Have you ever (or do you ever) boil your own live lobster?

[mamiof5]

Well you might not consider this more humane, but in culinary school we often stabbed them in their head with a knife before dropping them in. It's very quick.

 

I know, that sounds like a heck of a thing, but yep.

:( :( :( I guess I don't think much about how the animal died during dinner time. We don't eat lobster, but we do eat other stuff.

[hornblower]

:( :( :( I guess I don't think much about how the animal died during dinner time. We don't eat lobster, but we do eat other stuff.

 

& that's why I think  the 10 Billion Lives tour is such a good idea.  They'll pay you $1 to watch a 4 min film. 

 

This is what people look like while watching. (not graphic, totally safe link) 

 

You can watch the 4 min video online if you want to know. 

[KungFuPanda]

I realize this is probably not eaten everywhere, so..I don't know, maybe there is a comparable sea creature for our more exotically-located boardies.

 

Nothing hinges on this question, really, it's pure curiosity. Being in the mid-atlantic, my family steams a lot of crabs nearly every year (though I have not personally done this by myself). But I have never purchased a live lobster (also never caught one) and boiled it myself. Is this something you do, either yourself or your family? I'm curious about how difficult it is.

 

I haven't gone there myself.  I just did muscles for the first time this year, but they don't try to get away.

[kewb]

My family used to have clam bakes and lobster boils when I was a kid. I could never bring myself to eat the lobster once I understood it was boiled alive. Fortunately, I was not a huge lobster fan to begin with.

 

Eating meat/poultry/fish has always been something I struggle with from an ethical point of view. I minimize the amount we consume and source from ethical farms as much as our budget will allow.

[Melissa in New York]

FYI: I watched a Netflix episode of America's Test Kitchen on cooking lobsters. The suggestion was to place the lobster into the freezer for 30 minutes before the boiling water. No clattering of claws, I guess.

[Daria]

The hardest part is psyching yourself up to plop it into the pot. Head first is the recommendation. I seem to recall one recipe where I had to cut it in half longwise before baking it. That was hard and I'm not sure that I was ever successful? I've blocked it out.

Cut it in half while its alive?

[luuknam]

Nope, but it's not the cooking part that I dread. It's the part where you have to try to get the 'meat' or whatever it's called out of the shell (or w/e) after it's cooked. Throwing something into hot water doesn't seem that complicated to me.

[ktgrok]

FYI: I watched a Netflix episode of America's Test Kitchen on cooking lobsters. The suggestion was to place the lobster into the freezer for 30 minutes before the boiling water. No clattering of claws, I guess.

 

See, this out of all the suggestions seems the most humane. Hypothermia is supposed to be a pretty pleasant way to die. 

[MercyA]

See, this out of all the suggestions seems the most humane. Hypothermia is supposed to be a pretty pleasant way to die. 

 

That's what I did to ticks I found on my outdoor cat--I put them in the freezer. I still felt badly about it, but they had to go.

[MEmama]

That's what I did to ticks I found on my outdoor cat--I put them in the freezer. I still felt badly about it, but they had to go.

Sorry to tell you, but a freezer isn't likely to kill ticks. They survive--and thrive-- in extremely cold climates. Here it gets down to 20 below zero and still they survive just fine. I've seen photos in the paper of them wandering around on top of the snow in well below zero temps. It's both appalling and incredible how tough they are.

 

The best way to kill a tick is to separate its head from the body.

 

Huh. That's a diversion from lobsters! Ha ha.

Edited June 6, 2016 by MEmama

[MercyA]

Sorry to tell you, but a freezer isn't likely to kill ticks. They survive--and thrive-- in extremely cold climates. Here it gets down to 20 below freezing and still they survive just fine. I've seen photos in the paper of them wandering around on top of the snow in well below zero temps. It's both appalling and incredible how tough they are.

 

The best way to kill a tick is to separate its head from the body.

 

Huh. That's a diversion from lobsters! Ha ha.

 

Wow! Well, they were also sealed in ziplock bags. My hope is that they fell asleep (do ticks sleep?) and then suffocated.  :(

[Bluegoat]

Lobster is a big fishery here, so almost everyone has prepared and eaten them.  It isn't hard to do.

 

It also isn't hard to kill them just before you pop them in the water, which is really my preference. 

[Bluegoat]

Growing up my parents boiled them that way, but the steam escaping through their shells sounded like screaming. I later read that stabbing them between the eyes with a sharp knife was the best way. I tried. It didn't work out. I lacked the necessary strength, accuracy, and skill, and even when I thought I MUST have finally succeeded it kept thrashing!! 

 

Now I lack the desire to ever cook a lobster on my own.

 

Your knife might not have been sharp enough if you had issues getting it through the shell, but honestly almost all animals thrash around when they die, even after they are dead.  That isn't a reliable indicator that they are not, in fact, dead.

[Bluegoat]

I admire efforts to reduce suffering, but, apparently, according to the author I quoted above:

 

"Lobsters’ nervous systems operate off not one but several ganglia, a.k.a. nerve bundles, which are sort of wired in series and distributed all along the lobster’s underside, from stem to stern. And disabling only the frontal ganglion does not normally result in quick death or unconsciousness."

 

I think this is actually an issue for all creatures.  Human pain signals don't always have to go to the brain to be felt, and I think it is the same for other large mammals.  I suppose the question is though, is it pain if there is no brain to receive or process the pain?  Hard to say.  In any case, I don't think there are many ways of dying for any creature that aren't in the most immediate sense  going to be stressful/traumatic, whether it is in a hospital or being eaten, or as a result of disease.

[Bluegoat]

See, this out of all the suggestions seems the most humane. Hypothermia is supposed to be a pretty pleasant way to die. 

 

I've wondered about that method, but they must heat up in the pot, so do they stay sluggish?  And does it take them longer to cook?  It could work against killing them fairly quickly.

[MercyA]

In any case, I don't think there are many ways of dying for any creature that aren't in the most immediate sense  going to be stressful/traumatic, whether it is in a hospital or being eaten, or as a result of disease.

 

Sure, but from what I've read, it takes anywhere from 35 seconds to 3 minutes for a lobster being boiled alive to die. Surely there is a quicker and less painful way to kill them, if people feel they must eat them?

[Bluegoat]

Sure, but from what I've read, it takes anywhere from 35 seconds to 3 minutes for a lobster being boiled alive to die. Surely there is a quicker and less painful way to kill them, if people feel they must eat them?

 

I think this is actually a really much more complicated question than we usually have cause to think about.  How do we decide how dead is dead?  I don't know what they mean when they say that about a lobster, I cannot imagine anyone has measured the time it takes for all brain activity to stop.

 

My observation would be that apart from something like being catastrophically squashed to death like a bug under a shoe, 35 seconds to die is pretty standard no matter how you do it.  I can think of chickens I've decapitated, pets I've sat with while they died either from injection or just natural causes, people I have sat with while they died.  It takes at least that long even with lethal injection which seems the quickest and quietest, things don't all shut down at once. I remember sitting with my grandmother who was in a coma, relatively peaceful, it still took hours as her lungs filled up with fluid, but he other systems were also crashing during that time.  And even right at the end, he body still wanted to breath.  I don't think anyone knows how she perceived that, how it felt, in the state she was in.

 

 Even if you pulverize the brain, the nervous system is shooting signals around all over the place, there will be movement and thrashing, and the cells of the body take time to die, the organs take time to shut down. 

 

With lobsters, I prefer to kill them by destroying the brain first, but of course that sets off all kinds of movement just as it does in other animals.  I hop it makes things quicker, but I don't know, realistically it may just be comforting for me.  Losbster's perception of pain, it seems likely, in much the same way as Burn's mouse, so how much better or worse being killed a tiny bitt quicker is may be largely insignificant.

[SparklyUnicorn]

:( :( :( I guess I don't think much about how the animal died during dinner time. We don't eat lobster, but we do eat other stuff.

 

I think about this sometimes and am a little horrified.  I admit to not liking lobster because I don't want to see it alive shortly before eating it.  However, if I had to kill my own meat, I'm pretty sure I'd do it and get used to it.  I like meat...quite a lot.  I don't think I could live on piles of beans and other stuff I'm barely crazy about eating at all.  Not to mention I feel like crud if I don't get enough good protein.  I severely dislike the taste and texture of soy stuff.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think this is actually a really much more complicated question than we usually have cause to think about.  How do we decide how dead is dead?  I don't know what they mean when they say that about a lobster, I cannot imagine anyone has measured the time it takes for all brain activity to stop.

 

My observation would be that apart from something like being catastrophically squashed to death like a bug under a shoe, 35 seconds to die is pretty standard no matter how you do it.  I can think of chickens I've decapitated, pets I've sat with while they died either from injection or just natural causes, people I have sat with while they died.  It takes at least that long even with lethal injection which seems the quickest and quietest, things don't all shut down at once. I remember sitting with my grandmother who was in a coma, relatively peaceful, it still took hours as her lungs filled up with fluid, but he other systems were also crashing during that time.  And even right at the end, he body still wanted to breath.  I don't think anyone knows how she perceived that, how it felt, in the state she was in.

 

 Even if you pulverize the brain, the nervous system is shooting signals around all over the place, there will be movement and thrashing, and the cells of the body take time to die, the organs take time to shut down. 

 

With lobsters, I prefer to kill them by destroying the brain first, but of course that sets off all kinds of movement just as it does in other animals.  I hop it makes things quicker, but I don't know, realistically it may just be comforting for me.  Losbster's perception of pain, it seems likely, in much the same way as Burn's mouse, so how much better or worse being killed a tiny bitt quicker is may be largely insignificant.

 

I prefer to have the store steam/boil the lobster for me because I know they can keep the water very hot and boiling even after throwing the lobster in.  I would assume if it is boiling that lobster could not possibly live long.  But at home, I notice that the water stops boiling after and it's hard to keep the heat up that high.  So I often wonder if the death is slower.

[Katy]

Well a long time ago someone, possibly the relative that was dispatching the lobsters, told me that the reason they were sure stabbing them between the eyes was less cruel than dropping into boiling water was that lobsters who were killed first were more tender than those who were boiled alive. She said it was a release of stress hormones thing. Sort of like how meat tastes less gamey if you kill it properly, with one shot into the brain stem and no fear.

[Seasider]

So Quill, what was your point in asking this? Are you actually thinking of cooking lobster or did you want to just separate barbarians like me from the more sensitive among us?

 

Maybe we can add lobster to the list. You know, lobster, cupcakes, shopping carts, crock pots, shoeless homeschoolers...

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well a long time ago someone, possibly the relative that was dispatching the lobsters, told me that the reason they were sure stabbing them between the eyes was less cruel than dropping into boiling water was that lobsters who were killed first were more tender than those who were boiled alive. She said it was a release of stress hormones thing. Sort of like how meat tastes less gamey if you kill it properly, with one shot into the brain stem and no fear.

 

I do not believe that.

 

Not calling you a liar, but gee some people believe lobsters scream so....

 

I've had lobsters both ways and there was no way to tell the difference.

[SparklyUnicorn]

You can buy lobster tails.  These are different types of lobsters, but they are dead and easier to deal with.  You just get the tail.

 

 

 

 

[KungFuPanda]

Sorry to tell you, but a freezer isn't likely to kill ticks. They survive--and thrive-- in extremely cold climates. Here it gets down to 20 below zero and still they survive just fine. I've seen photos in the paper of them wandering around on top of the snow in well below zero temps. It's both appalling and incredible how tough they are.

 

The best way to kill a tick is to separate its head from the body.

 

Huh. That's a diversion from lobsters! Ha ha.

My mom always flushed them.

[MercyA]

I think this is actually a really much more complicated question than we usually have cause to think about.  How do we decide how dead is dead?  I don't know what they mean when they say that about a lobster, I cannot imagine anyone has measured the time it takes for all brain activity to stop.

 

While I understand what you're getting at, I don't think the basic fact of the matter really is that complicated: being boiled alive is a particularly unpleasant and probably torturous way for any creature to die. It happens to chickens quite a lot, too.

[MEmama]

My mom always flushed them.

Ha! I'd bet almost anything they survived the adventure. Tough as cockroaches the little beasts are.

[poppy]

Cut it in half while its alive?

 

You do it fast- basically slicing open the brain / nervous system in an instant to cause death.

I think any creature with nerve sensation would rather die very fast with a slice than be boiled alive.

[Guest]

So Quill, what was your point in asking this? Are you actually thinking of cooking lobster or did you want to just separate barbarians like me from the more sensitive among us?

 

Maybe we can add lobster to the list. You know, lobster, cupcakes, shopping carts, crock pots, shoeless homeschoolers...

Funny you ask. I was just now thinking of posting, saying, "Well this took a direction I never intended..." I have not had lobster in a long time, though I have crabs regularly all summer. I was actually just thinking, "I wonder if it is difficult to cook lobster. It's probably fairly similar to steaming crabs."

 

I was aware when I phrased the poll that some people either don't eat any animal products due to ethical issues, or that some people might have a philosophical objection to boiling alive. It didn't occur to me that this thread was going to be *about* that.

 

I am aware that some people are opposed to boiling alive, but I am not remotely vegan, so it would be quote hypocritical if I intimated having any objection to it. On Memorial weekend, I was complicit in the steaming death of 86 Maryland Blue Crabs and I still can sleep at night.

[Bluegoat]

While I understand what you're getting at, I don't think the basic fact of the matter really is that complicated: being boiled alive is a particularly unpleasant and probably torturous way for any creature to die. It happens to chickens quite a lot, too.

 

I'm not sure it is the same for any creature.  Size strikes me as a major factor as well as physiology.  Really, 30 seconds sounds like a quick death to me.  I don't know what accounts for the difference between the 30 second and three min numbers.

[The Girls' Mom]

Not lobster, but we caught blue crab while at a vacation home once and attempted to boil it.  Something went wrong and we had a disgusting experience...so I wouldn't likely do it again.

 

A funny story:  My mom HATED all things creepy crawly.  My dad somehow managed to snag some lobsters (he was in the Air Force, and there is no telling how he ended up with them).  He was going to surprise her, but stuck them in the crisper drawer of the fridge.  She later opened the fridge and saw what she said looked like huge spiders crawling in the drawer.  She screamed, and ran from the house, leaving the fridge standing open.  She wouldn't even go back into the house until my dad disposed of them.

[MercyA]

I'm not sure it is the same for any creature.  Size strikes me as a major factor as well as physiology.  Really, 30 seconds sounds like a quick death to me.  I don't know what accounts for the difference between the 30 second and three min numbers.

 

I think we should err on the side of causing the least amount of suffering, or better yet, just leave the little guys alone.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think we should err on the side of causing the least amount of suffering, or better yet, just leave the little guys alone.

 

Do our predators leave us alone?

[MercyA]

Do our predators leave us alone?

 

What does that have to do with whether or not we leave lobsters alone? Wild carnivores need to kill other animals to survive, but we have lots of other choices.

 

I'm just thinking out loud; I still eat some meat and wish I didn't. I guess I see lobster as kind of a luxury food (for most Americans, anyway) and therefore unnecessary to kill at all. 

Edited June 7, 2016 by MercyA

[MercyA]

Interesting article on pain perception in crustaceans.

[SparklyUnicorn]

What does that have to do with whether or not we leave lobsters alone? Wild carnivores need to kill other animals to survive, but we have lots of other choices.

 

I'm just thinking out loud; I still eat some meat and wish I didn't. I guess I see lobster as kind of a luxury food (for most Americans, anyway) and therefore unnecessary to kill. 

 

Sure we have choices, but if you read about lots of instances of people having health problems and difficulties getting certain nutrients, etc... it's not such a stretch to say it's natural and beneficial for us to eat meat and sea food.

 

Lobster isn't that expensive in my neck of the woods.  Even several cuts of beef are more expensive (even some that were for many years less expensive cuts).  Except for mega cheap frozen bags of stuff like Tilapia, fish is more expensive here. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I wasn't talking about wild carnivores either.  I was thinking more along the lines of predatory bacteria.  Their main goal is to kill us.  And they don't give a crap about doing it humanely. 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by SparklyUnicorn

[Guest]

Sure we have choices, but if you read about lots of instances of people having health problems and difficulties getting certain nutrients, etc... it's not such a stretch to say it's natural and beneficial for us to eat meat and sea food.

 

Lobster isn't that expensive in my neck of the woods. Even several cuts of beef are more expensive (even some that were for many years less expensive cuts). Except for mega cheap frozen bags of stuff like Tilapia, fish is more expensive here.

This is what it came to for me at one point. I was a vegetarian for a short while in my early twenties. I was looking into and considering veganism. This was what the evidence indicated to me: human beings are omnivores. If the only way to get adequate B12 is to take a supplement or eat eggs; if the only way to get complete amino acids is to combine specific veggies with scientific knowledge, it is reasonable to conclude that this is not a natural state of things. Human babies come ready to be nourished by mammalian milk - essentially, an animal product. Everything from our teeth to our digestive system indicates that humans are intended to eat both animal and vegetation.

 

So I do.

[MEmama]

What does that have to do with whether or not we leave lobsters alone? Wild carnivores need to kill other animals to survive, but we have lots of other choices.

 

I'm just thinking out loud; I still eat some meat and wish I didn't. I guess I see lobster as kind of a luxury food (for most Americans, anyway) and therefore unnecessary to kill at all.

Lobstering is a major industry in my area and far from a luxury food. If people stopped killing them, as you say, a primary source of income would disappear from my community and the state as a whole, not to mention the greater region on both sides of the international border. It isn't at all frivolous. Just sayin'.

[SparklyUnicorn]

This is what it came to for me at one point. I was a vegetarian for a short while in my early twenties. I was looking into and considering veganism. This was what the evidence indicated to me: human beings are omnivores. If the only way to get adequate B12 is to take a supplement or eat eggs; if the only way to get complete amino acids is to combine specific veggies with scientific knowledge, it is reasonable to conclude that this is not a natural state of things. Human babies come ready to be nourished by mammalian milk - essentially, an animal product. Everything from our teeth to our digestive system indicates that humans are intended to eat both animal and vegetation.

 

So I do.

 

We can live being tube fed with Ensure if need be.  So sure there are ways to survive.  But is it ideal?  I don't know.  It's fine for someone to choose to use alternatives. I'm not trying to talk people out of it.  There is no sugar coating the fact we are killing living creatures to eat them.  But it's not abnormal either. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Lobstering is a major industry in my area and far from a luxury food. If people stopped killing them, as you say, a primary source of income would disappear from my community and the state as a whole, not to mention the greater region on both sides of the international border. It isn't at all frivolous. Just sayin'.

 

Heck, it used to be prison food!

[Seasider]

Funny you ask. I was just now thinking of posting, saying, "Well this took a direction I never intended..." I have not had lobster in a long time, though I have crabs regularly all summer. I was actually just thinking, "I wonder if it is difficult to cook lobster. It's probably fairly similar to steaming crabs."

 

I was aware when I phrased the poll that some people either don't eat any animal products due to ethical issues, or that some people might have a philosophical objection to boiling alive. It didn't occur to me that this thread was going to be *about* that.

 

I am aware that some people are opposed to boiling alive, but I am not remotely vegan, so it would be quote hypocritical if I intimated having any objection to it. On Memorial weekend, I was complicit in the steaming death of 86 Maryland Blue Crabs and I still can sleep at night.

LOL! If I missed sleep over every crustacean, oyster or mussel I put on the table over the years, I'd have turned into a zombie years ago!

[MercyA]

Sure we have choices, but if you read about lots of instances of people having health problems and difficulties getting certain nutrients, etc... it's not such a stretch to say it's natural and beneficial for us to eat meat and sea food.

 

I would never argue that it goes against our nature to eat animals, or that animal products don't contain essential nutrients. The question is whether or not we can get those same nutrients from other sources, and whether or not we should. 

 

One of the reasons I'm tempted to continue eating meat is because I'm probably anemic (also, it tastes good). On the other hand, when I was an almost-vegan for several years, I was at an ideal weight. My endometriosis pain was *hugely* decreased. I had no kidney stones (very unusual for me). With the amount of whole grains, veggies, and fruits I was eating, I'm sure my diet was cancer preventative. So, if I took an iron supplement and went vegan again, would I actually be healthier? Quite possibly.

[MercyA]

I wasn't talking about wild carnivores either.  I was thinking more along the lines of predatory bacteria.  Their main goal is to kill us.  And they don't give a crap about doing it humanely. 

 

I hope that I am better able to reason, and better able to act for the greater good, than bacteria. :)  

[MercyA]

Lobstering is a major industry in my area and far from a luxury food. If people stopped killing them, as you say, a primary source of income would disappear from my community and the state as a whole, not to mention the greater region on both sides of the international border. It isn't at all frivolous. Just sayin'.

 

Lobster isn't that expensive in my neck of the woods.  Even several cuts of beef are more expensive (even some that were for many years less expensive cuts).  Except for mega cheap frozen bags of stuff like Tilapia, fish is more expensive here. 

 

 

I live in the land of cornfields and admit to knowing very little about the lobster industry. However, I don't think keeping people employed is always a good justification for continuing to do something, if there are ethical problems with the work itself. 

[MercyA]

I am aware that some people are opposed to boiling alive, but I am not remotely vegan, so it would be quite hypocritical if I intimated having any objection to it. On Memorial weekend, I was complicit in the steaming death of 86 Maryland Blue Crabs and I still can sleep at night.

 

See, I appreciate this thread, because this is something I've been thinking about a lot. I am a huge proponent of consistency. I'm a pro-lifer, and it makes me crazy when other people who also profess to be pro-life don't seem to care about things like, oh, "collateral damage" in warfare. It's not consistent.

 

I recognize that the way I talk about and treat animals is an area of inconsistency in my life. I would never go to Sea World. I don't buy leather purses. My antiperspirant is not tested on animals. I don't think lobsters should be boiled alive. But, I eat meat.

 

I do wonder, though, do I have to be perfectly consistent to want to prevent suffering and to speak against cruelty? Isn't it better to prevent some suffering than none? I feel like I shouldn't just throw up my hands and say, "Oh, well, I guess I'm a hypocrite, pass the burgers," YKWIM?

 

It's a spiritual thing for me, too. I'm a Christian, and I don't think it's a sin to eat meat. I do think it's a sin to be cruel to animals. When I eat factory-farmed animal products (99% of the animal products in America), I am paying someone else to be cruel to animals for me, and I don't feel good about that. I don't feel consistent.

 

(Sorry for the rabbit trail, Quill.)

[redsquirrel]

We put them in the freezer for a while. They go to sleep and then they get cooked.

[eternalsummer]

See, I appreciate this thread, because this is something I've been thinking about a lot. I am a huge proponent of consistency. I'm a pro-lifer, and it makes me crazy when other people who also profess to be pro-life don't seem to care about things like, oh, "collateral damage" in warfare. It's not consistent.

 

I recognize that the way I talk about and treat animals is an area of inconsistency in my life. I would never go to Sea World. I don't buy leather purses. My antiperspirant is not tested on animals. I don't think lobsters should be boiled alive. But, I eat meat.

 

I do wonder, though, do I have to be perfectly consistent to want to prevent suffering and to speak against cruelty? Isn't it better to prevent some suffering than none? I feel like I shouldn't just throw up my hands and say, "Oh, well, I guess I'm a hypocrite, pass the burgers," YKWIM?

 

It's a spiritual thing for me, too. I'm a Christian, and I don't think it's a sin to eat meat. I do think it's a sin to be cruel to animals. When I eat factory-farmed animal products (99% of the animal products in America), I am paying someone else to be cruel to animals for me, and I don't feel good about that. I don't feel consistent.

 

(Sorry for the rabbit trail, Quill.)

 

 

We (DH and I) are also huge proponents of consistency, Mercy (and we have not met many other people who are - maybe one, in our lives).

 

For us, the moral imperative is not to abuse animals.  There is no moral imperative for us not to kill animals for food, as we feel that is a natural part of both human life/societal development and animal life/development.  

 

We do not eat factory farmed food, in any form, ever.  Paying someone else to commit a sin for you is not any better than committing the sin, imo.

 

As far as abortion goes, I think collateral damage in warfare (meaning the killing of civilians, I assume) is different than abortion in a few key moral ways, while similar in others.  

 

But at any rate, I agree that it is important to be morally consistent, whatever your stance is on an issue, and I have not met anyone (except for strict vegans - and the ones I know of are all pro-choice!) who makes much of an effort at consistency.

[MEmama]

I live in the land of cornfields and admit to knowing very little about the lobster industry. However, I don't think keeping people employed is always a good justification for continuing to do something, if there are ethical problems with the work itself.

I agree. I was just pointing out that it isn't a luxury item everywhere, it's the backbone of the economy for many or most coastal communities from at least Rhode Island all the way up to Newfoundland.

 

I've spent plenty of time at the lobster wharves and don't object too much to the practice. It's got nothing on the feed lots of the Midwest, say, or the toxic agricultural valleys of California. Feeding ourselves is not a simple act, especially for those of us who attempt to be intentional with our decisions.

Edited June 7, 2016 by MEmama

[eternalsummer]

I agree. I was just pointing out that it isn't a luxury item everywhere, it's the backbone of the economy for many or most coastal communities from at least Rhode Island all the way up to Newfoundland.

 

I've spent plenty of time at the lobster wharves and don't object too much to the practice. It's got nothing on the feed lots of the Midwest, say, or the toxic agricultural valleys of California. Feeding ourselves is not a simple act, especially for those of us who attempt to be intentional with our decisions.

I agree both that you can't justify something immoral by saying people rely on it for $ and that lobster fishing and cooking (even boiling alive) has nothing on a gestation crate.

[Guest]

See, I appreciate this thread, because this is something I've been thinking about a lot. I am a huge proponent of consistency. I'm a pro-lifer, and it makes me crazy when other people who also profess to be pro-life don't seem to care about things like, oh, "collateral damage" in warfare. It's not consistent.

 

I recognize that the way I talk about and treat animals is an area of inconsistency in my life. I would never go to Sea World. I don't buy leather purses. My antiperspirant is not tested on animals. I don't think lobsters should be boiled alive. But, I eat meat.

 

I do wonder, though, do I have to be perfectly consistent to want to prevent suffering and to speak against cruelty? Isn't it better to prevent some suffering than none? I feel like I shouldn't just throw up my hands and say, "Oh, well, I guess I'm a hypocrite, pass the burgers," YKWIM?

 

It's a spiritual thing for me, too. I'm a Christian, and I don't think it's a sin to eat meat. I do think it's a sin to be cruel to animals. When I eat factory-farmed animal products (99% of the animal products in America), I am paying someone else to be cruel to animals for me, and I don't feel good about that. I don't feel consistent.

 

(Sorry for the rabbit trail, Quill.)

Mercy, I understand your wish to be consistent. It is an important psychological need that all people (unless they are sociopaths) feel. People will actually do some very elaborate lying to themselves to relieve cognitive dissonance.

 

I have areas like this, too. Creating trash bothers me. But it is impossible to live normally in a civilized world and generate no trash at all, not to mention nobody close to me goes to the effort I will to avoid trash. So, yes, I don't just throw up my hands and say it doesn't matter if I can't make much difference. I can make a tiny difference, so I make that.

 

However, in Re: eating meat. I'm not sensitized to it. It is true there are certain practices that bother me, such as animal feed lots and egg factory farming. I keep my own chickens because this is one place where I can make a tiny difference for five or six chickens. I get delicious, nutritious, fresh eggs and my chickens get a clean, dry coop, feed, and all the bugs and seeds they can scratch up. But even so, there is some level of animal cruelty just in my tiny flock. I have only hens, no cocks; I bought them this way. Somewhere, male chickens were killed because I, and most other keepers don't want roosters. Even where people do want roos, they rarely want more than one.

 

If you personally are bothered by using leather or having a feather pillow, then certainly, you should do what your conscience tells you. For myself, eating animals and using them for goods is normal for human beings and therefore doesn't bother me. I have caught and eaten fish, I have caught and eaten crabs. I don't feel sad for the little crabs or rockfish because they are going to die, in the same way as I don't feel sorry for the ants that die after eating poison in my kitchen.