Animals

And WHY does being "agnostic" on the nature of animal pain indicate it's okay to continue to possibly inflict it? It's Pascal's wager; we should probably err on the side of caution and try our best NOT to inflict pain, because if we discover that all along no pain was being cause, no harm was done, but if we discover that eating animals does indeed cause a great amount of suffering (like most people admit that it must) then we have done a vast amount of harm. 

One need not understand the "nature of pain" to see that it exists in non-human animals. 

"When a pig screams upon being struck, it's because he feels pain. When the calf thrashes and cries out as his "humane" caretaker brands him with a hot iron and castrates him with a knife, and a cow's eyes go wide and her body flails after her throat's been slit open, it's because they feel intense pain. When a dog cowers before her abuser, it's because she remembers and is terrified of pain. When any animal, human or nonhuman, screams, cries, yelps, bellows, or squawks and runs, cowers, kicks, flinches, and thrashes to avoid the person hurting her or trying to kill her, it's because she feels, fears, and wants to avoid pain -- and wants to live. We are the same in this way."

And ANYONE who doesn't understand that is IGNORANT, and well, pretty brain dead if you ask me. Everything that is living feels pain. Animals are living, breathing beings just as humans. They love, are loved, nurture, protect, grieve, think, feel, want, need, fear, they get sad, happy, anxious, stressed, hungry, sick, tired, lonely, angry, lost, they defend other animals, learn, grow, desire, and most importantly, they have souls. People need to realize this.

Stephanie -- You truly are a wonderful, gifted and compassionate writer. You never cease to amaze me! The way you put feelings into words is astonishing and I envy that.   :-)

Oh dear, apparently there are still seemingly intelligent people who believe other species with similar nervous structures as our own don't experience the sensation of pain.

This has been refuted by thousands, possibly tens of thousands of scientific studies. I know it's relatively recent knowledge (I mean, the American Medical Association didn't recognize infant pain and cease procedures, like spinal taps, w/o anesthesia until 1993), but come on - use your google-fu, search the pubmed, edumecate yourself! It isn't difficult to do.

And this goes beyond ignorance. It's offensive and morally repugnant and, well, stupidity at its best.

Not only is it obvious from observation, common sense, and science that animals feel pain; it is just as obvious that they don't want to be killed.

Mr. Vierte's psuedo-philosophical justifications for inflicting pain and death on animals are nothing more than excuses for his selfish and cruel habits.

People like this man, Vierte, choose to feign ignorance simply so that they can continue doing what they are doing without having to take any responsibility.  These are the words of a moral coward, using his fancy words to convince others that harming living being is just fine and dandy, as long as you're still not "certain" that animals feel pain.  No need to think or feel - just business as usual.  And shame on Mr. Foer for his complicity in this.

Would Mr. Vierte kick his companion dog or cat in the stomach because he's uncertain whether they feel pain?

Fantastic!

I support the Slow Food movement to a point -- and then I am disgusted by the seemingly intelligent people who refuse to acknowledge what happens to the animals.

He says, "I'm agnostic on the nature of animal pain." and then his puny imagination can only imagine a pain threshold of up to his own experiences. He can't imagine that animals (or likely any other human being) could experience anything worse that what he's capable of experiencing. A true agnostic would accept the possibilty of a pain experience not only lesser than human's but also much greater.

He is either seriously ignorant about the meanings of words like "agnostic" and "pain" or he is terribly manipulative with his language. I'll let you vote which he is.

I think you give the Slow Food movement undue credit, or misguided credit, for being an organization that is anything other than hedonistic. The entire philosophy of the movement is the enjoyment of food, plain and simple.

And I certainly understand your frustration when they utter phrases like "animal welfare" right next to phrases like "We believe that everyone has a fundamental right to pleasure".  

Anytime someone says "I like to think that _____", you can be sure that what follows will be a statement involving conscious ignorance.

(...oxymoron?)

Even if this man who presides over the slow food movement refuses to recognize physical pain when he sees/hears it, how can he confess to being so cold-blooded that he actually boasts of holding back that little lamb as her other was being carried away to be executed. How heartless one must be to not care about the emotional anguish of a baby who is losing the one being who loves her and nutures her and nourishes her.

I figure anyone who is defensive about this subject knows deep down inside that they are doing something unspeakably cruel and immoral. This man's boastfulness -- yup, I held that meek, white and woolly, cute-faced little lambie back with my big strong muscles, and boy am I proud of myself for that feat, and for not breaking into tears when that baby bleated and struggled and crumbled in a heap of despair -- must be his unease with himself on display, his way of trying to justify his selfishness and maybe even convince himself that he is still a man of serious "values."

In a way, I pity this slow-to-be-moved-by-compassion modern incarnation of a macho meat man for his inability to pity the least among us. 

Correction: As her "mother" was being carried away -- not her "other."