RE: Vegetarianism vs Omnivoreism .... discussions btw Kichi and bennyboy
February 18, 2014 at 11:01 am
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2014 at 11:03 am by bennyboy.)
I have to confess that I don't really seeing where you're going with the new thread, Kichi, although I'm willing enough. I'd recommend asking a mod to edit your OP to put the long lists and former-thread quotes in hide tags, and to redo the links, which have been broken by the text cut-and-paste.
Since we're now in the botany science section, I think we can agree that sources should be restricted to reliable ones: government-sourced data, or properly-cited scientific studies. Rhetorical, spiritual, or dogmatic material shouldn't be included, in my opinion, unless they are relevant to whatever path the discussion is on.
I think the economy of food would be a good place to start. By economy, I don't mean money-- I mean the efficiency by which the sun's energy is brought to a form usable by humans. At first glance, wheat and rice would be big winners. But there's more to it than that-- economy also includes issues like stability, the cost of delivery, etc.
As for the issues of animal rights, suffering, etc., I think these should also be looked from a factual angle. I don't entertain BS arguments like "animals don't really suffer," but nor do I accept BS arguments that every life directly saved represents a net reduction in suffering overall. An example would be choosing between industrial/non-industrial and vegetarian/omnivore food sources. It seems to me, for example, that milk cows endure at least as much suffering as slaughtered animals, since industrial-facitiliy cows are largely enclosed, bred to have unnaturally large and uncomfortable udders, and calves which must be slaughtered, but which most vegetarians don't think about (I think they don't anyway). Actually, our discussion so far has led me to a lifestyle change-- I've decided I either have to go vegan or to be a head-in-sand hypocrite. Valentine's chocolates have been eaten with gusto, and it's cold-turkey for me.
There are also some ways in which livestock may be said to reduce net suffering in the world. While grain-fed cattle MUST cause more death and suffering than even industrial plant cultivation, I think that industrial harvesting practices probably kill many critters. I'd argue that pure-grazed cattle would not only reduce suffering over industrial grain-fed cattle, but also over industrial grain-fed people (aka vegetarians). So there are at least some cases where the economy of food production makes even a vegetarian diet a killer.
It seems to me that a non-industrial food supply is at least as important as diet choice in reducing suffering. However, this would reduce efficiency greatly-- probably by an order of magnitude at least. Perhaps this loss of efficiency would create more jobs. Perhaps it would mean that the world simply can't sustain 7 billion people while protecting animals. Perhaps alternative technologies (bio-buildings with gardens on the roof, etc.) could be adapted to provide local sustainability with absolutely no loss of life or suffering. Perhaps technologies which create harvestable meat in organisms bred to have no nervous system would allow people to eat foods with the texture they like while silencing animal-rights people.
I think these kinds of ideas can be explored with the benefit of charts, numbers and studies, and with little reference to emotionality.
Since we're now in the botany science section, I think we can agree that sources should be restricted to reliable ones: government-sourced data, or properly-cited scientific studies. Rhetorical, spiritual, or dogmatic material shouldn't be included, in my opinion, unless they are relevant to whatever path the discussion is on.
I think the economy of food would be a good place to start. By economy, I don't mean money-- I mean the efficiency by which the sun's energy is brought to a form usable by humans. At first glance, wheat and rice would be big winners. But there's more to it than that-- economy also includes issues like stability, the cost of delivery, etc.
As for the issues of animal rights, suffering, etc., I think these should also be looked from a factual angle. I don't entertain BS arguments like "animals don't really suffer," but nor do I accept BS arguments that every life directly saved represents a net reduction in suffering overall. An example would be choosing between industrial/non-industrial and vegetarian/omnivore food sources. It seems to me, for example, that milk cows endure at least as much suffering as slaughtered animals, since industrial-facitiliy cows are largely enclosed, bred to have unnaturally large and uncomfortable udders, and calves which must be slaughtered, but which most vegetarians don't think about (I think they don't anyway). Actually, our discussion so far has led me to a lifestyle change-- I've decided I either have to go vegan or to be a head-in-sand hypocrite. Valentine's chocolates have been eaten with gusto, and it's cold-turkey for me.
There are also some ways in which livestock may be said to reduce net suffering in the world. While grain-fed cattle MUST cause more death and suffering than even industrial plant cultivation, I think that industrial harvesting practices probably kill many critters. I'd argue that pure-grazed cattle would not only reduce suffering over industrial grain-fed cattle, but also over industrial grain-fed people (aka vegetarians). So there are at least some cases where the economy of food production makes even a vegetarian diet a killer.
It seems to me that a non-industrial food supply is at least as important as diet choice in reducing suffering. However, this would reduce efficiency greatly-- probably by an order of magnitude at least. Perhaps this loss of efficiency would create more jobs. Perhaps it would mean that the world simply can't sustain 7 billion people while protecting animals. Perhaps alternative technologies (bio-buildings with gardens on the roof, etc.) could be adapted to provide local sustainability with absolutely no loss of life or suffering. Perhaps technologies which create harvestable meat in organisms bred to have no nervous system would allow people to eat foods with the texture they like while silencing animal-rights people.
I think these kinds of ideas can be explored with the benefit of charts, numbers and studies, and with little reference to emotionality.
