Subscribe: Comments on: Feeding the Hungry Without Hurting Animals
http://prime.peta.org/?p=958&feed=rss2
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
animal  animals  countries  don  earth  eat  flesh  friends  heifer  human  humans  meat  milk  people  plants  protein  sustainable  world 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Feeding the Hungry Without Hurting Animals

Comments on:



make a big difference for yourself, animals, and the Earth through simple day-to-day choices.



Last Build Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 20:40:20 +0000

 



By: Pam Woodson

Sun, 29 Dec 2013 04:48:06 +0000

I had heard of Heifer International before but this weekend, watching the "Breaking Bad" marathon, I was BOMBARDED by ads for them (Susan Sarandon). Sorry, they just don't seem right to me. I HATE the thought of animals being delivered to people who are incapable of caring for themselves let alone livestock! Does this REALLY solve problems? I just feel that it's introducing 1st world problems to 3rd world people. Susan, makes it sound like the kids will get milk because of these poor creatures. REALLY? If they're ALL that hungry then how long is the supplier of the milk going to last? How do you feed and take care of them without feed or water? Can we trust the parents to keep the animal alive to supply the milk? The parents are probably just as hungry as the kids so are they going to be satisfied with "just" milk? This whole concept sounds NUTS and inhumane! Do they follow up on these animals? Look, maybe YEARS ago people didn't "get" the idea of birth control but we do now! IF YOU CANNOT TAKE CARE OF AND FEED A CHILD THEN DON'T HAVE THEM! It's that simple! It becomes natural selection! BTW, I think that this is the correct attitude even in 1st world countries (or parts of those countries). Signing a death sentence, for other animals, is NOT the way to go! There HAS to be a better way! Now, I do agree with someone who posted that nature is harsh (or something to that affect). Yes, it is. I wouldn't fault someone who REALLY needed to eat or feed a family and actually NEEDED to go out hunting.(BTW, these animals for "Heifer International" are just "lambs to the slaughter"). These days, in the U.S. most people do not NEED to go hunting. Hunting is a sport! I cannot even begin to understand how ANYONE can actually enjoy killing another living creature! I don't get it! I catch spiders in glasses an move them outside! How the hell does ANYONE get pleasure out of KILLING any animal? I've heard the argument of "Well, I eat everything that I kill". That's nuts! If you didn't NEED to kill something then why would you choose to do it? Go to the grocery store and buy it! Why on earth would anyone go out and kill an animal if they didn't REALLY NEED to? If I was on a desert island and the ONLY way that I could survive was killing other animal THEN, MAYBE i could. Probably not! That bad of a situation I'm probably dead anyway. IF I did, then, I certainly wouldn't ENJOY it! It would be sport and it wouldn't be fun!



By: scoo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:51:36 +0000

DO NOT GIVE TO HEIFER. I worked there as a temp for their donations drive and was SHOCKED to find out they actually send animals for slaughter - like GUINEA PIGS. Who the hell needs to eat a guinea pig? They let me go after 2 days because they said they get a lot of angry PETA calls, and I told them I support PETA. I was really torn because I needed the money but I felt sick about what they did. Now I'm broke and still upset about being broke but I felt like I couldn't support them. Personally I think they are a SCAM.



By: Frank Cullen

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 21:01:16 +0000

The great majority of folks who responded to my post answered eloquently and knowledgable the few who protested. I offer four responses: (1) I did not characterize any rancher, farmer or flesh eater as cruel or bad. The evidence for that resides in all the messages above. If people made the assumption that I consider them "bad" or "cruel", that is more a matter of their own inner conflict than any judgement by me. More than half of my good friends eat some flesh, although only a few still eat mammals (cattle, lambs, pigs). These friends are no less good than my vegan friends (and I admire and love all my friends). For some reason or another, they "just don't get it." I'm sure that regarding some other issues they are vital to some of my flesh-eating friends, they remain mystified why " don't get it." (2) People who claim, because there is predation within nature, that it is our nature and/or birthright to resort to red-of-tooth-and-claw behavior ignore the rational for presumed human superiority is that humans are endowed with reason, compassion and a soul. If that is so, we shouldn't mimic the behavior of non-human animals or our prehistoric ancestors. And we should extend our compassion to every form oflife that shows us they feel fear and pain. (3) We are far more suited to eat what herbiverous animals because of our 32 teeth, we have 12 molars and 8 pre-molars for grinding grains, fruiits and vegetables. Incisors count for 8 more teeth and are used to bite into fruits and vegetables; if they were intended to cut into flesh they would be sharper. Only 4 of our teeth are canines, and these are vestigial remnants of those our ancestors used to tear at flesh. Ours are neither sdharp no long enough to spear prey. Claims that animal flesh and milk are necessary for protein are wrong. There are plenty of sources of good-quality protein including soy products, Indeed, there is more protein in nut/legume products, ounce for ounce, than in animal flesh. (4) I enjoy the company of humans far more than the company of animals. I enjoy seeing the deer, rabbit and birds around my mountain home, but I do not presume to "make them friends." I do, however, respect their right to live as god or nature intended them and that they feel pain, joy, fear and take responsiblity for their young and defend their families. I understand that they enjoy many things that I do not, and I wouldn't invite one of the critters I share this land with to come indoors to watch Netflix with me. Nor are all my issues theirs as not all theirs are mine, but they don't injure or insult me, so I shan't injure or disrespect them. I don't fault them for any lack of human skills because they have skills and some levels of understanding more acute than I. It is useful, when humans get puffed up about their species, to remember that this planet Earth can well get along without us but it would cease to exist without bees or ants.



By: Sue b

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:58:49 +0000

Human animals are omnivorous, that is how we developed over eons. It is "natural" for us to eat both meat and plants. Our species would not exist without eating meat. If you people are so against the human species eating meat, is it ok for wild animals (wolves, lions, etc) to eat meat? Have you ever seen a wolf pack take down a deer? Nature is not kind!! So what do you propose to do about cats and dogs that cannot live a healthy life without eatign meat? Oh, that right, you folks thing all cats and dogs should be euthanized rather than live a life of slavery. I have worked in animal rescue/welfare for over 40 years. What we need to fight is animal cruelty, not animal "ownership". Not all farmers are cruel, not all pet owners are irresponsible. Don't brand those compasionate people with the bad ones.



By: Doug

Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:39:44 +0000

Everyone, Vegetarianism is only sustainable for wealthy countries with access to large markets and some very well cultivated land. These people in these poverty stricken areas often have very little if any education and many of the animals that Heifer uses, eat a variety of different grasses and so forth that grow easily and are acclimatized to the area. A person can work very hard on a small field of edible plants only to have a blight destroy them or birds or other animals destroy and ruin them. The animals today used in most of their projects are purchased locally (to the region) because they are acclimatized already to the area and in that way remain far healthier. Not every region can consistently or easily grow plants that will provide adequate nutrition to sustain human life. Goats can be fed by and large on plants that grow like weeds and are found easily. Plants capable of sustaining and increasing a person’s quality of life to the extent of which a goat that produces milk can require far more effort and is a far greater risk. These people who are generally in the bottom fifty percent of those below the poverty line make less than nine hundred dollars a YEAR. Be grateful you are sitting at your computer drinking your fruit smoothie instead of being as impoverished as these individuals. In many areas of the world the types of plants that would provide the necessary nutrients in order to sustain a human being just aren’t feasible. I do think that some of what is going on in research, such as the new rice that is flood tolerant is a step towards better farming and sustainable crops though. Without the necessary protein and nutrients a person won’t develop properly and be all that they might otherwise be capable of being. It is easy for people with so much at their fingertips to preach that using animals is wrong, try being in their position and then preach it. You can preach it all you like to people who have other sustainable and viable options but give it some though before saying it to someone without other sustainable means.



By: Kelsey

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:44:55 +0000

John, Like all other mammals, they would get milk from their mothers rather than from another species. For a list including some of the many sources that you can get protein from, please go here: http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=105.



By: John

Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:18:42 +0000

Ambika, But they also use these animals for milk. Where else would they acquire that? Also, What should they do for protein? I just do not believe every climateon Earth, when isolated, provides the adequate nutrients from for it's inhabitants without the use of animals in some way. Besides, Heifer International is a very large organization. How many people, that they are helping feed, would just be left to themselves to suffer in poverty and hunger? Can VegFam really cover all the ground that Heifer does? When it comes down to it, this is about the survival people living in extraordinarily harsh conditions.



By: ambika shukla

Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:30:44 +0000

John, The animals these people eat -- water buffalo and oxen- are vegetarian. So if the soil can produce food for them --10times more than is needed for humans -- it can certainly support a human vegetarian diet. There is no place on earth that humans cannot be vegetarian . It is our natural state of being.



By: John

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:03:17 +0000

Frank, Do you really believe a vegetarian diet is sustainable world-wide? Have you seen the abject poverty that people live in within these developing countries? A vegetarian diet is a privilege. Those of us in American and other such countries can and should be vegetarians, but a small village in the cold, mountainous regions of Tibet can't sustain all the plants they need to live and thus RELY on a sustainable use of water buffalo or oxen. To want to stop these people from using animals at all is not only immoral, but ultimately deadly for such people.



By: Christy

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:21:38 +0000

I wish all the kids in schools had to read the things that Frank writes here. Then maybe they could educate their parents. You're one smart and informative man!!!! thanks!