Childhood indoctrination

[Forbinator]

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?

"suppose" refers to whether the statement was relevant to what was being said at the time, and not to uncertainty over its accuracy, if you must nitpick over semantics.

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 may be guilty of idealism, but even if this ideal is not completely realised, shouldn't any positive steps towards it be celebrated? If even one dairy farm converts to cropping, that's a great thing, for the animals and probably for business! Dairy farmers are exploited and ripped off by the industry in much the same way as sweatshop workers. The solution for us is a boycott.

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?

You don't think that killing is a form of harm? And to answer the pointless question, I was once taken fishing when I was 12. It was an ugly experience, both for me and for the creatures being harmed for a few minutes of pleasure.

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?

I've heard that argument, that in a way we're really all slaves, being farmed to some extent, in a figurative way. I think we should deal with who is literally being farmed, otherwise we're just making excuses and nothing really changes. And no, I won't stop eating altogether. I will make every reasonable effort to eat without harming others, to the extent that it is possible to do so given what is available. The point is, if the farming does harm, and is not needed, we cannot justify it. You seem to be the one with the inconsistency between which species' interests you value. I abhor immigration detention centres and dairy farms equally.

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?

No. Yes. Ad hominem. And you didn't actually address the point you quoted.

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?

Those links show evidence of humans historically consuming meat. The second link also mentioned that infanticide was common. Does this mean that I can start murdering babies and just say that my evolution made me do it?

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.

Yes he has. Fertiliser seems to be a complex issue, and different methods will apply in different situations. The fact that we need it in such high levels (for both animal agriculture and cropping) is symptomatic of human overpopulation. So hey, let's kill the animals! (I hope you can see that is an obvious non-sequitor).

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.

This extensively researched, independent report tells you in detail how to get all the nutrients you need from plant-based sources, including the nutrients that are thought to be scarce: http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2003_ADA_po..._paper.pdf

It certainly is possible to be deficient in certain nutrients as a vegan, if you eat too much junkfood, or predominantly consume processed fake animal products (like vegan cheese, mock meat etc.), in much the same way as you'll see meat and dairy eaters who need to take a calcium supplement. It's amazing how many nutrients you can get through leafy greens (kale, spinach, silver beet, bok choi etc.).

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?

The slaughter of the innocent is a very emotive topic, especially since we don't need to do it, and we can very easily choose not to.

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?

Good question. I don't think anyone knows exactly what world peace means. That's why it is considered an ideal. Whatever it is, non-violence is certainly a more tangible and measurable goal to work towards.

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?

According to whom? Is our species in any serious danger of going extinct any time soon?

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.

I'm saying that an "all or nothing" approach is flawed. You were apparently a "vegan" at some point, but because you perceive that you can't get all the nutrients via plant-based sources, you've become a full-on meat eater, advocating live export, mulesing, and mass killing of native kangaroos in full view of each other. Did you even make an effort to find middle ground? Maybe only eating animal products on Sundays for example?

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 not trying to implement it; I'm trying to dismantle it. The childhood indoctrination phenomenon that I've referred to is better explained here: http://www.carnism.org

Oh? You live in Australia?

Yes, so I know about rangeland beef production, and I also know that it is fraudulent to suggest that all grass-fed beef comes from rangelands, particularly in the case of prime beef.

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

And what kind of elitism involves forcing innocent animals to die for your ethics? I have not used force.

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?

Yes. But slaughter is neither voluntary nor for the purpose of relieving suffering. You're still dodging the question you quoted.

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?

Of course hunters are all highly skilled enough to hit a moving target between the eyes first shot every time...even the ones who've had a six-pack of beer and allowed their children to "have a try" with the gun. How silly of me not to think of that! And if you are actually that good with a gun, how many unclean "practice" kills did it take for you to get that good?

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.

These qualities are not unique to halal and kosher.

---

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.

This is the problem. It doesn't matter how highly the cattle industry rates its welfare standards; they still have to beat their animals. The industry is fundamentally flawed.

As for the medicine and vaccines you give, they are for disease states that you've caused by intensive confinement. The pathogenic load on a farm is very high. It's the same principle as children getting sick at childcare centres. You treating the diseases is a bit like shooting someone and then driving him to the hospital (given the choice it's still preferable to drive him to the hospital though).