Childhood indoctrination

[KichigaiNeko]

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

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.

---

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

---

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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)

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?

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

---

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.