Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
is eating non-vegetarian food really needed? think again please.
I agree with Jayantha. In my world animals and insects have to die all the time. I think they should all be given the same consideration when deciding to kill them or not. Is it an immediate danger to me? How can I avoid killing it? 30% deet bug repellent works well. Do I need to kill it for my living? If not, can it be released unharmed or should it be killed to reduce its suffering? My gear is selective but by catch can not be avoided entirely. What kind of vermin can I tolerate? Not mice. Mice have to die if they come inside. Ants I can live with temporarily. Spiders too. I don't think things should be killed mindlessly, and not because they have been judged less valuable.
No I will not become a vegetarian. I love meat, and will continue to consume meat for the foreseeable future. I don't like the way many animals are treated prior to being killed, but that's not going to stop me from eating them most of the time. However, I've heard terrible things about the way those who are to be included in the McRib are treated and as such refuse to eat them.
As for what defines a sentient being, dictionary.com has this to say:
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
I see two different things there. If we're talking about "perception by the senses" then anything that can see, feel, etc. would be sentient, which is pretty much all edible life.
If it's defined by consciousness, that's another thing entirely. If you define consciousness as self awareness, then it's pretty much primates that are the only things considered sentient. If it's just being awake, then it's back to nearly all life being sentient. So yeah lol.
Do I think a plant is sentient? I don't really think so, but then again I don't know enough about them to come up with an educated opinion. I guess you can call that an "I don't know".
Also, I'm not good with insects/arachnids. I have a phobia. If I'm not trying to get away from them, I'm splattering them across whatever surface I happen to strike them on.
Is this the way animals are treated? is eating non-veg food really needed?
It seems puzzling that anyone on a path of wisdom and compassion would choose to contribute to the unecessary suffering and slaughter of animals. I suspect that people develop a strong attachment to eating meat and are then very reluctant to give it up, or even to listen to the arguments for giving it up.
That said, eating a strictly vegetarian won't end the suffering caused by agricultural farming methods, which kill a large number of insects as well as other 'pests' (e.g., rodent, rabbits, etc.), not to mention the negative environmental impacts of fertilizer use, etc.
That's true, but by far the biggest negative environmental impact is the sheer inefficiency of feeding people meat compared to feeding them directly with grain.
Option 1: Grow a field of grain and feed say 10 people directly with the crop. Option 2: To feed the same 10 people with meat you would need 5 or 6 fields of grain to feed the animals - which means killing 5 or 6 times the number of insects and "pests" as well as the animals killed for their meat. So in terms of damage limitation, not eating meat is the obvious choice.
It seems puzzling that anyone on a path of wisdom and compassion would choose to contribute to the unecessary suffering and slaughter of animals. I suspect that people develop a strong attachment to eating meat and are then very reluctant to give it up, or even to listen to the arguments for giving it up.
Oh no, we've listened to the arguments here and other places over and over and over and over again.
I think we should all just accept each other's points of view. Would you relentlessly debate a christian or a muslum or a hinduist about whose philosophy is right? If not then I don't think the endless badgering of each other is necessary. Just some food for thought.
I just wanted to offer another perspective. These animals have already been taken and even though they have suffered a poor life, is it not honorable to accept their sacrifice if one chooses, as an equal sacrifice to their organic counter parts. What I mean by this is to leave their already packaged bodies to rot on a shelf only to demand a fresh organic body may be a form of ego clinging. When I am confronted by this dilemma I always think about the Buddha and the sour meat that lead to his death. I often stand and look at all the packaged meat on the store shelves and think about what the Buddha would say about it. Would he say walk away and go to the organic section or would he say is their sacrifice in vein(insert my name here), are they not just as worthy as the organic animals to serve as energy for you.
just my thoughts on the matter I mean no disrespect to anyone and I do not advocate one way or another for or against as all are equal one this earth.
It seems puzzling that anyone on a path of wisdom and compassion would choose to contribute to the unecessary suffering and slaughter of animals. I suspect that people develop a strong attachment to eating meat and are then very reluctant to give it up, or even to listen to the arguments for giving it up.
Oh no, we've listened to the arguments here and other places over and over and over and over again.
I think anyone who really listened would stop eating meat at once.
I often stand and look at all the packaged meat on the store shelves and think about what the Buddha would say about it. Would he say walk away and go to the organic section or would he say is their sacrifice in vein(insert my name here), are they not just as worthy as the organic animals to serve as energy for you.
How about choosing to walk away from both the packaged and the organic meat, and choosing a non-meat product?
so this brings the topic as to what is sentience? i think sentience means awareness or consciousness.
I think physiologically it comes down to the capacity for suffering, which seems to rely on pain receptors and therefore on a nervous system of some sort.
Perhaps we don't have malaria here so much, but we do have West Nile and Lymes, which are horrible diseases caused by skeeters and ticks and we have them in the area I live in. But I do swat them as little as possible and mostly just try to prevent getting bitten by wearing proper clothing and bug spray and sometimes even a mosquito net. They are horrendous here and just going to water the garden I can come in with 30 or more bites within a matter of minutes. It's not worth the risk of sickness but I do do my best to protect them.
As far as if one has more value than others, I personally don't see it that way but I understand why others do. A being is a being, and if you actually take a minute to think of it as "what if that fly has even the smallest possibility of being the reincarnation of my grandmother?" You really do see it in another way. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about human to animal reincarnation, but I admit it's possible and that any being I kill could once have been someone else's loved one. Would I rescue a baby over a fly? I would. But I also know that is in large part due to my attachment to beings like me.
It seems puzzling that anyone on a path of wisdom and compassion would choose to contribute to the unecessary suffering and slaughter of animals. I suspect that people develop a strong attachment to eating meat and are then very reluctant to give it up, or even to listen to the arguments for giving it up.
Oh no, we've listened to the arguments here and other places over and over and over and over again.
I think anyone who really listened would stop eating meat at once.
I guess the choices and behaviors of millions of people would say you are wrong about that.
Suffering is not simply feeling pain. Just always keep in mind that many years ago, we didn't know half the things we know about animals. Just because we don't yet understand bugs and plants doesn't mean one day we won't.
@PedanticPorpoise I really listen. I even really understand it. But we still eat meat, and much of that reason is because it is part of our diabetic son's diet plan. Also because we don't live in an area conducive to being vegetarian year round. It's not always as simple as making the choice. Because not everyone has the same equal choice to make on the matter. Even in today's age.
holy crap with this line of thinking " bugs aren't as "sentient" as bigger animals because their brain is smaller"... WOW... so much for metta, developing equanimity for all beings..
and yes I hold the same value to the life of a bug as I do a cow and myself. We are all sentient beings that wish to be well , happy, and peaceful, and we are all sentient beings in samsara where there is unavoidable suffering that cannot be stopped, only accepted.
so yes I view animals being slaughtered for meat and animals dying for crops in the same light.
Unlike Buddha's times, we now know (a LOT about) how the brain works and what makes us feel pain, as well as pleasure, as well as emotions. We know there are certain areas within the brain which control certain aspects of voluntary and involuntary actions and reactions of our muscles, nerves and movements.
This is science. This kind of science was not known in Buddha's time.
I'm not going to discount (our modern) science and knowledge in order to merely adhere to Buddha's words (if indeed they ARE his direct words) about all creatures being equal to each other and all creatures being sentient . They are not. Science proves this.
Brain size does matter, in that only creatures with larger brains - like dolphins, whales, humans, primates, dogs, cats, parrots, etc - have the capacity of feeling pain, emotions, pleasure, nurturing needs, etc. Creatures with teeny tiny brains (reptiles, ants, gnats, fleas, bugs/ insects, fish, etc) only react in instinctual, involuntary, self-survival mode. Very basic. Very simple. They do not feel love, or fear, or pain, or nurture their offspring. They do not seek to do good for others in their flock or group. They do not provide for each other, but only for themselves. They do not have the brain capacity to do more than these very basic things. Science.
Comparing a jellyfish or a gnat to a horse or cat is like comparing a folded paper airplane with an actual jet fighter. The difference is astounding as far as mechanical and electrical functions. This is a reality I can't ignore.
If one is willing to say even the tiniest flea or gnat is as important (and sentient) as the whale in the ocean, or as the chimpanzee in the forest, well then one must also be willing to say that all PLANTS that turn toward the sun for its warmth, that creep their roots towards water, to soak it up and take nutrients from it, in order to grow their grains and fruit are ALSO just as important (and sentient) as the whale or the chimp.....
Why are you willing to say a gnat or mosquito is sentient, but the sunflower plant, (as an example), isn't? So why eat plants and veggies? They are sentient too, if that's the broad criteria for sentience.
And by the way, acknowledging these differences; allowing for a hierarchy amongst living creatures does not suggest one doesn't care about the creatures on the lowest end of the sentient spectrum. It doesn't mean there is no metta in their hearts towards ALL creatures -- only means they recognize the difference between true (by scientific standards) sentient creatures and those not. There can still be a caring and respect for all creatures no matter how sentient - or not.
But if one feels good about themselves by applying romanticized, religiously colored ideas about sentience and sentient creatures, no problem. Just realize it is a religious/faith based idea, not scientific in any way. Same way it's romantic and religious to believe angels exist to guard and guide people here on Earth... Or to believe that heaven awaits those who behaved well on earth and believe in certain gods- no scientific proof of that, only religious notions, but many many people still believe. Not a problem with me. I just don't buy it. Sorry. I usually stick to science.
I wonder what the definition of sentience would even have really been in the Buddha's world and time. I personally do not believe all beings are sentient, nor that all sentient beings are "equal." But I was always raised to appreciate all life, and it is something that has always been part of who I am. I used to rescue the ticks that my dad used to bring home after cutting firewood, lol. That was before Lyme's of course. He liked to burn them with a lighter. Sentient or not, I think it's disrespectful of life to treat any creature that way. That doesn't mean, if given the choice, I'd save a tick over a whale or a person. For me, sentience is an important concept to grasp when faced with decisions. But it is not the only qualifying factor for me as to whether a life is worth sparing or snuffing out.
I think anyone who really listened would stop eating meat at once.
I guess the choices and behaviors of millions of people would say you are wrong about that.
No, I think it says that the majority of people like eating meat and don't want to know about slaughter-houses, battery-farming etc. A lot of people don't really care, but I find it sad that some of those people are Buddhist.
I agree with trying to change the face of farming to be ethical. I have farmers in my family- my cousin and her husband raise cattle for meat. And they LOVE their cattle. I am not vegetarian, but I do think a LOT about the animals I eat (which is a few times a week) and we say a blessing that contains this phrase "may we live in a way that is worthy of this gift of nutrition." I do believe it all comes down to being mindful, especially in this world where so many of us are so removed from the actual act of killing the animal.
Yes, yes it is needed, children need protein from meat when growing and even adults need it to help heal wounds
Actually we require certain amino acids, fatty acids, minerals, and vitamins in specific amounts. That's all. It doesn't matter where they come from as long as we get enough.
Yes but if you just ate that you wouldn't grow or be able to heal, you need protein for that.
I'm not going to discount (our modern) science and knowledge in order to merely adhere to Buddha's words (if indeed they ARE his direct words) about all creatures being equal to each other and all creatures being sentient . They are not. Science proves this.
Brain size does matter, in that only creatures with larger brains - like dolphins, whales, humans, primates, dogs, cats, parrots, etc - have the capacity of feeling pain, emotions, pleasure, nurturing needs, etc. Creatures with teeny tiny brains (reptiles, ants, gnats, fleas, bugs/ insects, fish, etc) only react in instinctual, involuntary, self-survival mode. Very basic. Very simple. They do not feel love, or fear, or pain, or nurture their offspring. They do not seek to do good for others in their flock or group. They do not provide for each other, but only for themselves. They do not have the brain capacity to do more than these very basic things. Science. ... Sorry. I usually stick to science.
@MaryAnne, I think science isn't so cut and dry. Most people probably wouldn't argue with you that a bug probably doesn't 'feel' emotion in the same way as you would, or a dolphin. However, why is this necessarily important?
Bugs outnumber us by quite a bit. They are alive. They are obviously doing something right, evolutionarily. It's not necessary for them to nurture their offspring, to feel emotions to bond them to their kind, to do 'good' for others in their flock, etc. Science proves that chemicals like dopamine, serotonin, and acetylcholine have a great deal of influence over (if not completely responsible for) our emotions, and they never needed those things. Comparing intelligences of different species is not a good argument, because really it's always comparing them to us. Species like dolphins and other mammals or other primates (which humans are a part of that group) have similar behaviors to us, and so we think them 'better' than other animals. However, a cockroach is pretty damned intelligent if you consider how old they are, how successful they are, and how prevalent they are. They don't do the same things we do, but that doesn't make them any less of an animal or any less important.
It is dangerous when you can decide what is or isn't worth living, and it's an arbitrary line that anyone can define on their own terms. We feel a closer bond to mammals and have relationships with them, yes, and so it seems to us to be a huge difference between killing my dog and killing a cockroach. In the grand scheme of things, all three of us are just animals. Killing a deer and eating it kills one life, assuming you don't any bugs or anything stalking around. Commercially growing a field of plants can kill a much greater number of insects, rodents, and whatever else might have used that land to live. Raising cattle could kill even more, because you have the life of the cattle on top of the crop-raising issue. How many lives of 'unworthy' animals could equal the life of one 'worthy' one?
Science is often very egocentric and always from a human perspective. I think the teachings of Buddha are meant to encourage us to just be mindful. If you choose to eat plants, don't think it's perfectly clean - be aware that many lives were sacrificed, and be thankful that you have the opportunity to be nourished. The same thing with meat. If you aren't comfortable with a cow dying for your nourishment, then don't do it. But don't force others to exist in your comfort zone.
I don't see much in your post I can disagree with... however, I do feel you've taken a good chunk of what I said out of context, and left out a very important 'disclaimer' as well, so I would like to reiterate:
"And by the way, acknowledging these differences; allowing for a hierarchy amongst living creatures does not suggest one doesn't care about the creatures on the lowest end of the sentient spectrum. It doesn't mean there is no metta in their hearts towards ALL creatures -- only means they recognize the difference between true (by scientific standards) sentient creatures and those not. There can still be a caring and respect for all creatures no matter how sentient - or not. "
Also- I was not comparing the intelligence of animals/creatures. I was comparing "sentience" which is more of an "awareness" and a "consciousness of actions and reactions" verses an instinctual survival mechanism. The cockroach, insects, (and other tiny brained creatures) utilize an instinctual survival mechanism- with great success, as you pointed out. But does that make them equal to a sentient being - as described by the accepted (scientific) definition of sentience and attributes mentioned above? That's where we might part ways with opinion....
You asked: "However, why is this necessarily important? " and "How many lives of 'unworthy' animals could equal the life of one 'worthy' one? "
Once again, this isn't about 'worthiness', but sentience. How can we /should we apply those distinctions? Well when it comes to killing fleas, flies, mosquitoes and other disease carrying insects in order to protect livestock, pets or even humans.... too often a fervent Buddhist will agonize over the karmic retributions of this action. They find themselves actually questioning whether it would be better to overlook the suffering of one sentient being, all in order to 'protect' the lives of non-sentient disease carrying insects. In my eyes, there is an order to things; a chain of life; a hierarchy of sentience. To deny that scientific fact makes no sense to me.... but maybe that's just me?
@MaryAnne, I know you weren't going after intelligence, but several others were, and so I wanted to address that as well. Could have been separated better.
My worry is that by focusing on sentience, it minimizes the lives of other living things. We could have just as easily evolved into something that another species might not consider 'sentient,' and a species such as the cockroach could have evolved to be sentient by the general current standards. They didn't, and we did, and the lines of sentience are not very solid. If awareness and feelings define sentience, what defines awareness and feelings? What defines those things? Who can say for sure that an instinctual survival mechanism may be to act in a way to make people think you're aware/conscious of actions and reactions. I really doubt a cow thinks about a whole lot compared to us, but compared to a flea it's way more sentient, which is leaps and bounds more sentient than a plant. And maybe we're much less sentient than some other species out there in the universe. It's all comparing them to us, however, which just seems flawed to me.
By the way, the scientific 'standard' of sentiency is constantly changing and up for debate. There's a great article here (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159106001110#) that talks about ways to measure sentiency of animals based on behavior. It's not always easy or possible to determine what causes the behavior. There are plenty of microbes that will turn and flagellate away from certain stimuli. Nobody here will probably argue that they are sentient, but it's the same processes on a bigger scale that we are measuring for these 'standards' of sentiency. There's the great example of cephalopods being considered sentient, as well as great evidence for sea snails and fruit flies. I'm just saying that sentiency is often used as an excuse - cows are likable to us, big, and people can see some similarities, and so therefore they are sentient and should not be killed. A fruit fly? It's a nuisance, so it can be killed without guilt.
And what about the animals like field mice, which are mammals, and are just as sentient as a cow, who are killed in the effort to grow food to avoid killing cows? When people start trying to equate lives, (is it number of lives that's important, because then the mice should be saved - if it's the weight of the life in lbs, the cow would probably win out) silly things come out. I've experienced this a lot with people trying to push vegan or vegetarian lifestyles on others. Living causes death, and trying to guilt people over the killing of cows while also ignoring all the other killings that occur to support the veggie lifestyle is silly. At least I think so. To purposefully going about killing things without necessity or any real thought will bring bad karma, but to be aware and thankful for the killings that happen due to life going on? I think that's fine. If a fervent Buddhist wants to sacrifice his life in order to save some bugs, that's his/her choice, and considering their beliefs, they have a valid argument.
I don't think there's anything wrong with protecting the lives of whatever one values. I kill cockroaches and mosquites, and I don't loose an ounce of sleep over it. I also eat meat, and I am thankful for the cow that lived and died so I could be sustained, as I will live and die and someday sustain the world around me when I decompose and feed the plants or get eaten by some wild animal if some crazy zoo accident happened. I love my dogs more than some people, and would never harm them. I also am aware that valuing their life more than others is egocentric. But those are just my values - yours probably lie in a slightly different orientation, as does everyone else's.
But - Science doesn't support one more than the other.
You said: "But those are just my values - yours probably lie in a slightly different orientation, as does everyone else's. "
I think that about wraps it up. Like I said, not much in your posts I would disagree with we're pretty much on the same page on this. However, if like me, one bases 'sentience' on the level of complexity of the brain and its functions, (and comparable brain function between the creatures in question is based in science), then I have to disagree - to a point - and say science does support that particular rationalization regarding sentience vs no sentience... But I admit, it's still somewhat subjective/debatable.
I noticed in your intro post that you currently study biology... very cool! Doesn't mean I won't question, argue or debate with you, though!
Yes, yes it is needed, children need protein from meat when growing and even adults need it to help heal wounds
Actually we require certain amino acids, fatty acids, minerals, and vitamins in specific amounts. That's all. It doesn't matter where they come from as long as we get enough.
Yes but if you just ate that you wouldn't grow or be able to heal, you need protein for that.
Proteins already are in that list that I wrote, you know.
Comments
In my world animals and insects have to die all the time. I think they should all be given the same consideration when deciding to kill them or not.
Is it an immediate danger to me? How can I avoid killing it? 30% deet bug repellent works well.
Do I need to kill it for my living? If not, can it be released unharmed or should it be killed to reduce its suffering? My gear is selective but by catch can not be avoided entirely.
What kind of vermin can I tolerate? Not mice. Mice have to die if they come inside. Ants I can live with temporarily. Spiders too.
I don't think things should be killed mindlessly, and not because they have been judged less valuable.
As for what defines a sentient being, dictionary.com has this to say:
1.
having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
I see two different things there. If we're talking about "perception by the senses" then anything that can see, feel, etc. would be sentient, which is pretty much all edible life.
If it's defined by consciousness, that's another thing entirely. If you define consciousness as self awareness, then it's pretty much primates that are the only things considered sentient. If it's just being awake, then it's back to nearly all life being sentient. So yeah lol.
Do I think a plant is sentient? I don't really think so, but then again I don't know enough about them to come up with an educated opinion. I guess you can call that an "I don't know".
Also, I'm not good with insects/arachnids. I have a phobia. If I'm not trying to get away from them, I'm splattering them across whatever surface I happen to strike them on.
I suspect that people develop a strong attachment to eating meat and are then very reluctant to give it up, or even to listen to the arguments for giving it up.
Option 1: Grow a field of grain and feed say 10 people directly with the crop.
Option 2: To feed the same 10 people with meat you would need 5 or 6 fields of grain to feed the animals - which means killing 5 or 6 times the number of insects and "pests" as well as the animals killed for their meat.
So in terms of damage limitation, not eating meat is the obvious choice.
just my thoughts on the matter I mean no disrespect to anyone and I do not advocate one way or another for or against as all are equal one this earth.
Metta, Light
As far as if one has more value than others, I personally don't see it that way but I understand why others do. A being is a being, and if you actually take a minute to think of it as "what if that fly has even the smallest possibility of being the reincarnation of my grandmother?" You really do see it in another way. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about human to animal reincarnation, but I admit it's possible and that any being I kill could once have been someone else's loved one. Would I rescue a baby over a fly? I would. But I also know that is in large part due to my attachment to beings like me.
@PedanticPorpoise I really listen. I even really understand it. But we still eat meat, and much of that reason is because it is part of our diabetic son's diet plan. Also because we don't live in an area conducive to being vegetarian year round. It's not always as simple as making the choice. Because not everyone has the same equal choice to make on the matter. Even in today's age.
Unlike Buddha's times, we now know (a LOT about) how the brain works and what makes us feel pain, as well as pleasure, as well as emotions. We know there are certain areas within the brain which control certain aspects of voluntary and involuntary actions and reactions of our muscles, nerves and movements.
This is science. This kind of science was not known in Buddha's time.
I'm not going to discount (our modern) science and knowledge in order to merely adhere to Buddha's words (if indeed they ARE his direct words) about all creatures being equal to each other and all creatures being sentient . They are not. Science proves this.
Brain size does matter, in that only creatures with larger brains - like dolphins, whales, humans, primates, dogs, cats, parrots, etc - have the capacity of feeling pain, emotions, pleasure, nurturing needs, etc.
Creatures with teeny tiny brains (reptiles, ants, gnats, fleas, bugs/ insects, fish, etc) only react in instinctual, involuntary, self-survival mode. Very basic. Very simple. They do not feel love, or fear, or pain, or nurture their offspring. They do not seek to do good for others in their flock or group. They do not provide for each other, but only for themselves. They do not have the brain capacity to do more than these very basic things. Science.
Comparing a jellyfish or a gnat to a horse or cat is like comparing a folded paper airplane with an actual jet fighter. The difference is astounding as far as mechanical and electrical functions.
This is a reality I can't ignore.
If one is willing to say even the tiniest flea or gnat is as important (and sentient) as the whale in the ocean, or as the chimpanzee in the forest, well then one must also be willing to say that all PLANTS that turn toward the sun for its warmth, that creep their roots towards water, to soak it up and take nutrients from it, in order to grow their grains and fruit are ALSO just as important (and sentient) as the whale or the chimp.....
Why are you willing to say a gnat or mosquito is sentient, but the sunflower plant, (as an example), isn't? So why eat plants and veggies? They are sentient too, if that's the broad criteria for sentience.
And by the way, acknowledging these differences; allowing for a hierarchy amongst living creatures does not suggest one doesn't care about the creatures on the lowest end of the sentient spectrum.
It doesn't mean there is no metta in their hearts towards ALL creatures -- only means they recognize the difference between true (by scientific standards) sentient creatures and those not. There can still be a caring and respect for all creatures no matter how sentient - or not.
But if one feels good about themselves by applying romanticized, religiously colored ideas about sentience and sentient creatures, no problem. Just realize it is a religious/faith based idea, not scientific in any way.
Same way it's romantic and religious to believe angels exist to guard and guide people here on Earth... Or to believe that heaven awaits those who behaved well on earth and believe in certain gods- no scientific proof of that, only religious notions, but many many people still believe.
Not a problem with me. I just don't buy it. Sorry. I usually stick to science.
Bugs outnumber us by quite a bit. They are alive. They are obviously doing something right, evolutionarily. It's not necessary for them to nurture their offspring, to feel emotions to bond them to their kind, to do 'good' for others in their flock, etc. Science proves that chemicals like dopamine, serotonin, and acetylcholine have a great deal of influence over (if not completely responsible for) our emotions, and they never needed those things. Comparing intelligences of different species is not a good argument, because really it's always comparing them to us. Species like dolphins and other mammals or other primates (which humans are a part of that group) have similar behaviors to us, and so we think them 'better' than other animals. However, a cockroach is pretty damned intelligent if you consider how old they are, how successful they are, and how prevalent they are. They don't do the same things we do, but that doesn't make them any less of an animal or any less important.
It is dangerous when you can decide what is or isn't worth living, and it's an arbitrary line that anyone can define on their own terms. We feel a closer bond to mammals and have relationships with them, yes, and so it seems to us to be a huge difference between killing my dog and killing a cockroach. In the grand scheme of things, all three of us are just animals. Killing a deer and eating it kills one life, assuming you don't any bugs or anything stalking around. Commercially growing a field of plants can kill a much greater number of insects, rodents, and whatever else might have used that land to live. Raising cattle could kill even more, because you have the life of the cattle on top of the crop-raising issue. How many lives of 'unworthy' animals could equal the life of one 'worthy' one?
Science is often very egocentric and always from a human perspective. I think the teachings of Buddha are meant to encourage us to just be mindful. If you choose to eat plants, don't think it's perfectly clean - be aware that many lives were sacrificed, and be thankful that you have the opportunity to be nourished. The same thing with meat. If you aren't comfortable with a cow dying for your nourishment, then don't do it. But don't force others to exist in your comfort zone.
I don't see much in your post I can disagree with... however, I do feel you've taken a good chunk of what I said out of context, and left out a very important 'disclaimer' as well, so I would like to reiterate:
"And by the way, acknowledging these differences; allowing for a hierarchy amongst living creatures does not suggest one doesn't care about the creatures on the lowest end of the sentient spectrum.
It doesn't mean there is no metta in their hearts towards ALL creatures -- only means they recognize the difference between true (by scientific standards) sentient creatures and those not. There can still be a caring and respect for all creatures no matter how sentient - or not. "
Also- I was not comparing the intelligence of animals/creatures. I was comparing "sentience" which is more of an "awareness" and a "consciousness of actions and reactions" verses an instinctual survival mechanism.
The cockroach, insects, (and other tiny brained creatures) utilize an instinctual survival mechanism- with great success, as you pointed out. But does that make them equal to a sentient being - as described by the accepted (scientific) definition of sentience and attributes mentioned above?
That's where we might part ways with opinion....
You asked: "However, why is this necessarily important? " and "How many lives of 'unworthy' animals could equal the life of one 'worthy' one? "
Once again, this isn't about 'worthiness', but sentience.
How can we /should we apply those distinctions?
Well when it comes to killing fleas, flies, mosquitoes and other disease carrying insects in order to protect livestock, pets or even humans.... too often a fervent Buddhist will agonize over the karmic retributions of this action.
They find themselves actually questioning whether it would be better to overlook the suffering of one sentient being, all in order to 'protect' the lives of non-sentient disease carrying insects. In my eyes, there is an order to things; a chain of life; a hierarchy of sentience.
To deny that scientific fact makes no sense to me.... but maybe that's just me?
My worry is that by focusing on sentience, it minimizes the lives of other living things. We could have just as easily evolved into something that another species might not consider 'sentient,' and a species such as the cockroach could have evolved to be sentient by the general current standards. They didn't, and we did, and the lines of sentience are not very solid. If awareness and feelings define sentience, what defines awareness and feelings? What defines those things? Who can say for sure that an instinctual survival mechanism may be to act in a way to make people think you're aware/conscious of actions and reactions. I really doubt a cow thinks about a whole lot compared to us, but compared to a flea it's way more sentient, which is leaps and bounds more sentient than a plant. And maybe we're much less sentient than some other species out there in the universe. It's all comparing them to us, however, which just seems flawed to me.
By the way, the scientific 'standard' of sentiency is constantly changing and up for debate. There's a great article here (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159106001110#) that talks about ways to measure sentiency of animals based on behavior. It's not always easy or possible to determine what causes the behavior. There are plenty of microbes that will turn and flagellate away from certain stimuli. Nobody here will probably argue that they are sentient, but it's the same processes on a bigger scale that we are measuring for these 'standards' of sentiency. There's the great example of cephalopods being considered sentient, as well as great evidence for sea snails and fruit flies. I'm just saying that sentiency is often used as an excuse - cows are likable to us, big, and people can see some similarities, and so therefore they are sentient and should not be killed. A fruit fly? It's a nuisance, so it can be killed without guilt.
And what about the animals like field mice, which are mammals, and are just as sentient as a cow, who are killed in the effort to grow food to avoid killing cows? When people start trying to equate lives, (is it number of lives that's important, because then the mice should be saved - if it's the weight of the life in lbs, the cow would probably win out) silly things come out. I've experienced this a lot with people trying to push vegan or vegetarian lifestyles on others. Living causes death, and trying to guilt people over the killing of cows while also ignoring all the other killings that occur to support the veggie lifestyle is silly. At least I think so. To purposefully going about killing things without necessity or any real thought will bring bad karma, but to be aware and thankful for the killings that happen due to life going on? I think that's fine. If a fervent Buddhist wants to sacrifice his life in order to save some bugs, that's his/her choice, and considering their beliefs, they have a valid argument.
I don't think there's anything wrong with protecting the lives of whatever one values. I kill cockroaches and mosquites, and I don't loose an ounce of sleep over it. I also eat meat, and I am thankful for the cow that lived and died so I could be sustained, as I will live and die and someday sustain the world around me when I decompose and feed the plants or get eaten by some wild animal if some crazy zoo accident happened. I love my dogs more than some people, and would never harm them. I also am aware that valuing their life more than others is egocentric. But those are just my values - yours probably lie in a slightly different orientation, as does everyone else's.
But - Science doesn't support one more than the other.
You said: "But those are just my values - yours probably lie in a slightly different orientation, as does everyone else's. "
I think that about wraps it up.
Like I said, not much in your posts I would disagree with
However, if like me, one bases 'sentience' on the level of complexity of the brain and its functions, (and comparable brain function between the creatures in question is based in science), then I have to disagree - to a point - and say science does support that particular rationalization regarding sentience vs no sentience...
But I admit, it's still somewhat subjective/debatable.
I noticed in your intro post that you currently study biology... very cool! Doesn't mean I won't question, argue or debate with you, though!
PD: sorry for the late reply