Our system is exceedingly well organized btw. A veritable modern marvel. Our issues aren't ones of organization, it's fundamental. We turn oil into food, then we use oil to ship that food. That favors food that can be shipped, meat and corn. If we wanted to stop using oil, we'd need more nutrients. Livestock are the traditional (and also most sustainable) source of those nutrients. Even if we wanted to feed people more veggies we'd need to get those nutrients from -somewhere-....and if we take livestock off the table that leaves us with options that would make you cringe for the amount of suffering it causes animals (including human animals). Even solving the problem listed above would leave us with equally difficult problems...we do it this way for a reason, after all.

(July 16, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Our system is exceedingly well organized btw. A veritable modern marvel. Our issues aren't ones of organization, it's fundamental. We turn oil into food, then we use oil to ship that food. That favors food that can be shipped, meat and corn.

And yet it has people becoming obese on Family-Pac boxes of breakfast waffles with corn syrup, because they can't afford to eat meat. And then these 400-lb people end up in the health care system being a drain on the society's resources. . . again.

Quote: If we wanted to stop using oil, we'd need more nutrients. Livestock are the traditional (and also most sustainable) source of those nutrients. Even if we wanted to feed people more veggies we'd need to get those nutrients from -somewhere-....and if we take livestock off the table that leaves us with options that would make you cringe for the amount of suffering it causes animals (including human animals). Even solving the problem listed above would leave us with equally difficult problems...we do it this way for a reason, after all.

The problem is that we don't have a family or small village of relatively fully-functioning humans and their few cows a year that they feed grass to. We have millions of (essentially) useless people, who contribute nothing to the food production but constantly act as a drain on it. We don't need that many people for species survival. We don't need them for the full range of human abilities and experiences to manifest. There's just no reason for them to exist except that we are eating, shitting, fucking machines.

Anyway, I think if you are going to go artificial, there are other ways to do it. For example, brainless cow research. Or research with algae, lichen, mushrooms, etc. Massive GM research or the ability to lay down programmed DNA sequences could give viable systems in the future.

But we are fundamentally dishonest. We eat meat thinking it's decent, natural food. But it's not. It's as artificial as all the things I mentioned, with the added bonus of causing a lot of suffering, and of wasting viable food crops to maximize profits.

(July 16, 2014 at 10:24 pm)bennyboy Wrote: And yet it has people becoming obese on Family-Pac boxes of breakfast waffles with corn syrup, because they can't afford to eat meat. And then these 400-lb people end up in the health care system being a drain on the society's resources. . . again.

-and before we had that system people were starving. Fewer people...mind you...we couldn't even feed fewer people than we have now. There are no magic bullets in this life. We take the good with the bad and weigh the balance.

Quote:
The problem is that we don't have a family or small village of relatively fully-functioning humans and their few cows a year that they feed grass to. We have millions of (essentially) useless people, who contribute nothing to the food production but constantly act as a drain on it. We don't need that many people for species survival. We don't need them for the full range of human abilities and experiences to manifest. There's just no reason for them to exist except that we are eating, shitting, fucking machines.

No, Ben, again, the problem is that we need nutrients and energy. It's that simple. I'm not even going to touch your useless people bullshit with a tenfoot pole. What an animal lover we have on our hands, so long as that animal isn't human. Go fuck yourself and take your useless people bullshit with you. You always have the option of reducing the load by precisely 1. But no, you're not one of those useless people, I'm guessing. Not part of the problem. Not a drain.

Quote:Anyway, I think if you are going to go artificial, there are other ways to do it. For example, brainless cow research. Or research with algae, lichen, mushrooms, etc. Massive GM research or the ability to lay down programmed DNA sequences could give viable systems in the future.

People are hungry now...and all of those options still require nutrients and energy. That's how it works. Organic chemistry 101.

Quote:But we are fundamentally dishonest. We eat meat thinking it's decent, natural food. But it's not. It's as artificial as all the things I mentioned, with the added bonus of causing a lot of suffering.

As artificial as the vegetables we eat. The vegetables which cause alot of suffering. Have you ever seen a wild tomato forest? Do you think that soybeans sprouted out of the primordial earth the way they look on your plate?

(July 16, 2014 at 10:29 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No, Ben, again, the problem is that we need nutrients and energy. It's that simple.

To get a little woo, we need earth, air and water. That's pretty much what plants are. Animals have the advantage of condensing some of the more important nutrients from the earth into meat, and meat has the additional advantage of being relatively easy to store and transport without spoiling. The cost of this, as I see it, is a loss of caloric efficiency. Certainly in terms of economy, meat can play an important role. HOWEVER, the amount of meat required to deliver nutrients including protein is much less than is consumed in America by orders of magnitude (I think). I accept what you said about a high-calorie, low-protein carb diet. For now, I'd like to see two things: 1) everyone eating only what they need; 2) a system which ensures that ALL people get what they need.

Quote:I'm not even going to touch your useless people bullshit with a tenfoot pole. What an animal lover we have on our hands, so long as that animal isn't human. Go fuck yourself and take your useless people bullshit with you. You always have the option of reducing the load by precisely 1. But no, you're not one of those useless people, I'm guessing. Not part of the problem. Not a drain.

Hmmmm. In the context of this argument, when I say "useless," I'm referring to food consumption with no benefit provided to the species' survival or efficiency. I'm not saying these people's lives are unimportant to themselves or to their communities-- only that they are unnecessary for the species. A LOT of good would be done if we could reduce population numbers by about 80%. As for me, I'm useless as well, by that definition, though as a teacher I hope to have some influence on attitudes that could affect future consumption, and as a vegetarian, I hope to minimize the impact of my uselessness.

The problem with ANY ideas about food efficiency and distribution are that they will just increase the number of people who are useless (in the food production/consumption balance), until no good solution is possible.

Quote:

Quote:Anyway, I think if you are going to go artificial, there are other ways to do it. For example, brainless cow research. Or research with algae, lichen, mushrooms, etc. Massive GM research or the ability to lay down programmed DNA sequences could give viable systems in the future.

People are hungry now...and all of those options still require nutrients and energy. That's how it works. Organic chemistry 101.

We have neither a nutrient nor calorie problem right now. We have a situation where overproducing nations like the US overconsume, while those in impoverished countries are denied those nutrients and energy. There's the additional question about whether we SHOULD feed people in regions where this will cause a population explosion. Do we really want to enable the existence of another billion muslims, for example? I'd argue that each family should be guaranteed enough calories/nutrients to sustain a replacement population but not more-- but this is now a radically different kind of issue suitable for another thread maybe.

I'm more about reducing overconsumption, which is purely and explicitly wasteful, and about replacing at least some animal proteins with vegetable-sourced proteins, with the idea that this will reduce the net suffering caused by our food production.

Quote:

Quote:But we are fundamentally dishonest. We eat meat thinking it's decent, natural food. But it's not. It's as artificial as all the things I mentioned, with the added bonus of causing a lot of suffering.

As artificial as the vegetables we eat. The vegetables which cause alot of suffering. Have you ever seen a wild tomato forest? Do you think that soybeans sprouted out of the primordial earth the way they look on your plate?

Nope. I've explicitly mentioned that industrial farming may well cause more suffering and death than natural-grazed cattle. It seems to me we either need to go more natural, with food production being more localized and less industrial (bringing back family farms or small commercial farms which do things more by hand), or to go all-artificial, with giant multi-tiered nutrient factories with compost and human waste treatment facilities, algae farms, greenhouses or even biodomes, etc.

To be frank, I'm also bothered by vegetarians who get preachy, but who do not accept that they have big footprints, too. It seems to me the non-existence of future humans is the best solution of all. 2 billion people eating lots of meat would be better than 8 billion people eating all soy protein and vegetables. But even then, there'd still be the moral arguments about inflicting suffering on underserving organisms, and I'd still prefer to develop non-animal food production that would have a smaller footprint and eliminate or minimize the suffering of food stock species.

(July 17, 2014 at 4:36 am)bennyboy Wrote: Hmmmm. In the context of this argument, when I say "useless," I'm referring to food consumption with no benefit provided to the species' survival or efficiency. I'm not saying these people's lives are unimportant to themselves or to their communities-- only that they are unnecessary for the species. A LOT of good would be done if we could reduce population numbers by about 80%. As for me, I'm useless as well, by that definition, though as a teacher I hope to have some influence on attitudes that could affect future consumption, and as a vegetarian, I hope to minimize the impact of my uselessness.

The problem with ANY ideas about food efficiency and distribution are that they will just increase the number of people who are useless (in the food production/consumption balance), until no good solution is possible.

Well I'm on board about reducing human population. 80% is a good target for a start. I'd like to see vast areas set aside where life and evolution can go on in a way that isn't all about fitting in at the margins of what little we make available. I recoil at the label of "useless" for people though. I suppose farmers are the most useful by your reckoning. Vegetarians are admirable for their efficient use of our limited resources. However I'm of the firm conviction that if God hadn't wanted us to eat animals He would never have made them out of yummy meat.

(July 17, 2014 at 7:33 am)whateverist Wrote: I suppose farmers are the most useful by your reckoning.

Absolutely. It is the food surplus created by agriculture that allowed the beginnings of civilization. And to a point, the population surplus was a benefit, too, because it allowed specialization and improved efficiency.

Now, however, we are too efficient. We simply don't need 90% of the people who exist to fulfill any role that matters in society. Reducing the population would have no effect at all on our ability to carry on. Conversely, deliberately reducing efficiency (mandating farming with hand tools, etc.) would give more people something to do, and would allows us to have a more direct control over the effects of industry.

(July 17, 2014 at 4:36 am)bennyboy Wrote: Animals have the advantage of condensing some of the more important nutrients from the earth into meat, and meat has the additional advantage of being relatively easy to store and transport without spoiling. The cost of this, as I see it, is a loss of caloric efficiency.

They can turn things we can't eat, into things that we can,and in the process generate the inputs required to grow yet more food. Hard to imagine what could be more efficient than that, from a caloric standpoint. Even in the absence of agriculture this is what happens. The green portion of a forest devoid of animal life is less bountiful, and less efficient (calorically speaking) than that same forest would be if it were filled with crickets...or squirrels....or snakes. I could go on and on, but the point is probably clear.

Quote: as a vegetarian, I hope to minimize the impact of my uselessness.

Your vegetarianism doesn't accomplish that. The issues that seem to bother you aren't caused by what we eat, or even how much we eat, but the manner in which we produce what we eat.

The numbers of efficiency with regards to farmers and the general public are less forgiving btw. Less than 1% of us feed the rest of us. This could be the case anywhere, and we could be even more efficient if we chose to be. In fact, you'll never find a number of people in which that ratio would change. If we reduced our population to 10% of current levels, less than 1% of that 10% could feed the lot. You'll always be useless, by your own metrics - as will the same portion of human beings no matter how small the number becomes. If there were 100 of us, 99 would be useless. If there were ten, 9 would be useless (since a fraction of a person can't farm, of course). In fact...the only number that makes sense with this sort of justification is 1. It seems pretty damned absurd to me that we consider this as any sort of option when we always have the option of feeding more people, better food, in greater quantities than are currently available to them - while reducing the footprint of the system, and minimizing or eliminating the suffering of animals involved in that system. Do you want to accomplish those goals -or is the goal, more accurately put- to get rid of people?

We could end all suffering and eliminate any footprint whatsoever if we just burnt this entire rock to cinder with all hands on deck. Hell, it'd probably be easier and cheaper than growing food too. No, no, wait, how about we eliminate 90% of non-human life? Wouldn't that fall within the confines of your justifications just as easily as eliminating the excess human animals might? After all, we're all on equal footing, eh? Or, still just spitballing, we could set up a lottery with every living thing represented as a number - then we could eliminate whatever the ping pong ball tells us too until only 10% of what we began with remains, human, non-human..the whole lot.

(July 16, 2014 at 1:28 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: [quote='Riketto' pid='709803' dateline='1405520445']
If i say that man in the past was eating meat that does not means that man is omnivore.

Quote:Yes it does.

Mother nature never do mistakes.
She didn't make us in the way to be able to run after a prey, to kill with it with big canine and claws that we haven't got, to salivate for raw meat and to have a digestive system that can cope with saturated fat, cholesterol and toxins therefore it is obvious that we are NOT omnivore.
You can go on with masturbating your brains with your idea but the evidence is very clear.

Quote:You can carry on believing that humans aren't omnivores even though we and our ancestors have been eating meat for millions of years.

Man become man about a million years ago.
Before he was very similar to an primate so your idea that man was man for more than a million of years is just rubbish.

Quote:How did our early ancestors get meat seeing as we aren't built like lions?

When you are desperate you do almost anything.
Thing that are not in our nature so to speak.

Quote:...................ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIA....................

Aborigines are those who really started to screwed up Australia before the arrival of white man which finish the job to put the nails on the coffin.
I understand that you haven't got a clue about what really happened so i help you to understand a bit.
Originally Australia was covered with dense forests.
With the arrival of aborigines these forests were turned into destert and arid land.
How did they do it?
The vegetation could provide these people with everything they needed (fruits, nuts, wild grains..) but as soon as they taste the meat they want more and more so how could they get the kangaroo that is a fast animal?
They understood that kangaroo like more nice green grass than hard plant food so they started burning the forests all over the place.
Once you burn the forest the green grass come and the green grass attract the roos.
In this way it was much easy to make the kill.
There is evidence that long time ago Australia was covered in dense forests by looking at fossilized trees.
When the white man came they finish the nasty job by introducing cattle, sheep and all other animals.
The sahara desert is the result of the same demented policy.
All about the craving for meat.

(July 17, 2014 at 10:58 am)Riketto Wrote:

(July 16, 2014 at 1:28 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: [quote='Riketto' pid='709803' dateline='1405520445']
If i say that man in the past was eating meat that does not means that man is omnivore.

Quote:Yes it does.

Mother nature never do mistakes.
She didn't make us in the way to be able to run after a prey, to kill with it with big canine and claws that we haven't got, to salivate for raw meat and to have a digestive system that can cope with saturated fat, cholesterol and toxins therefore it is obvious that we are NOT omnivore.
You can go on with masturbating your brains with your idea but the evidence is very clear.

Quote:You can carry on believing that humans aren't omnivores even though we and our ancestors have been eating meat for millions of years.

Man become man about a million years ago.
Before he was very similar to an primate so your idea that man was man for more than a million of years is just rubbish.

Quote:How did our early ancestors get meat seeing as we aren't built like lions?

When you are desperate you do almost anything.
Thing that are not in our nature so to speak.

Quote:...................ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIA....................

Aborigines are those who really started to screwed up Australia before the arrival of white man which finish the job to put the nails on the coffin.
I understand that you haven't got a clue about what really happened so i help you to understand a bit.
Originally Australia was covered with dense forests.
With the arrival of aborigines these forests were turned into destert and arid land.
How did they do it?
The vegetation could provide these people with everything they needed (fruits, nuts, wild grains..) but as soon as they taste the meat they want more and more so how could they get the kangaroo that is a fast animal?
They understood that kangaroo like more nice green grass than hard plant food so they started burning the forests all over the place.
Once you burn the forest the green grass come and the green grass attract the roos.
In this way it was much easy to make the kill.
There is evidence that long time ago Australia was covered in dense forests by looking at fossilized trees.
When the white man came they finish the nasty job by introducing cattle, sheep and all other animals.
The sahara desert is the result of the same demented policy.
All about the craving for meat.

This might rival some of MuslimAtheist's posts.

The sahara..riketto, is the result of a rainshadow from a set of very large mountains...just one of natures "non-mistakes". Let's give a nod to the tilt of the earth as well, while we're handing out kudos to nature for a job well done.

Let wonder lead you to knowledge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_shadow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

You're welcome.