EPTI think the fact that humans are different, that we have the capacity to reason about such things, is a very good reason for us to act differently.
Animal Rights - Page 2
| Blogs > BottleAbuser |
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
I think the fact that humans are different, that we have the capacity to reason about such things, is a very good reason for us to act differently. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On July 22 2008 01:41 BottleAbuser wrote: See, there's a bit of a contradiction with that argument, Zherak. There's the assumption that we're different fundamentally, that we have some sort of entitlement. Because we're better. Or God told us so. Or something. But that's not enough, it's also OK because tigers do it too, and we're like them. I think the fact that humans are different, that we have the capacity to reason about such things, is a very good reason for us to act differently. We do act differently. We explain the world with mathematics, and have conscious emotion. However, all species follow certain natural law. We are omnivores, and we will naturally kill lesser species for food. | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On July 22 2008 01:49 BottleAbuser wrote: Gah. Again the natural argument. Please justify it or drop it already. Point out one thing that ain't natural, and tell me why it isn't natural. That'll be a good start. Otherwise, I'm asserting that *everything* that is, is natural. So there can't ever be anything that's "wrong." There isn't anything that "ain't natural". That's my point. It is natural for humans to do this, and our behavior can't be changed. Some individuals can force themselves to break away from the habit of "meat eating", and that is technically a natural decision. But to argue that other people should also do this, is ridiculous. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
plants have feelings too thats why i routinely kill animals, to protect plants from getting eaten. eating the animals is just a welcome bonus | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
And yeah, most of these livestock slaughterhouses suck. Animals are shoehorned into areas that aren't even close to decent living conditions. I agree that should be changed. But the simple fact is that a cow is going to feed a hell of a lot more people than a few stalks of corn will, and it will fetch a hell of a lot more money. | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On July 22 2008 12:22 BottleAbuser wrote: Hawk and Caller, you forget to consider the fact that livestock requires food to grow and maintain, too. As I mentioned before, the amount of food (mostly grain - fit for human consumption) that is required vastly outweighs the yield in terms of edible meat. I forget the exact numbers, but if global meat consumption was cut by 20% and the feed grain was magically transported to the needed areas, global hunger would not exist... until you factor in the population boom that would result, but that still gives you an idea of how much food is consumed by the meat industry. 1. The meat industry still profits the areas it is successful in. 2. You could also solve world hunger with other types of food. Fruits/vegetables/ and more than likely meats. (poultry, red meats, and sea food). So where is the argument? It's a fact, but it doesn't really support anything. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
The world hunger argument is silly. First, world hunger exists for a lot of different reasons. Crops are difficult to grow in many parts of the world and say you do ship the food to starving countries, you've essentially just killed their agriculture base who will go out of business because the price of food has dropped dramatically. Then once the free food stops coming, everyone is fucked because there's no one left to sell food. Countries need to be able to grow their own food to support themselves and their people, or else they simply won't develop. That brings us to the next issue. The flip side of the "all natural" and most vegan campaigns is that they don't want genetically engineered produce either. Well, you definitely aren't going to feed the entire world without genetically modified food because there wouldn't be enough of it. The point of that Anton/cattle gun picture was that if things go according to plan, the animal won't feel pain when it dies or ends up on those gross PETA videos. If you're basing your ethics on pain and feelings, then obliterating an animal's brain is one way to bypass that. | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
I brought up the "world hunger argument" not as a proposed solution to world hunger, but to illustrate how inefficient meat is as a source of calories. Meat is part of the problem, not the solution. Profitability of the meat industry was not the point I was arguing. But when one considers the feed grain subsidies granted to cattle ranchers (in the US, on the order of $20 billion/year as of 2006), it's not so clear-cut. I'm not pushing the PETA agenda here. PETA has its share of retards and I don't agree with everything (or even most) of what they say. GM foods do not raise any ethical concerns, only practical ones such as unwanted proliferation of limited lifecycle crops, or genetic homogeneity resulting in increased susceptibility to parasites or disease. On the issue of "natural so don't argue with it," it's natural for me to argue with it, and just as natural for you to tell me not to argue with it, and just as natural for me to complain that the word doesn't justify anything. So stop arguing with me because that would be natural if you did. Or keep arguing because it would be natural too. Or go fuck yourself, because that would be natural. Or complain that I just said that, because it would be natural. The word loses meaning and usefulness unless you have something to compare it to. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 22 2008 13:12 BottleAbuser wrote: I brought up the "world hunger argument" not as a proposed solution to world hunger, but to illustrate how inefficient meat is as a source of calories. Meat is part of the problem, not the solution. Profitability of the meat industry was not the point I was arguing. But when one considers the feed grain subsidies granted to cattle ranchers (in the US, on the order of $20 billion/year as of 2006), it's not so clear-cut. Well, that's kin to saying Starcraft is an inefficient source for brain development. It takes far too long to learn and only at the top level do you see benefits. Reading is a much better source. When you don't have food, then it can be about caloric intake (and even there I would debate meat has other benefits.) When you do have food, then it's about taste and enjoyment. It simply makes no sense to apply one aspect of living in sub-Saharan Africa if you're not going to apply all of them. Do you seriously want your food to be judged based on efficiency rather than taste? Furthermore, if we're looking to be "fair" I'd argue poorer countries need meat even more than we do. Protein obviously has a huge, huge influence on body development and with synthetic or even soy (which is also resource intensive) sources being too expensive and not as well rounded, it's difficult for them to build a strong labor force without stronger bodies that meat would enable. Animals also act as a heat source in many countries and their fertilizer is important across the world, plus fabric material and all that great stuff. BTW I think it's somewhat telling that you can't find a single research site for this kind of stuff without getting 85 million bullshit propaganda blogs. | ||
|
sigma_x
Australia285 Posts
On July 22 2008 00:51 DoctorHelvetica wrote: I think although perhaps it is cruel to abuse animals, and if they are to be slaughtered for the meat industry, it should be humanely, it is our RIGHT to abuse them if we wish. Natural order permits that the species at the top of the food chain (Human Beings) basically rule the other animals. No-one ever gives a Tiger shit for cruelly mauling its prey. Because it's "natural". However, mankind exists as a natural species, and follows natural laws although we try to surpress them. We mate obsessively, we fight for power, and we use the lesser species to do whatever we wish. We enslave them as companions, or kill them for food. This is called the fallacy of the appeal to nature. link | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
I'd like to say a few things: A vegan will use 1/18th the land of a meat eater for all food purposes. If you accept, as I do, that the world is already over-populated, then it makes sense, if you value equality and life, that we should make moves towards the vegan lifestyle. I'm not actually arguing for this - it's a personal choice. Soy is a poor food choice, and not enough people realize this. Soy blocks the absorption of minerals and vitamins, and has estrogen mimicking qualities. Many animal product food substitutes are heavily soy based, and are therefore not wise food choices. People complain (even in this thread) that a vegan diet is unaffordable. This makes no logical sense, considering that in real terms, it is easier and more efficient to grow vegetables, seeds, fruits, etc, than meat. What DOES cost more are brand name animal product substitutes, ie those fancy vegeburgers or soy milk. I have a friend who is an all raw-food vegan who eats on less than 2 dollars a day, and he is about like a human garbage disposal (very big appetite, and also, I should add, in peak physical condition at age 62 - better shape than I, at age 24). I don't know many people on ANY diet that can come close to this. The taste complaint: I'm not a believer, in most cases, that one food inherently tastes better than another. Taste is socialized, and also the product of habit. I know people who hate switching from soda to water. I used to prefer soda to water also. Now the thought of soda is repulsive, and I love water. I also had to acquire a taste for beer (and olives). Blah blah blah - my point is that one can learn to love foods that they don't love right now. It is a question of willingness to experiment. To BottleAbuser: Massive kudos to you for your strong stand that everything is natural (or conversely nothing is natural). You take this to be common sense and readily accepted, but most people do not accept this position at all. I'm glad you have made this claim in this discussion. I'm not telling anyone what to do. Based on my value system and my beliefs about what is going on in the world, I've made the move to vegetarianism, and am gradually moving towards veganism. It is my personal view that animals are not lesser beings than humans; I believe animals are aware, thinking, feeling creatures. I also believe roughly the same about plants. To live is to kill. We have to make decisions we can live with. I think it is less important that we all share the exact same values, and more important that we examine our own values and the values of others rather than adopting a way of life uncritically. If anyone is interested in issues of sustainability or simple living, they can look at some of my blog postings from months back. Nick/Inky - A vegetarian post-humanist. | ||
|
EsX_Raptor
United States2802 Posts
WARNING, CRUDE CONTENT, WATCH AT YOUR OWN RISK | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
To the best of my recollection, his raw "soup" contains the following: Soaked unhulled sunflower seeds Soaked whole wheat kernels Lambsquarter or spinach (he tends to grow his own lambsquarter) Flax seed Dried apricots Apricot kernels (bitter almonds) Filtered water Don has been eating this diet for around 10 years, exceedingly faithfully (zero cooked food, zero non-vegan food). Don is 62. He walks everywhere he goes and has not used a car in around 8 years (not even riding in one as a passenger!). His daily exercise routine includes 45 minutes jumping on a trampoline. 40 pullups. 400 situps of various kinds. Hundreds of pushups. And various isotonic and isometric exercises. He's a tough bastard. He is not bulky - he is very, very lean, and utterly ripped. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
The world hunger argument is silly. First, world hunger exists for a lot of different reasons. Crops are difficult to grow in many parts of the world and say you do ship the food to starving countries, you've essentially just killed their agriculture base who will go out of business because the price of food has dropped dramatically. Then once the free food stops coming, everyone is fucked because there's no one left to sell food. Countries need to be able to grow their own food to support themselves and their people, or else they simply won't develop. That brings us to the next issue. The primary reason hunger exists is because food is too expensive for some countries to afford. What will happen if we stop breeding cows is that demand for agriculture will drop sharply while supply will climb like holy shit, although some of it will be offset by the lack of meat. Now these starved countries can import food at prices they can afford. What little agriculture they have won't get exported to other countries with bigger markets. Even if all that excess supply gets "donated" to these starving countries, most of the agricultural output of the world is from developed nations. It may kill their agricultural industry in the short run, but at least they're not starving now, and they can get on with developing industry. So what I'm saying is, world veganism -> less hunger. | ||
| ||
