Childhood indoctrination

[Forbinator]

We'll need to do quite a bit more than simply use land efficiently. The land that's used to feed animals allows us to turn a commodity that is not nutritionally available to us into one that is (and no, I'm sorry to be the one to inform you of this, but prime cattle country is not sufficient to produce food for human consumption - let alone more food than the cattle themselves provide).

I agree that hunger is a very complex issue with many causes, and many possible methods of alleviating the problem. Using our land to produce more food than it currently does would have to help though! Foreign aid is a concept that already exists, and by producing more kg of food per hectare by using crop systems, particularly in high rainfall areas, would be one means of increasing the amount of food produced per hectare.

(the next time that someone calls a cow inefficient or wasteful I'm gonna blow fucking gasket)

Whether the cow can be considered wasteful depends on which land is used, and whether cropping would be possible on that land. I can only speak for agriculture in Australia; here we have prime arable land in high rainfall areas, which is wasted on beef and dairy production. The soil and weather support fast crop growth, but instead the land is being squandered on grass. The cattle shit most of it out, so obviously whatever is left to go into food production is less than what went into the animal. We also have areas in the dry central/northern regions of Australia where cropping is not feasible, and the only productive way to "use" this land is by having cattle eat the low quality sporadically growing grass, which grows so poorly that the stocking density is something like one animal per 1.5 hectares. So I have to acknowledge that the latter form of cattle grazing is actually justifiable from a resource optimisation perspective, but not justifiable to the victims of the production. What we need to stop first is the squandering of prime arable land in high rainfall areas. Produce high crop yield there, and we will have no need to exploit cattle in the dry northern regions.

I'm not telling you that we should eat meat because people go hungry, I'm telling you that people eat meat because they otherwise -do- go hungry.

If I'm ever starving to death and someone gives me a steak, I promise I will eat it.

Im also alerting you to the brutish fact that your veggies are killers as well, killers of animals of all kinds, including ourselves-all the while being quite efficient..btw...and yet still not enough to keep us from starving on a grand scale.

So what constructive advice can you offer on this?

By the by, no, we cant solve our hunger crisis by producing "plant based foods" any more so than we do now (we already produce enough food - that's not even remotely the problem) who told you this...?

Logic says that more food would surely help, but as I acknowledged above, it's a more complex issue than this.

---

It's how life functions. Organisms eating other organisms has been among the top methods for life to continue to exist for billions of years and at this day. The house cat when let outdoors will kill thousands of animals over its life. People seem to place unnecessary morals into the process of eating other organisms. They feel the pain of the animals. But what is pain? It's a response by the nervous system to say that something is bad. Other animals do not let pain stop them from killing each other, why do we?

Using the behaviour of wild animals as an ethical reference point is not logical as an ideology, since it would also allow us to rape and steal. When discussing ethics, we have to decide if we're operating as part of a civilised society with rules, or if we're operating as wild animals. People who justify carnism (http://www.carnism.org/index.php/2012-05-09-15-00-33) flip-flop between the two whenever it's convenient to justify the position they already hold.

Well, that comes from our own humanistic nature which developed – creating an appreciation and understanding of other humans, feeling their pain. Morality.. We take that morality we have for other human beings and apply it to animals because we see humanistic qualities in some species and realize that many animals, biologically, are not too far off from ourselves. The most noble thing to do would to be not eat at all. But because we realize eating is a necessity for out living, and because we value our living more than anything else, we consume something, but what? So with morals, people decide that the further away from human that something that they are consuming is, the better. So naturally, we find people eating only plants.

I view the world realistically. I take this idea to be arrogant because I realize that Earth exists as a joined effort, and all life, even non-living material, plays an equal role on supporting it. Rather than view my eating as what's best for humanity I view it as what's best for the continuation of life planet Earth. We lower plants to such a low level because they are so different from us, but we should realize that plants are and have been so important in sustaining balanced life on Earth. So all that's do it then is which has a worse impact on it all, eating a part of a chicken or eating a bunch of plant material? To be honest, there's negatives to both, they both have a very similar, negative, insubstantial impact. Eating an endangered species would probably have a larger impact on the world, so I view this as one of the worst things to do. Eating a bald eagle would have bad impacts on my life socially, so I would not eat that. If I was truly unmoral I would probably view humans as the best thing to eat, since they have a large negative impact on Earth, comparably to others. But I am moral.

Plants certainly do play a role in ecology, but the difference is that they do not have the capacity to be individual victims, as they are not sentient. The logical obligation of our civilisation's structure is not to behave in a way that involves innocent victims. But yes, we have to acknowledge that all food consumption is harmful to some extent, but we need to do it with as little harm as possible. Committing direct acts of violence in order to eat each day, when this is clearly not necessary to obtain the level of nutrients needed, is not consistent with any model of harm minimisation.

Well then you asked about clothing right? The most noble thing to do would be not wearing clothes. But this has a very substantial impact on a person's life. The same principles apply... But there is much more non-animal clothing products available to the public. Celebrities that wear fur coats do so to display wealth. I don't think that is a good choice because people do not like the fur coats, and the celebrities get poor opinions about them, affecting their lives.

I could definitely argue that it's not feasible for me to not wear clothes, but it certainly is feasible to wear clothes that don't require violence to produce.

Entertainment is something people do not usually see the use of animals as necessary for, which is why you'll see more people apposed to using animals for entertainment than you would see people apposed to eating animals.

This is true, but also ridiculous. Part of it is due to the misinformation out there, and propaganda spread by Weston A Price Foundation and others trying to tell us that we need animal products. There are millions of living, walking examples to show us that we don't. Given that we don't need to eat animal products, they have to be placed in the same category as animal-based entertainment; that is, exploitation purely for our enjoyment.