Childhood indoctrination

[Forbinator]

Thanks for your post. I guess as long as we have a monetary system, humanity is screwed? That sounds about right, but let's not make innocent animals pay for our mistakes.

LOL, as long as we have a monetary system at least some of us are going to be screwed, yes (not really the fault of ag tho). It isn't just that animals (including ourselves) "pay" for our economic policy- we also "pay" for our technical inability, and perhaps even more than either of the first two we "pay" for the limits of organic chemistry. So long as livestock are capable of processing commodities which we are not (for whatever reason, be it economics or biology) their presence in a food production system will always mean "more food" than would be available in their absence. Until we find a better nutrient source than either the livestock themselves or petrochem (in this regard we could simply find a better way of distributing said resource in the short term..but this would only forestall the same problem..as it is consumed at a greater rate than it occurs by any process that we are aware of) we will be beholden to one or the other.

I noticed in one of your responses that you aren't comfortable conceding that additional fertility (that is, additional to what is naturally occurring) is required - if you would like me to link you a commercial agricultural production manual (for a region with nutrient rich soils) I would be more than happy to oblige. Fertility is required, it does not occur in great enough amounts/density naturally, and it doesn't care whether you or I are comfortable with that - in fact it simply doesn't care at all...it's just chemistry.

I suppose the occasions where "livestock are capable of processing commodities which we are not" depends mostly on the soil type in a given region, and whether it can support fast crop growth? I would still suggest that if the areas that can support crop growth were all used for that purpose, with the resulting food fed to humans (not farmed animals) the extra food would mean we would no longer have the need to exploit animals in the regions that can't support efficient crop growth. I acknowledge that your economic explanation realistically indicates why such wholesale changes to our food system are unlikely as long as we have a monetary system, but I still don't accept that we can justify harming animals on purely economic grounds. If there were instances of humans being farmed, we wouldn't even mention economics; we would be outraged and want to shut them down. The issue with most responses to this thread is that no-one has really addressed the characteristics of farmed animals (when compared to humans) that make it morally permissible to harm them. It seems like something that has been hard-wired into us from a young age, but we don't know why, and certainly no-one can articulate it (childhood indoctrination, if you will).

As far as additional soil fertility goes, I was under the impression that crop rotation was a strategy used to mitigate soil erosion, and also to restore nutrients back into the soil (by leaving the stalks or other remains of plant material behind). I can see that the more intensive operations might be less willing to do this and would instead require fertiliser. If you wanted to provide a link that would be good.

Anglo-Saxon raised as a vegan and was (at age 18) introduced to bacon. Bam! Omnivore. His body said "we NEED this!"

This is further to my point, should yourself or anyone else find that a vegan/vegetarian diet suits your particular metabolism and genetics all kudos to you. Vegan/vegetarianism is NOT a panacea and there are many who are unable to partake of such a diet for mainly genetic or metabolic reasons. That said it is childish and futile to (by way of guilt/ ad populism) argument to say that vegan/vegetarianism will "cure the world"! It won't and many would die (and are dying) as a result.

For me the world is a wondrous amazing place and I am part of this thing called living. I do not strive to set myself above it nor to dictate how it should work.

Your bacon anecdote demonstrates that bacon contains nutrients that humans need. It does NOT indicate that these nutrients are unavailable in elsewhere, or that flesh products are necessary.

I don't believe that veganism is a panacea at all, and you seem intent on building this straw man. If we want to strive for some ideal of "world peace", or whatever you would want to call it, veganism would be necessary but not sufficient. I see it as a moral baseline. We have an obligation not to commit overt harm to others unless there is a damn good reason. From this baseline of not doing overt harm, we can strive as much as we reasonably can to reduce the covert harm that we do, such as by using too much electricity, and by emitting harmful chemicals into the environment.

I acknowledge that there is no such thing as a meal (or other product) that does no harm, and we all have a "footprint" on this earth, but by promoting and supporting direct violence against animals you seem to be taking the position that because we can't eliminate harm, we shouldn't bother with ethics at all.

You should also know that I'm not trying to be "superior" or set myself "above" anyone else. It would be counterproductive at any rate, since what I want is for as many people to go vegan as possible. I'm a part of the same society as you, and we're all at different stages, and will realise things at different times. You could use the same logic to accuse anyone who takes an ethical stance of "elitism", am I right? Perhaps you'd prefer it if we ignore ethics altogether?

The best meal on this planet is a rack of lamb with just about the spices... yum, yum.

And then there are the UGG Boots!!... and the Jackets...And the Blankets!

Blessed be the little baa sheep!

---

One thing that synthetics can't do, and that is have EVERYTHING being utilised as either food, oil/ energy or clothing.

This is a common misconception, as the prime lamb industry (lamb = baby sheep less than one year old), and the Merino wool industry (where shearing is done once a year) are virtually two distinct entities, with very little overlap. The resources are not nearly as efficiently utilised as you would like them to be, although some farms that compromise on either wool quality or meat quality may achieve this to some extent.

I will re-iterate..."IF you are going to kill something, make it a clean quick kill so the animal/ creature in question does not suffer"

You have said this before, but have been unable to explain why it can be justified for a pig or a cow, but not for a human. You haven't provided any biological differences that support this distinction. It seems that you have just assumed that the distinction exists axiomatically, which is just the way the big industries want us to think.

You also cannot get past the fact that the "clean, quick" kill is not realistic in practice. Animals at slaughterhouses are "processed" in such high numbers and at such high speeds that stunning is often not effective, and certain stunning methods (such as electrical or carbon-dioxide) are inherently unreliable. Usually they are killed in view of other animals, and can smell the blood and fear. Basically, the fact that they don't wilfully stroll into the slaughterhouse of their own accord (and need to be forced in/beaten with a stick) precludes your idea of the "perfect" kill with no suffering.

From an Urban Horticulturalist/ Permaculturalist point of view you are far to free [sic] with your wilful murder of plant life.

Farmed animals are fed plants, at a far less efficient conversion ratio than eating the plants myself. If you're worried about plant life, then veganism may be the only logical option for you.

I'm personally investing vast amounts of time and money to create and provide proof of concept (specifically for economic viability in low income/impoverished regions) for an integrated aqua/ag production method and associated business model that provides high quality protein (in the form of freshwater fish , crustaceans, and mollusks) as a byproduct of the manufacture of non-petrochem nutrient sources that are then used to produce large amounts of vegetables in a fantastically dense way (due to being vertical hydro) without any contamination of the soil (as none is present) or water (as the byproducts of one process are used as the inputs of the other - an artificial closed loop). In short, I want to produce more food - of a higher quality, at a lower price, with fewer inputs in a smaller space, for poorer and hungrier people.....all the while, hopefully, turning them a profit.

So when I advocate for the usefulness and reality of livestock in agricultural production -that- is why I do so. Not because I'm some moral midget looking for a way to make it okay to continue supporting cruelty to animals because I like the taste of sirloin tips.

(and Forb..if you're still onboard, lets see that omnivore bingo link again btw..so we can take a crack at where what I just explained falls)

The bingo game is a tool used to mock people for using fallacies, so it is unlikely to apply to you. The system that you're talking about sounds really interesting. Have you considered the use of only animals who don't feel pain (eg clams, oysters, scallops, mussels)? This could improve the ethics of the operation without compromising on sustainability.

I've seen good reasons for opposing the cruel treatment of animals (including ourselves - and I'm onboard), but I haven't seen any good reasons offered up for veganism- as of yet. What seems to be happening here is that a certain segment of us do not comprehend that the one is not synonymous with the other.

You're saying that animal use is not synonymous with cruelty? I agree in the literal sense, but in the practical sense it is very difficult to enforce measures that eliminate the cruel practices at each stage of a given production cycle. Even harder still, would be sourcing products where you are sure that cruelty has not occurred; in fact I would say this is impossible as the labelling doesn't disclose the full process, and you end up just having to trust the process, even though cruelty is favoured financially.

Here is just one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDayT3mLoHQ

Couldn't we handle your objection by giving them a sporting chance to do exactly what we (imagine we) would do presented with death? Open the gate, let em run - I don't mind. Humane doesn't enter in, as you said - but hey, at least it would be fair.

No, this would also be cruel. Domesticated, introduced species are not adapted to live in the wild. Let's reduce the demand for animal products, and stop the breeding altogether. Many species that we farm have been selectively bred for "production" traits, at the expense of their health and quality of life.