and even cultural practices. This has also been the case with religious philosophies, as in the Hispanic-Roman Catholic treatment of the South American peoples.

The POINT of all of this, is that NO specific belief system has yet found a "perfect" method of dealing with the simple biological facts of human existence. In Canada's Arctic regions, one either kills animals to eat and thus survive AND wears the skins they provide, OR, one has a HUGE "carbon footprint" due to having synthetic clothing and commercial foods flown in. Sooo, my quandary here is simply, what is BEST and should I or anyone attempt to decide for any other person, especially when I do not live where they do or as they do??????

This is a very serious concern here in Canada, especially here on the BC Coast, where major, international "environmentalist" groups have and are grossly interfering with our sovereign right to manage our wildlife, fisheries and various other resources, as we see fit.

Longterm, personal involvement in "environmentalism", government resource management agencies and private consulting firms plus an educational background that started in private, religious school, has made me VERY skeptical and inclined to question ANY philosophy that purports to be "superior" in respect of treatment of the Biosphere….including secular science and "environmentalism".

[Luke Schmidt]

Interesting how questions about humane treatment of animals come back to philosophy. I guess that makes sense because its basically a moral question and to answer that you have to define humanity's place in the world.
Regarding philosophies I would not consider the Judeo/Christian or Islamics philosophies to be less humane than Eastern ones. Again there is a lot of diversity here but I believe all three faiths have statements about treating animals appropriately, feeding them adequately etc. although that doesn't mean its always been practiced.

[cary bertoncini]

The basis of the difference between genres is that the J-C-I genre positions humans as the caretakers of the animals, who are seen as separate and distinctly subordinate species: only humans have a soul or an afterlife. The H-B genre, on the other hand, sets all animals in a continuum of common "souls," one soul can be a mosquito, a panda bear and the captain of the football team in various incarnations, so the basis for compassion towards other animals is more grounded in the philosophy. So, we should be nice to that grizzly bear, it might be one of our mothers in law ;)

[Dewey Riesterer]

Cary, I take your point and I genuinely respect you and your opinions, I would not comment if that were not the case. But, I agree with Luke and my long-ago religious instruction STRONGLY advocated humane treatment of animals.

I am not as familiar with Hindu and Buddhist concepts as you are; I read Confucius long ago and a little bit of other Asian philosophy, so, am just going with what I see. My closest friend is an Asian guy who is a well-travelled professional in geology and minerals and he has told me a lot about the nations he visits, so, I do get current info. to some extent.

Two of my nephews are in Australia, one a Phd.-biolgist who did his post-grad. degrees there and another a specialized tradesman, who also may immigrate there. These guys send me e-mails about "Oz" and so I gbet some serious info. on that interesting place, as well.

My major concern here is that all too many people try to tell others how to adapt to the environment in places they do not know and have never lived. An old friend of mine, a Sikh professor and Oxford grad,, used to come into my bookstore and bemoan the "empty, quiet streets" of my small, mountain hometown on a Sunday. He just could NOT understand WHY we liked it that way and I could NEVER live comfortably in HIS home region, with it's dense human population……..

Is the use of goosedown "humane", yes, I think it is.

[EndoftheTrail]

Cary:

As a practicing Christian — I would bring the argument farther. We J-C-I's are custodians of this good Earth. The animals — at least some of them — are given to us by God as food and tools (pets, beasts of burden, mine alarm, etc.). The H-B's are as you say. In theory, animals would want to stay in H-B territory.

But that's only the theory — and what matters is practice. Most all societies are populated with a minority of serious believers and a big majority of cultural (casual) believers. We are all human beings with some degrees of compassion. Thus, most Christians aren't purposely abusive to animals. And many Buddhists don't feel too sorry working "their" water buffaloes in the rice paddies.

Most all of us — directly or indirectly — take semi-care of our animals and semi-abuse them at the same time as well.

[cary bertoncini]

I use goose down, but I don't consider it compassionate. Similarly, I don't consider my fishing to be ethically supportable. But I think it averages out. Down and fishing are choices I make among many, and I think that – on average – my choices balance out to being rather compassionate on the whole. So a continuum, a line diagram for those mathematically inclined, each choice sliding the marker in one direction or the other, but the marker indicating our relative aggregate point over time.

I don't have to fish. I don't have to have a sleeping bag. But life, to me, is not a matter of narrowly considering each individual choice on an absolute value. Life is (at least) three dimensional, and everything melds together into a larger composite. The fishing and backpacking engage me with places and animals and the earth in a way that I wouldn't otherwise. They are also connections to my childhood and especially with my father. So the products used in conjunction are part of a much larger whole. If I did not fish or hike, I would not be as engaged in ecological issues. The line diagram overall is improved by the domino effects of my otherwise unethical behaviors.

An intellectual aside: it is interesting, I think, that we use the word "humane" when speaking of other animals (and the inclusion of other animals in its meaning is a long institutionalized usage that is now standard), when the word originally refers to human animals.

[Dave T]

.

[EndoftheTrail]

DaveT:

Your definition of religion is just one of many.

But I would agree that I've got a good deal here — two in fact! My Catholic religion lets me eat everything — the only dietary restriction is to fast 2 days out of a whole year and no meats on maybe 3 or 4 Fridays (again in one whole year).

And being Chinese, heck, we eat EVERYTHING on the land, in the sea and up in the sky — except trains, ships and airplanes. We don't eat those.

[cary bertoncini]

I agree, Ben. I wasn't trying to condemn Christians or praise Buddhists or any other combination of condemnation or praise for any group of people.

I was merely pointing out that the texts and themes associated with the two philosophical genres are quite different in their view of humans and other animals. I tried to point out that the actual behaviors of people operating within the genres are similarly varied, but that the H-B genre makes it easier for a practitioner *operating within the genre* to behave more compassionately because of the inherently more compassionate view of all animals within the texts and themes.

So, yes, I agree that many Christians, etc. are very compassionate towards other animals, but the basis for this compassion is derived mostly outside the genre, just as plenty of Hindus or Buddhist might lack compassion even though their philosophy/religion provides cues for being compassionate.

I think at the human level it is always about choice.

[EndoftheTrail]

Cary — We are in agreement there.

Now where the heck are them moderators anyway? This thing should have been in Chaff from the get go…

[cary bertoncini]

Ben,

Don't be so Cartesian!

Virtually all of this discussion has, I think, been relevant to the original post, which was examining the ethics of goose down usage.

I like to think that an organically grown discussion is ideal, that we needn't always paint only by the numbers and within all the lines. If we are being respectful and thoughtful, we can have all learn a lot from each other in such cases.

I think it makes the virtual much more real.

[Dave T]

.

[Link .]

.

[Roger Caffin]

> we eat EVERYTHING on the land, in the sea and up in the sky — except trains, ships and airplanes.

As one cannibal said to another, they are like lobsters. The shells may be hard to open, but the insides are yummy.

Cheers

[EndoftheTrail]

Dave:

Interestingly…

If you look at ALL human societies through the ages — both the thousands today and all the ones going back to the Old Stone Age (and perhaps even beyond) — 100% of them have some sort of supernatural belief systems! Sure, there are atheists everywhere, but they are always a minority — never the dominant of any culture or society — time or place. There are very few "cultural" traits common to all humans everywhere — but having a belief system is one of them.

Now, if you look at the animal world — even chimps which ostensibly share 99.8% of our genes — not a one has any observable traits of supernatural belief / worship. Sure, our observations are limited — but we really have observed the beejeebies out of many, many different animals — and we don't find even the very slightest hint!

[Franco Darioli]

One of my best memories about animal welfare was in Bali seeing the farmers taking the ducks out to a new rice paddock in the morning and back in the evening. The ducks just follow a flag carried by the farmer. Otherwise they are on their own during the day happily eating grabs and grasses. Similarly chooks (hens and chickens…) run around and are not caged. It is an Hindu country.
Yet going around the countryside you see many caged cocks. Those are used for cock fights, a sight not for the faint hearted (and not my cup of tea….) Same people, same religion.
Franco

[Author]

Posts