|
I must admit, the videos from PETA is horribly biased to show the gruesome ways of animal production despite new legislation being passed quite often to lessen animal cruelty (like Prop 2).
On the other hand, I have no argument against vegetarianism. It seems sound in health and economics, and I believe that the only reason people aren't vegetarian is because of nurture. (I can't become vegetarian either because I love meat too much. :p)
|
On May 29 2009 09:26 VegeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 09:21 Empyrean wrote:On May 29 2009 09:15 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 09:09 Empyrean wrote:On May 29 2009 09:06 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 08:35 ShaperofDreams wrote:
The simple fact is that I eat meat products because I like them. If you want to be a vegetarian go ahead but saying a person is morally bound is bullshit.
From the ecological "better for the earth" view that's like saying cars should be banned and everyone should use mass transport because is is more efficient and ecologically friendly.
From the moral "animals shouldn't suffer" viewpoint I say sorry but tough shit. It isn't as if other humans don't suffer for our benefit and i prefer myself than animals in terms of quality of life.
I am not saying I eat a cow a day and I am minimizing my meat consumption (for health reasons, I think Americans/Canadians eat way too much meat). It's unhealthy to only eat vegetables, only a small amount of meat is required for the "perfect" diet.
edit** I guess this sums up to SUSHI FTW!! I'll quote wikipedia for you: "Vegetarianism is considered a healthy, viable diet. The American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have found a properly-planned vegetarian diet to satisfy the nutritional needs for all stages of life, and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to significantly lower risks of cancer, ischaemic heart disease, and other fatal diseases.[11][12][38] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[39]" While this may be true, eating a truly vegetarian diet that provides all of the essential nutrients, etc., needed for healthy survival is out of the economic means for many people around the world. A vegetarian diet is cheaper than a meat diet both in terms of the damage on the enviroment and efficiency of water and land resources. Western goverments subsidize meat production which makes cheaper than it should. The majority of the worlds popuplation already live on a vegeterian diet. From http://globalhunger.net/statement-of-principles+ Show Spoiler +1. Hunger is a global emergency. The problems of hunger and malnutrition will be solved by more efficient and equitable use of existing world food resources and by increased international support for the selfdetermined efforts of low-income food-deficit nations to redevelop sustainable agricultural operations. Neither of these aims will be met by the expansion of foreign-owned industrial animal agriculture operations into low-income food-deficit nations.
2. Actions taken to address hunger must be cost-effective so that they will feed the greatest number of people possible. Because industrial animal agriculture operations entail higher usage of land, plant, water and fuel resources per calorie or unit of protein than the cultivation of plant crops for human consumption, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen rather than lessen the problems of hunger and malnutrition in those nations. In contrast, sustainable cultivation of plants for human consumption offers a cost-effective method of producing healthy food for hungry people.
3. Foods produced as a result of hunger relief efforts must be safe, healthy, and consistent with traditional diets. Hunger relief plans which elevate consumption of animal-based foods are culturally inappropriate and likely to increase the incidence of diseases which are known to be related to high levels of consumption of animal-based foods. Low-income nations would be left to bear the health care costs and lowered levels of productivity associated with these diseases
4. Pollution and depletion of natural resources also threaten human survival. The impending global water crisis is a particularly emergent problem. Demands upon and pollution of already depleted water resources by new industrial animal agriculture operations would worsen this growing worldwide crisis. Land degradation and desertification associated with intensive grazing would worsen the impact of cycles of drought and flooding, further threatening global water security.
5. Poverty eradication must be pursued in the context of self-determination. External corporate control of industrial animal agriculture operations in low-income food-deficit nations would lead to profit extraction from impoverished nations as well as diminished self-determination within the agricultural sectors of those nations
6. A reasonable measure of self-sufficiency is required for food security. Industrial animal agriculture operations are highly dependent on capital and technology. They require large amounts of bought-in feed inputs, energy, and water. Therefore, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen, rather than lessen, food insecurity in those nations
7. The aim of agriculture is to feed people. Low-income nations must not be pressured to convert their agricultural sectors into profit-generating components of foreign-owned corporations or to place the demands of international markets above the needs of their own citizens. Conversion of agricultural resources now devoted to food for local and regional consumption into resources devoted to the production of commodities for foreign markets would increase vulnerability to market shocks and, hence, increase food insecurity
8. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations must act in the interests of low-income food-deficit nations and must also recognize the shared interest of the citizens of the world in the preservation of the environment. The FAO must not cede to the interests of private corporations by promoting practices which would ultimately further impoverish low-income food-deficit nations and further despoil the environment upon which we all depend
9. The Global Hunger Alliance calls upon FAO, food policy makers, and non-governmental organizations to rise above national interests and profit motives in order to implement genuine solutions that will feed the world while preserving the planet.
Oh yes, that is true. I'm very guilty of looking at things from an Ameri-centric point of view, I suppose... But the way things are, unless there's massive change with our food industry (and I doubt the meat industry will allow it...they'll probably lobby forever), for most less-well off Americans, there's no way they can sustain themselves on a purely vegetarian diet due to the prohibitive cost. You're right though, that a vegetarian diet costs less energy to grow than an omnivorous diet (energy loss to higher trophic levels needed to raise meat). I just don't see anything changing in the near future. Well the Vegetarian movement in western countries is stronger than ever and it's growing, sure we're also eating more meat than ever in the west. But more and more people are opening their eyes every day. Sure the meat industry won't disappear overnight. But if the world doesn't go under(enviromental disaster, nuclear war etc), i think in the future (50-100 years) almost everyone may well be vegetarian.
"opening their eyes"?... get off your high horse.
|
On May 29 2009 09:40 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 09:26 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 09:21 Empyrean wrote:On May 29 2009 09:15 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 09:09 Empyrean wrote:On May 29 2009 09:06 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 08:35 ShaperofDreams wrote:
The simple fact is that I eat meat products because I like them. If you want to be a vegetarian go ahead but saying a person is morally bound is bullshit.
From the ecological "better for the earth" view that's like saying cars should be banned and everyone should use mass transport because is is more efficient and ecologically friendly.
From the moral "animals shouldn't suffer" viewpoint I say sorry but tough shit. It isn't as if other humans don't suffer for our benefit and i prefer myself than animals in terms of quality of life.
I am not saying I eat a cow a day and I am minimizing my meat consumption (for health reasons, I think Americans/Canadians eat way too much meat). It's unhealthy to only eat vegetables, only a small amount of meat is required for the "perfect" diet.
edit** I guess this sums up to SUSHI FTW!! I'll quote wikipedia for you: "Vegetarianism is considered a healthy, viable diet. The American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have found a properly-planned vegetarian diet to satisfy the nutritional needs for all stages of life, and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to significantly lower risks of cancer, ischaemic heart disease, and other fatal diseases.[11][12][38] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[39]" While this may be true, eating a truly vegetarian diet that provides all of the essential nutrients, etc., needed for healthy survival is out of the economic means for many people around the world. A vegetarian diet is cheaper than a meat diet both in terms of the damage on the enviroment and efficiency of water and land resources. Western goverments subsidize meat production which makes cheaper than it should. The majority of the worlds popuplation already live on a vegeterian diet. From http://globalhunger.net/statement-of-principles+ Show Spoiler +1. Hunger is a global emergency. The problems of hunger and malnutrition will be solved by more efficient and equitable use of existing world food resources and by increased international support for the selfdetermined efforts of low-income food-deficit nations to redevelop sustainable agricultural operations. Neither of these aims will be met by the expansion of foreign-owned industrial animal agriculture operations into low-income food-deficit nations.
2. Actions taken to address hunger must be cost-effective so that they will feed the greatest number of people possible. Because industrial animal agriculture operations entail higher usage of land, plant, water and fuel resources per calorie or unit of protein than the cultivation of plant crops for human consumption, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen rather than lessen the problems of hunger and malnutrition in those nations. In contrast, sustainable cultivation of plants for human consumption offers a cost-effective method of producing healthy food for hungry people.
3. Foods produced as a result of hunger relief efforts must be safe, healthy, and consistent with traditional diets. Hunger relief plans which elevate consumption of animal-based foods are culturally inappropriate and likely to increase the incidence of diseases which are known to be related to high levels of consumption of animal-based foods. Low-income nations would be left to bear the health care costs and lowered levels of productivity associated with these diseases
4. Pollution and depletion of natural resources also threaten human survival. The impending global water crisis is a particularly emergent problem. Demands upon and pollution of already depleted water resources by new industrial animal agriculture operations would worsen this growing worldwide crisis. Land degradation and desertification associated with intensive grazing would worsen the impact of cycles of drought and flooding, further threatening global water security.
5. Poverty eradication must be pursued in the context of self-determination. External corporate control of industrial animal agriculture operations in low-income food-deficit nations would lead to profit extraction from impoverished nations as well as diminished self-determination within the agricultural sectors of those nations
6. A reasonable measure of self-sufficiency is required for food security. Industrial animal agriculture operations are highly dependent on capital and technology. They require large amounts of bought-in feed inputs, energy, and water. Therefore, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen, rather than lessen, food insecurity in those nations
7. The aim of agriculture is to feed people. Low-income nations must not be pressured to convert their agricultural sectors into profit-generating components of foreign-owned corporations or to place the demands of international markets above the needs of their own citizens. Conversion of agricultural resources now devoted to food for local and regional consumption into resources devoted to the production of commodities for foreign markets would increase vulnerability to market shocks and, hence, increase food insecurity
8. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations must act in the interests of low-income food-deficit nations and must also recognize the shared interest of the citizens of the world in the preservation of the environment. The FAO must not cede to the interests of private corporations by promoting practices which would ultimately further impoverish low-income food-deficit nations and further despoil the environment upon which we all depend
9. The Global Hunger Alliance calls upon FAO, food policy makers, and non-governmental organizations to rise above national interests and profit motives in order to implement genuine solutions that will feed the world while preserving the planet.
Oh yes, that is true. I'm very guilty of looking at things from an Ameri-centric point of view, I suppose... But the way things are, unless there's massive change with our food industry (and I doubt the meat industry will allow it...they'll probably lobby forever), for most less-well off Americans, there's no way they can sustain themselves on a purely vegetarian diet due to the prohibitive cost. You're right though, that a vegetarian diet costs less energy to grow than an omnivorous diet (energy loss to higher trophic levels needed to raise meat). I just don't see anything changing in the near future. Well the Vegetarian movement in western countries is stronger than ever and it's growing, sure we're also eating more meat than ever in the west. But more and more people are opening their eyes every day. Sure the meat industry won't disappear overnight. But if the world doesn't go under(enviromental disaster, nuclear war etc), i think in the future (50-100 years) almost everyone may well be vegetarian. "opening their eyes"?... get off your high horse.
So what argument do you have for eating meat?
|
On May 29 2009 09:41 VegeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 09:40 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2009 09:26 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 09:21 Empyrean wrote:On May 29 2009 09:15 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 09:09 Empyrean wrote:On May 29 2009 09:06 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 08:35 ShaperofDreams wrote:
The simple fact is that I eat meat products because I like them. If you want to be a vegetarian go ahead but saying a person is morally bound is bullshit.
From the ecological "better for the earth" view that's like saying cars should be banned and everyone should use mass transport because is is more efficient and ecologically friendly.
From the moral "animals shouldn't suffer" viewpoint I say sorry but tough shit. It isn't as if other humans don't suffer for our benefit and i prefer myself than animals in terms of quality of life.
I am not saying I eat a cow a day and I am minimizing my meat consumption (for health reasons, I think Americans/Canadians eat way too much meat). It's unhealthy to only eat vegetables, only a small amount of meat is required for the "perfect" diet.
edit** I guess this sums up to SUSHI FTW!! I'll quote wikipedia for you: "Vegetarianism is considered a healthy, viable diet. The American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have found a properly-planned vegetarian diet to satisfy the nutritional needs for all stages of life, and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to significantly lower risks of cancer, ischaemic heart disease, and other fatal diseases.[11][12][38] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[39]" While this may be true, eating a truly vegetarian diet that provides all of the essential nutrients, etc., needed for healthy survival is out of the economic means for many people around the world. A vegetarian diet is cheaper than a meat diet both in terms of the damage on the enviroment and efficiency of water and land resources. Western goverments subsidize meat production which makes cheaper than it should. The majority of the worlds popuplation already live on a vegeterian diet. From http://globalhunger.net/statement-of-principles+ Show Spoiler +1. Hunger is a global emergency. The problems of hunger and malnutrition will be solved by more efficient and equitable use of existing world food resources and by increased international support for the selfdetermined efforts of low-income food-deficit nations to redevelop sustainable agricultural operations. Neither of these aims will be met by the expansion of foreign-owned industrial animal agriculture operations into low-income food-deficit nations.
2. Actions taken to address hunger must be cost-effective so that they will feed the greatest number of people possible. Because industrial animal agriculture operations entail higher usage of land, plant, water and fuel resources per calorie or unit of protein than the cultivation of plant crops for human consumption, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen rather than lessen the problems of hunger and malnutrition in those nations. In contrast, sustainable cultivation of plants for human consumption offers a cost-effective method of producing healthy food for hungry people.
3. Foods produced as a result of hunger relief efforts must be safe, healthy, and consistent with traditional diets. Hunger relief plans which elevate consumption of animal-based foods are culturally inappropriate and likely to increase the incidence of diseases which are known to be related to high levels of consumption of animal-based foods. Low-income nations would be left to bear the health care costs and lowered levels of productivity associated with these diseases
4. Pollution and depletion of natural resources also threaten human survival. The impending global water crisis is a particularly emergent problem. Demands upon and pollution of already depleted water resources by new industrial animal agriculture operations would worsen this growing worldwide crisis. Land degradation and desertification associated with intensive grazing would worsen the impact of cycles of drought and flooding, further threatening global water security.
5. Poverty eradication must be pursued in the context of self-determination. External corporate control of industrial animal agriculture operations in low-income food-deficit nations would lead to profit extraction from impoverished nations as well as diminished self-determination within the agricultural sectors of those nations
6. A reasonable measure of self-sufficiency is required for food security. Industrial animal agriculture operations are highly dependent on capital and technology. They require large amounts of bought-in feed inputs, energy, and water. Therefore, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen, rather than lessen, food insecurity in those nations
7. The aim of agriculture is to feed people. Low-income nations must not be pressured to convert their agricultural sectors into profit-generating components of foreign-owned corporations or to place the demands of international markets above the needs of their own citizens. Conversion of agricultural resources now devoted to food for local and regional consumption into resources devoted to the production of commodities for foreign markets would increase vulnerability to market shocks and, hence, increase food insecurity
8. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations must act in the interests of low-income food-deficit nations and must also recognize the shared interest of the citizens of the world in the preservation of the environment. The FAO must not cede to the interests of private corporations by promoting practices which would ultimately further impoverish low-income food-deficit nations and further despoil the environment upon which we all depend
9. The Global Hunger Alliance calls upon FAO, food policy makers, and non-governmental organizations to rise above national interests and profit motives in order to implement genuine solutions that will feed the world while preserving the planet.
Oh yes, that is true. I'm very guilty of looking at things from an Ameri-centric point of view, I suppose... But the way things are, unless there's massive change with our food industry (and I doubt the meat industry will allow it...they'll probably lobby forever), for most less-well off Americans, there's no way they can sustain themselves on a purely vegetarian diet due to the prohibitive cost. You're right though, that a vegetarian diet costs less energy to grow than an omnivorous diet (energy loss to higher trophic levels needed to raise meat). I just don't see anything changing in the near future. Well the Vegetarian movement in western countries is stronger than ever and it's growing, sure we're also eating more meat than ever in the west. But more and more people are opening their eyes every day. Sure the meat industry won't disappear overnight. But if the world doesn't go under(enviromental disaster, nuclear war etc), i think in the future (50-100 years) almost everyone may well be vegetarian. "opening their eyes"?... get off your high horse. So what argument do you have for eating meat?
Can't speak for seppolevne, but personally I enjoy it. Enjoyment has value.
|
On May 29 2009 09:41 VegeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 09:40 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2009 09:26 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 09:21 Empyrean wrote:On May 29 2009 09:15 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 09:09 Empyrean wrote:On May 29 2009 09:06 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 08:35 ShaperofDreams wrote:
The simple fact is that I eat meat products because I like them. If you want to be a vegetarian go ahead but saying a person is morally bound is bullshit.
From the ecological "better for the earth" view that's like saying cars should be banned and everyone should use mass transport because is is more efficient and ecologically friendly.
From the moral "animals shouldn't suffer" viewpoint I say sorry but tough shit. It isn't as if other humans don't suffer for our benefit and i prefer myself than animals in terms of quality of life.
I am not saying I eat a cow a day and I am minimizing my meat consumption (for health reasons, I think Americans/Canadians eat way too much meat). It's unhealthy to only eat vegetables, only a small amount of meat is required for the "perfect" diet.
edit** I guess this sums up to SUSHI FTW!! I'll quote wikipedia for you: "Vegetarianism is considered a healthy, viable diet. The American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have found a properly-planned vegetarian diet to satisfy the nutritional needs for all stages of life, and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to significantly lower risks of cancer, ischaemic heart disease, and other fatal diseases.[11][12][38] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[39]" While this may be true, eating a truly vegetarian diet that provides all of the essential nutrients, etc., needed for healthy survival is out of the economic means for many people around the world. A vegetarian diet is cheaper than a meat diet both in terms of the damage on the enviroment and efficiency of water and land resources. Western goverments subsidize meat production which makes cheaper than it should. The majority of the worlds popuplation already live on a vegeterian diet. From http://globalhunger.net/statement-of-principles+ Show Spoiler +1. Hunger is a global emergency. The problems of hunger and malnutrition will be solved by more efficient and equitable use of existing world food resources and by increased international support for the selfdetermined efforts of low-income food-deficit nations to redevelop sustainable agricultural operations. Neither of these aims will be met by the expansion of foreign-owned industrial animal agriculture operations into low-income food-deficit nations.
2. Actions taken to address hunger must be cost-effective so that they will feed the greatest number of people possible. Because industrial animal agriculture operations entail higher usage of land, plant, water and fuel resources per calorie or unit of protein than the cultivation of plant crops for human consumption, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen rather than lessen the problems of hunger and malnutrition in those nations. In contrast, sustainable cultivation of plants for human consumption offers a cost-effective method of producing healthy food for hungry people.
3. Foods produced as a result of hunger relief efforts must be safe, healthy, and consistent with traditional diets. Hunger relief plans which elevate consumption of animal-based foods are culturally inappropriate and likely to increase the incidence of diseases which are known to be related to high levels of consumption of animal-based foods. Low-income nations would be left to bear the health care costs and lowered levels of productivity associated with these diseases
4. Pollution and depletion of natural resources also threaten human survival. The impending global water crisis is a particularly emergent problem. Demands upon and pollution of already depleted water resources by new industrial animal agriculture operations would worsen this growing worldwide crisis. Land degradation and desertification associated with intensive grazing would worsen the impact of cycles of drought and flooding, further threatening global water security.
5. Poverty eradication must be pursued in the context of self-determination. External corporate control of industrial animal agriculture operations in low-income food-deficit nations would lead to profit extraction from impoverished nations as well as diminished self-determination within the agricultural sectors of those nations
6. A reasonable measure of self-sufficiency is required for food security. Industrial animal agriculture operations are highly dependent on capital and technology. They require large amounts of bought-in feed inputs, energy, and water. Therefore, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen, rather than lessen, food insecurity in those nations
7. The aim of agriculture is to feed people. Low-income nations must not be pressured to convert their agricultural sectors into profit-generating components of foreign-owned corporations or to place the demands of international markets above the needs of their own citizens. Conversion of agricultural resources now devoted to food for local and regional consumption into resources devoted to the production of commodities for foreign markets would increase vulnerability to market shocks and, hence, increase food insecurity
8. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations must act in the interests of low-income food-deficit nations and must also recognize the shared interest of the citizens of the world in the preservation of the environment. The FAO must not cede to the interests of private corporations by promoting practices which would ultimately further impoverish low-income food-deficit nations and further despoil the environment upon which we all depend
9. The Global Hunger Alliance calls upon FAO, food policy makers, and non-governmental organizations to rise above national interests and profit motives in order to implement genuine solutions that will feed the world while preserving the planet.
Oh yes, that is true. I'm very guilty of looking at things from an Ameri-centric point of view, I suppose... But the way things are, unless there's massive change with our food industry (and I doubt the meat industry will allow it...they'll probably lobby forever), for most less-well off Americans, there's no way they can sustain themselves on a purely vegetarian diet due to the prohibitive cost. You're right though, that a vegetarian diet costs less energy to grow than an omnivorous diet (energy loss to higher trophic levels needed to raise meat). I just don't see anything changing in the near future. Well the Vegetarian movement in western countries is stronger than ever and it's growing, sure we're also eating more meat than ever in the west. But more and more people are opening their eyes every day. Sure the meat industry won't disappear overnight. But if the world doesn't go under(enviromental disaster, nuclear war etc), i think in the future (50-100 years) almost everyone may well be vegetarian. "opening their eyes"?... get off your high horse. So what argument do you have for eating meat?
The most basic, it tastes good, and we came into existence as omnivores.
|
On May 29 2009 09:41 VegeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 09:40 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2009 09:26 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 09:21 Empyrean wrote:On May 29 2009 09:15 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 09:09 Empyrean wrote:On May 29 2009 09:06 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 08:35 ShaperofDreams wrote:
The simple fact is that I eat meat products because I like them. If you want to be a vegetarian go ahead but saying a person is morally bound is bullshit.
From the ecological "better for the earth" view that's like saying cars should be banned and everyone should use mass transport because is is more efficient and ecologically friendly.
From the moral "animals shouldn't suffer" viewpoint I say sorry but tough shit. It isn't as if other humans don't suffer for our benefit and i prefer myself than animals in terms of quality of life.
I am not saying I eat a cow a day and I am minimizing my meat consumption (for health reasons, I think Americans/Canadians eat way too much meat). It's unhealthy to only eat vegetables, only a small amount of meat is required for the "perfect" diet.
edit** I guess this sums up to SUSHI FTW!! I'll quote wikipedia for you: "Vegetarianism is considered a healthy, viable diet. The American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have found a properly-planned vegetarian diet to satisfy the nutritional needs for all stages of life, and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to significantly lower risks of cancer, ischaemic heart disease, and other fatal diseases.[11][12][38] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[39]" While this may be true, eating a truly vegetarian diet that provides all of the essential nutrients, etc., needed for healthy survival is out of the economic means for many people around the world. A vegetarian diet is cheaper than a meat diet both in terms of the damage on the enviroment and efficiency of water and land resources. Western goverments subsidize meat production which makes cheaper than it should. The majority of the worlds popuplation already live on a vegeterian diet. From http://globalhunger.net/statement-of-principles+ Show Spoiler +1. Hunger is a global emergency. The problems of hunger and malnutrition will be solved by more efficient and equitable use of existing world food resources and by increased international support for the selfdetermined efforts of low-income food-deficit nations to redevelop sustainable agricultural operations. Neither of these aims will be met by the expansion of foreign-owned industrial animal agriculture operations into low-income food-deficit nations.
2. Actions taken to address hunger must be cost-effective so that they will feed the greatest number of people possible. Because industrial animal agriculture operations entail higher usage of land, plant, water and fuel resources per calorie or unit of protein than the cultivation of plant crops for human consumption, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen rather than lessen the problems of hunger and malnutrition in those nations. In contrast, sustainable cultivation of plants for human consumption offers a cost-effective method of producing healthy food for hungry people.
3. Foods produced as a result of hunger relief efforts must be safe, healthy, and consistent with traditional diets. Hunger relief plans which elevate consumption of animal-based foods are culturally inappropriate and likely to increase the incidence of diseases which are known to be related to high levels of consumption of animal-based foods. Low-income nations would be left to bear the health care costs and lowered levels of productivity associated with these diseases
4. Pollution and depletion of natural resources also threaten human survival. The impending global water crisis is a particularly emergent problem. Demands upon and pollution of already depleted water resources by new industrial animal agriculture operations would worsen this growing worldwide crisis. Land degradation and desertification associated with intensive grazing would worsen the impact of cycles of drought and flooding, further threatening global water security.
5. Poverty eradication must be pursued in the context of self-determination. External corporate control of industrial animal agriculture operations in low-income food-deficit nations would lead to profit extraction from impoverished nations as well as diminished self-determination within the agricultural sectors of those nations
6. A reasonable measure of self-sufficiency is required for food security. Industrial animal agriculture operations are highly dependent on capital and technology. They require large amounts of bought-in feed inputs, energy, and water. Therefore, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen, rather than lessen, food insecurity in those nations
7. The aim of agriculture is to feed people. Low-income nations must not be pressured to convert their agricultural sectors into profit-generating components of foreign-owned corporations or to place the demands of international markets above the needs of their own citizens. Conversion of agricultural resources now devoted to food for local and regional consumption into resources devoted to the production of commodities for foreign markets would increase vulnerability to market shocks and, hence, increase food insecurity
8. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations must act in the interests of low-income food-deficit nations and must also recognize the shared interest of the citizens of the world in the preservation of the environment. The FAO must not cede to the interests of private corporations by promoting practices which would ultimately further impoverish low-income food-deficit nations and further despoil the environment upon which we all depend
9. The Global Hunger Alliance calls upon FAO, food policy makers, and non-governmental organizations to rise above national interests and profit motives in order to implement genuine solutions that will feed the world while preserving the planet.
Oh yes, that is true. I'm very guilty of looking at things from an Ameri-centric point of view, I suppose... But the way things are, unless there's massive change with our food industry (and I doubt the meat industry will allow it...they'll probably lobby forever), for most less-well off Americans, there's no way they can sustain themselves on a purely vegetarian diet due to the prohibitive cost. You're right though, that a vegetarian diet costs less energy to grow than an omnivorous diet (energy loss to higher trophic levels needed to raise meat). I just don't see anything changing in the near future. Well the Vegetarian movement in western countries is stronger than ever and it's growing, sure we're also eating more meat than ever in the west. But more and more people are opening their eyes every day. Sure the meat industry won't disappear overnight. But if the world doesn't go under(enviromental disaster, nuclear war etc), i think in the future (50-100 years) almost everyone may well be vegetarian. "opening their eyes"?... get off your high horse. So what argument do you have for eating meat?
1) taste good
2) taste better than vegetables
3) taste good
4) taste great
5)fuck veggies
6) While I am pulling this one out of my ass I believe vegetarianism is far more suitable for developed nations because the individual can afford to substitute meat for veggies.
7) For other under developed nations or developing nations, meat provides far more fat, carbs and protein on a gram per gram basis than veggies.
|
On May 29 2009 09:41 VegeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 09:40 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2009 09:26 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 09:21 Empyrean wrote:On May 29 2009 09:15 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 09:09 Empyrean wrote:On May 29 2009 09:06 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 08:35 ShaperofDreams wrote:
The simple fact is that I eat meat products because I like them. If you want to be a vegetarian go ahead but saying a person is morally bound is bullshit.
From the ecological "better for the earth" view that's like saying cars should be banned and everyone should use mass transport because is is more efficient and ecologically friendly.
From the moral "animals shouldn't suffer" viewpoint I say sorry but tough shit. It isn't as if other humans don't suffer for our benefit and i prefer myself than animals in terms of quality of life.
I am not saying I eat a cow a day and I am minimizing my meat consumption (for health reasons, I think Americans/Canadians eat way too much meat). It's unhealthy to only eat vegetables, only a small amount of meat is required for the "perfect" diet.
edit** I guess this sums up to SUSHI FTW!! I'll quote wikipedia for you: "Vegetarianism is considered a healthy, viable diet. The American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have found a properly-planned vegetarian diet to satisfy the nutritional needs for all stages of life, and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to significantly lower risks of cancer, ischaemic heart disease, and other fatal diseases.[11][12][38] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[39]" While this may be true, eating a truly vegetarian diet that provides all of the essential nutrients, etc., needed for healthy survival is out of the economic means for many people around the world. A vegetarian diet is cheaper than a meat diet both in terms of the damage on the enviroment and efficiency of water and land resources. Western goverments subsidize meat production which makes cheaper than it should. The majority of the worlds popuplation already live on a vegeterian diet. From http://globalhunger.net/statement-of-principles+ Show Spoiler +1. Hunger is a global emergency. The problems of hunger and malnutrition will be solved by more efficient and equitable use of existing world food resources and by increased international support for the selfdetermined efforts of low-income food-deficit nations to redevelop sustainable agricultural operations. Neither of these aims will be met by the expansion of foreign-owned industrial animal agriculture operations into low-income food-deficit nations.
2. Actions taken to address hunger must be cost-effective so that they will feed the greatest number of people possible. Because industrial animal agriculture operations entail higher usage of land, plant, water and fuel resources per calorie or unit of protein than the cultivation of plant crops for human consumption, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen rather than lessen the problems of hunger and malnutrition in those nations. In contrast, sustainable cultivation of plants for human consumption offers a cost-effective method of producing healthy food for hungry people.
3. Foods produced as a result of hunger relief efforts must be safe, healthy, and consistent with traditional diets. Hunger relief plans which elevate consumption of animal-based foods are culturally inappropriate and likely to increase the incidence of diseases which are known to be related to high levels of consumption of animal-based foods. Low-income nations would be left to bear the health care costs and lowered levels of productivity associated with these diseases
4. Pollution and depletion of natural resources also threaten human survival. The impending global water crisis is a particularly emergent problem. Demands upon and pollution of already depleted water resources by new industrial animal agriculture operations would worsen this growing worldwide crisis. Land degradation and desertification associated with intensive grazing would worsen the impact of cycles of drought and flooding, further threatening global water security.
5. Poverty eradication must be pursued in the context of self-determination. External corporate control of industrial animal agriculture operations in low-income food-deficit nations would lead to profit extraction from impoverished nations as well as diminished self-determination within the agricultural sectors of those nations
6. A reasonable measure of self-sufficiency is required for food security. Industrial animal agriculture operations are highly dependent on capital and technology. They require large amounts of bought-in feed inputs, energy, and water. Therefore, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen, rather than lessen, food insecurity in those nations
7. The aim of agriculture is to feed people. Low-income nations must not be pressured to convert their agricultural sectors into profit-generating components of foreign-owned corporations or to place the demands of international markets above the needs of their own citizens. Conversion of agricultural resources now devoted to food for local and regional consumption into resources devoted to the production of commodities for foreign markets would increase vulnerability to market shocks and, hence, increase food insecurity
8. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations must act in the interests of low-income food-deficit nations and must also recognize the shared interest of the citizens of the world in the preservation of the environment. The FAO must not cede to the interests of private corporations by promoting practices which would ultimately further impoverish low-income food-deficit nations and further despoil the environment upon which we all depend
9. The Global Hunger Alliance calls upon FAO, food policy makers, and non-governmental organizations to rise above national interests and profit motives in order to implement genuine solutions that will feed the world while preserving the planet.
Oh yes, that is true. I'm very guilty of looking at things from an Ameri-centric point of view, I suppose... But the way things are, unless there's massive change with our food industry (and I doubt the meat industry will allow it...they'll probably lobby forever), for most less-well off Americans, there's no way they can sustain themselves on a purely vegetarian diet due to the prohibitive cost. You're right though, that a vegetarian diet costs less energy to grow than an omnivorous diet (energy loss to higher trophic levels needed to raise meat). I just don't see anything changing in the near future. Well the Vegetarian movement in western countries is stronger than ever and it's growing, sure we're also eating more meat than ever in the west. But more and more people are opening their eyes every day. Sure the meat industry won't disappear overnight. But if the world doesn't go under(enviromental disaster, nuclear war etc), i think in the future (50-100 years) almost everyone may well be vegetarian. "opening their eyes"?... get off your high horse. So what argument do you have for eating meat?
Tastes good.
|
In terms of oil and water consumption, pastured beef are one of the most ecologically friendly forms of agriculture in the world. When you start having to import low quality grain because you want to maximize cattle production per sq. ft, you run into serious problems. Similarly, when you have organic gardens, the food has a very low environmental footprint, but when you scale it up to GMO agri-business, things look VERY different.
Large scale plantations are probably 10x times as damaging to the environment than pastured cows. The excess nitrogen put into the soil, the slash and burn growing cycle in meridian countries, the vast rerouting of water via widespread irrigation, the massive increase in river and lake phosporous...
The question isn't which source of food is better; environmental changes and techniques will favor one over the other as new methods and technologies are introduced.
|
Only thing that shocks me is all the people eating their hamburgers in ignorance? Where did you think it came from? lmao...... open your eyes indeed... and then eat that shit up. So delicious nomnomnom
But seriously -- what? Do you think people even considered being vegetarians when they had to kill their own meals? Vegetarianism is a mute point -- noone cares or listens... If they did we wouldn't have 100k+ cows dying constantly.. predators eat prey case closed... You'd have more luck funding and researching and inventing intravenous nutrient supply suits and passing them out to every citizen (and even then I'd take mine off to eat meat) than you will with a true vegetarian political movement.
And I'm all for the proper treatment of animals before their unjust execution for only their flesh. lol...
I enjoyed the documentary "Earthlings" more. heh.
|
Artosis
United States2140 Posts
ok this might be one of the most disgustingly ignorant threads i have ever seen in my life. i hope to god that no one read through this thread and think they learned anything. for anyone who did take time to read through this thread, my advice is to totally forget what you read. from what i skimmed over, people are arguing and saying things that are completely untrue throughout. yuck.
|
On August 08 2008 20:31 Ghardo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world's tropical rain forests.
Last week, the president of Brazil announced emergency measures to halt the burning and cutting of the rain forests for crop and grazing land. In the last five months alone, the government says, 1,250 square miles, or 320,000 hectares, were lost.
Americans eat about the same amount of meat daily as they have for some time, about 8 ounces, or 230 grams, roughly twice the global average. At about 5 percent of the world's population, Americans grow and kill nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the world's total.+ Show Spoiler +Growing meat uses so many resources that it is a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: An estimated 30 percent of the earth's ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world's greenhouse gases - more than transportation does.
The argument that meat provides useful protein makes sense if the quantities are small. But the claim that "you've got to eat meat" collapses at the national level, even if the amount of meat Americans ate were not harmful.
Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago. Americans each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the U.S. government's recommended allowance; of that, about 75 grams come from animal protein.
It is likely that most Americans would do just fine on around 30 grams of protein a day, virtually all of it from plant sources.
Perhaps the best hope for change lies in consumers' becoming aware of the true costs of industrial meat production.
"When you look at environmental problems in the U.S.," Eshel said, "nearly all of them have their source in food production and in particular meat production. And factory farming is 'optimal' only as long as degrading waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly - even if it simply carries a non-zero price tag - the entire structure of food production will change dramatically."
If price spikes do not change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals.+ Show Spoiler +Rosegrant said he foresaw "a stronger public relations campaign in the reduction of meat consumption - one like that around cigarettes - emphasizing personal health, compassion for animals, and doing good for the poor and the planet."
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization, in its detailed 2006 study of the impact of meat consumption on the planet made a similar point.+ Show Spoiler +"There are reasons for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal products and environmental services can be reconciled," it said. "Both demands are exerted by the same group of people, the relatively affluent, middle- to high-income class, which is no longer confined to industrialized countries. This group of consumers is probably ready to use its growing voice to exert pressure for change and may be willing to absorb the inevitable price increases."
In fact, Americans are already buying more environmentally friendly products, choosing more sustainably produced meat, eggs and dairy. The number of farmers' markets has more than doubled in the last 10 years or so, and it has escaped no one's notice that the organic food market is growing fast. These all represent products that are more expensive but of higher quality. Mark Bittman, who writes the Minimalist column in The New York Times's Dining In and Dining Out sections, is the author of "How to Cook Everything Vegetarian," which was published last year. He is not a vegetarian. i find it very interesting that most of the ones so vehemently arguing pro meat consumption here are from north america. this is a cultural thing i guess. north americans never had a great strength for remorsefulness. kill off the natives, the land is ours. establish an unregulated market economy and proceed with it until the overupgraded supertank runs out of fuel. and i won't generalize. in america are enough smart persons who can critically think for themselves, just the ones like funchucks are immensely ignorant and selfish and all they want to do is preserving their (totally unnecessary) luxurious lifestyle. (yes compared to ppl in ethiopia we all live luxurious fatass lifes) why abandon slaves? they are so convenient and look, they are cheap labour (well one has to feed them unfortunately) which is a great help for our cotton industry! check your facts, i can mathematically prove that we absolutely need slaves. PEOPLE WOULD LOSE THEIR JOBS. the only thing you are doing is defending your comfortable situation, which is understandable, but shows yet again how boundless an economy and its participants are which is geared towards the ultimate fulfillment of pleasure. you are only rich because others are poor, keep that in mind. and cutting your living standards a bit wouldn't hurt you as gravely as you try to make it seem. *edit* on a sidenote: it's absolutely possible and not that hard to live without ANY animal products. as travis already said it depends on a proper diet. in the case of a vegan lifestyle more or less the only thing you have to do is see that you get enough vitamin b12 which is contained in various multi vitamin juices. proteins are just as easily acquired through nuts, tofu, beans etc. it's just a matter of you and your willingness to go without "the satisfaction of your bodily wants", as ghandi put it
|
17054 Posts
On May 29 2009 09:41 VegeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 09:40 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2009 09:26 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 09:21 Empyrean wrote:On May 29 2009 09:15 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 09:09 Empyrean wrote:On May 29 2009 09:06 VegeTerran wrote:On May 29 2009 08:35 ShaperofDreams wrote:
The simple fact is that I eat meat products because I like them. If you want to be a vegetarian go ahead but saying a person is morally bound is bullshit.
From the ecological "better for the earth" view that's like saying cars should be banned and everyone should use mass transport because is is more efficient and ecologically friendly.
From the moral "animals shouldn't suffer" viewpoint I say sorry but tough shit. It isn't as if other humans don't suffer for our benefit and i prefer myself than animals in terms of quality of life.
I am not saying I eat a cow a day and I am minimizing my meat consumption (for health reasons, I think Americans/Canadians eat way too much meat). It's unhealthy to only eat vegetables, only a small amount of meat is required for the "perfect" diet.
edit** I guess this sums up to SUSHI FTW!! I'll quote wikipedia for you: "Vegetarianism is considered a healthy, viable diet. The American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have found a properly-planned vegetarian diet to satisfy the nutritional needs for all stages of life, and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to significantly lower risks of cancer, ischaemic heart disease, and other fatal diseases.[11][12][38] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[39]" While this may be true, eating a truly vegetarian diet that provides all of the essential nutrients, etc., needed for healthy survival is out of the economic means for many people around the world. A vegetarian diet is cheaper than a meat diet both in terms of the damage on the enviroment and efficiency of water and land resources. Western goverments subsidize meat production which makes cheaper than it should. The majority of the worlds popuplation already live on a vegeterian diet. From http://globalhunger.net/statement-of-principles+ Show Spoiler +1. Hunger is a global emergency. The problems of hunger and malnutrition will be solved by more efficient and equitable use of existing world food resources and by increased international support for the selfdetermined efforts of low-income food-deficit nations to redevelop sustainable agricultural operations. Neither of these aims will be met by the expansion of foreign-owned industrial animal agriculture operations into low-income food-deficit nations.
2. Actions taken to address hunger must be cost-effective so that they will feed the greatest number of people possible. Because industrial animal agriculture operations entail higher usage of land, plant, water and fuel resources per calorie or unit of protein than the cultivation of plant crops for human consumption, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen rather than lessen the problems of hunger and malnutrition in those nations. In contrast, sustainable cultivation of plants for human consumption offers a cost-effective method of producing healthy food for hungry people.
3. Foods produced as a result of hunger relief efforts must be safe, healthy, and consistent with traditional diets. Hunger relief plans which elevate consumption of animal-based foods are culturally inappropriate and likely to increase the incidence of diseases which are known to be related to high levels of consumption of animal-based foods. Low-income nations would be left to bear the health care costs and lowered levels of productivity associated with these diseases
4. Pollution and depletion of natural resources also threaten human survival. The impending global water crisis is a particularly emergent problem. Demands upon and pollution of already depleted water resources by new industrial animal agriculture operations would worsen this growing worldwide crisis. Land degradation and desertification associated with intensive grazing would worsen the impact of cycles of drought and flooding, further threatening global water security.
5. Poverty eradication must be pursued in the context of self-determination. External corporate control of industrial animal agriculture operations in low-income food-deficit nations would lead to profit extraction from impoverished nations as well as diminished self-determination within the agricultural sectors of those nations
6. A reasonable measure of self-sufficiency is required for food security. Industrial animal agriculture operations are highly dependent on capital and technology. They require large amounts of bought-in feed inputs, energy, and water. Therefore, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen, rather than lessen, food insecurity in those nations
7. The aim of agriculture is to feed people. Low-income nations must not be pressured to convert their agricultural sectors into profit-generating components of foreign-owned corporations or to place the demands of international markets above the needs of their own citizens. Conversion of agricultural resources now devoted to food for local and regional consumption into resources devoted to the production of commodities for foreign markets would increase vulnerability to market shocks and, hence, increase food insecurity
8. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations must act in the interests of low-income food-deficit nations and must also recognize the shared interest of the citizens of the world in the preservation of the environment. The FAO must not cede to the interests of private corporations by promoting practices which would ultimately further impoverish low-income food-deficit nations and further despoil the environment upon which we all depend
9. The Global Hunger Alliance calls upon FAO, food policy makers, and non-governmental organizations to rise above national interests and profit motives in order to implement genuine solutions that will feed the world while preserving the planet.
Oh yes, that is true. I'm very guilty of looking at things from an Ameri-centric point of view, I suppose... But the way things are, unless there's massive change with our food industry (and I doubt the meat industry will allow it...they'll probably lobby forever), for most less-well off Americans, there's no way they can sustain themselves on a purely vegetarian diet due to the prohibitive cost. You're right though, that a vegetarian diet costs less energy to grow than an omnivorous diet (energy loss to higher trophic levels needed to raise meat). I just don't see anything changing in the near future. Well the Vegetarian movement in western countries is stronger than ever and it's growing, sure we're also eating more meat than ever in the west. But more and more people are opening their eyes every day. Sure the meat industry won't disappear overnight. But if the world doesn't go under(enviromental disaster, nuclear war etc), i think in the future (50-100 years) almost everyone may well be vegetarian. "opening their eyes"?... get off your high horse. So what argument do you have for eating meat?
Well, evolutionarily, humans arose eating meat (although yes, mostly plant sources of food). Meat also provides high quality proteins and fat which are essential in our diet. Though granted, you -can- find them in food from plant sources, it's much easier to just get it from animal sources. Meat's also quite tasty.
Personally, I try to limit my meat intake, though by no means do I find anything wrong with eating it. Most of my diet (if all goes according to plan, of course) comes from plant sources, such as vegetables, grains, vegetable products such as tofu, etc., but I'll also consume meat, fish, and animal-sourced products (eggs, cheese, etc.) fairly regularly.
|
On May 29 2009 08:34 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 07:42 da_head wrote:
eh, video didn't effect me. i will continue happily eating meat.
until all humans in the world live in a decent home, and have enough food/water to sustain themselves, i don't give a shit about pigs, cows, and chickens. i personally think people who do, are morons. I second this.
This is pretty much how I feel on the topic.
|
Lets suppose that everything has a soul at one point, and that one day we were rocks.
If I reencarnated as a cow nowdays id like to die fairly quickly so I could continue my path to illumination faster.
More animals being bred for eating = more souls getting illuminated
therefore eating meat = spreading illumination thro the cosmos
|
On May 29 2009 10:14 D10 wrote:
Lets suppose that everything has a soul at one point, and that one day we were rocks.
If I reencarnated as a cow nowdays id like to die fairly quickly so I could continue my path to illumination faster.
More animals being bred for eating = more souls getting illuminated
therefore eating meat = spreading illumination thro the cosmos
wat
|
The meat industry is just industrializing animal suffering, not necessarily creating it.
|
17054 Posts
On May 29 2009 10:14 D10 wrote:
Lets suppose that everything has a soul at one point, and that one day we were rocks.
If I reencarnated as a cow nowdays id like to die fairly quickly so I could continue my path to illumination faster.
More animals being bred for eating = more souls getting illuminated
therefore eating meat = spreading illumination thro the cosmos
Well if people were reincarnated as wheat, then combine harvesters must be pretty efficient soul illuminating machines.
...
|
On May 29 2009 10:14 D10 wrote:
Lets suppose that everything has a soul at one point, and that one day we were rocks.
If I reencarnated as a cow nowdays id like to die fairly quickly so I could continue my path to illumination faster.
More animals being bred for eating = more souls getting illuminated
therefore eating meat = spreading illumination thro the cosmos
...wut? One day we were rocks? Isn't it necessary to live to reincarnate? Wth is getting illuminated?
Confusing...
Meat taste good...Meat good for body...so man eat meat :D
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
yawn....... just don't fucking bomb research labs with animals and i'll be happy.
|
On May 29 2009 10:22 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 10:14 D10 wrote:
Lets suppose that everything has a soul at one point, and that one day we were rocks.
If I reencarnated as a cow nowdays id like to die fairly quickly so I could continue my path to illumination faster.
More animals being bred for eating = more souls getting illuminated
therefore eating meat = spreading illumination thro the cosmos Well if people were reincarnated as wheat, then combine harvesters must be pretty efficient soul illuminating machines. ...
They are vital parts of the system, the wheat doesnt want much more than to be harvested and feed people as tasty bread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
