Why would anyone want to change other people? Bit rude, isn't it?

(May 15, 2013 at 8:48 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote:

(May 15, 2013 at 6:37 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, but I don't try to control others' behavior. As Gandhi said, "Be the change you wish to see in the world." I live it, I don't preach it.

Like I said in my post further up on this page, you're not being the change. You're just not eating meat. That's not changing anything for anybody besides yourself.

Even if you completely leave aside the animals for whom it actually does change something whether they're killed or not, so even if you focus only on humans: A vegetarian diet has repeatedly been demonstrated to be less harmful for the environment, so it does change something for the quality of life of our current and future generations.

---

(May 15, 2013 at 1:20 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Anytime there is a thread on vegetarianism/veganism we have one fundie joining, tellin us how immoral we meat eaters are. It seems they can't live without pushing their dogma unto others.

What is happening here is merely a discourse, which is the greatest ally of reason, if this makes you uncomfortable or uneasy then you could reflect on why this is. It is not uncommon that people are hyper-sensitive to anything related to these issues, which for me hints at something deeper.

What is fundamentalist or not depends entirely on your perspective. Some people might consider it extreme to kill someone else for their own pleasure.

edit: removed image

What about cannibalism? Is it unethical?

(May 15, 2013 at 6:18 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Do you think that our shift from small farm life and slaughtering our own bacon was the result of growing repulsion to the act of slaughtering animals, or would you say that the growing repulsion to the act of slaughtering animals is an effect, rather than the cause, of our desire for convenience?

This is a chicken-or-egg question, you could also ask: Do you think that our shift from small farm life and slave-ownership was the result of growing repulsion to slave labour, or would you say that the growing repulsion to slave labour is an effect, rather than the cause, of our desire for equality?

No, the slave owners didn't grow tired of sitting in the shade, sipping a margarita while watching the black men and women do the heavy lifting. It were people who were not profiting from the slave labour to the same extent as the Southerners were who finally started raising questions about this.

Same here, it is the vegetarians who don't profit from the exploitation of animals who now raise questions, while it should be those engaging in the practice who have the moral duty to raise and better well answer all the hard questions about the justification of their acts. Yet all you get is, in essence, "meat is tasty" and "I'm the stronger/smarter", quite similar indeed to how the slave holders would've responded: "slave-labor is convenient" or "I'm the stronger/smarter". I guess time will tell...

---

(May 16, 2013 at 8:14 am)Simsim Wrote: What about cannibalism? Is it unethical?

If people engage in the practice when starving then I personally would not attribute this any moral value. Anyone can and may do anything to keep him/herself alive, this is neither ethical nor unethical, its outside the scope of ethics or morality. Ethics start where we have a free choice that doesn't involve our own death or physical integrity.

I don't think you've spent much time looking into this issue if you think that vegetarianism is less harmful on the environment, or that eating meat has anything to do - with anything more or less- than feeding ourselves.

I think that what's probably happened here - is that you've made generous allowance for connecting things like abusive (in the environmental sense) and unregulated battery farming with an omnivorous diet - as though the one does not or could not exist without the other (and just maybe, ignoring that even in the face of battery farming people do still starve to death with regularity) - while simultaneously whitewashing the very salient observation that of the vast swath of things -we do- on this rock, agriculture probably has the best chance of "destroying the environment"- all for some greens and beans.

No matter what you decide to eat, your hands are bloody. There's a saying about glass houses and stones, it applies.

(May 16, 2013 at 8:46 am)Rhythm Wrote: I don't think you've spent much time looking into this issue if you think that vegetarianism is less harmful on the environment, or that eating meat has anything to do - with anything more or less- than feeding ourselves.

Look into it and you will find that funneling our grains and soy through animals before consuming it is a vastly less efficient use of the limited ressources (land, water) that we have to grow crops than if we consumed the crops directly, not to mention the by-products of animal agriculture like methane.

(May 16, 2013 at 8:46 am)Rhythm Wrote: I think that what's probably happened here - is that you've made generous allowance for connecting things like abusive (in the environmental sense) and unregulated battery farming with an omnivorous diet - as though the one does not or could not exist without the other

If every person on the planet would want to eat even half the amount of meat that we consume in the industrialized countries (and with a steak in your mouth its hard to convince them otherwise) then this would indeed be impossible without extremely intensive animal farming, and if such enormeous stress is put on any system it will most certainly have little concern for the well being of its "product" or the environment.

(May 16, 2013 at 8:46 am)Rhythm Wrote: while simultaneously whitewashing the very salient observation that of the vast swath of things -we do- on this rock, agriculture probably has the best chance of "destroying the environment"- all for some greens and beans.

This is an invalid all-or-nothing argument. Just because our very presence on this earth is damaging the environment it does not follow that we can't or shouldn't minimize this impact. Some of worst mono-cultures on the planet are the soy fields in South America, and this soy is produced to a significant percentage (85% is one number floating around) for animal feed (because soy contains more protein than grass/corn which makes animals grow faster which yields bigger profits).

(May 16, 2013 at 9:04 am)littleendian Wrote: Look into it and you will find that funneling our grains and soy through animals before consuming it is a vastly less efficient use of the limited ressources (land, water) that we have to grow crops than if we consumed the crops directly, not to mention the by-products of animal agriculture like methane.

No, it isn't. But we could explore the issue. Perhaps if those crops were fit for human consumption - or were grown with a method other than rain-fed ag, or were grown on land suitable for crops that -were- fit for human consumption, or were grown for a market in which there was room for mixed vegetable producers, or were sustained by a crop in high demand and low supply - it would be. They aren't. Meanwhile, what livestock does represent is the act of taking resources that do not yield a crop that is available to us and turning it into one that is.

But just as I mentioned, what you've done here is begin an argument against battery farming - not for a vegetarian diet - or against an omnivorous one.

Quote:If every person on the planet would want to eat even half the amount of meat that we consume in the industrialized countries (and with a steak in your mouth its hard to convince them otherwise) then this would indeed be impossible without extremely intensive animal farming, and if such enormeous stress is put on any system it will most certainly have little concern for the well being of its "product" or the environment.

Less meat is fine by me. I already eat "less meat".

Quote:This is an invalid all-or-nothing argument. Just because our very presence on this earth is damaging the environment it does not follow that we can't or shouldn't minimize this impact. Some of worst mono-cultures on the planet are the soy fields in South America, and this soy is produced to a significant percentage (85% is one number floating around) for animal feed (because soy contains more protein than grass/corn which makes animals grow faster which yields bigger profits).

It's not an all or nothing -argument-, it's a dry statement of fact. I'm not telling you here that you shouldn't be a vegetarian, or arguing against vegetarianism, I;m reminding you that the grounds you've offered apply equally to yourself and your dietary choices. That there is no moral or ethical high ground available. You don't like battery farms or monocultures. Neither do I - and so, I assume, neither of us supports either except in cases where we have little to no choice (laying aside those moments we break for something really tasty - despite knowing all that shit that goes into it's production).

(May 16, 2013 at 9:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: No, it isn't. But we could explore the issue. Perhaps if those crops were fit for human consumption - [...] They aren't. Meanwhile, what livestock does represent is the act of taking resources that do not yield a crop that is available to us and turning it into one that is.

This is just an assertion without evidence. I don't have a reason to assume that where soy grows other things like corn would not grow as well, plus soy itself is already perfectly suitable for human consumption.

(May 16, 2013 at 9:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'd argue against a vast majority of our current food production methods myself, but how that makes a case for vegetarianism, or against an omnivorous diet, well- help me out?

Our food production methods are a function of our food consumption behaviour, wouldn't you agree? But I admit you're right that eating significantly less meat would already put significantly less pressure on this system. The problem is that it is quite subjective and can't be quantified what "less" means, for some people that might mean having a "meatless monday", which would have close to no effect except on their conscience. With vegetarianism there's a clear line.

(May 16, 2013 at 9:35 am)littleendian Wrote: This is just an assertion without evidence. I don't have a reason to assume that where soy grows other things like corn would not grow as well, plus soy itself is already perfectly suitable for human consumption.

Perhaps if you'd taken the time to look into agricultural practices I wouldn't have to explain this to you. Eh? Soy is not "perfectly suitable for human consumption" by simple virtue of it's being soy. Specific soy cultivars, combined with specific agricultural practices and post harvest procedure - yield soy that is "perfectly suitable for human consumption". The vast majority of soy grown does not satisfy either of these two requirements. The situation is identical in the case of corn. There is a range of environmental and economic "territory" where one could intercrop corn and soy (thanks in large part to hybridization and GM) and where this is applicable - it's done on a massive scale. However, being able to grow corn or soy in an area does not translate to being able to grow corn or soy for human consumption in that area - nor does it qualify the same area as a candidate for, say, mixed vegetable production. That none of this has any bearing on the relative status of our dietary decisions, at this point, bears repeating.

Quote:Our food production methods are a function of our food consumption behaviour, wouldn't you agree? But I admit you're right that eating significantly less meat would already put significantly less pressure on this system. The problem is that it is quite subjective and can't be quantified what "less" means, for some people that might mean having a "meatless monday", which would have close to no effect except on their conscience. With vegetarianism there's a clear line.

No, I wouldn't, because they aren't. Our food production methods - specific to grain and livestock - arose as a consequence of our trying to accomplish something else entirely. We endeavored to put grain on everyone's plate (because grain is one of the easiest crops to grow) and by and large we were successful - with impressive yield increases over the last 100 years. Now, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending) as part of that project, a consequence of hybridization if you will, it just so happened that alot of the traits selected for (to increase yield) decreased the value of the crop as a source of available nutrition for human beings. This was further exacerbated by production methodologies, also to increase yields - but more recently to decrease costs- that had the same effect. What we ended up with was a glut of grain - with a large portion of it being unsuitable for human consumption. Now, it was difficult to conceive of growing something else in those areas - and largely because those areas aren't really suitable for much else - and it would seem like a waste, to be able to grow so much on so little......and we started to look for ways to use what had become and agricultural byproduct.

That's why there's corn syrup in everything, for example. You wouldn't wrap your mouth around the cob that syrup came from - and there would be little reason for you to do so, but processed into a sweetener it becomes ever more available to you. This is the same situation that we have in livestock production (not that the livestock are much more suitable to being fed this shit than human beings). We feed the glut of grain we have to the cattle, the cattle process that (horribly, but they process it) and then the beef becomes a product which is more available and more nutritious -to you- than the grain that it was fed.

If you look back at dietary trend data what you'll find is that we ate far less meat before it essentially became a byproduct of grain production (and before grain production became the single most dramatic success story in agriculture-since the dawn of agriculture). Our dietary habits are now - as they have always been- an issue of availability (the very hallmark of what it means to be an omnivore in the first place).

(May 16, 2013 at 10:12 am)Rhythm Wrote: Now, it was difficult to conceive of growing something else in those areas - and largely because those areas aren't really suitable for much else

I admit this is a gut feeling, but I find it very hard to believe that science couldn't find a way for using this land that is presently producing lifestock feed to produce food that is suitable for humans. It might not be straight forward, it might be harder and a bit more expensive, but I doubt its impossible.

I wasn't aware of some of the connections you've given, quite interesting, thanks