(June 11, 2013 at 9:11 am)Rhythm Wrote: @Ind: So humane treatment enters in after all. To which I mention - as I did pages ago, that some livestock already lives a better life than some humans - and we could do even better on both counts.

You have a strong argument if you can show that livestock production is necessary to feed the global population. While you've certainly raised some questions in my mind in that department I don't think the answer to that is clear at all.

(June 11, 2013 at 9:11 am)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:How can we ask the third world not to do this to the planet if we're eating steak ourselves? I don't think it would be very convincing to say "Look, Ma, we're eating less" where "less" is not very well defined. Wouldn't it be much more convincing if we could say "Look, Ma, we don't eat it at all!"?

This..this right here sums it all up. What I'm trying to express is that I'm not in the business of saying "look ma, we're eating less" - to anyone.

Do you agree that our actions today have consequences for the planet and the environment and therefore for future generations, your kids and mine? If yes then we should try to do our best to keep the planet intact, and while we can't tell others what to do, there is certainly hope that they might agree and join the effort.

While this is from 2011, I offer it to 'round out' and inform those who would like to take the romantic.... "saving the planet for our children" .... path via vegan/vegetarianism. Please remember this is from an Australian perspective and does focus on our own unique landscape/ climate and population

http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-...hands-4659

Quote:16 December 2011, 6.34am EST
Ordering the vegetarian meal? There’s more animal blood on your hands

The ethics of eating red meat have been grilled recently by critics who question its consequences for environmental health and animal welfare. But if you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could do.

---

Forbi Wrote: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?

You suppose? You mean to say you have no agricultural/ pastoral/ horticultural knowledge? You DO realise that the majority of our cities are built upon arable land?

Forbi Wrote: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 really do think this is romantic nonsense Forbi. You are still disassociating animals from food crops and thinking that they exists in isolation from each other.

Forbi Wrote: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.

Harming? In what way? Have you ever hunted?

Forbi Wrote:If there were instances of humans being farmed, we wouldn't even mention economics; we would be outraged and want to shut them down.

Are you sure about that? Are you not being "farmed"? To think/ behave a certain way? And what if these "farmed humans kept us fed as our only source of food? Are your ready to stop eating all together?

Forbi Wrote: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.

So you are a farmer? have you actually lived on a farm?

Forbi Wrote: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).

Yes it is...that age is called the Pleistocene { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene } epoch, further refined in the Paleolithic { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic } it really has nothing to do with this romanticised "childhood indoctrination" you keep banging on about mainly because if it did then you would not prefer a vegan/ vegetarian diet now would you?

Forbi Wrote: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).

As with most things the "impression" is not the full story and you are misinformed. I understand Rhythm has given you a more in-depth introduction into soil fertility above.

---

Forbi Wrote: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.

Oh? How? This relative (in law) was indoctrinated as a vegan/ vegetarian.

Forbi Wrote:I don't believe that veganism is a panacea at all, and you seem intent on building this straw man.

Then why this seemingly desperate "need" for such emotive verbiage?

Forbi Wrote: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.

Peace? Who's idea of peace are you advocating?

Forbi Wrote: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.

You do realise we are only using this platitude so as to ensure our own survival don't you?

Forbi Wrote: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.

I really don't understand where you are coming from...you are sounding rather religious in you thinking and blindly romantic. So far you have not produced any "ethics" that anyone can follow. You are still toying with the idea and are yet to present anything concrete in a way to proceed in food security.

Forbi Wrote:You should also know that I'm not trying to be "superior" or set myself "above" anyone else. It would be counter-productive at any rate, since what I want is for as many people to go vegan as possible.

Ah...so instead of "childhood indoctrination" you are trying to implement "pseudo-religious-childhood-indoctrination" Sorry mate but we are omnivores and the best you can hope for is that the planet will increase it's vegetable intake (at great cost to living space) and minimalise it's meat intake (where range land is desolate and unproductive)

Forbi Wrote:I'm a part of the same society as you, and we're all at different stages, and will realise things at different times.

Oh? You live in Australia?

Forbi Wrote:You could use the same logic to accuse anyone who takes an ethical stance of "elitism", am I right?

Only when they are taking the moral high ground and trying to shove their "ethics" down mine and my children's throats

---

Forbi Wrote: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.

I support voluntary Euthanasia. Do you?

Forbi Wrote: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.

Ahh the "conspiracy theory". It would seem that you really haven't given this concept of a "quick clean kill/death" any thought time have you?

Forbi Wrote:You also cannot get past the fact that the "clean, quick" kill is not realistic in practice.

Ahh, you have never hunted for your food then?

Forbi Wrote: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.

Are they? Do we have any studies or statistics to support this claim?

Forbi Wrote: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.

You have been watching videos of halal and kosher slaughter have you? I must concur that this "processing" is unacceptable.

Forbi Wrote: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.

They might be where you are from but not here in Australia. Actually I am NOT worried about plant life and your inference that "veganism" is my only option is absurd. I have stated that I tried vegetarianism for about a year and found that apart from extensive weight loss (I ended up weighing 40 kgs and was diagnosed as anorexic) ...... (and since you want to know the gory details)..... shitting black water, iron deficiency (so much for being able to obtain my iron needs from plants) including omega 3,6,9 deficiency, electrolyte imbalance and major mineral deficiencies; I concluded that this was not suitable for my particular metabolism. As Rhythm has tried to explain to you, your ideal is NOT for everyone

You really don't know much about the processes of evolution ~ population ~ landscape~ climate~environment do you?

Actually it is quite humorous that you cry "human ethics" and advocate pain and destruction for humans.

(June 13, 2013 at 8:45 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: While this is from 2011, I offer it to 'round out' and inform those who would like to take the romantic.... of "saving the planet for our children".... path via vegan/vegetarianism. Please remember this is from an Australian perspective and does focus on our own unique landscape/ climate and population

http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-...hands-4659

Quote:16 December 2011, 6.34am EST
Ordering the vegetarian meal? There’s more animal blood on your hands

The ethics of eating red meat have been grilled recently by critics who question its consequences for environmental health and animal welfare. But if you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could do.

Thanks for sharing this interesting article, I'll also check out the book referenced there by Simon Fairlie, seems to be highly relevant to this discussion.

However I think the article unfairly compares the "best" kind of animal agriculture, i.e. grass-fed cattle, to the "worst" kind of crop production, i.e. heavily sprayed and artificially fertilized monocultures. Shouldn't it compare the "best" kind of animal agriculture to the "best" kind of crop production, namely local and organic? Or they should've used the "worst" kind of animal agriculture, i.e. CAFOs feeding imported soy which ruins small farmers and disfigures their children with the pesticides used on the monocultures (not to mention the animals and the use of petrochemicals)?

The article focusses on animal suffering, which is central to me, but there is another core issue, which is the environment, and unfortunately cattle on grass produce even more greenhouse gasses (methane) than cattle on an artificial (corn, soy) diet.

---

(June 13, 2013 at 8:45 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Are they? Do we have any studies or statistics to support this claim?

There are no studies because few people gives a flying fuck about the suffering of these animals as long as the cheap meat keeps rolling in. They're mute and they're soon dead and nobody cares, so who's going to ask any questions? Nobody that's who. Makes me sick.

However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence here, it's a nightmare. I think also reason will lead you to suspect that a system solely focussed on profit will have little concern for its "product's" suffering.

(June 13, 2013 at 9:47 am)littleendian Wrote: There are no studies because few people gives a flying fuck about the suffering of these animals as long as the cheap meat keeps rolling in. They're mute and they're soon dead and nobody cares, so who's going to ask any questions? Nobody that's who. Makes me sick.

Wrong again, slaughterhouses spend a substantial amount of cash making the process less "stressful" for the livestock (and the subject -is- poured over by those so inclined)- because stress (in the animal), apparently, damages the product - halts the process - and can damage the equipment or cause injury to the operator.

Cattle, for example, are kept well fed, calm, and oblivious right up to the bolt. Not, mind you, that I think this would matter...because pound for pound - they have to be some of the dumbest animals on earth. I've seen em go out the old school way standing shoulder to shoulder and when one dropped the others just stood there - blank expressions, as if to say "hmn....glad that wasn't me..back to eating grass"

(June 13, 2013 at 8:45 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Ahh, you have never hunted for your food then?

I've seen them hunt down boars in a local forest, and believe me, that was not a pretty sight.

And even if you kill the animal cleanly, who knows, maybe it has offspring now slowly starving somewhere in a den?

And then there are the feral animals that are causing so much destruction and devastation of our native fauna. We (the country) are currently locked in the debate to open certain National Parks to the Hunting community as an adjunct to the failed "humane" poisoning programs, in an attempt to reduce the number of feral animals that are killing off our native wildlife and destroying habitat. These are your cute cuddly Foxes, Goats, Water Buffalo, Camels, Dogs, Cats (don't get me started on feral cats! ), Rabbits, Kangaroo, Emu, River Cod, Pigs and Horses
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversi...ve/ferals/

Your "ethics" dictate that these animals would die a slow and painful death via the poison 1080 along with every other native species that seem to be failing to improve numbers thanks to humane protection.

Who knows? The hunter should know.......

(round here, hunting seasons are arranged so as to avoid this scenario btw - hedging against general ignorance)

(June 13, 2013 at 9:56 am)littleendian Wrote:

(June 13, 2013 at 8:45 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Ahh, you have never hunted for your food then?

I've seen them hunt down boars in a local forest, and believe me, that was not a pretty sight.

And even if you kill the animal cleanly, who knows, maybe it has offspring now slowly starving somewhere in a den?

You seem like you are from an urban area Endie and have no idea what life is all about. You also don't seem to care whether a mouse, rat or other rodent that is killed slowly and painfully from poisons on your precious veggies food stuffs has a litter in a den slowly starving to death.

Essentially, the emotive bleating of animal activists is wearing very thin and will slowly lose any traction to effect a "conversion" to the new religion. It was noted that when the "poported Animal activists win" of stopping Live exports to Indonesia that many of the cattle and sheep were left to die on the docking feed lots while Indonesia obtained their meat needs from other less reputable sources where animals are treated far worse than Australian animals. But hey ...it was humane that these cattle and sheep died of thirst, the farmers (greedy little shits) died, families fractured and whole faring communities disrupted; just so a bunch of urban latte drinkers can feel superior for having taken the "moral high ground".

My argument regarding a "quick clean kill" extends to humans Endie, I would rather die quickly (and see my loved ones do the same) than be tortured by the "kindnesses" of persons of your religious leanings

Forbi Wrote: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.

My father raises beef cattle. So I grew up working with the dumb brutes.

You have to force a cow to go through a cattle chute so they can get shots that will stave off disease and parasites too. Once they get the shots they are immediately released back into the pasture.

I've spent many a day beating on a cow's rear end with a stick so they can get the medicine they need to improve their health and well-being.

I've also worked in meat processing centers where cattle are slaughtered, gutted, skinned, hung, sliced up to order, and packaged.

Still eating meat!

Actually my father has a heifer processed for my family every year. About 400 lbs of free, delicious beef. And the next one is coming next month! Whoop!