Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Scabby Joe]

Make a case for your own argument, at some point, anytime that it is convenient for you.

I have made a case. Huge amounts of the worlds land is used to rear livestock (or the feedcrop they need). If this was not the case, this land could in the main be used for agricultural purposes to feed humans. You keep saying that not all of this land is suitable for this but provide no evidence or fugures to back this up.

Crop rotation is not a perpetual motion machine.

Please explain how producing livestock does anything but make this problem worse? You have to consider that livestock animals add greatly to the amount of vegetation we need to produce to feed them. They consume calories. You get less out than you put in. For every 100 calories that we feed to animals in the form of crops, we receive on average just 30 calories in the form of meat and milk

You're advocating a reduction of production capacity when there are already people starving?

No, I'm saying use some of the land used for the livestock business and use it to grow foods humans can eat. You provide no evidence that we'd all starve to death if we didn't eat meat, just opinion. You will be aware of many reports from bodies like the United Nations that identify the livestock industry as hugely damaging and consequently advise eating less meat.

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.

I have, vegetarianism. In a time when the earth's population is exploding how can it make sense to bring into existence tens of billions of other consumers (livestock) of the earth's resources? Livestock have to be fed and it is ridiculous that so much of the world's capacity is taken up with feeding cows, pigs etc when people are starving or dieing of thirst.

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?

I do not believe that livestock could be produced with no pain and suffering on a scale that would satisfy world demand. If they could, then I could make an arguement that it is not moral to take their lives. That is a seperate argument and a little more complicated.

You haven't addressed the ecological impact on ecosystems or the contribution that livestock production makes to greenhouse gases.

I sincerely hope I have my quotes right this time.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have made a case. Huge amounts of the worlds land is used to rear livestock (or the feedcrop they need). If this was not the case, this land could in the main be used for agricultural purposes to feed humans. You keep saying that not all of this land is suitable for this but provide no evidence or fugures to back this up.

You have not, and I've explained why you have not, sometimes more than once with regards to a repeated claim. I'll do it again.

-Not all agricultural land is suitable for the production of crops suitable for human consumption. This is not my opinion. This is why agricultural sub-classifications exist, and you can find these classifications at the NRCS, or the FDA, if you were interested in learning about them. I encourage you to fact check me at any point.

-Intensive livestock production produces fertility that is used, worldwide, in the production of vegetables for human consumption. Our other option are petrochemical fertilizers. Both are exceedingly detrimental to a wide array of "sentient creatures". Ourselves included. You have offered green manures and crop rotation. They are insufficient. That's why we use livestock and oil.

Please explain how producing livestock does anything but make this problem worse? You have to consider that livestock animals add greatly to the amount of vegetation we need to produce to feed them. They consume calories. You get less out than you put in.

As I have already explained, livestock are capable of processing material which we are not. In this manner, cows, for example, turn sunlight into an available source of nutrition to us in a very similar manner that vegetables do (sunlight shines down, grass grows, we cannot eat grass, cows can eat grass, we can eat the cows). They also have the advantage of being able to be reared on land that is not suitable for vegetable production.

No, I'm saying use some of the land used for the livestock business and use it to grow foods humans can eat. You provide no evidence that we'd all starve to death if we didn't eat meat, just opinion. You will be aware of many reports from bodies like the United Nations that identify the livestock industry as hugely damaging and consequently advise eating less meat.

A fine idea. Who said that we would all starve? I simply pointed out that some of us already starve. If we were to reduce our level of production by any means, say, decreasing the amount of fertility available to us from intensive livestock production, or by tying up land in service of inedible green manures, or low yielding crop rotations and covers, that would have the effect of decreasing that number precisely how? The UN advises eating -less- meat. You feel that this somehow supports your argument for eating -no- meat? Haven't I been asking you this in every post?

I have, vegetarianism.

You have offered a word that describes your ideology. That doesn't constitute a solution to the problems food production faces in any way that I am aware of. If it does, you need to go collect your Nobel prize, because you, good sir, have just solved one of the most persistent and terrible problems that our species has ever had to endure since the dawn of time.

I do not believe that livestock could be produced with no pain and suffering on a scale that would satisfy world demand. If they could, then I could make an arguement that it is not moral to take their lives. That is a seperate argument and a little more complicated.

Who cares about world demand? We use animal products in some very important little pieces of machinery, in addition to using them to both produce our food, and as food themselves. Whether or not this valuable resource is being put to best use is hardly an issue of contention. It is not. That does not make the case for vegetarianism. It makes the case for ethical omnivorism. Here, finally, we've reached the place that I knew that we would if I continued to ask questions. You created a distinction from which you began your argument. When asked about the possibility of livestock production meeting your requirements you explicitly admit that you would simply create a new set of requirements. Absolute bullshit, and now I feel like I've wasted my time. You are a zealot, I don't have time for this sort of shit when it comes to ag. You do not wish to kill animals, and that is completely your business, but from here on out lets drop the pretense of rational arguments, "necessary" or "unnecessary" suffering, ecological, environmental, or human impact. You are only interested in preserving your own opinions and smug sense of ethical superiority on the matter. All else is rationalization after the fact.

You haven't addressed the ecological impact on ecosystems or the contribution that livestock production makes to greenhouse gases.

I have, consistently. I've also brought up the impact from our alternatives which you ignore only because it is inconvenient to your ideology (an ideology which, I have to say, after that last remark, has become worthless to me). There are no magic bullets.

-good work on the tags btw, much easier to sort the signal from the noise-

[simplexity]

Most vertebrates are sentiant by your definition which was 'the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences.' This may include fish.

No, this is just not true. Mostly we really just don't know. It has definitely been shown though that most mammals do have some sense of self awareness.

Of course they 'feel' and show preferences to avoid pain and suffering and to seek pleasure. I've given you good evidence which you've ignored. It's even accepted by many countries in Europe and elsewhere through legislation enacted to protect animal welfare. And this is by people who, like you, ant to carry on eating them.

Sure, I have admitted all animals show preferences to avoid pain. This does not mean they are self aware by any means as I described earlier.

"Self awareness is needed for there to be any suffering involved."
Please provide sources for this - where did you get it from? If your measure of self-awareness is the mirror test fine. New born babies cannot pass this test until they are at least 18 months old. Are you saying that a baby is incapable of feeling pain and suffering until it passes the test. Get real! Do you really think that! A new born baby is sentient - it can feel pain and suffer and react to avoid it's source.

How can an animal suffer if it does not know it exists. Really, think about it.

"Suffering, or pain in a broad sense,[1] is an experience(implying conciousness) of unpleasantness and aversion associated with harm or threat of harm in an individual."
"Suffering occurs in the lives of sentient beings in numerous manners, and often dramatically."
Wiki Definition, it must be true

Once again you are taking my argument to the level of the individual and exaggerating. There is no need for that. I never said anything about babies. And this test is not the only defining evidence for sentience and once again I never said it was. You really like exaggerating.

So, all the animals that don't pass your mirror test are nothing more than machines. Again, I really can't believe you actually think that. So, by your reckoning, it would be no more morally wrong to squash a coke can than to put a kitten in a microwave and wait for it to explode. Really?

Once again, this test is not the one and only thing which defines sentience. And no, I never said anything about kittens, once again. And yes, if an animal lacks any self awareness, it does nothing more than react.

Taken from definition of a robot:
"It may also have some ability to perceive and absorb data on physical objects, or on its local physical environment, or to process data, or to respond to various stimuli." Note-Perceive is used very loosely in this definition."

Again by your reasoning, those humans (the insane, chronically senile, brain damaged) who do not pass a mirror test are no more than machines? Do with them what you will with no moral objection.

Really!, there is no need to bring this argument here. We are talking about ethics between species, not the social and moral understanding of family and individual values. You cannot win an argument by trying to say your opponent agrees with things they never said which have nothing to do with the argument at hand. Sorry.

There is nothing ridiculous about extending moral considerations to animals. I think IF you try to answer the questions I have put to you, you will begin to see how ridiculous your position is.

If you actually stay within the argument, no there is nothing ridiculous at all. And actually I completely agree with you in pretty much all the rest of the arguments you have made on this board. The only difference is you don't seem to understand the difference between reaction and actual awareness and I am by no means saying I can prove cows are not sentient at this point. Until that point we should treat them as if they are, at least somewhat and try to limit the "suffering". Yes, that is what European countries have done.

[Scabby Joe]

Absolute bullshit, and now I feel like I've wasted my time. You are a zealot, I don't have time for this sort of shit when it comes to ag. You do not wish to kill animals, and that is completely your business, but from here on out lets drop the pretense of rational arguments, "necessary" or "unnecessary" suffering, ecological, environmental, or human impact. You are only interested in preserving your own opinions of the matter. All else is rationalization after the fact.

Of course! Why didn't I see this sooner? You are right and the United Nations and many others are wrong! You fail to provide any 'meat on the bone' to your arguments. You make statements to suit your self-interest in meat eating. Meat production is hugely damaging to the planet and there is NO alternative but to give it up. You suggest the humane treatment of animals in a less harsh environment than the factory farm but this is not tennable.

Grass-grazing cows emit considerably more methane than grain-fed cows. Pastured organic chickens have a 20 percent greater impact on global warming. It requires 2 to 20 acres to raise a cow on grass. If you raised all the cows in the United States on grass, all 100 million of them, cattle would require, using the figure of 10 acres per cow, almost half of your country’s land (and this figure excludes space needed for pastured chicken and pigs). A tract of land just larger than France has been carved out of the Brazilian rain forest and turned over to grazing cattle. Nothing about this is sustainable.

I think you believe in what you are saying but happily my moral choices coincide and are supported by reputable scientists.

A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, is what the UN are saying.

As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050, western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable, according to the report from United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) international panel of sustainable resource management.

It says: "Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products."

Professor Edgar Hertwich, the lead author of the report, said: "Animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand or cement, plastics or metals. Biomass and crops for animals are as damaging as [burning] fossil fuels."

[The Grand Nudger]

Believe you just said that the UN advised eating less meat, when have I argued against eating less meat? Oh that's right, never. At what point does "less" become "none"? Oh that's right, never. When have I argued that livestock production does not cause harm to the environment? Oh, that's right, never.

At what point does any of this make the case for ethical veganism (whew, now it's not just vegetarianism, it's veganism)? Oh, that's right.......never.

(I especially like the blurb about fossil fuels btw, and how it is easy to look for alternatives. Sure it's easy to look...strangely we haven't found any yet...lol. Have you noticed that you have a habit of quote mining from papers designed to support the arguments of others, but consistently fail to draw them in to service for your own?)

-and yes, you should have seen this sooner, which is precisely why I am so frustrated with participating in this conversation at this point. I have no "self-interest" in eating meat. I have an interest in feeding people, it's an interest which you too seem to have, the only difference being that I am so invested in this particular interest that I am actually concerned with whether or not any given solution actually works, as opposed to whether or not it aligns itself with my ideology, which is completely neutral with regards to food itself-

You know what, I'm going to save you a hell of alot of time here. I'm was raised on the coast and in swamps. I prefer fish to any other type of meat. I do have a weakness for pork ribs, pork over beef or chicken or anything else. I am a proponent of integrated agriculture (integrated, specifically with aquaculture) and sustainable agricultural practices. I prefer IPM over heavy pesticides, and GMO over "heavy feeders". I am a member of the CFA (Community Farm Alliance) and formerly of a resource conservation and development council. I am a goddamned farmer, by trade, and I've helped many farmers achieve organic certification (this is where the majority of my income is generated, because there is very little money in the actual cultivation of crops for a little guy like myself). My favorite food in the entire world is falafel. All of my clothing is made of cotton, I cannot stand leather, and I do not wear fur coats. Whoever or whatever you think I am is likely to be a fiction you have created in order to argue against, rather than making your own goddamned argument.

[Scabby Joe]

At what point does any of this make the case for ethical veganism (whew, now it's not just vegetarianism, it's veganism)? Oh, that's right.......never.

Hang on. The UN are saying that we need to shift towards a vegan diet. I'm trying to, nearly there. The ethical case is plain to see. If we don't it will negatively impact on the earth in many ways as I have explained. This coincides with my ethical stance on meat eating.

Have you noticed that you have a habit of quote mining from papers designed to support the arguments of others, but consistently fail to draw them in to service for your own?)

It is called providing supporting evidence. All you seem to do is say that ending meat production is not sustainable without proving anything to back it up. Provide some sources, back up your arguments.

-and yes, you should have seen this sooner, which is precisely why I am so frustrated with participating in this conversation at this point.

Hey, I'm frustrated too! At least you can console yourself with a bacon sandwich!

I have no "self-interest" in eating meat.

Then why eat it? So we can get fertilizer? This seems a little thin to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am an omnivore, that's why. I have to eat, and meat provides a valuable source of nutrition. I can count on one hand how many bacon sandwiches I've had in the last two or three years. So, take your fictional me and go fuck yourself with it, hmn?

The UN suggests a shift away from animal products as far as it is possible, and so do I. Still no veganism there. Protip, btw, livestock production is useful -even if we do not consume the meat-, and I've explained to you precisely why this is the case, at least seven or eight times (this isn't actually true, I made the number up on the spot.... I've explained it more often...in each and every one of my posts in this thread).

Seriously, are we done here, has the thread turned into a pointless excuse for calling someone a "bacon-eater" as a backhanded and in-direct little insult? LOL.

https://attra.ncat.org/
(since the only common opinion we seem to hold is that our current system of ag is absolute garbage, let me shamelessly bump a great little resource that you might find interesting, hell, you might even learn a little bit about ag. Ignore the friendly looking cow that you'll see whn you first click the link, I promise you'll find a ton of awesome shit that appeals to you. The "Soils and Compost" section will be a goldmine for you.)

[Scabby Joe]

Hey that was never meant as an insult, just trying to lighten the proceedings. Sorry you took it the wrong way. Thanks for your input. Although you have probably picked up on the fact that I'm not at this time in agreement with you, you have made me consider my stance from a new perspective. I would make a joke about your minor insult being caused by too much red meat in your diet but maybe online humour is not my forte..

[The Grand Nudger]

Mea culpa, I assumed that a person who considered eating meat to be unethical or immoral would interpret such acts as those unbecoming of an ethical or moral person, IE derogatory.

As I've said in this thread. Your personal dietary choices are not under fire from me. Your support of any given system of production (insomuch as you would engage in it) is not under fire from me. Hell, I'd help you get started -become the change you wish to see-....for a price (kidding..lol, I'd help you from a distance for free). What -is- under fire from me is our practical ability to achieve these things, the whole lot of unconsidered effects of any given system that sees popular support from within what are largely social or political organizations at any given time (this sort of thing is cyclical, green manures are in, they're out, integrated ag is in, it's out, organics are in, they're out), and whether or not this choice you've made can be said to be applicable to us all, universal.

I look at all of this from the producers point of view. We have to be able to produce the product you want. We cannot give you a product which we are incapable of producing, no matter how much we might want to. Whatever moral or ethical considerations you have as a consumer must be weighed against the ability of the producer (at the very least, and I would go so far as to say that you might want to consider your fellow consumers before taking such absolutist positions when it comes to food).

[Scabby Joe]

It has definitely been shown though that most mammals do have some sense of self awareness.

OK so then as you now believe that most mammals do have self awareness, and you have previously stated that through self awareness comes a human like ability to feel pain and suffer, what moral basis do you have for causing unnecessary pain and suffering on non human animals?

It seems what you are saying is that it is OK to cause unnecessary pain and suffering on a species other than humans? On what other basis can you possibly be discriminating on?