Humans are physically and genetically hardwired to eat meat. Bears are, too. If I'm unarmed, a bear would easily be able to kill me.

BUT, as a human, I've mastered the technology (a rifle, let's say) to kill him instead. I win. I can eat his meat (instead of him eating mine), and wear his fur for warmth.

But I have a choice. I can shoot him between the eyes, minimizing his suffering, killing him instantly. OR I can shoot him in the gut and watch him slowly bleed out as I methodically bash his face in with the butt of my rifle.

I choose to shoot him between the eyes. The End.

A couple of points about my story:

1. The bear, given the chance, would rip me limb from limb. He has no concern for killing me humanely. NONE. That, Mr. Singer, is where I draw my "circle." And I'm drawing it in ink so you can't erase it.

2. Agribusiness has no ethics, just like the bear. It is only concerned with maximizing profit. Just like the bear is concerned only with maximizing the amount of my muscle fiber he can put in my stomach. Ethics are beyond its comprehension. (Just as free market forces are not understood by most progressives. Tee hee.)

3. I choose the more ethical way of killing the bear for more than just efficiency. I choose it because I am genetically hardwired to ease the bear's suffering. (And not because Singer tells me it is so... though he happens to be right.)

4. Because of my genetic hardwired ethics, I will pay a little more to support ethical behavior in animal farming, or in any endeavor. I think most people would. BUT, most people don't know enough or care enough (or both) about how their food is produced. A book like Singer's should be applauded for trying to educate people (much like Fast Food Nation a few years ago) about the dark side of agribusiness. It's no longer us against the bear. We are producing animals like cars. (And, apparently, using a lot of oil while we're at it....)

5. If I watched the bear kill my daughter, and then afterwards I had the chance to kill it, I would choose the gut shot/bludgeoning method. Revenge is also hardwired in me (and in Singer). But unlike him, I'm just human enough to admit it.

The meaning of suffering differs for each person.

Examples, a friend’s daughter was distraught because her disliked roomates left for summer vacation without verbally saying goodbye. They left a note. She was crying for over hours. I hardly find this to be any form of suffering, but that doesn’t diminish her emotional pain.. Nazis and unforunately, many in Europe, felt that Jews living in the same building equaled suffering. I’ve personally seen anguish on someone’s face because she saw a white man and a black women eating together. Many in the US still claim that allowing gays to marry someone makes others suffer. Discrimination is almost always about one group not having to suffer the prescense of another group.

Nobody should try to alleviate the suffering of another without that person’s permission. We may say, ”but who will object to finding a hungry child”, and the answer is many would. No ethical policy can allow for one to usurp the life of another. When we arbitrarily decide to alleviate suffering we are placing ourselves in a parental role, telling others we know best. This is rarely accepted by others and even more rarely reduces the behavior that we seek to curb.

“the argument that you anticipated, that this isn't the kind of suffering we're talking about, you dismiss too hastily. "Suffering" is a convenient word to use to represent many awful things that we should want to alleviate. If it is too broad a word in your opinion, I'll be more exact.”

That’s part of my point, the very term suffering is as broad or narrow as each individual wishes to make it, and in this great expanse of definition good intentions often turn evil and evil intent is given cover.

“In poorer nations and even too often in the U.S., the hunger that children feel in their stomachs, when they're too weak to play and learn -- we should want to alleviate that hunger and pain.”

Why? Exactly why should I want to alleviate hunger in people I don’t know? Even if we can define hungry. Hunger is a great motivator, I know I’ve been hungry. I’m not talking about skipping a meal hungry, but living off $1 a day in the US hungry and knowing there is no food for two days. Why would I work to alleviate my own hunger if someone else would just do it for me?

“The anguish that a woman feels when her husband dies in a car accident, and she is left to raise their children alone, and she is scared for her future -- we should want to help this woman feel better, and hopefully we could help her with other material needs as well.”

Why didn’t her husband have life insurance, and friends to comfort her? Notice in your examples how we are expected to take responsibility for others who did not take such responsibility for themselves. If you don’t make and keep friends, if you don’t prepare for the unknown, you are not entitled to friendship and people helping you with your material needs.

“The apparent torment of chickens locked in tiny cages, pecking at each other and wasting away -- we often want to make the insignificant lives of those chickens better.”

That’s the crux of the issue. Do chicken have any torment over their living conditions?. What you will find is that those who have worked most closely with chickens will say no. Chickens without a head, but a brain stem are behaviorly normal. The headless chicken will attempt to scratch and eat despite having no beak.

“The facts and details represented by regular use of the word "suffering" are GENERALLY things that we want to get rid of, or at least diminish.”

The regular use of the word suffering will greatly differ depending on who you ask.

“Even with that, I am sure that if you asked people, "Do you like to suffer?", their answers would be exclusively "no". Suffering is something that is seen negatively by most anyone around, and it is not a very confusing word at all.”

Suffering, however you define the term, is not viewed negatively as you would think. Google the word suffering and you’ll see plenty of theological discussion on the term, how some feel it brings one closer to God.

“Apart from that, I fail to see how "Suffering drives humanity forward" or that "without 'suffering' humanity stagnates to a meaningless existence". It is quite likely that the process of engaging a problem, defining the problem and then solving the problem helps in humans making long term changes and progressions. But I think to say that it is suffering that does it, is to take a strange view of "suffering".”

Ever read Nietzsche? “The discipline of suffering, of great suffering--do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?” The Birth of Tragedy.

There is truth in this. Look at Dylan Thomas’ “Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night” That emotional power is only there because of suffering. Not only is Thomas’ father suffering because he is dying, but Dylan is suffering because there is nothing he can do but encourage his father to fight on.

Suffering is a uniquely human feeling. Animals do not worry about whether other animals are suffering. That we can concern ourselves over the welfare of chickens is a good thing, even if our caring about chickens is greater than the capacity of chickens to care about themselves. Without suffering, we would lack an important emotional part of our lives.