Eating meat is immoral.

[nygreenguy]

I think eating meat is immoral. Do I still do it? Sure. We all do bad things.

Ill give a few reasons why.

Eating meat is one of the primary causes of ecological degradation. Cattle have laid waste to hundreds of thousands of acres of fertile land and left them as dust fields.

Rainforests have been cut down in order to support this growing industry.

Chickens are help captive in cages where they can not move and they shit on each other. Their beaks are chopped off to prevent pecking.

Animals are pumped full of antibodies creating stronger, more resistant bacteria.

Fish stocks are dwindling and ocean biodiversity is suffering.

The animals are just treated like crap. This should be seen as wrong.

Energy. Its just simply inefficient to eat meat. It takes vastly more energy to make the meat than the energy you get out of it. AND we have to feed food which could go to other people to our livestock.

I simply cant see how eating meat could be seen as moral.

(ps. I am sort of playing DA here. While I dont necessairly feel eating meat is "immoral" I can certainly understand how someone could think that way)

[Rathpig]

1). Humans are omnivores, and balanced nutrition is provided through a broad diet.

2). Industrialized meat production doesn't represent the entire concept of eating meat. While there are legitimate moral questions in industrial production, these should be addressed separate from an overall moral issue. It should also be noted that mono-plant agriculture creates many of the same issues as meat production. With some crops the environmental impact is greater. This is a problem of methodology rather than general morality.

3). Energy is a transition concept. If this is applied to meat as a moral issue then it must be applied equally to plants. Food plants vary widely in production energy. Meat production can actually add to a diversified energy consumption program by proper utilization of all animal products.

4). Morality outside of theology must be examined as a utilitarian concept. What is your source for a moral judgment in this case?




Okay, devil's advocate, what else ya got?

[Quizalufagus]

You seem to be arguing against industrial meat production rather than against eating meat in general. Is there any reason I shouldn't eat meat that's produced on a farm which practices ecologically sound agriculture? For that matter, is there any reason I shouldn't eat meat that I hunt for?

[nygreenguy]

1). Humans are omnivores, and balanced nutrition is provided through a broad diet. A vegetarian diet can provide all the essential nutrients needed.

2). Industrialized meat production doesn't represent the entire concept of eating meat. While there are legitimate moral questions in industrial production, these should be addressed separate from an overall moral issue. It should also be noted that mono-plant agriculture creates many of the same issues as meat production. With some crops the environmental impact is greater. This is a problem of methodology rather than general morality. In order to feed a large population, industrialized meat production is necessary. Its necessary in order to maximize space. More humane ways of meat production (organic) is simply not viable for large scale production.

As for food plant crops being worse in some cases, i simply dont see that being the case.

3). Energy is a transition concept. If this is applied to meat as a moral issue then it must be applied equally to plants. Food plants vary widely in production energy. Meat production can actually add to a diversified energy consumption program by proper utilization of all animal products.

Sure, they vary widely in energy requirements, but they still require less than livestock if you look at the simple calorie counts.

4). Morality outside of theology must be examined as a utilitarian concept. What is your source for a moral judgment in this case? The fact that my actions/lifestyle create a negative impact on others.

[nygreenguy]

You seem to be arguing against industrial meat production rather than against eating meat in general. Is there any reason I shouldn't eat meat that's produced on a farm which practices ecologically sound agriculture? For that matter, is there any reason I shouldn't eat meat that I hunt for?

My point is eating meat not just the way we do (large industry) but on the scale for which we do (most of us eat meat).

Imagine if there were 3 billion other hunters. It simply wouldnt be sustainable.

[Quizalufagus]

In order to feed a large population, industrialized meat production is necessary. Its necessary in order to maximize space. More humane ways of meat production (organic) is simply not viable for large scale production.

I don't think this is true. Industrialized operations are certainly more productive than other farms if we measure productivity in terms of the amount of a particular meat produced per unit land, but industrial operations only produce a monoculture. IIRC farms that embrace polyculture actually beat industrial operations if we consider everything that's produced. Why not switch all of (or, rather, the bulk of) our agricultural sector over to polyculture (with management-intensive grazing and so forth)?

Also, as far as I know most organic growers are actually fully industrialized these days.

My point is eating meat not just the way we do (large industry) but on the scale for which we do (most of us eat meat).

Imagine if there were 3 billion other hunters. It simply wouldnt be sustainable.

So is it wrong to eat meat or is it merely wrong to eat a lot of meat? You seem to be conflating the two.

[nygreenguy]

I don't think this is true. Industrialized operations are certainly more productive than other farms if we measure productivity in terms of the amount of a particular meat produced per unit land, but industrial operations only produce a monoculture. IIRC farms that embrace polyculture actually beat industrial operations if we consider everything that's produced. Why not switch all of (or, rather, the bulk of) our agricultural sector over to polyculture (with management-intensive grazing and so forth)? A poly culture of livestock? How would that exactly work, and how would that increase production, and how would it decrease ecological impacts?

Also, as far as I know most organic growers are actually fully industrialized these days. Im not sure. When I get my organics they come from local small farms. I know many organic labels do use many small farms to source from but they all distribute from the same label.

Either way, full scale organic livestock production isnt possible for the reasons i mentioned before.



So is it wrong to eat meat or is it merely wrong to eat a lot of meat? You seem to be conflating the two.

Both. It is wrong as individuals as we contribute to the larger problem. Its similar to the driving cars/global warming issue.

[Rathpig]

A vegetarian diet can provide all the essential nutrients needed.

Is this true in all cultures and all economic situation? Does this assume a wide distribution which may not be practical?

In order to feed a large population, industrialized meat production is necessary. Its necessary in order to maximize space. More humane ways of meat production (organic) is simply not viable for large scale production.

As for food plant crops being worse in some cases, i simply dont see that being the case.

Are you assuming a case based on actual output or specific levels of profit? Industrial food production is profit driven rather than necessity driven. Non-industrial production is only more expensive when short term profit is examined. Overall output and expensive is mitigated by higher sustainability over the long-term.

Methodology shouldn't be confused with general morality, and profitability shouldn't be an excuse for methodology.

Corn and soybeans in mono-crop situations are much more environmentally destructive than meat production. These two crops are the centerpiece of any balanced vegetarian diet and both require huge energy inputs, massive amounts of herbicides and pesticides, as well as being very land destructive through erosion and low environmental diversity.



Sure, they vary widely in energy requirements, but they still require less than livestock if you look at the simple calorie counts.

Again, corn and soybeans are similar in overall energy requirements and in the case of soybeans produce less caloric energy per pound than meat. In addition to the energy input, these crops require pesticide and herbicide broadcasts that are not needed for meat production which increase environmental destruction through runoff. If the same land was used for meat production in free range, it would actually increase in arability as opposed to requiring a proportional increase in nitrogen inputs for plant growth.

The fact that my actions/lifestyle create a negative impact on others.

On who does meat production, in general, create a negative environmental impact that plant production, with the same industrial methodology, does not?

Again, it seems your argument centers around industrial methodology rather than specific immorality. Your problem is with capitalistic profit which would be an entirely other topic for moral discussion.

[Rathpig]

As note, mister devil's advocate, that when you start traveling this moral road, you will find the actual problem is with capitalism, human technological evolution, and population growth. Meat itself is merely one part of an omnivore's diet. It is no more or less moral than eating an apple if you are going to examine the environmental impact in an industrialized nation.

Now if you assign sentient viability and moral individualism to all species, we will have a much different conversation. Certain Buddhist and Hindu approaches are much more comprehensive than Western ideals. I've yet to find anyone in the West that can live up to that cultural ideology. It is fraught with hypocrisy for first-world populations.

Driving cars are every bit as "immoral" as eating cows in such a philosophy.

[David B]

I think eating meat is immoral. Do I still do it? Sure. We all do bad things.

Ill give a few reasons why.

I've recently started eating meat again, after 32 years.

Eating meat is one of the primary causes of ecological degradation. Cattle have laid waste to hundreds of thousands of acres of fertile land and left them as dust fields.

Certain farming techniques have this effect, as does the massive demand for crops of all kinds, animal and vegetable.

Without consuming finite natural resources to keep soils fertile, though, I've rather gathered that the input of dung is the most effective way of conserving soil. and dung comes from animals.

A lot of meat - my local Welsh lamb, for instance - graze on upland moorland that is otherwise unproductive.

The sight of the little lambs gambolling in the spring is pleasant, but I have come to realise that unless there was a market for their meat, they would have not such life.

Rainforests have been cut down in order to support this growing industry.

And for coffee, palm-oil, tea, et al.

Chickens are help captive in cages where they can not move and they shit on each other. Their beaks are chopped off to prevent pecking.

Chickens do not have to be farmed like that, though it is hard to see how sufficient chickens could be farmed for a growing human population using best practice. As described in a book I'll recommend at the bottom of the post.

Animals are pumped full of antibodies creating stronger, more resistant bacteria.

There are lots of bad agricultural practices, from a lot of different stand-points. For both animal and vegetable products.

Fish stocks are dwindling and ocean biodiversity is suffering.

Again - a problem of increasing demand from an ever increasing population. Solve the population problem, and the ecological problem would diminish instead of growing.

But if no-one ate fish, more vegetable food would be needed.

[/quote]The animals are just treated like crap. This should be seen as wrong.[/quote]

I agree.

Energy. Its just simply inefficient to eat meat. It takes vastly more energy to make the meat than the energy you get out of it. AND we have to feed food which could go to other people to our livestock.

That depends on farming practise. The buffalo herds were sustainable, intil they were massacred as a weapon of conquest, to starve the native American population.

I simply cant see how eating meat could be seen as moral.

Fine - so ban meat, and hence wipe out domestic cattle, pigs and sheep etc.

Is wiping out species, or sub-species. more or less moral than killing an individual lamb for food?

(ps. I am sort of playing DA here. While I dont necessairly feel eating meat is "immoral" I can certainly understand how someone could think that way)

Yes, I can understand that as well, but I think they would be mistaken.

There is a guy called Michael Pollan, who has done some personal research into the costs of various sorts of food production, and the practical implications of them for the wellbeing of the animals concerned.

He wrote a book about it, which I read after starting eating meat again, and which I found very interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Omnivore%27s_Dilemma

David B (commends it to you)

[nygreenguy]

Is this true in all cultures and all economic situation? Does this assume a wide distribution which may not be practical? This question doesnt make sense. Culture is irrelevant, this is about human biology.



Are you assuming a case based on actual output or specific levels of profit? Industrial food production is profit driven rather than necessity driven. Non-industrial production is only more expensive when short term profit is examined. Overall output and expensive is mitigated by higher sustainability over the long-term.

Methodology shouldn't be confused with general morality, and profitability shouldn't be an excuse for methodology. I never said anything about profitability.

And yes, methodology DOES make a difference in how "moral" something may be.

Corn and soybeans in mono-crop situations are much more environmentally destructive than meat production. These two crops are the centerpiece of any balanced vegetarian diet and both require huge energy inputs, massive amounts of herbicides and pesticides, as well as being very land destructive through erosion and low environmental diversity.

This is just inaccurate.

Logically, it doesnt make sense. We feed our crops to livestock. So if the animal consumes something we otherwise may consume, how is it more efficient/not as environmentally friendly as not eating meat? It simply doesnt make sense.

Also, meat can take up to 17 times as much land, up to 26 times as much water, 20 times as much fossil fuels and up to 6 times as much biocides. (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/3/664S)

In addition, an organic plant based agriculture system is much more feasible than a livestock one.




Again, corn and soybeans are similar in overall energy requirements and in the case of soybeans produce less caloric energy per pound than meat. In addition to the energy input, these crops require pesticide and herbicide broadcasts that are not needed for meat production which increase environmental destruction through runoff. If the same land was used for meat production in free range, it would actually increase in arability as opposed to requiring a proportional increase in nitrogen inputs for plant growth.

Well, as we saw above, most of this is untrue. But what is your evidence that soy makes less calories than meat, and what is the relevance?



On who does meat production, in general, create a negative environmental impact that plant production, with the same industrial methodology, does not? Well, as we seen before, meat is much worse and plants have the ability to significantly improve its methods whereas meat does not. Many of the issues with meat production are inherent in this process, this isnt necessairly so with plants especially is we consider the use of gmo's and organic processes.

Again, it seems your argument centers around industrial methodology rather than specific immorality. Your problem is with capitalistic profit which would be an entirely other topic for moral discussion.

No, i never even though about profit. Thats not the issue. Its with the inherent problems in feeding so many people with meat.



Edit to add: Funny thing is, Im making steaks for dinner....

[nygreenguy]

As note, mister devil's advocate, that when you start traveling this moral road, you will find the actual problem is with capitalism, human technological evolution, and population growth. Meat itself is merely one part of an omnivore's diet. It is no more or less moral than eating an apple if you are going to examine the environmental impact in an industrialized nation.

Now if you assign sentient viability and moral individualism to all species, we will have a much different conversation. Certain Buddhist and Hindu approaches are much more comprehensive than Western ideals. I've yet to find anyone in the West that can live up to that cultural ideology. It is fraught with hypocrisy for first-world populations.

Driving cars are every bit as "immoral" as eating cows in such a philosophy.

I agree, but this is a subset of that discussion. :D

I just though this would be fun to discuss!

[Rathpig]

From your cited source:

Long-distance air transport, deep-freezing, and some horticultural practices may lead to environmental burdens for vegetarian foods exceeding those for locally produced organic meat.


The bottom-line here is that you are arguing best practice possibility on the one hand for plants against worst practice industrialization for meat. The reality is that both forms of agriculture use poor environmental practices because it increases short-term profitability. This is where your real problem lies. The "immorality" of meat, at least how you have outlined it, is in the industrialization of the meat industry.

You may not remember, but agriculture is my current job. Though we are not in full production yet, I am a family farmer. I know this situation well from first hand experience. I know that it takes far more environmental impact to produce any form of food than is necessary, but once you scale up the production to industrial levels and profits, you sacrifice the environment.

The U.S. government and international ag-business has intentionally killed the domestic family farm, and has begun to kill the small farmer world-wide. That is where any "morality" of your argument lies.



Now if you have another approach to the "immorality" of meat, I would like to hear it, but as it stands your problem is with corporations and profitability.

[David B]

The U.S. government and international ag-business has intentionally killed the domestic family farm, and has begun to kill the small farmer world-wide.

Pollan addresses this at some length in his book, which I referred to above.

He makes a strong case for saying that Rathpig is pretty muc h right about this.

David B

[nygreenguy]

The bottom-line here is that you are arguing best practice possibility on the one hand for plants against worst practice industrialization for meat.
Actually, all things =, plants are better. The quote you outlines was the best case for meat, and the worse for plants.





The reality is that both forms of agriculture use poor environmental practices because it increases short-term profitability. This is where your real problem lies. The "immorality" of meat, at least how you have outlined it, is in the industrialization of the meat industry. Yes and no. While Ill agree the family farm generally has far less impact on the environment, it simply isnt suited to meet the current demand for meat. Only large scale industry can accomplish that, and we know what the downsides to them are. This is why eating meat is immoral. Its impossible to meed the demand for meat in an environmentally conscious manner.

You may not remember, but agriculture is my current job. Though we are not in full production yet, I am a family farmer. I know this situation well from first hand experience. I know that it takes far more environmental impact to produce any form of food than is necessary, but once you scale up the production to industrial levels and profits, you sacrifice the environment. I agree, and I also grew up on a farm. Im from illinois where its nothing BUT farm!

Id also add family farms tend to be more humane to their animals as well. A stark contradiction to what agri-corps do.

Now if you have another approach to the "immorality" of meat, I would like to hear it, but as it stands your problem is with corporations and profitability.

The immorality lies in the impossible nature of satisfying demand in an environmentally friendly way.

[dug_down_deep]

Note that the word 'quote' in a closing quote tag should be immediately preceded by a forward slash (/).

[Garrett]

nygreenguy
Both. It is wrong as individuals as we contribute to the larger problem.
Grow (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2066-fish-fillets-grow-in-tank.html) meat (http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1098) in (http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/09/105-vat-grown-meat.html) vats (http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Vat_20Grown_20Food).

And all the environmental, health and moral issues are resolved!

[David B]

nygreenguy
Both. It is wrong as individuals as we contribute to the larger problem.
Grow (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2066-fish-fillets-grow-in-tank.html) meat (http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1098) in (http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/09/105-vat-grown-meat.html) vats (http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Vat_20Grown_20Food).

And all the environmental, health and moral issues are resolved!

I can't help but fear that if practical it is not desirable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ale#Real_ale

David B (prefers real ale to Red Barrel)

[nygreenguy]

The U.S. government and international ag-business has intentionally killed the domestic family farm, and has begun to kill the small farmer world-wide.

Pollan addresses this at some length in his book, which I referred to above.

He makes a strong case for saying that Rathpig is pretty muc h right about this.

David B

Ive read the book, and i dont dispute this point at all, i just dont think its that relevant. We cant ALL be farmers, for obvious reasons and I dont think that family farms can feed the world livestockwise.

[shipload]

*deep sigh*

As already noted, this is a problem with human population, not meat-eating.

I challenge that a "vegetarian diet can provide all the essential nutrients needed." You cannot provide a vegetarian diet year 'round in all parts of the world, as the vegetarian crops which provide such do not produce year 'round without a lot of shipping all over the world.

Meat has basically served as a protein bank when it has been on the hoof. It can be utilized when other, vegetative sources have been exhausted. As also noted already, that source of banked protein often subsists upon marginal and often unarable land which will not support crops. When the transport infrastructure collapses, are you going to turn your nose up when meat is served during the winter and early spring?

I think not.

You want to see immoral? Here's immoral:

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CTW/AralSea.jpeg

That's the Aral Sea, in central Asia. It's an environmental disaster of the first order. Those pix are taken from space. The source of the disappearance of the Aral Sea: one agricultural product, cotton.

Not only do modern agricultural methods accomplish such damage, they also threaten the availability of fresh, potable water worldwide. Over irrigation and excessive fertilizing has created algeal bloom disasters and often result in the salinasation of the arable soils, making them unproductive for the foreseeable future.

The problem is too many people, not eating meat.

Vegetarianism is not a natural means of sustenance for humans. Just look at your teeth, for crepes sake. There are at least four teeth in most humans' mouths that augur for eating meat as part of the human diet.

[Rathpig]

We cant ALL be farmers, for obvious reasons and I dont think that family farms can feed the world livestockwise .

They don't have to feed the world "livestockwise". They could have, were they not systematically destroyed, provide a counterpoint to your morality plea. What you have essentially stated is that industrial agriculture is immoral. That is far different than eating meat is immoral. If your problem is with a methodology and not consumption then the point is rather twisted. Even as a devil's advocate.


As an advocate of local grown, slow food, sustainable methods, and those sad destroyed family farms, any morality plea should be aimed at the real source of the problem. As I told the person who originated this silly argument in the first place: morals are subjective and meaningless in this case. Humans are omnivores.

[nygreenguy]

*deep sigh*

As already noted, this is a problem with human population, not meat-eating. Only sort of. The problem is with a large population eating meat. If there were only a billion of us, we wouldnt have a problem.

I challenge that a "vegetarian diet can provide all the essential nutrients needed." You cannot provide a vegetarian diet year 'round in all parts of the world, as the vegetarian crops which provide such do not produce year 'round without a lot of shipping all over the world. Corn and beans provide all the essential amino-acids out body needs.

But yes, out of season is a little bit harder. This is why we have things like refrigeration, canning, zip-loc bags, etc....

And yeah, we can ship. But same for meat, there are some places better suited for livestock than others and we would need to ship to them as well. This makes the "transportation" issue moot.

Meat has basically served as a protein bank when it has been on the hoof. It can be utilized when other, vegetative sources have been exhausted. As also noted already, that source of banked protein often subsists upon marginal and often unarable land which will not support crops. When the transport infrastructure collapses, are you going to turn your nose up when meat is served during the winter and early spring? Ive never turned my nose up to meat. I take it you haven't been reading all the posts, have you?

As for "marginal and unarable" land, I disagree. Coming from one of the largest agricultural areas in the world ive seen many areas where cattle have destroyed very GOOD land. This also doesnt take into account natural areas which are destroyed by roaming cattle.



That's the Aral Sea, in central Asia. It's an environmental disaster of the first order. Those pix are taken from space. The source of the disappearance of the Aral Sea: one agricultural product, cotton. Since when do people eat cotton? Yuck.

Not only do modern agricultural methods accomplish such damage, they also threaten the availability of fresh, potable water worldwide. Over irrigation and excessive fertilizing has created algeal bloom disasters and often result in the salinasation of the arable soils, making them unproductive for the foreseeable future. I have already covered this earlier and shown how meat is worse than plants.


Vegetarianism is not a natural means of sustenance for humans. Just look at your teeth, for crepes sake. There are at least four teeth in most humans' mouths that augur for eating meat as part of the human diet. But we also have this aamzing thing called technology which lets us escape some of our biological past. We no longer HAVE to rely on meat. We have technology which can make plant nutrients more readily available, able to stand up to frost and drought, able to resist disease w/o the use of pesticides, etc.

They don't have to feed the world "livestockwise". They could have, were they not systematically destroyed, provide a counterpoint to your morality plea. What you have essentially stated is that industrial agriculture is immoral. That is far different than eating meat is immoral. If your problem is with a methodology and not consumption then the point is rather twisted. Even as a devil's advocate.

Ok, let me try to be a bit more clear. It is utterly unsustainable to have 6 billion (thank siva for hindus) meat eaters on the planet. It just cant happen.

My points about antibiotics and hormones have also been ignored. (unless we consider organic)

As an advocate of local grown, slow food, sustainable methods, and those sad destroyed family farms, any morality plea should be aimed at the real source of the problem. As I told the person who originated this silly argument in the first place: morals are subjective and meaningless in this case. Humans are omnivores. Im also an advocate for local, small farms. Hell, im a loyal customer to the local farmers here. (id never buy a chilean or washington apple).

Even with small farms, we simply cant support 6 billion omnivores.

And we dont HAVE to be omnivores anymore.

As for moral, yeah, they are almost always subjective but i got the impression that people though it was ludicrous to think eating meat could be considered immoral.

Im also wondering what the solution is to all the poop from these animals?

[Quizalufagus]

Ive read the book, and i dont dispute this point at all, i just dont think its that relevant. We cant ALL be farmers, for obvious reasons and I dont think that family farms can feed the world livestockwise.

If you've read the Omnivore's Dilemma, what did you think about the agricultural model being used at Polyface Farm? Something like that was what I had in mind when I wrote about the importance of polyculture. Why not convert our current agricultural system to something similar?

[nygreenguy]

If you've read the Omnivore's Dilemma, what did you think about the agricultural model being used at Polyface Farm? Something like that was what I had in mind when I wrote about the importance of polyculture. Why not convert our current agricultural system to something similar?

I do agree its an amazing model, and id love to visit I dont think it can be done large-scale enough to meet (no pun intended) demand.

I think producing meat CAN be done humanely and responsible, but not in a way to feed everyone. So we either need to industrialize it (not an option) or stop/GREATLY reduce consumption.

[Quizalufagus]

I do agree its an amazing model, and id love to visit I dont think it can be done large-scale enough to meet (no pun intended) demand.

What do you view as the obstacles to scaling up? What percentage of the current demand do you think could be met by farms similar to Polyface, Inc.?

I think producing meat CAN be done humanely and responsible, but not in a way to feed everyone. So we either need to industrialize it (not an option) or stop/GREATLY reduce consumption.

I disagree on the "greatly" part. I think we could probably get away with sustainable methods if we cut meat intake by as little as 30% or so.

[shipload]

*deep sigh*

As already noted, this is a problem with human population, not meat-eating. Only sort of. The problem is with a large population eating meat. If there were only a billion of us, we wouldnt have a problem.

The problem is too many people eating anything. Or, wearing anything. Or doing anything.

I challenge that a "vegetarian diet can provide all the essential nutrients needed." You cannot provide a vegetarian diet year 'round in all parts of the world, as the vegetarian crops which provide such do not produce year 'round without a lot of shipping all over the world. Corn and beans provide all the essential amino-acids out body needs.

Not from what I've been taught. An essential protein is still missing. I'm told that this essential protein can be obtained from nuts....IF, and this is a big if, the vegetarian is careful to regularly balance her/his diet. I have a friend who was a "vegetarian" for twenty odd years. What he got for it was connective tissue damage....from not having the essential proteins he needed. He stopped the degradation of his body by starting to eat meats again, but required a series of joint surgeries to repair his body significantly enough to continue his life on some kind of reasonable basis.

But yes, out of season is a little bit harder. This is why we have things like refrigeration, canning, zip-loc bags, etc....

We have them, but won't for long. Shipping things, even preserved foods, will increase significantly in the future.

And yeah, we can ship. But same for meat, there are some places better suited for livestock than others and we would need to ship to them as well. This makes the "transportation" issue moot.

Ive never turned my nose up to meat. I take it you haven't been reading all the posts, have you?

As for "marginal and unarable" land, I disagree. Coming from one of the largest agricultural areas in the world ive seen many areas where cattle have destroyed very GOOD land. This also doesnt take into account natural areas which are destroyed by roaming cattle.

Yep. I've seen it. I'm part of the American west, where every cattle farmer wants to fatten his cattle on the public dime. Sheep are worse, as they and goats destroy the plants of the food grasses they eat, which bovines do not.

Since when do people eat cotton? Yuck.

They don't. They wear it. Just like they wear wool from sheep and leather from cattle. However, I was wrong in citing just one crop. Cotton is still the major crop, but rice is another in the Aral region. Food and clothing, from agricultural crops is the source of the death of the Aral Sea.

I have already covered this earlier and shown how meat is worse than plants.

I'm sorry. No you haven't. And I doubt you can. The biggest environmental disaster perpetrated by humans is the destruction of the world's forest cover. Most of it was for additional food cropping.

The site I picked up the pix from (http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CTW.html) highlights ten sites worldwide about human change of the environment. Loss of forest cover is the most repeated...that's plant life, too (and a product of our "technological advance")....then there's the Aral Sea, the Imperial Valley, and the Dutch polders. The Three Gorges Dam is one of the pending ecological disasters, and that has little, if anything, to do with meat production. The most widespread, and permanent, ecological damage on the planet has been done by agricultural and forestry practices.

But we also have this aamzing thing called technology which lets us escape some of our biological past. We no longer HAVE to rely on meat. We have technology which can make plant nutrients more readily available, able to stand up to frost and drought, able to resist disease w/o the use of pesticides, etc.

Yes, up to now, we have. I wouldn't put my money on that continuing at a rate sufficient to keep up with human population growth. Technology can collapse as well, particularly when the source of energy which fuels is goes excessively expensive or disappears completely. Also...what are you going to do when the global die-off occurs? Certainly, amongst those affected will be those who keep technology functional...with the inevitable consequence of the collapse of technological supports.

[nygreenguy]

The problem is too many people eating anything. Or, wearing anything. Or doing anything. Agreed



Not from what I've been taught. An essential protein is still missing. I'm told that this essential protein can be obtained from nuts....IF, and this is a big if, the vegetarian is careful to regularly balance her/his diet.

Plant foods contain the essential amino acids in varying amounts, so vegetarians need to eat a variety of plant foods to make sure they get enough of all nine essential amino acids. For example, legumes (cooked dried beans, dried peas, and lentils) are low in sulfur-containing amino acids (such as methionine), but they are high in another amino acid called lysine. Grains are just the opposite. So if you eat both foods during the course of a day, you can get all the essential amino acids your body needs.

When the amino acids from two or more foods add up to make a complete protein, those foods are called "complementary proteins." Examples of complementary proteins are:

* Beans and tortillas.
* Black beans and rice.
* Chili and corn bread.
* Pita bread with hummus (ground garbanzo beans and sesame seed paste).

You do not need to consciously combine these foods at every meal. Eating them throughout the course of a day will provide your body with adequate protein.

WebMd (http://www.webmd.com/diet/guide/healthy-eating-vegetarian-diets-organic-foods)





We have them, but won't for long. Shipping things, even preserved foods, will increase significantly in the future.Are you talking about the price of shipping or something? I think theres a typo somewhere.



Yep. I've seen it. I'm part of the American west, where every cattle farmer wants to fatten his cattle on the public dime. Sheep are worse, as they and goats destroy the plants of the food grasses they eat, which bovines do not. I dont understand what this means. Can you explain?



I'm sorry. No you haven't. And I doubt you can. The biggest environmental disaster perpetrated by humans is the destruction of the world's forest cover. Most of it was for additional food cropping. Totally agree with the first part. Habitat destruction is the #1 driver to the loss of biodiversity. How do you not know that the land wasnt cleared to feed the livestock?

The most widespread, and permanent, ecological damage on the planet has been done by agricultural and forestry practices. I respectfully disagree. I think people fail to see many of our agricultural woes are due to the demand to produce food for livestock, so the blame shouldnt be placed on agriculture, but livestock.



Yes, up to now, we have. I wouldn't put my money on that continuing at a rate sufficient to keep up with human population growth. Our rate of growth is slowing, thats some good news.

[Garrett]

David B
I can't help but fear that if practical it is not desirable.
Why not? We're talking about flesh, not beer, so I don't get your point.

The wiki article doesn't mention any evidence that there is any taste or intoxication difference, though I suppose there is at least some of the former (I'm not a beer fan). People will have emotional attachment to old-fashioned ways - nothing new about that. So what?

[Garrett]

nygreenguy

Vat grown meat solves all the problems with meat-eating identified in this thread. Is eating vat grown meat immoral?

[Ray Moscow]

I think eating meat is immoral. Do I still do it? Sure. We all do bad things.



Plus, having children is immoral, since human beings are generally destructive to the environment and reproducing them only adds to the problem.

(I'm only half joking, actually.)

[Garrett]

In-vitro meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat) (Wikipedia)

New Harvest (http://www.new-harvest.org/default.php) (A nonprofit research organization working to develop new meat substitutes, including cultured meat - meat produced in vitro, in a cell culture, rather than from an animal.)

The first In Vitro Meat Consortium Symposium (http://invitromeat.org/content/view/15/34/) will be held in Norway, 9-11 April, 2008.

[Wordy]

Eating of the surplus in the wild is very moral.

To transport animals for days over the continent is not moral in my interpretation.

To slaughter an animal you yourself has fed is very moral to do. But one should
do it without causing undue pain. You cause pain in humans too by doing surgery.

It is unnecassary pain we should avoid doing to animals.

To keep Ferrets at home as some Animal Right Activists does seems very non-moral to me. That animal should be in the wild and not in captivity.

[Garrett]

Domesticated ferrets would not survive in the wild. They've been domesticated for 2500 years! They happen to be the third most common uncaged pet in North America today! They form strong bonds with their humans, they are energetic, curious, interested in their surroundings, and love to play games with people and other animals.

They have distinctive, engaging personalities and a playful, fastidious nature. They should have a cage only as a "safe haven".

Here's a fun game to play: hide dry food around the areas he's allowed to explore, open his cage in the morning, and watch him search for the food - he'll haul it all back to his cage.

Ferrets make great pets.

[Wordy]

Yes, I see them as lovely pets too but that gives us no moral right to have them.
Same with cats and dogs. We have them as friends but we have no moral right to have them in captivity. the solution to that they is so domesticated that they can't live in wild is to not breed them anymore.

[Quizalufagus]

Eh? So the most moral action we can take with respect to domestic animals is to stop breeding them, potentially driving several subspecies into extinction? That doesn't make any sense.

[Wordy]

We could have zoo with them like we have with wild animals.

Should I take your text to indicate you defend humans have animal slaves just for the fun of it?

[Quizalufagus]

Why would it be any better being in a zoo than in any other form of captivity? In many ways zoo life seems far worse than being a pet to me.

"Animal slaves" is extremely objectionable language considering the fact that animals are by and large no longer used for labor.

[tjakey]

War, slavery, murder, rape, child molesting, wife beating, racism, battering, abuse, profiteering, there are so many things I can think of as being immoral. Eating meat?

Sorry, doesn't even come close to making my list.

[Rathpig]

.... Eating meat?

Sorry, doesn't even come close to making my list.

Overcooking steak does come close to immorality, and putting ketchup or brown sauce on everything is a sure way to find epicurean hell.

[ravenscape]

Ketchup is evil.

Pickapeppa sauce is divine.

[Garrett]

We like meat. Does that make the inhumane treatment of our food animals hunky-dory with you kids?

[dancer_rnb]

We like meat. Does that make the inhumane treatment of our food animals hunky-dory with you kids?

All young goats think so.

[Jethroism]

Soylent Green is people!

[Ian Nerr]

.... Eating meat?

Sorry, doesn't even come close to making my list.

Overcooking steak does come close to immorality, and putting ketchup or brown sauce on everything is a sure way to find epicurean hell.

:beerchug:

[nygreenguy]

We like meat. Does that make the inhumane treatment of our food animals hunky-dory with you kids?

No, that was one of my points.

[Garrett]

dancer_rnb
All young goats think so.
Speak clearly. Are you unconcerned with the inhumane treatment of our food animals? Do you think it okay that we mistreat billions of animals every day? Do you think its a joke when someone complains about it?

[Garrett]

Ian Nerr

You ignored my question in order to raise a toast about cooking meat.

Speak clearly. Are you unconcerned with the inhumane treatment of our food animals? Do you think it okay that we mistreat billions of animals every day? Do you think its a joke when someone complains about it?

[Garrett]

Jethroism
Soylent Green is people!
Yes it is. But since you popped in after my question with your comment, you're fair game (heh - no pun intended).

Speak clearly. Are you unconcerned with the inhumane treatment of our food animals? Do you think it okay that we mistreat billions of animals every day? Do you think its a joke when someone complains about it?

[Quizalufagus]

What do you mean by 'okay'? It doesn't bother me when an omnivore inflicts horrible suffering on another animal as part of consuming it if that's what you're asking.

[nygreenguy]

What do you mean by 'okay'? It doesn't bother me when an omnivore inflicts horrible suffering on another animal as part of consuming it if that's what you're asking.

Thats strange, most people have empathy for torture of any kind, even if it for food.

IS it natural to eat meat? Sure. Its not necessairly natural to make the animal suffer you are going to eat.

[dancer_rnb]

dancer_rnb
All young goats think so.
Speak clearly. Are you unconcerned with the inhumane treatment of our food animals? Do you think it okay that we mistreat billions of animals every day? Do you think its a joke when someone complains about it?

I was responding to the self righteous arrogance.
You referred to readers as "you kids."

You deserve only the respect you show others.

[Quizalufagus]

Thats strange, most people have empathy for torture of any kind, even if it for food.

IS it natural to eat meat? Sure. Its not necessairly natural to make the animal suffer you are going to eat.

I'm not so sure how "natural" empathy for one's food really is. If we use wild mammalian predators and omnivores as a guide, then empathy for one's food seem pretty strange--most species are known to torture their prey. Our closest extant relative does this quite a bit. Having watched my cat with prey many times, I'm also quite certain that I have a lot more empathy for my food than he has for his.

In any case, there isn't really torture involved in our food production. "Torture" suggests action explicitly aimed at inflicting suffering, but our food production methods, while doubtlessly extremely horrible for the animals we use for food, are cold and practical. We don't torture so much as we merely disregard suffering.

[nygreenguy]

I'm not so sure how "natural" empathy for one's food really is. If we use wild mammalian predators and omnivores as a guide, then empathy for one's food seem pretty strange--most species are known to torture their prey. Our closest extant relative does this quite a bit. Having watched my cat with prey many times, I'm also quite certain that I have a lot more empathy for my food than he has for his. MOST species are known to torture? Id like to see a reference on that.

As for you cat, thats because its domesticated. Domestic cats "play" with their prey because they simply dont see it as food or because they are not hungry (assuming you feed your cat). I cant recall any wild cat which does this.

In any case, there isn't really torture involved in our food production. "Torture" suggests action explicitly aimed at inflicting suffering, but our food production methods, while doubtlessly extremely horrible for the animals we use for food, are cold and practical. We don't torture so much as we merely disregard suffering. This is more semantics than anything. While the desired result isnt pain and suffering, its clear that it is being caused and the act is still committed. So the people who work there are knowingly causing pain. I cant think of a better term than torture.

Ignoring the suffering is what we do when we eat/buy the meat.

[shipload]

We like meat. Does that make the inhumane treatment of our food animals hunky-dory with you kids?

That depends upon how you define "inhumane".

Is it "inhumane" to slaughter an animal for meat? I'm fairly sure that it's not something the animal desires, or even meets with equinimity. But, given that humans have eaten meat for millenia, I'd say that slaughter for consumption is "humane" in the sense that it is a common human action for the sustenance of humans.

Then there's the whole concern that treating animals "humanely" is treating them like we'd treat our fellow humans. Given the long, tawdy history of how humans treat each other, were I an animal, I certainly wouldn't want to be treated like humans all too often treat each other.

[shipload]

Ignoring the suffering is what we do when we eat/buy the meat.

That's just not true. There have been long and ongoing discussions over the minimization of suffering for food animals. Indeed, much of the kosher laws are aimed at minimizing suffering of the animals butchered for consumption...and consider that they'd had hundreds of years of slaughtering animals for sacrifice.

Instead of ignoring the suffering, there has been a long and conscious attempt to minimize the suffering. Even amongst pre-agricultural societies, like the native American nomadic peoples, there was a desire to placate the spirit of the animal to be dispatched. Many of these peoples were apologetic that they had to inflict suffering upon another being, and asked for forgiveness from the animal.

Too bad that exemplar has not been applied to many human to human interactions.

[Quizalufagus]

MOST species are known to torture? Id like to see a reference on that.

I doubt any single reference exists; this problem likely hasn't been dealt with in the ethological literature. However, off the top of my head I can recall seeing examples of torture in mountain lions (observed personally), bottlenose dolphins, orca, chimps, and pinnipeds. That excludes cases where the torture occurs in young animals who are learning to hunt; if I were to include those cases, the list would get a great deal longer. I've also seen examples of torture in domestic dogs and cats. All this suggests to me that torture is quite common among mammals.

As for you cat, thats because its domesticated. Domestic cats "play" with their prey because they simply dont see it as food or because they are not hungry (assuming you feed your cat). I cant recall any wild cat which does this.

The cat actually wasn't domesticated (or at least not entirely so) the first time I saw him torture prey; he was a stray who ostensibly subsisted entirely on wild prey. What do you count as a "wild" environment for Felis catus, anyway?

This is more semantics than anything. While the desired result isnt pain and suffering, its clear that it is being caused and the act is still committed. So the people who work there are knowingly causing pain. I cant think of a better term than torture.

Ignoring the suffering is what we do when we eat/buy the meat.

Claiming that the distinction I'm drawing is merely semantics is patent equivocation. Torture is defined in terms of motivation. You wouldn't claim that dentists are torturers, would you?

[Garrett]

dancer_rnb
You referred to readers as "you kids."
Which isn't intended as an insult. The opposite in fact - in my neck of the woods its a term of comradery.

I was responding to the self righteous arrogance.
Which is obviously intended as an insult.

You deserve only the respect you show others.
Its disrespectful to ignore direct questions.

[Garrett]

Quizalufagus
What do you mean by 'okay'?
I'm reminded of the famous "it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."

It doesn't bother me when an omnivore inflicts horrible suffering on another animal as part of consuming it if that's what you're asking.
So its okay with you if we treat our food animals inhumanely. That seems like an immoral stance to me. I bet you have a double standard - if you or yours were being eaten, I bet you would realize it is terrible for anything to torture its food before eating it.

[Garrett]

Quizalufagus
We don't torture so much as we merely disregard suffering.
Lack of empathy is a pathological disorder.

[nygreenguy]

I doubt any single reference exists; this problem likely hasn't been dealt with in the ethological literature. However, off the top of my head I can recall seeing examples of torture in mountain lions (observed personally), bottlenose dolphins, orca, chimps, and pinnipeds. That excludes cases where the torture occurs in young animals who are learning to hunt; if I were to include those cases, the list would get a great deal longer. I've also seen examples of torture in domestic dogs and cats. All this suggests to me that torture is quite common among mammals. can you be a bit more specific with your examples? Like, what is happening.



The cat actually wasn't domesticated (or at least not entirely so) the first time I saw him torture prey; he was a stray who ostensibly subsisted entirely on wild prey. What do you count as a "wild" environment for Felis catus, anyway? Feral cats are about as close as we can get. But when I say wild cats, i meant lions, tigers, but not bears. oh my!

Are you sure he only had wild prey? People like to feed strays often times.



Claiming that the distinction I'm drawing is merely semantics is patent equivocation. No, its not. Have you seen the common definitions of torture? Outside of the political definition, every definition fits exactly what im saying. It all relates to pain, or the infliction to pain with no mention of motivation.

Torture is defined in terms of motivation. You wouldn't claim that dentists are torturers, would you? But the doctors at least try to give you pain meds or knock you out. They know that they are doing you more harm than good. They try to make you as comfortable as possible. They care about your general well being.

[Garrett]

shipload
That depends upon how you define "inhumane".
Lacking pity or compassion. (answers.com)

Is it "inhumane" to slaughter an animal for meat?
No. It's inhumane to cause unnecessary pain and suffering.

Then there's the whole concern that treating animals "humanely" is treating them like we'd treat our fellow humans.
You're concerned about what exactly? That if we treat our food animals humanely then we would also use people as food animals (treating people as if they were animals)? Or that if we treat our food animals humanely then our food animals would be entitled to vote and go to school and go shopping (treating animals as if they were people)? Neither makes sense, so you're probably thinking of something else, but I don't know what.

Given the long, tawdy history of how humans treat each other, were I an animal, I certainly wouldn't want to be treated like humans all too often treat each other.
Well, that's a good point, but why the "if I were an animal" qualifier?

I think that empathy is the basis for secular morality.

[dancer_rnb]

dancer_rnb
You referred to readers as "you kids."
Which isn't intended as an insult. The opposite in fact - in my neck of the woods its a term of comradery.

I was responding to the self righteous arrogance.
Which is obviously intended as an insult.

You deserve only the respect you show others.
Its disrespectful to ignore direct questions.

Well, in reponse to your question
Is there anyone who doesn't profit from it who wouldn't like to see animal suffering reduced?

I'm 53 years old. It's been a long time since anyone called me a young goat.

[Quizalufagus]

I'm reminded of the famous "it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."

Are you intentionally dodging the question? Unless you're just passing down baseless ethical pronouncements, 'okay' isn't clear terminology at all.

So its okay with you if we treat our food animals inhumanely. That seems like an immoral stance to me. I bet you have a double standard - if you or yours were being eaten, I bet you would realize it is terrible for anything to torture its food before eating it.

It's okay with me if food animals suffer to the extent required to produce meat. I don't want them to suffer more than that, but the suffering that's inherent to our diet doesn't bother me. Why should it? Should a lion weep for its dinner?

Lack of empathy is a pathological disorder.

Not really. Lack of a normative level of empathy within the limits of certain diagnostic criteria was once commonly recognized as a psychiatric disorder, but empathy for food animals strong enough to prevent one from eating meat is clearly not normative.

[Quizalufagus]

can you be a bit more specific with your examples? Like, what is happening.

Mostly injure, catch, release, re-catch sorts of behaviors--similar to what we've all seen with domestic cats playing with mice. I've seen cougars do this with rabbits, and pinnipeds do it with prey fish. Chimps and cetaceans seem to do more than this, sometimes (apparently maliciously) injuring smaller animals and toying with them over long periods of time. Cetaceans often don't even eat the marine animals they attack in this manner. For chimps it seems to be a more socially significant activity, perhaps acting to cement group bonds. I recall seeing film of a group of chimps tearing apart a living, younger chimp from another group and then eating the poor guy.

Feral cats are about as close as we can get. But when I say wild cats, i meant lions, tigers, but not bears. oh my!

Are you sure he only had wild prey? People like to feed strays often times.

Could be some of the neighbors had fed him. Most of the people in that neighborhood weren't the types to feed strays, though.

No, its not. Have you seen the common definitions of torture? Outside of the political definition, every definition fits exactly what im saying. It all relates to pain, or the infliction to pain with no mention of motivation.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/torture) suggests that motivation is indeed inherent to an act being torture.

But the doctors at least try to give you pain meds or knock you out. They know that they are doing you more harm than good. They try to make you as comfortable as possible. They care about your general well being.

So what? You've defined torture to be knowingly causing pain, and dentists and physicians certainly knowingly cause pain.

[Garrett]

dancer_rnb
Is there anyone who doesn't profit from it who wouldn't like to see animal suffering reduced?

There are the people who find it to be okay - the people who aren't bothered by it.

I'm 53 years old. It's been a long time since anyone called me a young goat.
kid (answers.com)
4. Slang. Pal. Used as a term of familiar address, especially for a young person: Hi, kid! What's up?

I apologize for using a term of familar address.

Care to answer the questions now, stranger?

[Garrett]

Quizalufagus
I'm not so sure how "natural" empathy for one's food really is. If we use wild mammalian predators and omnivores as a guide, then empathy for one's food seem pretty strange--
If we use wild mammalian predators and omnivores as a guide, then only one species enslaves mammals for use as food (only one mammalian species enslaves mammals, period).

Therefore, by your own implied argument, the way we treat our food animals is "unnatural".

most species are known to torture their prey.
Actually, most predatory species ignores their prey unless hunting, and then they dispatch their prey as quickly as they can.

Our closest extant relative does this quite a bit. Having watched my cat with prey many times, I'm also quite certain that I have a lot more empathy for my food than he has for his.
Cats are not our most extant relative. Anyway, you seem to be arguing that some primitive, uneducated and uncivilized creatures sometimes torture their prey, therefore its okay if we torture our prey.

In any case, there isn't really torture involved in our food production. "Torture" suggests action explicitly aimed at inflicting suffering, but our food production methods, while doubtlessly extremely horrible for the animals we use for food, are cold and practical. We don't torture so much as we merely disregard suffering.
Moral people regard it.

torture (answers.com)
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.

Dictionary.com suggests that motivation is indeed inherent to an act being torture.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.

So what? You've defined torture to be knowingly causing pain, and dentists and physicians certainly knowingly cause pain.
Yes, it is torture being on the receiving end of dental work. First, we deem it necessary. Second, we minimize the torture as much as possible.

Should we allow our food animals to suffer unnecessary torture? Should we minimize their pain and suffering as much as possible? Will you evade those two questions?

However, off the top of my head I can recall seeing examples of torture in mountain lions (observed personally), bottlenose dolphins, orca, chimps, and pinnipeds.
I agree. Some primitive uncivilized creatures occasionally torture their prey for a short while before killing them. Does that make such behavior in humans moral? Does that make the systematic torture of entire species for their entire lifetime moral?

That excludes cases where the torture occurs in young animals who are learning to hunt; if I were to include those cases, the list would get a great deal longer. I've also seen examples of torture in domestic dogs and cats. All this suggests to me that torture is quite common among mammals.
I agree. It could be argued that it is necessary for the young of such primitive and uncivilized creatures to engage in such behavior.

But none of those species systematically enslave entire species. If you insist on claiming that our behavior is moral if it also occurs in the non-human animal kingdom, then there is no evidence that our treatment of our food animals is moral.

Torture is defined in terms of motivation.
Yet you claim some creatures (and the young of others) torture their prey. Obviously you understand the correct context here - torture occurs when Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony or extreme anguish of body or mind; agony occurs, and motivation is irrelevant.

Are you intentionally dodging the question?
No, that's not my style.

okay (answers.com)
1. Agreeable; acceptable: Was everything OK with your stay?

It's okay with me if food animals suffer to the extent required to produce meat.
That doesn't answer the question!

Are you unaware of the needless suffering we inflict on our food animals? Is it okay with you if we treat our food animals inhumanely?

Not really. Lack of a normative level of empathy within the limits of certain diagnostic criteria was once commonly recognized as a psychiatric disorder, but empathy for food animals strong enough to prevent one from eating meat is clearly not normative.
But your given reason doesn't support your claim that lack of empathy is not a pathological disorder. And your given reason is illogical - it is normative to agree that food animals should be treated humanely, regardless of whether one eats meat or not - as evidenced by the emergence and progression of laws governing the utilization of livestock.

Eating meat isn't immoral - but lack of concern for the way we treat other species is, at the least, disturbing to moral people.