|
On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. You are not supposed to go for easy answers.
It's like saying the lack of condoms, prostitution and knowledge are the reason AIDS is spreading in Africa.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
|
On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition. No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. "Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
|
I don't know what was worse, when people were arguing morals or now that they are arguing 'fact' with no sources.
I got through with like half this page then I realized no one in this thread has a fucking clue what they are talking about.
|
On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition. No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. "Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)." Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
It isn't a direct conversion. Animals are often fed food of such quality it is usually unfit for human consumption and graze on land that isn't fit for agriculture (rocky, etc).
Edit: added "often" since I am sure you could convert a lot of it to crops
|
Just a thought, many animals that are kept for meat have no place in modern day ecology and would be unable to survive naturally.
So not eating meat would lead to extinction of species?
|
On June 05 2011 03:38 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition. No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. "Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)." Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat. It isn't a direct conversion. Animals are often fed food of such quality it is usually unfit for human consumption and graze on land that isn't fit for agriculture (rocky, etc). Edit: added "often" since I am sure you could convert a lot of it to crops
Many are yes. However, especially in the United States, animals are being fed more good quality grain in order to make them grow faster and larger. Even here in Canada, feed lots feed their animals with good quality grain and oats from farms.
|
On June 05 2011 03:41 GeorgeyBeats wrote:
Just a thought, many animals that are kept for meat have no place in modern day ecology and would be unable to survive naturally.
So not eating meat would lead to extinction of species?
Yeah. The same will probably be true of large cats and a ton of other stuff.
I am no expert, but the "wild" doesn't really exist. I've seen projections for African cats that don't have them living anywhere but in captivity within a couple decades. No idea how accurate they are.
|
On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition. No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. "Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)." Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
Source for this?
I found this:
http://earthwatch.unep.ch/emergingissues/agriculture/foodsecurity.php
Which is based on 15 year old research...
|
On June 05 2011 03:41 GeorgeyBeats wrote:
Just a thought, many animals that are kept for meat have no place in modern day ecology and would be unable to survive naturally.
So not eating meat would lead to extinction of species?
Probably not extinction, and vegetarian diets would still require ppl to breed animals. It would definitely lower the populations significantly.I don't see that as necessarily bad though.
|
On June 05 2011 03:44 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition. No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. "Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)." Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat. Source for this? I found this: http://earthwatch.unep.ch/emergingissues/agriculture/foodsecurity.phpWhich is based on 15 year old research...
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
|
Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?
Discussing moral values is a phylosophical thing to me and thus basicly without end
in the end and it comes down to personal opinnion and the truth cant realy be argued
christian and muslim religion have a huge influence in the western societies on what people see as morally justified
the whole idea of a moral (good and bad) existing is typical for western and muslim religion but everyone is free to choose there own opinnion in this and there is realy no way to say wich one is better then the other
For humans it is definatly natural to eat meat,
as far as i know if it wasnt for the availability of fast energy due to animal protine our brain would not have been able to devellop to its current seize but maybe someone with more knowledge about biology can tell more about that
Where do you draw the line on who can have rights? Do insects have rights?
I draw the line at sentience because, as I have argued, sentient beings have interests and the possession of interests is the necessary and sufficient condition for membership in the moral community. Are insects sentient? Are they conscious beings with minds that experience pain and pleasure?
It is hard to say,i feel bad to draw the line and make my moral aply to the animal world
Everyones opinnion is equally valid basicly and then only thing that remains is the "right" of the strongest (wich is more a reality then a given right lol) also feel bad trying to convince other people that my moral is "right" somehow
For me if i would have to, i would draw the line at self-consciousness but this is personal
As far as i know not 1 animal species is realy self conscious and thus i would not grant one single animal the same fundamental rights as humans
Personally i am not found of eating meat and i absolutely recent some elements of the bio industry
Also i could never do pain to an animal and doubt would even be able to kill one if i had to to survive
Still i dont find it right to force other humans into the same direction
Seeing human history and biologic evolution (well the little that i know about it at least) i find it hard to find anny moral isues with eating meat
|
On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
A properly planned vegan diet is more than able to supply the nutrients and minerals your body needs. You go to any city and you will find 4, 5 6, 7 vitamine stores. Are there that many vegans? No. Those vitamines are for meat eaters who are unable to to balance their diets because they listen to idiots like you spreading missinformation about how beneficial meat is. Americans consume more milk than anywhere else in the world, so why are there no less than three calcium supplements on the market, and the U.S. still has the one of the highest rates of osteoperosis? Something doesn't add up.
This is entirely false. You cannot get all your nutrients from plants alone. This is a fact. The only way vegans get all their nutritional requirements is through the importation of exotic foods (exotic being anything not local), through the concentration of plant matter and through massive processing of plant matter. For example, without the addition of yeast extract, which is more animal than plant by the way since yeast is a fungus and fungus are far closer to animals phylogenetically than plants are, vegans would be unable to get B12 vitamins at all. It's close to impossible to get the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids from a vegan diet. You have to resort to harvesting algae and processing them massively to concentrate the omega-3s into a sizable portion. And no, the conversion of alpha-lipoic acid (ALA, the dominant omega 3 in plants) is not sufficient to meet most people's needs for long-chain omega 3 fatty acids. The conversion rate varies between 0.15% to 5% in most people.
On the other hand, you can subsist entirely on a meat diet and receive all the nutrients you need. You would need to eat organs, bones and bone marrow as well, but you would receive all vitamins, minerals and macronutrients needed for normal, healthy human development.
Finally, in the history of mankind, there's never been a vegan or even vegetarian society. The supposed health detriments of meat eating and animal production consumption is based on faulty science and willful blindness. It has far more to do with politics and agendas than any actual science. The rise of obesity, diabetes and many other diseases of civilization is far better correlated with the ingestion of refined flour, sugar and vegetable oils than animal products.
|
On June 05 2011 03:58 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
A properly planned vegan diet is more than able to supply the nutrients and minerals your body needs. You go to any city and you will find 4, 5 6, 7 vitamine stores. Are there that many vegans? No. Those vitamines are for meat eaters who are unable to to balance their diets because they listen to idiots like you spreading missinformation about how beneficial meat is. Americans consume more milk than anywhere else in the world, so why are there no less than three calcium supplements on the market, and the U.S. still has the one of the highest rates of osteoperosis? Something doesn't add up. This is entirely false. You cannot get all your nutrients from plants alone. This is a fact. The only way vegans get all their nutritional requirements is through the importation of exotic foods (exotic being anything not local), through the concentration of plant matter and through massive processing of plant matter. For example, without the addition of yeast extract, which is more animal than plant by the way since yeast is a fungus and fungus are far closer to animals phylogenetically than plants are, vegans would be unable to get B12 vitamins at all. It's close to impossible to get the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids from a vegan diet. You have to resort to harvesting algae and processing them massively to concentrate the omega-3s into a sizable portion. And no, the conversion of alpha-lipoic acid (ALA, the dominant omega 3 in plants) is not sufficient to meet most people's needs for long-chain omega 3 fatty acids. The conversion rate varies between 0.15% to 5% in most people. On the other hand, you can subsist entirely on a meat diet and receive all the nutrients you need. You would need to eat organs, bones and bone marrow as well, but you would receive all vitamins, minerals and macronutrients needed for normal, healthy human development. Finally, in the history of mankind, there's never been a vegan or even vegetarian society. The supposed health detriments of meat eating and animal production consumption is based on faulty science and willful blindness. It has far more to do with politics and agendas than any actual science. The rise of obesity, diabetes and many other diseases of civilization is far better correlated with the ingestion of refined flour, sugar and vegetable oils than animal products.
Ok getting tired of arguing the same points. There is a massive amount of research out there that supports a vegan/vegetarian diet and denounces overconsumption of meat. Have fun eating pure meat, you will not likely live past 45. Here are some books on the subject of veganism, vegetarianism, and animal rights.
Dominion by Matthew Scully
Food for the Gods by Rynn Berry
Famous Vegetarians & Their Favorite Recipes by Rynn Berry
Animal Models in Light of Evolution by Drs. Ray Greek & Niall Shanks
FAQs About the Use of Animals in Science by Drs. Ray Greek & Niall Shanks
The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol Adams
Diet For a New America by John Robbins
The Food Revolution by John Robbins
Mad Cowboy by Howard Lyman
The Vegetarian Way by Virginia and Mark Messina
Eternal Treblinka by Charles Patterson
Slaughterhouse by Gail Eisnitz
Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? by Dr. Steve Best
Animal Equality by Joan Dunayer
Speciesism by Joan Dunayer
Eat Right, Live Longer by Dr. Neal Barnard
Breaking the Food Seduction by Dr. Neal Barnard
The McDougall Program: Twelve Days to Dynamic Health by Dr. John McDougall
McDougall Program for Women by Dr. John McDougall
McDougall Program for Maximum Weight Loss by Dr. John McDougall
The Perfect Formula Diet by Janice Stanger, Ph.D. (Read an excerpt)
Skinny Bitch by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin
Skinny Bitch Bun in the Oven by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin
Pregnancy, Children and the Vegan Diet by Michael Klaper, M.D.
Raising Vegan Children in a Non-Vegan World: A Complete Guide for Parents by Erin Pavlina
Vegan in 30 Days by Sarah Taylor
Don't Drink Your Milk by Dr. Frank Oski
The Conscious Cook by Tal Ronnen
The Ultimate Uncheese Cookbook by Jo Stepaniak
Becoming Vegan by Brenda Davis, R.D
For vitamine B12
Destroyed by heat – alfalfa sprouts, barley, beans, cereals (fortified), chlorella, dulse, garlic, grains (all), grapes (concord), kelp, Living Harvest Hemp Milk, mustard greens, nori, nuts, Odwalla B Monster smoothie, plums, prunes, Red Star Nutritional Yeast, rice milk (fortified), sauerkraut (unpasteurized), seeds (all), soy, spirulina, sprouts (all), wheatgerm and wheatgrass.
Vitamin B12 is a bacterium that is produced in the soil, and we only need three micrograms per day. Some animals have trace amounts of B12 in their flesh because they eat dirt from the ground. Eating meat for trace amounts of B12—a secondary source that comes with cholesterol, saturated fat and animal protein—is inefficient and deadly. Furthermore, B12 is destroyed by excessive amounts of heat, which explains why 99 percent of all people with B12 deficiencies are meat-eaters.
www.naturalnews.com/029531_vitamin_B12_vegan.html
Omega Fatty Acids
Açaí, beans, black currant seed oil, blue-green algae, borage seed oil, cabbage, canola oil, flax (oil/seeds), chlorella, corn, green vegetables (leafy), hemp (oil/seed/powder/milk), pine nuts, pumpkin seeds, sesame seeds, soy, sprouts (all), squash, vegetable oils, walnuts and wheat.
|
On June 05 2011 00:25 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 19:13 Ig wrote:
I have understood your point and have stated numerous times that your ability to even make such a point and I assume live by it is because of where you live. This isn't the part you haven't understood. Its the difference between killing meat for survival and enjoyment, you keep saying my point is invalid because I would eat meat to survive and I keep re-explaining what I mean. Show nested quote +
To deny the fact that your rationale is only possible because you have access to the fruits of industrial agriculture is an outright lie. Basically, if you live outside of an industrialized nation, unless you're Buddhist (some can eat fish and iirc other meats occasionally) or part of a Hindu sect that doesn't allow you to eat meat or another religion that bars it, you probably depend on meat as a primary protein source
Wrong. Animals consume around 5 times more protein than they produce. People in rural settings who eat meat for protein would presumably have access to milk and eggs as well, so any protein needs would just as easily be satisfied with that. 16 oz milk = 18-24g of protien 1 egg= 7g protein usually. I don't know why poor people only would be able to find meat and not other animal products but whatever. "http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html" Show nested quote +
Your rationale is very clearly based on your relatively privileged life, how many times do I have to state that before you'll finally admit that there's truth in these words because you live in America?
Probably many more times since your wrong. Vegetarian diets don't depend on privileged life styles. People with access to meat generally has access to other animal products. Show nested quote +
You also bring up an example of Gandhi's book but fail to state that the inability to grow enough staple food crops to consume or sell due to environmental conditions is a major cause of poverty.
Umm, I 'failed to state' this because it has nothing to do with the discussion. I didn't need you to tell me people are starving because there isn't enough food. and it doesnt contrast any of the points I made. Show nested quote +
I'll put it this way, there are two main reasons why people in Africa starve: the inability to create demand and have food shipped over and buy it, and the inability to grow their own food due to lack of suitable seed or environmental degradation. You can't just go say something like "just eat some quinoa!" to everyone either - oh hey, it's shipped thousands of miles from South American while people in Bolivia starve (Bolivia is a major producer of quinoa)! Looks like quinoa is off the menu now.
Same thing as above Show nested quote +
10:1 is indeed an issue as you're using the worst statistic among those on grain used to produce meat to better prove your point as well as assuming it is "close" to the other examples when it actually isn't, there's a reason people tell you to eat less meat (if you do) and when you do to eat free range poultry. Again you've also ignored the fact that this statistic is based around factory farming. Will you deny the facts or just call it a minor issue again so you can continue misinforming people?
Sooooo nearly all meat comes from factory farming... It wouldn't make sense to focus on free range farming since it accounts for so little of meat eaten. 10:1, 5:1 hell, 2:1, the point that meat production is less efficient still holds, thats why its a minor issue, because there can be so much variance and the point is still true. Show nested quote +
hell, I didn't see you adamantly opposing RoseTempest when he said that the moral argument has no place but that's probably because he was willing to descend to your level to discuss morality, and even after he pointed out how stupid it was you...kept doing it.
No you see its actually because he had interesting and good points. Yours are just wrong. Show nested quote +
Besides, the only insight you would gain by arguing something like this is insight into how foolish it is to base anything on morality when it comes to food, though it seems you're refusing to open your mind to the bigger picture.
I'm refusing to open my mind to bad arguments. You keep asserting that morality is not a viable basis for not eating meat but none of your evidence implies this. Maybe you should find some that does. Show nested quote +
I mentioned: greater land use and associated economic efficiency from integrating small amounts of meat and dairy in diets,
It isn't more economic. The article was saying it has slightly greater land efficiency. Show nested quote +
how vegan diets are unsuitable for infants and children, the history of human consumption of meat including our evolution, integration of animals into agroecosystems for greater sustainability, and how factory farms are the real unsustainable side of eating meat, not eating meat itself. I'm only "all over the place" to those that choose not to follow. Keep in mind again that I have nothing against individuals choosing to be vegan or vegetarian or to eat a ton of meat (though I frown upon the latter), only the use of morality as an argument for it,
All these points don't invalidate the validity of morality to my rationale. They just take stabs at the potentially negative aspects of the lifestyle which no one is denying. Nothing you have said actually attempts to invalidate morality as a valid point to base diet off of. If that is what you have a problem with, address that. This is why your argument is bad, you assert 1 thing but provide evidence for another, its non sensical.
I'll just start by saying you really like to turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't support your morality, your whole response is built upon ignorance.
I understood perfectly the difference between eating meat for survival and "pleasure." The problem is you still won't admit that you were only able to think about this because you live in the first world, with more vegan/vegetarian choices, supplements to support it, and essentially an endless supply of whatever food you need whenever you need it. Not everyone has this luxury, so not everyone can actually have a fully vegan/vegetarian diet because of their conditions. You ignore again the fact that a lot of vegan/vegetarian choices that support good nutrition are high quality crops requiring high quality land and a good climate to produce. You're spoiled, we all are, but you just can't admit it and use people in the rest of the world who were able to do what you do without the first world ease so you feel better and more justified.
People with access to milk and eggs also eat meat, I think I'm right. You failed to state the issue of inability to produce food because you simply failed to state it, it's a valid point and one of the reasons some people are in poverty. I should also have mentioned that some of the nice fruits and vegetables you can eat come from third world nations that have plenty of starving people despite the fact that they export food to us.
Yes nearly all meat consumed in our industrialized nations comes from factory farming, but there has been a shift among some people lately and the truth of factory farming is becoming more widely known, prompting calls for more "humane" and sustainable alternative modes of production. These alternative modes are more integrated with the plant part of agriculture and better mimic traditional ways to raise animals. You're ignoring the good alternatives that have been practiced for thousands of years in order to "support" your sheltered rationale.
I don't need to invalidate morality for your rationale, I can invalidate the "benefits" of your choice. My evidence doesn't need to invalidate your "morality" because it's so ambiguous and personal to being with (there's a reason morality isn't usually used as an argument outside of human issues), my evidence invalidates the benefits of your rationale and agenda. Your morality is also once again, a result of you being a privileged, sheltered westerner. My argument isn't bad, I've presented a social and scientific case against you, but you've just completely ignored it, like here you ignored the previous quinoa example entirely and will probably ignore the similar example I put up again. How about I leave it by saying that the balanced vegan diets people have in America today are only possible through modern supplements and access to the wide variety of plant products available to us in the first world, and that based on land use and accompanying economic efficiency due (you completely ignored this in an earlier post), a semi-vegetarian diet is superior for feeding more people. Are you seriously going to once again attempt to say that I don't understand your argument? I do, what I'm trying to say is morality as an argument for not eating animals as said before by others is essentially bullshit. You have nothing but your self-righteousness, though in all honesty I respect your sentiments, I think they're ridiculous and only present because you can't stomach the slaughter. The science and history of agriculture and the domestication and consumption of animals isn't nonsensical, your rationale is.
I'll elaborate a bit on the land use and economic efficiency: it's because animals can be raised on forage (unsuitable for human consumption) and pastureland, which is not land you can effectively grow vegetables or many grains on. You're making use of land you wouldn't have used in a manner that is natural (grazing) leading to greater economic efficiency due to the ability to use more of the resources available to you to feed more people. Keyword there: feed more people.
|
On June 05 2011 03:55 Rassy wrote:
Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?
Discussing moral values is a phylosophical thing to me and thus basicly without end
in the end and it comes down to personal opinnion and the truth cant realy be argued
christian and muslim religion have a huge influence in the western societies on what people see as morally justified
the whole idea of a moral (good and bad) existing is typical for western and muslim religion but everyone is free to choose there own opinnion in this and there is realy no way to say wich one is better then the other
For humans it is definatly natural to eat meat,
as far as i know if it wasnt for the availability of fast energy due to animal protine our brain would not have been able to devellop to its current seize but maybe someone with more knowledge about biology can tell more about that
Where do you draw the line on who can have rights? Do insects have rights?
I draw the line at sentience because, as I have argued, sentient beings have interests and the possession of interests is the necessary and sufficient condition for membership in the moral community. Are insects sentient? Are they conscious beings with minds that experience pain and pleasure?
It is hard to say,i feel bad to draw the line and make my moral aply to the animal world
Everyones opinnion is equally valid basicly and then only thing that remains is the "right" of the strongest (wich is more a reality then a given right lol) also feel bad trying to convince other people that my moral is "right" somehow
For me if i would have to, i would draw the line at self-consciousness but this is personal
As far as i know not 1 animal species is realy self conscious and thus i would not grant one single animal the same fundamental rights as humans
Personally i am not found of eating meat and i absolutely recent some elements of the bio industry
Also i could never do pain to an animal and doubt would even be able to kill one if i had to to survive
Still i dont find it right to force other humans into the same direction
Seeing human history and biologic evolution (well the little that i know about it at least) i find it hard to find anny moral isues with eating meat
I pretty much agree with everything you said. Everyone should determine for themselves what they see as right and wrong and live according to their own principles rather than the principles of others. I do just wana comment on your first sentence though.
"Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?"
Just because something is traditional or natural doesn't make it morally justified. Slavery is pretty traditional and came about naturally thousands of years ago....I cant say that slavery is morally justified though. I just dont see why natural or traditional would also imply morally justified. Sometimes they coincide and sometimes they dont.
|
On June 05 2011 04:26 Ig wrote:
[
I understood perfectly the difference between eating meat for survival and "pleasure." The problem is you still won't admit that you were only able to think about this because you live in the first world, with more vegan/vegetarian choices, supplements to support it, and essentially an endless supply of whatever food you need whenever you need it. Not everyone has this luxury, so not everyone can actually have a fully vegan/vegetarian diet because of their conditions. You ignore again the fact that a lot of vegan/vegetarian choices that support good nutrition are high quality crops requiring high quality land and a good climate to produce. You're spoiled, we all are, but you just can't admit it and use people in the rest of the world who were able to do what you do without the first world ease so you feel better and more justified.
People with access to milk and eggs also eat meat, I think I'm right. You failed to state the issue of inability to produce food because you simply failed to state it, it's a valid point and one of the reasons some people are in poverty. I should also have mentioned that some of the nice fruits and vegetables you can eat come from third world nations that have plenty of starving people despite the fact that they export food to us.
Yes nearly all meat consumed in our industrialized nations comes from factory farming, but there has been a shift among some people lately and the truth of factory farming is becoming more widely known, prompting calls for more "humane" and sustainable alternative modes of production. These alternative modes are more integrated with the plant part of agriculture and better mimic traditional ways to raise animals. You're ignoring the good alternatives that have been practiced for thousands of years in order to "support" your sheltered rationale.
I don't need to invalidate morality for your rationale, I can invalidate the "benefits" of your choice. My evidence doesn't need to invalidate your "morality" because it's so ambiguous and personal to being with (there's a reason morality isn't usually used as an argument outside of human issues), my evidence invalidates the benefits of your rationale and agenda. Your morality is also once again, a result of you being a privileged, sheltered westerner. My argument isn't bad, I've presented a social and scientific case against you, but you've just completely ignored it, like here you ignored the previous quinoa example entirely and will probably ignore the similar example I put up again. How about I leave it by saying that the balanced vegan diets people have in America today are only possible through modern supplements and access to the wide variety of plant products available to us in the first world, and that based on land use and accompanying economic efficiency due (you completely ignored this in an earlier post), a semi-vegetarian diet is superior for feeding more people. Are you seriously going to once again attempt to say that I don't understand your argument? I do, what I'm trying to say is morality as an argument for not eating animals as said before by others is essentially bullshit. You have nothing but your self-righteousness, though in all honesty I respect your sentiments, I think they're ridiculous and only present because you can't stomach the slaughter. The science and history of agriculture and the domestication and consumption of animals isn't nonsensical, your rationale is.
I'll elaborate a bit on the land use and economic efficiency: it's because animals can be raised on forage (unsuitable for human consumption) and pastureland, which is not land you can effectively grow vegetables or many grains on. You're making use of land you wouldn't have used in a manner that is natural (grazing) leading to greater economic efficiency due to the ability to use more of the resources available to you to feed more people. Keyword there: feed more people.
I just don't have the energy to keep reading this. I wasn't going to bring this up because I believe you are wrong in most of your statements about vegetarianism being impossible in impoverished settings but you have outlasted my will to argue with you. Even if I concede the point about vegetarianism being inapplicable to impoverished settings, I don't live in an impoverished setting, so it has no effect on my reasons for not eating meat. The points you make about vegetarianism being unethical also apply equally to meat eating.
As far as the land efficiency goes, I was only pointing out that the article didn't contradict my point about economical efficiency. I understand that small amounts of meat can be used to maximise food output of land. I never disagreed with that.
|
On June 05 2011 03:51 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 03:44 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition. No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. "Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)." Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat. Source for this? I found this: http://earthwatch.unep.ch/emergingissues/agriculture/foodsecurity.phpWhich is based on 15 year old research... I get most of my information from my university textbooks. Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
|
On June 05 2011 04:49 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 04:26 Ig wrote:
[
I understood perfectly the difference between eating meat for survival and "pleasure." The problem is you still won't admit that you were only able to think about this because you live in the first world, with more vegan/vegetarian choices, supplements to support it, and essentially an endless supply of whatever food you need whenever you need it. Not everyone has this luxury, so not everyone can actually have a fully vegan/vegetarian diet because of their conditions. You ignore again the fact that a lot of vegan/vegetarian choices that support good nutrition are high quality crops requiring high quality land and a good climate to produce. You're spoiled, we all are, but you just can't admit it and use people in the rest of the world who were able to do what you do without the first world ease so you feel better and more justified.
People with access to milk and eggs also eat meat, I think I'm right. You failed to state the issue of inability to produce food because you simply failed to state it, it's a valid point and one of the reasons some people are in poverty. I should also have mentioned that some of the nice fruits and vegetables you can eat come from third world nations that have plenty of starving people despite the fact that they export food to us.
Yes nearly all meat consumed in our industrialized nations comes from factory farming, but there has been a shift among some people lately and the truth of factory farming is becoming more widely known, prompting calls for more "humane" and sustainable alternative modes of production. These alternative modes are more integrated with the plant part of agriculture and better mimic traditional ways to raise animals. You're ignoring the good alternatives that have been practiced for thousands of years in order to "support" your sheltered rationale.
I don't need to invalidate morality for your rationale, I can invalidate the "benefits" of your choice. My evidence doesn't need to invalidate your "morality" because it's so ambiguous and personal to being with (there's a reason morality isn't usually used as an argument outside of human issues), my evidence invalidates the benefits of your rationale and agenda. Your morality is also once again, a result of you being a privileged, sheltered westerner. My argument isn't bad, I've presented a social and scientific case against you, but you've just completely ignored it, like here you ignored the previous quinoa example entirely and will probably ignore the similar example I put up again. How about I leave it by saying that the balanced vegan diets people have in America today are only possible through modern supplements and access to the wide variety of plant products available to us in the first world, and that based on land use and accompanying economic efficiency due (you completely ignored this in an earlier post), a semi-vegetarian diet is superior for feeding more people. Are you seriously going to once again attempt to say that I don't understand your argument? I do, what I'm trying to say is morality as an argument for not eating animals as said before by others is essentially bullshit. You have nothing but your self-righteousness, though in all honesty I respect your sentiments, I think they're ridiculous and only present because you can't stomach the slaughter. The science and history of agriculture and the domestication and consumption of animals isn't nonsensical, your rationale is.
I'll elaborate a bit on the land use and economic efficiency: it's because animals can be raised on forage (unsuitable for human consumption) and pastureland, which is not land you can effectively grow vegetables or many grains on. You're making use of land you wouldn't have used in a manner that is natural (grazing) leading to greater economic efficiency due to the ability to use more of the resources available to you to feed more people. Keyword there: feed more people. I just don't have the energy to keep reading this. I wasn't going to bring this up because I believe you are wrong in most of your statements about vegetarianism being impossible in impoverished settings but you have outlasted my will to argue with you. Even if I concede the point about vegetarianism being inapplicable to impoverished settings, I don't live in an impoverished setting, so it has no effect on my reasons for not eating meat. The points you make about vegetarianism being unethical also apply equally to meat eating. As far as the land efficiency goes, I was only pointing out that the article didn't contradict my point about economical efficiency. I understand that small amounts of meat can be used to maximise food output of land. I never disagreed with that.
I never said it was impossible, nothing is "impossible," but the fact remains that some people just don't have the ability to produce all the high quality vegetables needed to sustain a vegan/vegetarian diet while the production of others goes to support the culinary choices of your rationale while people in their nations starve. You can keep saying your living conditions don't affect your views, but I'll just say you're in denial because they do. It's easy for you to think "oh I just won't eat any meat" because you don't have to, you have easy, reliable access to all the high quality plant products needed and supplements to support a vegan diet as well. You can't stomach the slaughter because you've been taught Western ideals on life and are sheltered from both the slaughter and the rest of our food production so you have no clue of how it gets to your table, hence why you're fixated now on factory farming probably because you just watched half of Food Inc and apparently ignored everything else in the documentary. How many times will you deny that? Everything applies to everything, you're learning, but your morality and rationale doesn't apply to everything, not even close - hence the issue with using it as an argument in any way.
The article didn't contradict your point because the writers are probably actually knowledgeable on the topic, and the target audience should probably be intelligent enough to assume what I told you because the article implies it, instead of attempting to use the lack of mention as a counterpoint like you did.
|
On June 05 2011 05:06 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 03:51 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:44 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition. No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. "Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)." Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat. Source for this? I found this: http://earthwatch.unep.ch/emergingissues/agriculture/foodsecurity.phpWhich is based on 15 year old research... I get most of my information from my university textbooks. Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying. It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security. Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people... Meat consumption tends to rise with household wealth, and a third of the world's grain is used to fatten animals."
|
On June 05 2011 05:33 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 05:06 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:51 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:44 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition. No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. "Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)." Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat. Source for this? I found this: http://earthwatch.unep.ch/emergingissues/agriculture/foodsecurity.phpWhich is based on 15 year old research... I get most of my information from my university textbooks. Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying. It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security. Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet. Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world. A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people."
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
While the poverty part was up to date (ish) the hunger part was not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
