Not only that, but these types of feed lots have intensive capital investments into them in terms of optimizing use of land, which is the classical economic definition of that resource. And then, of course, there are the intensive capital investments into optimal use of the bodies that we are eating, and to a fair extent discarding apriori as waste, since not all the bodies come up through the system as “market grade.”
However, this isn’t a discussion to continue here. It’s too off topic. But you are right. Thank you.
That is the commentarial interpretation, which restricts ‘business in living creatures’ to humans; some contemporary translators follow suit, but do not generally specify that, by the same token, ‘business in meat’ also includes raising and selling the animals.
There seems to be no other occurrence of satta-vaṇijjā in the Canon. Perhaps it was restricted to humans because somebody thought that non-human ‘living beings’ were already covered in ‘business in meat’.
The thing about stealing (taking what is not given) is that it relies on a concept of ownership and that concept is a (mainly secular) legal or cultural construct. So the precept sits within a framework of the society that a Buddhist happens to be residing in at the time. That is, you have to know the rules of ownership to know if the action you are undertaking is stealing.
Did the lotus flower have ownership of it’s scent in the culture of that monk at that time? We will probably never know for sure, but it’s also probably reasonable to assume that it didn’t.
Do animals have ownership of their bodies in current cultures around the world? In general I think the answer is no, and humans are the ones who normally have ownership rights over animals. Taking the life of an animal could in fact be stealing from a human, if a human had made a legitimate (in a legal and cultural sense) claim to that animal.
Should animals have ownership of their own bodies? That’s certainly something that needs a discussion in our various cultures, I think. This would also bring up areas such as the governance of responsibility for animals actions. Currently, if my dog causes an accident, then I’m responsible because the dog belongs to me.
Should a Buddhist sell or buy (or own) an animal? Not all trade in animals is as negative as you suggest. It seems reasonable that if the culture that you live in requires you to own and sell an animal in order for you to look after it (such as obtaining a dog from a rescue centre), then both the rescue center and the person who rescues the dog, will be required to trade in that animal. I think that it’s got to be based on the intention of the parties involved and the constraints of the society we live in, no? There are other good pairings that require trading in animals in my country such as Guide (seeing eye) Dogs and Therapy Pets.
