In no way wanting to start an argument, lol, but interested in knowing do people think that discrimination to other animals is a problem? I mean, we own, kill and eat other animals and treat them like they are inferior to humans. Though many humans would agree that animals have feelings, they would know that dogs for example can feel happy or sad. Is this also a form of discrimination?
I'd rather look at your topic using an evolutionary scale, although some might find that offensive too. At this point in planetary history humans are on the top rung of the ladder; everything below is fair game (pun intended). When another species evolves to be above us on the ladder, who thinks we're perfect for Sunday dinner, the equation will change.
Quote from: SophieSakura on December 15, 2015, 03:38:30 PM
In no way wanting to start an argument, lol, but interested in knowing do people think that discrimination to other animals is a problem? I mean, we own, kill and eat other animals and treat them like they are inferior to humans. Though many humans would agree that animals have feelings, they would know that dogs for example can feel happy or sad. Is this also a form of discrimination?
If you look at older times, people used to live in concert with their surroundings.
It was only after giving logical and male oriented views a dominance that all was looked at as things and treated as such.
There are many viewpoints now coming back to integration and a holistivc view.
If you look at people in general a majority of over 90 % wants to live in peace and pursue a peaceful life.
Its only a minority putting greed before all other. And many of them are tripping over theor own feet... the papers are full of scandals...
Well many people live with animals and consider them fellows... its all possible...
Quote
When another species evolves to be above us on the ladder, who thinks we're perfect for Sunday dinner, the equation will change.
It is very likely that on a extrat errestrial scale there is the same development... a few bad apples and the rest civilizations which evolved beyond separation... living a peaceful life, specializing in special treats... like arts, or healing... like its depicted in old tales, and in some stories...
hugs
I don't own, kill or eat animals for exactly that reason. The animals that live with us (1 dog, 2 cats) were all rescues; they are adoptees, not property. They do not have the same intellectual capacity as humans, but I consider the word "inferior" is discriminatory.
I'm a vegan, I don't think that it's justified to use, or deal with other animals without respect, or dignity. Emmanuel Kant said that you could judge someone's morality by how they treat animals. This plays well into observations of narcissists, and pyschopaths as well, whom don't treat people with decency or respect unless they think that they have to. Aristotle said that what he got from philosophy is that he followed the law because it was good, and not because it was the law.
There is no "natural order", or hierarchies in nature, of "more or less evolved", no ladders. To suggest a standard of treatment of others based merely on one's natural abilities, or capabilities (i.e. I can stomp on bugs, because I'm bigger, and capable of doing so, so this is justified and not wrong for this reason, etc) is counter-intuitive, clearly unrepresentative of moral sentiments. One uses one's powers where others lack them unselfishly, to promote equity, justice, and dignity where others cannot, and this is pro-social, and good. Because something is natural doesn't make it good, that's known as the naturalistic fallacy (informal fallacies may be questionable, but they're usually well recognized, and considered).
There's no such thing as "natural", or "the artifical" in the first place, they're just arbitrary categories, what we did a hundred thousand years ago was no more or less in harmony with nature than what we're doing now, the difference is in the power we possess to displace and affect the lives of other species, change the global climate, nuke the world, and such. Too much power, too much population, no viable realistic solutions that don't involve going until we destroy most of or all of the population by mistake, or willingly, and intently destroying most of the population, and dismantling dangerous powers willingly. Both are equally horrific, and without willing participants to stand in line for extinction, or returning to less industrial, smaller lives, the former ends up being the lesser of two evil, and the most likely outcome. I wouldn't think too hard about it, just live your life, be happy, trying to exercise more power than a small creature, concerned with its own life and circumstances needs is what got us into this mess to begin with, it won't get us out of it.
So... yeah... again' it.
Here's your voluntary participants! http://www.vhemt.org/
Antinatalism is unlikely to catch on -- and more importantly is a deeply flawed notion. Schopenhauer, a common hero of those that espouse the position himself fathered an illegitimate daughter with a servant, though she died shortly after. The point is that I doubt that he planned for that to happen, and few do. More ironically is that those that actually have the power and resources to control their reproduction, and plan for children are going to have far fewer children than those whom can't, and don't.
The sexual revolution of the 60s was carried on the back of the birth control pill, and only lost steam in the advent of the awareness and fear of STIs.
Those in first world nations, with emancipated women in control of their reproduction have decreasing populations over all for this reason. Planning and wanting to have children is a luxury, and a power, indicative of areas with controlled, or decreasing population growth.
What realistically would have to be called for, is third world celibacy, and the papal have been singing that tune for centuries, but I hear few humming it... at least by choice.
Quote from: Elsa Delyth on December 15, 2015, 09:21:54 PM
Antinatalism is unlikely to catch on -- and more importantly is a deeply flawed notion. Schopenhauer, a common hero of those that espouse the position himself fathered an illegitimate daughter with a servant, though she died shortly after. The point is that I doubt that he planned for that to happen, and few do. More ironically is that those that actually have the power and resources to control their reproduction, and plan for children are going to have far fewer children than those whom can't, and don't.
The sexual revolution of the 60s was carried on the back of the birth control pill, and only lost steam in the advent of the awareness and fear of STIs.
Those in first world nations, with emancipated women in control of their reproduction have decreasing populations over all for this reason. Planning and wanting to have children is a luxury, and a power, indicative of areas with controlled, or decreasing population growth.
What realistically would have to be called for, is third world celibacy, and the papal have been singing that tune for centuries, but I hear few humming it... at least by choice.
people have children to provide for them with age...
so with more education and more abundance for all (spell BRIC... more equal distribution of resources) people are more given to have less children...
by the way there are huge resources that could help... special plants growing very big yet still retaining a lot of nutritients...
and by the way nobody knows what the future brings...
what about peaceful settlements on yet uninhabited planets... in Starship Enterprise all it took was the invention of one certain engine...
hugs
Quote from: SophieSakura on December 15, 2015, 03:38:30 PM
In no way wanting to start an argument, lol, but interested in knowing do people think that discrimination to other animals is a problem? I mean, we own, kill and eat other animals and treat them like they are inferior to humans. Though many humans would agree that animals have feelings, they would know that dogs for example can feel happy or sad. Is this also a form of discrimination?
As humans have evolved we have created a code of ethics that evolve and decide as a species what is acceptable or not.
Not everyone will or can agree with those ethics and that is why they also evolve.
What is ethical to a person in one economey in deciding to breed animals or plants as food, may seem trivial to a subsistence culture where the access to food alone is the driving need to survive.
It is rational to say we will not eat this or that or that we will not pollute with this or that when you live in a modern wealthy society. It is a different ball game when you have a child and are too underfed to produce milk to feed your child. When your prospect of employment to lift your family to a point where they can live is limited because your country has no energy resources - except polluting ones, creates an awkward argument.
The human choice on using resources be they animal, vegetable or mineral comes down to where you are. I'm happy to say I will not eat meat or farm meat; but I have a choice.
In many cases there are no choices.
I'm vegan, and I figure if we can live happy healthy lives without killing innocent animals then why shouldn't we. Animals also want to live happy healthy lives so I think we should leave them in peace. I think just because our brains are more developed than them doesn't give us any right to kill them. I don't think most people would be happy if hyper-intelligent aliens came to earth and ate us all because they though we were stupid compared to them. There is enough suffering in the world I don't to want contribute to more suffering every time I eat food.
And besides Animal agriculture is destroying the planet. It might have been sustainable when there weren't many humans but it has a very large environmental impact when there is 7 billion humans. Watch Cowspiracy if you are interested in the environmental stuff, it's an amazing documentary. But I'm vegan for the animals. The health and environmental benefits are just a bonus. :)
Also, I read that members of the LGBT community are far more likely to be vegan and vegetarian. I'm not sure why that is maybe it has something to do with being able to empathise with other oppressed and marginalised beings or groups of people? Interesting anyway.
Quote from: Rainbow Bay on December 16, 2015, 04:43:03 AM
Also, I read that members of the LGBT community are far more likely to be vegan and vegetarian. I'm not sure why that is maybe it has something to do with being able to empathise with other oppressed and marginalised beings or groups of people? Interesting anyway.
I'd say its also because people are more likely to reflect... on values and what they think about it...
hugs
I'm going to be contrarian and say I don't think discrimination is the right word as I don't believe it properly applies outside the category of human beings. Additionally, as a species, we are evolved to be omnivorous so I don't think there is a moral wrong in eating meat.
However, there is a great moral wrong in wanton cruelty, particularly where it can be avoided. Here I think there is flaw in humanity as cruelty abounds in both the treatment of animals and the treating of other human beings. Cruelty serves no purpose other than selfish convenience, or where the flaw is great, in personal aggrandizement. Elimination of cruelty towards all living things requires personal empathy and enlightenment and sadly seems beyond the grasp of a large segment of humanity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I guess all eating of animal products causes some pain and suffering, and we don't need to do it...
Quote from: Deborah on December 16, 2015, 06:00:04 AM
I'm going to be contrarian and say I don't think discrimination is the right word as I don't believe it properly applies outside the category of human beings. Additionally, as a species, we are evolved to be omnivorous so I don't think there is a moral wrong in eating meat.
Rock On, Deborah. :)
My personal opinion is that factory farms are immoral. Sustainable farming and ranching is very moral.
From the bottom of the food chain to the top, all species eat what they've evolved to eat. A lion has no qualms about taking down a zebra, no matter how cute we might think it is. If some among us choose to eschew animal products, I applaud you exercising your right to choose. In a week I eat fish twice, chicken 2-3 times, and beef once or twice. I consume lots of grains, fruits, and veggies, and I'd appreciate if you didn't go all moralistic over my food choices.
Quote from: diane 2606 on December 22, 2015, 11:14:05 PM
Rock On, Deborah. :)
My personal opinion is that factory farms are immoral. Sustainable farming and ranching is very moral.
From the bottom of the food chain to the top, all species eat what they've evolved to eat. A lion has no qualms about taking down a zebra, no matter how cute we might think it is. If some among us choose to eschew animal products, I applaud you exercising your right to choose. In a week I eat fish twice, chicken 2-3 times, and beef once or twice. I consume lots of grains, fruits, and veggies, and I'd appreciate if you didn't go all moralistic over my food choices.
Not every species is an omnivore... meaning being able to live from plants...
humans by the way need plants, a purely non plant based diet would need artificial supplements...
Well its a choice every person should make for themselves imo...
maybe you could see it this way that a chicken spared from time to time might help...
and imo its all in the head... there are so many delicios plant based foods, soups, sandwiches... you get the idea...
hugs
Quote from: Laura_7 on December 23, 2015, 06:52:55 AM
Not every species is an omnivore... meaning being able to live from plants...
humans by the way need plants, a purely non plant based diet would need artificial supplements...
Well its a choice every person should make for themselves imo...
maybe you could see it this way that a chicken spared from time to time might help...
and imo its all in the head... there are so many delicios plant based foods, soups, sandwiches... you get the idea...
hugs
Herbivores live off plants, omnivores eat anything.
Humans need meat, too. An all plant diet requires supplements. :)
Hugs, Devlyn
Humans are omnivores, we eat both plants, meat and have evolved that way. We have acids in our stomach designed specificity to digest meat.
Simplest put it is the way of nature that the top predator in the animal chain eats those below him (depending or not if they are it's pray) and we don't mind when a lion rips apart a deer and eats it in the worst way possible. Cavemen living in prehistoric times and beyond didn't sit there and think that ''oh this might be cruel'' when they were bludgeoning their catches to death before eating them, they did it for survival.
So why, as humans and as animals, do we have this sense that we should be more moral or better to animals when in fact the present day is the best we have ever treated them. Talking in terms of western civilization here, we have developed techniques for instant death and animals do not have the capacity to sit there and thin ''I'm going to be killed in a week''.
If people want to not eat a natural part of their diet and suffer the consequences (poor immune health, muscle / bone weakness) etc from doing it in the long term then thats up to them.
It is in no way discrimination and in fact you using discrimination makes no sense in this context. If I said, you know what I am only going to eat sheeps with white wool because I just hate them, but the other ones I will live... then maybe :D :D :D
I agree with Deborah here. There are humane ways of raising animals and slaughtering them and the way some farms treat them is terrible, but I eat meat because it feels right. I know it doesn't feel right for other people and that's totally fine.
There's no moral imperative to eat or avoid meat and animal products.
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on December 23, 2015, 09:49:01 AM
Herbivores live off plants, omnivores eat anything.
Humans need meat, too. An all plant diet requires supplements. :)
Hugs, Devlyn
There are additionally hypercarnivores, which essentially need non plant food. (Which humans are not :) )
Humans do not need meat.
There are millions of vegetarians living a healthy diet without supplements.
Only if going vegan supplements might be needed (ie vit B12 pills), or a strict diet. vegan=no animal products like eggs or honey
Imo the human body is like an engine which can run off lighter food or heavy food.
There are studies showing red meat is not really healthy, for example. Thats why some cultures prefer poultry, others go vegetarian.
One study said people were mostly plant eaters before an ice age, where plants became rare.
Well the ice age is over... there is an abundance of plants, and many are really deliscious.
*hugs*
Quote from: Laura_7 on December 25, 2015, 02:28:30 PM
Only if going vegan supplements might be needed (ie vit B12 pills), or a strict diet. vegan=no animal products like eggs or honey
I have been vegan for nearly 20 years, and the only supplement I take is vitamin B12. B12 is not a meat product - it is made by yeast and bacteria. The B12 that meat eaters get in their meat is only there because cows eat grass that they have cr@pped on. There is nothing in meat that can't be found in non-meat sources.
It's natural, therefore good is fallacious. That something evolved a certain way therefore cannot change is obviously fallacious. Specialization is a death sentence in evolutionary terms, as it means reduced adaptability, so that when sources of food reduce, and one is bound to that food, it devastates the population.
"Omnivore" doesn't mean that it needs to eat everything, it means that its adaptable to a wide range of different food sources. Not needs to eat everything, but can survive on a wide range of vastly different diets.
The B12 supplement craze is misleading. Firstly, needing to supplement has more to do with modern longevity, and decreased ability to absorb important vitamins and nutrients from food as one ages. Everyone should begin supplementing their diet upon entering middle age, if they wish to maintain good metabolic and cognitive functions into old age.
Secondly, B12 could be procured from animal fertilizers (their poo) at any point in human history without having to kill them (which can be neutralized of harmful bacteria and parasites), and in most points in human history, people ate what was local, and civilizations were founded upon one, or two main staples which were subject to mass production, which they ate too much of, without much diversity, and were not getting optimal supplies of many vitamins.
No one has a perfect diet, and veganism isn't supposed to be the perfect diet, in my view it is about having a compassionate, ecologically friendly diet.
I don't believe in treating animals as if they are human beings and anthropomorphizing them, because they are not.
But I do believe in treating them with respect and as humanely as possible. I'm not against eating animals since every living animal will die and rot all the same whether we eat it or not. So long as it is raised in a decent environment and its death is as quick and painless or stress free as can be, I see nothing unnatural about eating animals.
I do have a rule of thumb though. I don't really eat any animal I wouldn't feel comfortable with killing myself. So I mostly eat fish or chicken because I'm fine with fishing and preparing fish and I know how to deal with a chicken. I don't eat red meat as I can't digest it well. It does bother me a bit when people like my aunt want to eat lamb chops practically every day but look away when a lion eats an impala on the TV because "nature is cruel".
I do discriminate based on my species yes. But at the end of the day it doesn't make much logical sense for me to treat a mosquito's life as equally important as my own, or if I was starving to death to treat a sheep as if it were equal to a human being and therefore not eat it to prolong my own life. I see myself as an animal too and part of this world's natural cycle. When I'm dead, something will be eating me, too.
With rights come responsibilities. Humans who cannot satisfy their social responsibilities have their rights taken away. So it is with animals. Only, we already know that they can't fully participate in human society, based on millenia of experience.
Quote from: sparrow on December 27, 2015, 05:21:41 PM
Only, we already know that they can't fully participate in human society, based on millenia of experience.
Animals don't need to participate in human society, they have their own societies to participate in. Animal Rights isn't about giving animals
human rights, like allowing them into universities :) It's about respecting their rights to live freely without being exploited for human entertainment or consumption.
Also, I've been vegan or vegetarian since I was a teenager, 15 years ago, and I don't take supplements. My iron levels and B12 levels are good, I get them checked annually. Humans
can eat meat but they don't
need to eat meat.
I think if people want to eat meat, then that is their choice. But please don't use the "we have always done it this way argument". Doing something for thousands of years doesn't necessarily make it natural or good. We are a species that evolves and hopefully progresses morally, that's what's exciting and great about humans, we can change.
Quote from: Rainbow Bay on December 28, 2015, 01:09:50 AM
Humans can eat meat but they don't need to eat meat.
Are you so sure? Pound for pound, the energy density of a vegetarian diet is atrocious compared to a carnivorous diet. Paying attention to energy density is absolutely key to the preservation of human society, because everything must be shipped from the farms to the consumers -- low-calorie food sources like leafy greens, for example, produce massive amounts of pollution. Additionally, shipping fruits, nuts, and vegetables around robs farming areas of precious groundwater.
If you think that the solution is a localvore diet... know that the localvore diet has been debunked. It's hugely inefficient, and the ramification of global adoption would be mass starvation in nearly every major city worldwide. Only the (global) 1% can afford a sustainable vegetarian localvore diet. Animals can live practically anywhere, and are significantly better suited to reducing shipping pollution through a localvore approach.
Additionally, consider the health, happiness and well-being of the animals you so deeply care about. In their natural environment, animals starve to death. They are brutally murdered and eaten alive. They live in a continual state of distress, and they die horrible and traumatic deaths. Is this really preferable to the life of a cow, who lives an idyllic life with plenty of food and regular visits with a veterinarian, nearly zero natural predation and the most humane death that society can convince cattle farmers to use?
And talk to any large-scale vegetable farmer... they kill animals. For example, if a single deer shows up on your kale farm in the early spring, it will happily munch an acre of young plants. Gophers destroy crops. Insects destroy crops. Vegetable farmers are
at war with the animals in their environment. And most farmers don't bother with humane methods to kill these animals, which are ultimately used for compost.
To me, it appears that ethics of a worldwide vegetarian diet are completely untenable. I think that we do need to eat animals. Primarily, we need to eat bugs. But bugs are animals, and they have feelings, too! (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/science/even-crayfish-can-get-anxious.html?_r=0)
Finally... animal by-products are in
everything. Removing these resources from the global economy would, for example, completely devastate the pharmaceutical industry, and hence modern medicine. You know that quaint anecdote about the noble savage using every little scrap of the buffalo? It's far truer of our global economy than it ever was of tribal societies.
I'm glad that you are happy with the ethics of your diet. I'm happy with the ethics of mine after careful consideration of the worldwide impact of global adoption of my diet: on the environment, on the well-being of humanity, and on the well-being of animals. I don't claim the moral high ground. I'm aware that the system I participate in is fraught with problems... but it's slowly improving; and tearing the system down would be an unmitigated disaster.
QuoteBut please don't use the "we have always done it this way argument".
If you read carefully, you'll note that I didn't use that argument. What I said is that we've been watching animals behave like animals for millenia. Don't expect a lion to put on a suit and walk into a board meeting. Don't expect a lion to participate in your veggie diet. Don't trust a lion to babysit your kids. I'm glad to hear that you don't think these things.
Quote from: sparrow on December 28, 2015, 02:11:02 PM
Are you so sure? Pound for pound, the energy density of a vegetarian diet is atrocious compared to a carnivorous diet. Paying attention to energy density is absolutely key to the preservation of human society, because everything must be shipped from the farms to the consumers -- low-calorie food sources like leafy greens, for example, produce massive amounts of pollution. Additionally, shipping fruits, nuts, and vegetables around robs farming areas of precious groundwater.
Well for 1kg of animal weight to grow the animal has to consume at least 10 kgs in plant mass.
There are especially plants grown to be fed to animals which could be directly fed to humans.
Including energy the agreed upon factor is x20 compared to plant growth.
Of course there are places where it does not make sense to grow plants for export.
Local places should be preferred imo, if possible organic.
Concerning animals and behaviour, many people compare them to children.
Ever asked an animal if they want to go outside, and they stood up and went to the door ?
I know of a dog that looks left and right and uses a pedestrian walk to cross a street.
I personally have seen cats look left and right before they cross a street.
Better behaviour than some people.
Of course they are not human. But they have an intelligence and understanding of their own.
hugs
Quote from: sparrow on December 28, 2015, 02:11:02 PM
Are you so sure? Pound for pound, the energy density of a vegetarian diet is atrocious compared to a carnivorous diet. Paying attention to energy density is absolutely key to the preservation of human society, because everything must be shipped from the farms to the consumers -- low-calorie food sources like leafy greens, for example, produce massive amounts of pollution. Additionally, shipping fruits, nuts, and vegetables around robs farming areas of precious groundwater.
Hi Sparrow. I wasn't really addressing my comment to you in specific, I hope I wasn't being offensive. The whole "we need to eat meat because it is natural and normal" is something that I hear a lot and I don't think it is valid, that's all. I think eating meat is a choice and not eating meat is also a choice. Can you share some research that shows leafy greens are terrible for pollution, I have never heard this claim before. As far as water consumption goes though, eating meat is terrible compared to a vegan or vegetarian diet: 2,500 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 pound of beef, Californians use 1500 gallons of water per person per day and close to half of that is associated with meat and dairy products, and Growing feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of water in the US. I don't think I can post offsite links because I don't have a post rank of 'family' but PM if you want any research links, or just use google there's lots of research out there. And Cowspiracy is a great documentary that deals with the environmental impacts of meat and dairy. It's on Netflix.
Quote from: sparrow on December 28, 2015, 02:11:02 PM
Additionally, consider the health, happiness and well-being of the animals you so deeply care about. In their natural environment, animals starve to death. They are brutally murdered and eaten alive. They live in a continual state of distress, and they die horrible and traumatic deaths. Is this really preferable to the life of a cow, who lives an idyllic life with plenty of food and regular visits with a veterinarian, nearly zero natural predation and the most humane death that society can convince cattle farmers to use?
I think this is a bit of an exaggeration, wild animals seem to spend most of their time looking for food and breeding not living in a continual state of distress. If you have seen footage of factory farms it is certainly not an idyllic life for cows. They seem terrified when they are about to die. They live in confined quarters. They have their babies taken from them and killed so that humans can drink their milk, this is the whole reason veal exists. If you don't think they would be happy in the wild why don't we leave them in a nice open sanctuary and let them die of natural causes and keep their babies with them? Animals are farmed because they are used as commodities not because humans are trying to give them a better life. Personally though, I'd rather just be free.
Quote from: sparrow on December 28, 2015, 02:11:02 PMAnd talk to any large-scale vegetable farmer... they kill animals. For example, if a single deer shows up on your kale farm in the early spring, it will happily munch an acre of young plants. Gophers destroy crops. Insects destroy crops. Vegetable farmers are at war with the animals in their environment. And most farmers don't bother with humane methods to kill these animals, which are ultimately used for compost.
I agree with this. Veganism isn't 100% harm free, nothing is, but I think it is less harmful and all we can do is try and reduce the harm and suffering that exist in the world. Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't participate in it.
Quote from: sparrow on December 28, 2015, 02:11:02 PMTo me, it appears that ethics of a worldwide vegetarian diet are completely untenable. I think that we do need to eat animals. Primarily, we need to eat bugs. But bugs are animals, and they have feelings, too! (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/science/even-crayfish-can-get-anxious.html?_r=0)
I have read that bugs and crickets, mussels, oyster etc. are much more environmentally friendly as food source than traditional livestock and if you care about the environment and want to eat meat this is probably a good option.
Quote from: sparrow on December 28, 2015, 02:11:02 PMFinally... animal by-products are in everything. Removing these resources from the global economy would, for example, completely devastate the pharmaceutical industry, and hence modern medicine. You know that quaint anecdote about the noble savage using every little scrap of the buffalo? It's far truer of our global economy than it ever was of tribal societies.
Yes, maybe animal products will probably always be in some things. They're not in everything though. There's no animal products in any of the food from my vege garden (I just use my own compost, not animal fertilisers). Although humans are pretty clever so they might not always need to be. But even if they are it's about reducing harm, not necessarily eradicating it.
Quote from: sparrow on December 28, 2015, 02:11:02 PMI'm glad that you are happy with the ethics of your diet. I'm happy with the ethics of mine after careful consideration of the worldwide impact of global adoption of my diet: on the environment, on the well-being of humanity, and on the well-being of animals. I don't claim the moral high ground. I'm aware that the system I participate in is fraught with problems... but it's slowly improving; and tearing the system down would be an unmitigated disaster.
The system is never going to be torn down over night, change is always slow. Veganism is growing and it will probably continue to grow slowly.
Anyway, I hate confrontation but I feel I need to voice my feelings. I respect your choice to do whatever you want. I will probably not post in this thread anymore because these conversations make me anxious. I really do wish you well with your diet and everything else in life. :)
Also, there is a wonderful TED talk by Dr. Melanie Joy on Carnism that everyone should watch. And she is much more articulate than me.
Bay xxx
Quote from: Rainbow Bay on December 29, 2015, 09:58:40 PM
Hi Sparrow. I wasn't really addressing my comment to you in specific, I hope I wasn't being offensive.
Not at all... I really have no idea why I said so much. I try to stay out of this sort of discussion! I'm not offended. I thrive on having my worldview challenged. I was a bit worried that I'd caused offense too! :D
There's precious little unbiased data out there when it comes to food ethics. Both sides skew the numbers to make a stronger point, and it just leads to more distrust and shouting. One thought-provoking article on the topic of leafy greens is here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/why-salad-is-so-overrated/2015/08/21/ecc03d7a-4677-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html). I realize that most vegetarians don't eat tons of lettuce, and I may have fallen victim to confirmation bias on the energy density bit -- I recall seeing something that supported my claim, but I haven't been able to find it again. Suspect.
However... energy density and food wastage are major concerns that often get left out of the calculus -- meat freezes well, so it doesn't spoil like greens do -- greens have to be shipped at very specific temperatures. It's denser, so it takes fewer trucks to ship it around. It's also a more durable product, so there isn't as much waste due to customers handling it. These losses add up fast.
I should say that americans (myself included) eat way more meat than is responsible. And if we could grow animals that didn't have advanced nervous systems, I'd be way happier about it all. I've tried to eat a vegetarian diet, and I'm never not hungry. It gets painful. I simply can't eat fast enough to keep up with my metabolism. It sucks: whenever I visit my (vegan) cousin, I stuff myself at every meal I want to gnaw my own arm off an hour later. And aside from the girls, I haven't an ounce of body fat (so, y'know, I've got like 3 ounces ;) ). I do my best to get ethically-sourced meat; I own a chest freezer and buy direct from small farms whenever I can. As you said... the goal is to reduce harm.
You do get more out of any given unit of land producing crops as opposed to meat, and it is less wasteful of resources, so I figure fairly soon meat will become prohibitively expensive for most people. If it isn't already in some parts of the world.
This has gotten a bit sidetracked, so I'm going to try to bring this back to the topic of species discrimination.
Quote from: Rainbow Bay on December 29, 2015, 09:58:40 PM
Yes, maybe animal products will probably always be in some things. They're not in everything though. There's no animal products in any of the food from my vege garden (I just use my own compost, not animal fertilisers).
Acknowledging that this is a bit pedantic... insects are animals, worms are animals, spiders are animals... if you had zero animals in your garden, it would be a very sad garden indeed. Having used worms for bait over the years... I don't actually think this is pedantic in the least bit. It kills me a little every time I kill an animal... even a mosquito, even when there's West Nile going around. But it kills me a little every time I pull up a plant, too -- except a few invasive species, which I kill with intent. I value "all life", but all life must meet its end.
I kill. I've killed a chicken because it was in tremendous pain due to an incurable disease -- it was a sad event, but ultimately the right thing to do. I hit a deer with my car once, and I was too young to handle it appropriately -- it died that night, but it died a slow and agonizing death because I didn't think to go back and put it out of its misery. That weighs on me to this day.
I've killed probably tens of thousands of animals... almost all of them being smaller than an ant. So have you. I try to minimize that, but I don't hide from the fact. I know what life is, I kill discriminantly: I kill to eat, I kill for mercy, I kill by accident, I kill to protect myself, and I kill to protect the native species in the woods I love. Everybody draws a line somewhere. I've known lifelong vegans who reflexively and thoughtlessly stomp harmless spiders. This is all discrimination based on species. Discrimination based on species is a necessity of life.
Maybe it needs to be more accepted that death is a natural part of life and cannot be avoided. I don't especially like killing, but I will do it if it needs to be done. I find a lot of this attitude from some vegans is to feel as though they are not personally responsible for things being killed in an abbatoir somewhere, or are not complicit in a cycle of death, but even if you're vegan you likely eat the produce of a crop field somewhere that in order to exist killed or made habitat-less millions of living things from insects to birds to mammals. There is no avoiding that being on this planet and being alive results in the death and displacement of something else. And when we die, we will be used and replaced by something else.
I do believe in minimising destructive impact. But even if I was as vegan and compassionate as they come I would still never avoid the fact my existence has a cost to something else.