Synthetic meat

[Aroura]

False dichotomy.  Compost is a thing. Green manure is a thing. Things that many farms use successfully.
You have a lot of false dichotomies in your argument, actually.

Compost and green manures are things, sure.....but that doesn't make them alternatives to manure.  They simply aren't.  They're all part of the whole sustainable package.  ASre you sure you understand what a false dichotomy is?  

Yes.  you said " There's oil and animal products. That's it, that's all."  That's a false dichotomy.  You mentioned nothing about compost or green manure or this "whole sustainable package".  This is just you backpeddling.

Ceasing to eat dead animals does not mean we would stop needing any farm animals.  You paint it as one or the other.

Actually, you've just repeated my own statements to that effect, precisely, Aroura.  I also think that we will continue to need farm animals, and even meat animals, so no..I don't paint it as one or the other, and I'm not sure why you think I did?

When disusing vegetarianism, you said "Make no mistake, our domestic animals would become extinct if we did not care for them.  It's ludicrous to think otherwise. "  When I pointed out that we have other needs for farm animals besides as meat and that it was a strawman, you said "I'm not strawmanning you..you simply haven't thought it through.  If you think that people are going to continue caring for their cows and chickens if they cease to be profitable......you are mistaken.  They will die.  They are not well adapted, they are well kept.  Vegetarianism is no good for animals whose existence relies on commercial consumption."

You created a false dichotomy of: farm animals exist for us to eat them, or they will die out, and then held that line even when I pointed out we need them for other reasons. Yes, that was another thread, but you still did it, and you are doing the same poor attempt at dancing around your answers to others as if that is NOT what you are implying in this thread.

False dichotomy #2:
Dairy cows and goats, and chicken laying eggs do not require killing to get food from them, and their shit can still be used as fertilizer! We don't need the number of existing food animals to provide fertilizer to other farms.  Literally tons of it is never used.  We could reduce our farm animal population by 3/4 (just to dairy and eggs) and still have plenty of animal based fertilizer to feed humanity.  Particularly since a lot less food would be going back onto animals that are raised only for meat.

There isn't even a dichotomy here..false or otherwise.  You don't eat cattle feed.  We'll need more than just a quarter of our intensive operations (which would still be substantial) for fertility...I can say that with confidence because the full 100 percent of the worlds livestock production is currently incapable of providing the fertility required, the fertility is provided by exploitation of oil and without systemic change we would be incapable of producing sufficient food in it's absence.  

Farmland that is currently being used to farm cattle feed can obviously be used to farm human food instead. Really, I need to tell you that??  

I would love you to provide a shred of evidence that a) raising land animals for the purpose of using their defecation as manure is the best and most efficient method of fertilization, and b) that we use 100% of current manure efficiently, and it is not enough.
The fact that some humans go hungry is not proof that we do not produce enough food, or that we cannot (although if populations don't level off or even decrease, it will be impossible), just that we are wasteful about it. 

But yes, livestock production fails to feed humanity because livestock production is inefficient compared with plant farming.

I do agree, systemic change is needed, and one of those changes is LESS reliance on inefficient animal products.

False dichotomy #3:
Even if humans stop eating the dead dairy animals and egg laying chickens who die of old age, the other options do not only include "throwing their carcasses in a ditch".  Humans have pets that require meat. Or humans can continue to use the smaller number of dead animals as additional food, without raising expressly for that purpose.

I mentioned that we could feed them to our dogs.......lol.  I wonder why it's good for Fido but not for Fred, though.  The latter is how I use my livestock.  They're primarily water pumps and fertility.  That some get eaten is an effect of them growing up and getting too big for their enclosure, poisoning themselves, the plants, the water..unless I manage their numbers.  That's pretty much the model of every single sustainable livestock enterprise in this country.   That you think I present a dichotomy here, or that I am even opposed to this borders on a profound mystery.

I saw your quote "If we do not eat them....I guess we could through their carcasses in a ditch?", I did not see you mention feeding them to dogs.  My appolgies if I missed that post in the pages of word salad you kept posting at EP.

I also mentioned people could eat them right in the quote you quoted here though, so I did not say it was good for Fido but not for Fred.  I didn't read all of your posts in this thread, but it looks like you didn't even read the one from me that you are responding to.

Summary:
We don't need to use animal products (even oil, which is an animal product) to farm.

Oh boy, painting oil as an animal product, now that's some dirty shit.   Not reaching, not at all, lol.

Yes, my mistake. I do, afer all make them, as a human being. Unlike our worshipfulness.

Not even sure what your point is though.  I'm not defending oil. I think you just like to argue.  Like, if someone started a thread on how grass is green, you'd argue that it really absorbs all light except that in the green spectrum, so really grass is everything BUT green. Just because....you seem to like to argue just to tickle our own pickle, not to actually raise objections or educate someone else.  

But we still can, at a much reduced rate, and still have all the animal products we require.
I realize that you are highly invested in this way of thinking because it is your lively hood.  I also realize from previous experience that you will just strawman me, or more likely, not even address these points directly (again), but I wanted to put it in here for other people to read.

My livelihood is plants, sunshine.  This conflict of interest you've dreamt up for me is as non-existent as the dichotomies presented above.  Eat more plants.  And no, we can't, we dont have all the animal products we require right now..somebody is hungry somewhere...but it makes good ad copy for activists...which is something I appreciate -as- an activist even if I don't agree.


I am honestly sorry I was incorrect about what you farmed, and I know you say you seek more sustainable food sources, so I'm yet again puzzled as to why you have to come be a dick in threads where people are discussing other possible sustainable food options.  I think you get off on this kind of argument but not argument thing.

Thanks moonshine.
Your subtle condescension does not go unnoticed or unappreciated. How else will you and people like Captain Underpants stroke your ego's enough to get through each day? Last time I talked to you, I almost left the forums you were such a condescending jerk.  But now I realize you NEED people to argue with, or else you aren't happy.  So go for it.  Rip my argument to pretend shreds and rub the imaginary bits all over yourself.  Whatever gets you off.  

However my husband might be jealous that I am giving so much hard on to another man, so I think I'll have to end our little chat here. I'll let you have the last word, so you can think you "won". Until we meet again my sweet prince!