Meat consumption

Started by winkio, December 05, 2012, 09:22:48 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

winkio

December 05, 2012, 09:22:48 pm Last Edit: December 05, 2012, 09:23:55 pm by winkio
Quote
Today at 10:23:13 PM Subsonic_Noise: Sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3559542.stm http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/resistant-bacteria-antibiotics-prove-powerless-as-super-germs-spread-a-811560.html  http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772&CR1=warning#.UEvyf6RzprQ  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet
Today at 10:21:20 PM winkio: There is no reason to minimize harm.  Harm is the reason for life, and you can never change that.  Instead, you should be maximizing life.  Meat consumption is physically sustainable, even if it is not economically sustainable in its current form.  There is no net loss of matter, and energy consumption is reasonable.
Today at 10:19:08 PM Subsonic_Noise: The farming industry is also one of the biggest contributors to air pollution and climate change. Besides that, mass farming is one of the biggest contributors to the creation of superresistant bacteria; Since the  conditions in the farms are aweful, the animals are often mass-fed antibiotics, to which the bacteria then will slowly become resistant. Then, they'll just have to "learn" to be transmit to humans. Bird flu? Swine flu? Happened like this.
Today at 10:15:00 PM Subsonic_Noise: Beyond that, the massive amount of waste created in the meat industry is steadily poisoning ground water. In a world where clean water might become a rarity, this is -not- alright. I don't think I have to mention that for cheap production, food for farm animals is often grown on former rainforest ground, of which we lose  One and one-half acres every second. A big contributing factor to this is, again (besides others, of course), our extreme meat consumption.
Today at 10:12:37 PM Subsonic_Noise: We've used up 30% of the world's natural resources in the past 2-3 decades, and our consumption rises steadily. It's not something that'll "fix itself", it's something that we'll have to fix, and it starts with each of us. 1kg of meat needs 16kg of soy or wheat in it's production, and between 5000 and 16000 litres of water.
Today at 10:09:57 PM Subsonic_Noise: And that is just ignorant. Yes, I am fully aware that it's not possible to live without doing harm, but that doesn't mean you can't try to minimize the harm you do - and the extremely and unnaturally high meat consumption of the western society is cause of plenty of them, and beyond that, not sustainable.
Today at 10:07:20 PM winkio: Third, each one of us exists on the sacrifice of millions, if not billions or trillions of organisms.  But instead of wasting that sacrifice by feeling guilty, I am thankful for the opportunity I have to live.  I am not about to apologize for my existence, but rather make my existence a testament to the value of that sacrifice.
Today at 10:07:12 PM winkio: Second, I am fully aware that literally 100% of my daily activities are harmful to the environment.  The world doesn't run on happiness and sunshine.  Every food, every manufactured product, every quantum of energy produced is only possible through destruction.  You mention torture of an animal as if it is more cruel than raising one for the sole purpose of killing it, yet nothing could be farther from the truth.  Life is monstrous.
Today at 09:50:04 PM winkio: That is just naive.  First, fast food is chemically engineered to taste good to human biology.
Today at 07:58:00 PM Subsonic_Noise: It's bad for your health, for the environment and for animals and it annoys me to no extent that people are willing to ignore that because it's convenient and "tastes good", something that nobody who ever ate at a good restaurant or who knows how to cook would confirm.
Today at 07:53:27 PM Subsonic_Noise: I just get sick of people hyping up that disgusting, unhealthy shit  I know from an inside source at McDonalds that they still use pink slime in some countries, even though their employees are required to state they don't, and chicken slaughtered for KFC have shown signs of having been massively abused before slaughter, besides living in miserable conditions to begin with.

winkio

The use of antibiotics is a problem, and does need to be limited, I'll give you that. 

Global warming from livestock is a legitimate problem, but it is a solvable one by a relatively simple design.  By locally integrating multiple classes of food at the same scale, you can create a closed cycle of nutrients and waste.  It has already been done with fish and plants, look up aquaponics.

Natural resources are used in raising livestock, but they do not disappear.  Rather, they are processed into something different.  On the large scale, there is an environmental cycle that processes from one product to another until it ends up as the beginning resource.  20-30% of the resources are not used up, but 20-30% of the resources have shifted to a different part of the cycle.  It's not that an impossible task to shift the distribution back.

SBR*

My views on McDonald's: First of all, the whole "It's not healthy" issue. I'm pretty sure it's well-established that fast food in general isn't healthy. Sure, McDonald's may be even more unhealthy due to the large amount of anti-biotics, but if you don't eat it too much, you should be fine.

Second of all, the "hurting animals" deal.
Quote from: Subbesides living in miserable conditions to begin with.

I agree that we shouldn't hurt animals needlessly - that is, for no purpose whatsoever. Torturing animals, for example, is needless. However, killing them does have a reason: to get food. I like meat and I want to continue eating meat. Selfish? Maybe. But animals are all like each other. Some may have a 'personality', but they're still just basing their actions on instincts. Without fear of contradiction, I could say they don't actually think like we humans do. Harming them causes them pain. They feel pain, as they do have 'feelings' in a way. However, I don't mind killing them in order to acquire meat, provided they don't experience pain, because animals don't think.
I agree that some animals do live under miserable circumstances. However, provided that they have never experienced freedom before, do you think they will be sad? I'm not sure, but as they don't know what it's like in the outside world, I don't think they'll be sad. It's a bit comparable to what happens to us when, for example, we get to live under better circumstances: at first, we're okay with our former position, but the moment we acquire a better position in life, we don't want to go back, simply because we have experienced what it's like to have a better position. That's human nature: when we experience progress, we want to keep it. However, those chickens have never felt this progress called "freedom".

winkio

People don't like hurting animals.  I completely understand that.  What I don't understand is why those same people think raising animals for slaughter, or hunting them in the wild is okay.

Human beings are hurt and tortured on a daily basis, whether it is child abuse, crime, or from another source.  It is most definitely a bad thing, however, the punishments are usually very small.  Raising human beings for slaughter, on the other hand, is unthinkable.  Even depriving a human being of their freedom by forcing them into slavery has become an terrifying idea, and human trafficking groups are on the decline.

In the wild, animals do not die without pain.  They are often cruelly injured, or tracked for hours by their predators.

It is convenient for many to ignore this and say that they are for the humane treatment of food, or for minimizing pain.  That is the same sort of foolish idealism that tries to run a government without any taxes, or pay for a house without any income.

SBR*

Humans aren't animals. As I explained, humans can think, while animals can't. That's why I think slaughtering humans =/= slaughtering animals. However, animals do feel pain. Therefore hurting animals can be compared to hurting humans, while the latter obviously is worse than the former.

winkio

I agree that humans are different because they can think, and slaughtering humans is different than animals.  However, I don't see how slaughtering animals for food is no big deal as long as they don't feel pain.  Care to elaborate?

Blizzard

December 06, 2012, 04:03:43 am #6 Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 04:10:06 am by Blizzard
*refers to shoutbox* Yearly more people die from the normal flu than bird flu and swine flu AND mad cow disease together. Sub, when you are trying to scare people like the government, at least get your facts straight about bullshit that the medical industry is propagating. Though, you probably won't read this.

Sub, if you really feel this way about the human race, why don't you do the environment a favor and just kill yourself? Your argument directly leads to this. You are causing constant damage to the environment with your very existence. The usage of Internet at this moment to read this post causes electromagnetic radiation that does irreparable damage to the environment. Oh, also, do you ACTUALLY know how vegetables are grown these days? They use pesticides, crossbreeding of plants, they are KILLING OFF LIFE from this planet. Do insects suddenly have less of a privilege to life than we do? Is it morally acceptable to kill them just to be able to eat the vegetables ourselves? No, it's not. Just because we don't know how plants perceive their environment, doesn't make them lifeless or not being able to feel pain. Look this topic up, it's quite interesting how plants react to stuff.
And saying that being a vegan makes you less of a murderer of other species is just plain hypocritical. Your very existence causes damage to the environment. Stop using cars, stop using Internet, stop using cellphones, stop using any kind of technology, because:
a) the creation of that technology already causes damage to the environment.
b) the usage of same technology causes additional damage to the environment.

It's cool that you're trying to do something good and maybe fix a few problems, but that does not suddenly elevate you above the rest of humanity and suddenly makes you a saint. I always respected your vegan style of life, I always liked seeing pictures of stuff you put together on Facebook, because it simply looked interesting how much can be done with just a little bit of imagination. But instead of trying to convince other people how wrong they are, you should should stop giving a fuck and be actively doing MORE to save the environment. You will NOT convert people. People are beings that are slaves to their habits and few people are going change these habits, because they believe that they can do some good. IMO a charity worker who may be helping kids getting adopted does more to the environment than a vegan. Why? He's actively saving a life and not just being somewhere on the end of a chain, paying $1 per month or whatever to help that child. Sure, if you can't do more than that, that's ok, but if you want to make a change, do by example. Don't expect people to go the same one step that you did. Go 50 steps ahead and maybe then expect them to go that one miserable step that may change things a bit. Commit your life to this, make it your life if you are truly serious about what you are talking, don't just preach saving the environment when you have done only a single passive step that includes being a vegan, doing your part on recycling and a few additional things. Stop using technology, get on the streets and do stuff. And stop eating vegetables. Just because insects don't have the necessary physiology to feel pain, doesn't make it ok to kill them. Then and ONLY THEN you have the right to complain.

EDIT: I just want to add that I had only 2 hours of sleep last night, kinda holding together on Red Bull here with still a bit of alcohol in my stream. Imagine what I could come up with if I was on 100% instead of 30% and actually be able to structure my arguments. ... mmmmmmmmyeah, you get my point. No structure and no filter.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

Ryex

Here's my biggest problem with the argument that we are destroying the environment with our agriculture, livestock, and general technology.
The implied mindset that we don't have that right.
Now, what i'm about to say is going to sound incredibly conceited and may seem politically incorrect in this day and age but I want to you think hard about how you truly see you place in this world before you judge it.

Humanity is the highest form of life in known existence by several orders of magnitude, to not accept that as fact and base you understanding of the issue on it is to insult not only yourself but all of the human race.

Another fact, with current technology and predicted advancements it is, and still will be for the next 100 years, impossible for humanity to live in "harmony" with all of currently known nature ad infinitum with out first decreasing our population to under 1/4 of it's current size. our only option of to select and support a sustainable ecosystem populated by the creatures we want.
Yes, I just said that humanity should "play god" and design the future of our planet. find and support the select few organisms that are beneficial to us and build our own ecosystem to fit our needs as a race. study the rest, learn what we can about how life works, but let it go as we move forward. Maximize the world's resources to OUR benefit and our's alone.

I say humanity as the only know organismic to obtain sapience, to beat natural selection, to mater the world, has the right to use what we have learned to make it all benefit us. We should be the gods of our existence.
and if you have a counter argument, as far as I can see, you must first refute my premise that humanity is supreme to all other known forms of life. and if you can do that, I WANT you to.

now that said, how can any argument for veganism stand solely on "hurting animals for our gain is bad" with out falling flat instantly? Now if your vegan of vegetarian that fine, it's your life to make your own choices with and I'm not going to try to change you. but if you want me to change? you had best have a DAM good reason that I can't punt out immediately because it doesn't sit with my life views. That or give me a reason to change my life views.

Now to be clear i'm not an advocate for humanity doing what ever the fuck it wants, the rest of our race will have to live with the consequence of our actions, we as a race should chose those consequences intelligent and with knowledge of what direction and precedent they set for our future and the decisions that come with it.

My life philosophy summed up in a sentence?

Do what you must mindfully; accept the consequences with dignity.
I no longer keep up with posts in the forum very well. If you have a question or comment, about my work, or in general I welcome PM's. if you make a post in one of my threads and I don't reply with in a day or two feel free to PM me and point it out to me.<br /><br />DropBox, the best free file syncing service there is.<br />

winkio

I really want to post another wall of text, but at the same time, I really want to break this combo.

Blizzard

Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

winkio

I always love the sustainable argument, whether it is for agriculture, or the environment.  After examining so many stable and unstable systems of equations in my engineering studies, there is no reason that these systems should exhibit anything besides stable behavior.  Yes, there will be overshoot, and a settling time before we get close to equilibrium, but there is nothing pushing us to a 'too late' doomsday scenario.

Blizzard

December 06, 2012, 05:55:58 am #11 Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 07:16:29 am by Blizzard
Agreed. If it wasn't sustainable, we'd already all be dead. Even if it went out of a balanced state at one moment, it's not going to kill millions of people instantly. People will just have less to eat at that point and measures will be undertaken to fix the problem.

EDIT: Oh god, I forgot the not.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

Ryex

Hey now that the combo has been broken, we can have another wall of text yes?
I no longer keep up with posts in the forum very well. If you have a question or comment, about my work, or in general I welcome PM's. if you make a post in one of my threads and I don't reply with in a day or two feel free to PM me and point it out to me.<br /><br />DropBox, the best free file syncing service there is.<br />

Spiralflux

Just an interesting video I found that stems into the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UED4xivihgQ
It's about over-population. Arguably it's a massive myth that a lot of people integrate into this whole "waste of resources" and "over consumption". We are not over-populated and we are not exceeding the Earth's limit of natural resources. Earth is sustainable at this level of consumption. Also, the whole moral issue of taking life just for the satisfaction of something else is kind of moot. Why? Because since ancient days this has been the very purpose of life. I don't recall lions and gazelles holding hands and singing poombaya together. We invented something called morals and values just to justify action. Living beings have evolved simply to survive and overcome other species and it has ALWAYS and WILL ALWAYS be this way. Humans have simply been evolving their methods of food consumption simply to increase their chance of survivability. We all need to eat. I understand that hurting the environment while we do it may seem wrong, but that's acting as if we're the only creatures on this planet that harm it. There have been cases of one species driving another to extinction and causing entire food chains to collapse. Are they now horribly wrong for over-consumption and deserve to be killed? No, not really. I'm not even talking about natural forces too. What about the meteorites that caused MASS extinction and more destruction than the entire human race has done in all of its history combined to the environment? What about the earthquakes? Tornadoes? Hurricanes? Do we have to go out and punch every natural disaster in the face now?

Everything will harm the environment to a certain extent. But it's that harm that has caused the Earth to evolve to this stage and it will continue to do so regardless of what we do. We are just another species on the planet doing what we can to survive.

SBR*

Quote from: winkio on December 06, 2012, 03:38:18 am
I agree that humans are different because they can think, and slaughtering humans is different than animals.  However, I don't see how slaughtering animals for food is no big deal as long as they don't feel pain.  Care to elaborate?


I repeat I'm not in favor of hurting animals, whether for our personal gain or not, unless there's no way around it. However, I don't see why killing them WOULD be a problem. Humans are more 'alive' than animals, because they can think. However, animals are more like machines; they can feel physical pain, which, if possible, I think should be avoided, but they are still a crapton of biological cells that operate using intuition. The intuition tells them what to do, unlike us.

In other words, try looking at it this way: instead of looking for reasons why things are okay, look for reasons why things would not be okay. As far as I understand, that's how a lot of physics works too. Hurting animals is bad, as they feel pain. Hurting humans is bad, as they feel pain. Killing humans is bad for mainly two reasons:
1) We are able to think, so we are actually individuals. To improperly quote Descartes: We think, so we are.
2) Killing humans would bring a lot of pain to the ones close to the victim.
However, I don't see why killing animals would be bad.

Zexion

Don't worry you guys, only 2 weeks till doomsday :V: