RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
April 22, 2012 at 1:13 pm
(This post was last modified: April 22, 2012 at 1:30 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
You really need to figure out how to use quote tags. You keep responding by way of arguing against factory farming. No one is arguing -for- factory farming. Make a case for your own argument, at some point, anytime that it is convenient for you.
I've handled your arguments re crop rotation, and the use of agricultural land already, many many posts ago. I'll repeat it again for you. Not all "agricultural land" is suitable for the production of crops suitable for human consumption. The classification "agricultural land" includes livestock production, feed crops, etc. Feed crops (even when they are varieties of crops we actually do eat) are chosen for their diminished fertility and irrigation requirements. This is what makes it economically feasible for the producer. Crop rotation is not a perpetual motion machine. Many farms use crop rotation, they still fertilize. Green manure is not a perpetual motion machine, you can't get out more than what you put in. Both of these have the inconvenient side effect of tying up food production in that the area cannot be under crop continuously (more-so in the case of green manures, crop rotation allows you to grow something, even if the yield is meager at times). Neither can be used to successfully cultivate all crops at the level we currently produce because many of our food crops are what we in the business call "heavy feeders". The "waste" produced by intensive livestock production is also the fuel for "organically certified" agriculture. Dirty little secret right there that I bet you weren't aware of. You're advocating a reduction of production capacity when there are already people starving? Is this an example of "necessary" suffering? You've invoked heart disease as though it made a good case for suffering. You know only one group of people get heart disease, the living, ie: "those who do not starve to death". I know, I know, it sounds terrible, but if the choice is heart disease or death...I'm going to have to side with heart disease. That's the nature of ag, shitty compromises.
You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of natural farming method capable of feeding us whilst simultaneously "repairing" the earth, or at least not damaging it. This is not the case, at least not currently. Agriculture is not a natural state of anything, nor is our population a natural state of anything. Both are contrived, both are "detrimental" to something, somewhere (or, more aptly, to a great many things everywhere). The earth beneath your feet is not some machine designed to sustain you that can be operated perfectly if one simply followed it's "rules". Now, I love this rock, I love everything on it. I extend this love right down to plants (which you so conveniently disregard so that you may eat them with a clean conscience, apparently), but when it comes down to brass tacks I throw my chips in with homo-sapiens. You are free to encircle a wider group of creatures within the umbrella of what your conscience can bear, but please offer a workable solution. Don't be so quick to buy into production methodologies just because they align themselves with your ethics or morality. They must work, or your ethics and morality mean exactly what? I want what you want, a greener, more sustainable system of food production. I'm not willing to diminish capacity (thereby adding more to the rolls of the huddled hungry masses) in order to accomplish this, because I will not have accomplished anything at all.
Look, I'm on your side here. We need to find a better solution to food production than what we currently have. This doesn't make the case for ethical or moral vegetarianism, which is what I keep waiting to see. Please, explain to me how a sustainable system of integrated ag (which is what would be required to -reduce, notice that I cannot say replace- petrochem reliance, -in addition, you see, there are no magic bullets in ag- to cover cropping and "green manures" as well as -gasp- GMO's) would be outside the metrics of what you have described as "ethical". If livestock were produced sustainably, humanely, and then slaughtered (as they are now) in a humane manner with full regard to their level of "sentience". What would be unethical about that? We clearly have need of the products as we find them in a great many places, not just food. They are clearly an important food source, and we don't have enough food to go around as is. So, again, where's the beef?
I've handled your arguments re crop rotation, and the use of agricultural land already, many many posts ago. I'll repeat it again for you. Not all "agricultural land" is suitable for the production of crops suitable for human consumption. The classification "agricultural land" includes livestock production, feed crops, etc. Feed crops (even when they are varieties of crops we actually do eat) are chosen for their diminished fertility and irrigation requirements. This is what makes it economically feasible for the producer. Crop rotation is not a perpetual motion machine. Many farms use crop rotation, they still fertilize. Green manure is not a perpetual motion machine, you can't get out more than what you put in. Both of these have the inconvenient side effect of tying up food production in that the area cannot be under crop continuously (more-so in the case of green manures, crop rotation allows you to grow something, even if the yield is meager at times). Neither can be used to successfully cultivate all crops at the level we currently produce because many of our food crops are what we in the business call "heavy feeders". The "waste" produced by intensive livestock production is also the fuel for "organically certified" agriculture. Dirty little secret right there that I bet you weren't aware of. You're advocating a reduction of production capacity when there are already people starving? Is this an example of "necessary" suffering? You've invoked heart disease as though it made a good case for suffering. You know only one group of people get heart disease, the living, ie: "those who do not starve to death". I know, I know, it sounds terrible, but if the choice is heart disease or death...I'm going to have to side with heart disease. That's the nature of ag, shitty compromises.
You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of natural farming method capable of feeding us whilst simultaneously "repairing" the earth, or at least not damaging it. This is not the case, at least not currently. Agriculture is not a natural state of anything, nor is our population a natural state of anything. Both are contrived, both are "detrimental" to something, somewhere (or, more aptly, to a great many things everywhere). The earth beneath your feet is not some machine designed to sustain you that can be operated perfectly if one simply followed it's "rules". Now, I love this rock, I love everything on it. I extend this love right down to plants (which you so conveniently disregard so that you may eat them with a clean conscience, apparently), but when it comes down to brass tacks I throw my chips in with homo-sapiens. You are free to encircle a wider group of creatures within the umbrella of what your conscience can bear, but please offer a workable solution. Don't be so quick to buy into production methodologies just because they align themselves with your ethics or morality. They must work, or your ethics and morality mean exactly what? I want what you want, a greener, more sustainable system of food production. I'm not willing to diminish capacity (thereby adding more to the rolls of the huddled hungry masses) in order to accomplish this, because I will not have accomplished anything at all.
Look, I'm on your side here. We need to find a better solution to food production than what we currently have. This doesn't make the case for ethical or moral vegetarianism, which is what I keep waiting to see. Please, explain to me how a sustainable system of integrated ag (which is what would be required to -reduce, notice that I cannot say replace- petrochem reliance, -in addition, you see, there are no magic bullets in ag- to cover cropping and "green manures" as well as -gasp- GMO's) would be outside the metrics of what you have described as "ethical". If livestock were produced sustainably, humanely, and then slaughtered (as they are now) in a humane manner with full regard to their level of "sentience". What would be unethical about that? We clearly have need of the products as we find them in a great many places, not just food. They are clearly an important food source, and we don't have enough food to go around as is. So, again, where's the beef?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
