On June 05 2011 06:05 ryanAnger wrote: Banning the meat industry would be fucking retarded. Humans eat meat because we are the top of the food chain, and as such, it is our inherent right. We eat meat because we can, and we like it. I honestly don't care about the conditions in which pigs are raised, because they are raised so we can eat them. Their only "purpose" in life, from birth, is to die, and be fed to us. They fulfill that purpose just fine.
Making the industry more humane wouldn't really be feasible either, because that would mean inefficiency, and inefficiency means less product, which also means a shortage (albeit small) of available food for the human population. It might just be my survival of the fittest instincts kicking in here, but I feel like the well-being of myself, and the human population is far more important than some animals raised for the sole purpose of being food.
The issue isn't eating meat, it's that we're eating too much, far more than our needs for protein would require. A more humane and sustainable industry is possible if you don't have a large portion of meat for every meal, which you really don't need. This has never been an issue of survival of the fittest and I don't see how you can call it such, so don't kid yourself. Hell, from a biological perspective, the animals we eat are actually the fittest because they suit our needs and as a result have spread across the world in massive numbers.
I agree with u, sounds reasonable . Most of my diet consist on cornflakes, gotto have my bowl, got to have my cereal(see what I did there?) its mostly because of laziness since i dont have to cook anything, so Ive drifted into veganism in a lesser degree Ive always felt there was something wrong with the mantra of superiority in man, not if its true or not, but because of the motivation behind saying it(usually uttered in a drunken state followed up with bragging about penissize/benchpressing/selfawsomeness etc) . A cat is like a supervampire that can see in the dark and actually find mice and rats, creatures that might as well be stuff of farietales as far as im concerned since ive never seen any(dont go out much). And a dog is a way more noble creature then I, who cant get off my lazy ass, highest achivement is struggeling in gold on the ladder, while a dog would often die for it owner, save babies in a fire and stuff.
But I feel that our own fear of dying might cloud our judgement on the matter. If u take away the horrifying moment of getting torn and ripped apart screaming, clawing the dirt desperatly with ur remaining pinky for a escape, with your lower body severed losing your ladder points... If u take away that part, aint giving your body to a animal a good thing? I would do anything to escape a horrible death, but If im gonna die anyway, and there wouldnt be any pain, what better way to be of use after ur dead by giving ur flesh to an animal? I guess my point is, I dont have a huge problem that animals sole reason for dying is us, but I dont like the idea of them living for us. The line between human and animal is kind of blurry in my mind through the years, probably because of extensive use of lsd :p
On June 05 2011 06:32 SplashBrannigan wrote: I think all these threads and the morons who post in them prove that people will not stop eating meat. If you really want to reduce animal suffering i suggest you dump all your extra money to non-profits that are funding or researching in vitro meat (labmeat, artificial meat, cultured meat, whatever you wanna call it). I'm surprised labmeat hasn't been mentioned in this thread after so many posts (at least i didn't find any with quick search) since in my opinion that is the only solution and it comes with added benefits compared to traditional meat (no need to pump hormones, amount of fat etc can be controlled, in the end cheaper)
Peta is going to right direction by announcing the 1 million labmeat challenge (X price style reward) instead of doing idiotic and expensive commercials appealing to emotions. New harvest is also a good charity funding university based research if you are looking for one
The first post seems to have some kind of FAQ section so i suggest the original poster adds this link to it as well: AR FAQ which i think answers most common questions and objections people make
I realized you were an idiot when I glanced through and saw PETA.
Labmeat is an interesting but touchy subject and not even close to being a reality yet. You might as well say wait until we get Star Trek replicators.
Mentioning PETA in my post makes me idiot? You obviously didn't read my post since i was critical of PETA in the first place. In vitro meat can already be made so you obviously know nothing about the subject and your status as a logical authority is now void. Problem with in vitro meat is how to produce it in large enough quantities for it to be commercially viable and even bigger problem is getting the texture right (the cells have to be exercised). Cultured meat in processed for (sausage, hamburger etc) is potentially not that far off though and I wouldn't be surprised if we see it becoming a reality in the coming decade
I would put the commercial viability of artificial meats as a suitable substitute for currently existing meats would be more akin to two decades out. There is more to meat than texture and providing protein. Any good cook would tell you that flavor is a big part of it... and getting meat to perfectly simulate the activities of other meats in the varied processes involved with food preparation will likely take a while. As an alternative source for protein, sure, I can see that coming in the next decade... but as a substitute for beef that can work for either my steak or my hot dog, I don't see that coming around for at least 15 years... and as much as I would love it, I seriously doubt they'll ever find the secret of what makes bacon so damned good.
But yeah, personally, I think of PETA as batshit crazy and no one will ever make me feel any guilt for eating a cow.
I have a challenge for you vegetarians. Just for the sake of your cause, I will donate my body to your vegetarian ways for 1 week. You must construct a balanced diet of ~2800 calories that conforms to your vegetarian ways, but it must have a protein count of 110-120 grams and also fulfills the fat and carb macronutrient requirements required for someone who is lifting heavy.
I'll eat your way for one week if you're willing to put in the minimal effort to tell me how. Also, I'm eating prime rib right now.
On June 05 2011 10:00 stevarius wrote: I have a challenge for you vegetarians. Just for the sake of your cause, I will donate my body to your vegetarian ways for 1 week. You must construct a balanced diet of ~2800 calories that conforms to your vegetarian ways, but it must have a protein count of 110-120 grams and also fulfills the fat and carb macronutrient requirements required for someone who is lifting heavy.
I'll eat your way for one week if you're willing to put in the minimal effort to tell me how. Also, I'm eating prime right now.
Risking your life for the greater good, I see. Godspeed.
On June 05 2011 06:32 SplashBrannigan wrote: I think all these threads and the morons who post in them prove that people will not stop eating meat. If you really want to reduce animal suffering i suggest you dump all your extra money to non-profits that are funding or researching in vitro meat (labmeat, artificial meat, cultured meat, whatever you wanna call it). I'm surprised labmeat hasn't been mentioned in this thread after so many posts (at least i didn't find any with quick search) since in my opinion that is the only solution and it comes with added benefits compared to traditional meat (no need to pump hormones, amount of fat etc can be controlled, in the end cheaper)
Peta is going to right direction by announcing the 1 million labmeat challenge (X price style reward) instead of doing idiotic and expensive commercials appealing to emotions. New harvest is also a good charity funding university based research if you are looking for one
The first post seems to have some kind of FAQ section so i suggest the original poster adds this link to it as well: AR FAQ which i think answers most common questions and objections people make
I realized you were an idiot when I glanced through and saw PETA.
Labmeat is an interesting but touchy subject and not even close to being a reality yet. You might as well say wait until we get Star Trek replicators.
Mentioning PETA in my post makes me idiot? You obviously didn't read my post since i was critical of PETA in the first place. In vitro meat can already be made so you obviously know nothing about the subject and your status as a logical authority is now void. Problem with in vitro meat is how to produce it in large enough quantities for it to be commercially viable and even bigger problem is getting the texture right (the cells have to be exercised). Cultured meat in processed for (sausage, hamburger etc) is potentially not that far off though and I wouldn't be surprised if we see it becoming a reality in the coming decade
Yes, mentioning PETA makes you an idiot because even if you were critical, you said they were going in the right direction after. PETA also doesn't exactly have a good track record and has some hilariously dumb programs (sea kittens). I know it can be made, it's not terribly difficult to "make" small quantities of edible flesh. You on the other hand clearly haven't thought of the infrastructure and needs of such a system and are merely posing the possibility. You've even mentioned yourself that there are issues with it and didn't even mention any of the ethical issues with it. It's a long ways off because it's a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist except in our imaginations (in b4 south park).
People haven't mentioned lab meat because if you haven't noticed, nobody is posing "futuristic" solutions to again, a problem that doesn't actually exist in an effort to call everyone else a moron.
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.
I am not saying my living conditions don't affect my views. I am saying your points about the applicability of vegetarianism to rural or impoverished settings isn't relevant to my rationale because I don't live in one of those settings and do in fact have access to the things those people don't.
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
It isnt that I can't 'stomach' the slaughter but it makes me feel guilty. I don't think western ideals on life make ppl more sensitive to killing than ideals in other parts of the world. If anything most people would say westerners are less sensitive towards killing etc.
I focused on factory farming because that is how most meat is produced, its the reality of the situation. I understand that there are alternative ways to breed cows and the bad allocation of grains isn't innate in the production of meat. I was never trying to make the point that meat consumption is wrong because its taking food away from people. I was making the point about the amount of grains cows consume because people were telling me that plants suffer as much as cows do. So I made the point that when you eat a portion of meat, the suffering that went into that meat is like 11x more than eating plants, because of the grains the cows eat along with the suffering of the cow, so eating would be worse anyway if plants suffer.
As for the article, I am saying that the article does not make (or imply) the point that it takes more food to feed people with meat than it does with grains. Producing meat is not food efficient because it consumes more food than it produces. The article does not contradict that. If you think it does pls, pm me the info from it that does.
also,
probably because you just watched half of Food Inc and apparently ignored everything else in the documentary. How many times will you deny that?
lol wat? I don't think I ever denied only watching half of food inc. but I will deny it now. I watched the whole movie *in theaters*.
On June 05 2011 11:44 Laerties wrote: the suffering that went into that meat is like 11x more than eating plants
Rofl. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I don't actually believe that plants suffer, but some people like to make ridiculous statements like that. just making the point that even if they did it would still be worse to eat meat. usually when u get into an argument about whether or not plants suffer no one can end up proving anything and it all just turns into a shitstorm (kinda like this thread), so its easier to just make the point that its irrelevant.
On June 05 2011 11:44 Laerties wrote: the suffering that went into that meat is like 11x more than eating plants
Rofl. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I don't actually believe that plants suffer, but some people like to make ridiculous statements like that. just making the point that even if they did it would still be worse to eat meat.
I'm back, I see discussions haven't progressed any further.
For those who argue that if we somehow stop farming animals and send all the grain to Africa. It's just not happening, like someone in the thread mentioned, it's not that we don't produce enough for people to eat, or we don't have enough land to farm for people-food, it's a logistical issue.
Sure we have millions of tonnes of grain that could feed the impoverished. But are private ranchers and farmers going to sell it to the impoverished for a tiny charge (take into account massive costs of shipping etc.) or make far more money raising livestock. Think about the people making a living off farming and ranching and think about the capitalist model.
Nothing's going to happen because "it would seem nice". Things happen because of profit, welcome to the real world.
tl;dr -> shipping cattle feed to impoverished nations is an impossible pipe dream
On June 05 2011 12:00 RoseTempest wrote: I'm back, I see discussions haven't progressed any further.
For those who argue that if we somehow stop farming animals and send all the grain to Africa. It's just not happening, like someone in the thread mentioned, it's not that we don't produce enough for people to eat, or we don't have enough land to farm for people-food, it's a logistical issue.
Sure we have millions of tonnes of grain that could feed the impoverished. But are private ranchers and farmers going to sell it to the impoverished for a tiny charge (take into account massive costs of shipping etc.) or make far more money raising livestock. Think about the people making a living off farming and ranching and think about the capitalist model.
Nothing's going to happen because "it would seem nice". Things happen because of profit, welcome to the real world.
tl;dr -> shipping cattle feed to impoverished nations is an impossible pipe dream
W.B. + agree but the meat producers wouldnt be in charge of the grain i think. Wouldn't it be the farmers? If the meat producers already have demand met than maybe shipping it is a good option for them, but they definitely arent obligated to.(how long can u store grain? anyone know?)
whether or not you decide to eat meat is strictly a diet choice. any meaning you tie to this choice is completely subjective. who ever pointed to hitlers diet as a way to devalue vegetarianism? why is it even relevant to choosing your own diet? the argument about slavery and animal testing, completely bogus. we do testing on animals because it saves lives, not because we get more cotton that way. two completely different means to different ends. horrible analogy. you keep using these words. rights, moral, human, animal, like they have these special meanings that need to be respected or something. we get it. you think its wrong to eat meat. and thats your choice. but your choice is your opinion; which is entirely subjective and based on what you think. not on any sort of higher law that governs humanity.
i'm not saying what you think is right or wrong but it's completely contrary to how the world actually works. and in fact is a rather slight moral conflict to get up in arms about. people kill each other every day because of whos god is better. for fucks sake at least we eat the animals we slaughter. the amount of senseless violence that goes on trumps whether or not a few chickens lose their heads.
i'm aware that a carnivorous diet may not be the best diet, and that on the contrary, most of the stuff they put in meat is particularly bad for you. but thats not to say grazing on greens is the best either. these are two extremes and hyperboles used by either side.
like you said, meat has been in the diets of humans since before we were well, humans (you can thank your ancestors for ingesting all that protein because its what made our brains so developed). whether or not we NEED to keep eating meat is up for debate. but dont expect the world to change the way it works because you understand that animals have feelings.
On June 05 2011 12:00 RoseTempest wrote: I'm back, I see discussions haven't progressed any further.
For those who argue that if we somehow stop farming animals and send all the grain to Africa. It's just not happening, like someone in the thread mentioned, it's not that we don't produce enough for people to eat, or we don't have enough land to farm for people-food, it's a logistical issue.
Sure we have millions of tonnes of grain that could feed the impoverished. But are private ranchers and farmers going to sell it to the impoverished for a tiny charge (take into account massive costs of shipping etc.) or make far more money raising livestock. Think about the people making a living off farming and ranching and think about the capitalist model.
Nothing's going to happen because "it would seem nice". Things happen because of profit, welcome to the real world.
tl;dr -> shipping cattle feed to impoverished nations is an impossible pipe dream
W.B. + agree but the meat producers wouldnt be in charge of the grain i think. Wouldn't it be the farmers? If the meat producers already have demand met than maybe shipping it is a good option for them, but they definitely arent obligated to.(how long can u store grain? anyone know?)
Thanks.
Thing is, even the price that ranchers are paying for grain is far higher than what developing nations would pay. It's also far costlier to ship grain long distances. And eventually, since there always will be demand for meat, ranchers will be willing to pay more and more in order to feed their herds, thus going into a price war with a developing nation (one that the nation definitely cannot afford). Besides the logistical nightmare the only thing that would happen is a spike in grain and meat prices, causing possibly more issues at home. It will deter some meat-eating, but then again, the people who can afford steaks, can still afford steaks (these are the over-indulgers) and the people who can barely afford food, now can't afford food.
A possibility, however, is somehow regulating the amount of ranching land/grain usage in developing nations and giving subsidies to grain farmers to counteract the less profits they're receiving from not selling to ranchers. This eliminates the massive issue of transportation and some of the logistical issues, but opens a whole new can of worms (international relations, national sovereignty etc).
Edit: soft grains store for around 6-9 years, however i believe around half of that time is "edible" and the other 3-4 years is just possibility of germination.
On June 05 2011 08:38 Conrose wrote: I would put the commercial viability of artificial meats as a suitable substitute for currently existing meats would be more akin to two decades out. There is more to meat than texture and providing protein. Any good cook would tell you that flavor is a big part of it... and getting meat to perfectly simulate the activities of other meats in the varied processes involved with food preparation will likely take a while. As an alternative source for protein, sure, I can see that coming in the next decade... but as a substitute for beef that can work for either my steak or my hot dog, I don't see that coming around for at least 15 years... and as much as I would love it, I seriously doubt they'll ever find the secret of what makes bacon so damned good.
I read somewhere that human and pig taste alike. Eating something that is so genetically similar probably has something to do with why it taste so good because your digestive system can more easily break it down.
The idea that westerners eating meat is causing a food shortage in Africa is about the most retarded thing I've read this entire thread. There are two important assumptions being made here:
1. That we are currently operating at maximum food production potential, and that if there wasn't more money to be made making more food, more food wouldn't be able to be made.
2. That if westerners used up less of our own food resources that our food producers would keep on producing at the old level anyway for no monetary reason, and send it to Africa.
Africa's inability to feed itself is absolutely unrelated to meat eating. Rhodesia/Zimbabwe ring a bell? Incompetent governments and lack of infrastructure is to blame for food shortage, not meat. Africa could easily become a net exporter of food with better infrastructure.
It's like saying that kids in the first world should stop playing with their PS3s because poor kids in third-world countries can't afford them. What, is Sony going to just keep making PS3s and give them to kids in third-world countries if we don't buy them, then? No, they're going to stop fucking making them. Same with food.
I don't think it's a good enough reason to be a vegan/vegetarian just because you think that animals have the right to live. However, although I'm not a vegetarian, I do not buy meat very often because of the horrible conditions that the animals suffer through. While I am not against killing animals for food, I think that animals should be treated like animals and not a fucking product to sell in supermarkets. Most chickens do not even ever see the light of day before they are slaughtered to be eaten
EPT
) its mostly because of laziness since i dont have to cook anything, so Ive drifted into veganism in a lesser degree
