Animal rights

[ozleicester]

ozleicester, have you considered the potential economic impacts of the whole world going veggie?

- Many many animals farmers would be screwed. Also, a mass convserion of land from pastoral to arable would also really badly affect vegetable/wheat/corn etc farmers. The market would be flooded with these products, thus lowering the prices massively. This would be devastating for third world farmers especially, potentially causing mass loss of human life, which as you said earlier is more valuable than animal life. Not to mention that many many areas lack the soil nutreints needed to support any real vegetables other than grass for cattle.

- Diners, restaurants etc would lose massive buisness. The 'full english' of bacon, sausages and the like is a banker income for most cafes. Pubs and the like would miss the income from selling steak and lamb, which is often twice the price of veggie alternatives.

- Maybe not a big loss (except for the millions of workers), but McDonalds, KFC etc etc would all have to close, or at the least downsize massively. I can't imagine foot outlets bustling with people if they could only get vegetarian options.

- Even if fast food and cafes could adapt, certain specialised companies certainly couldn't. Birds eye, fray bentos, bernard matthews, melton mowbray pork pies, would all die.

*Awaits insulting response from Daggers*

Cooling, can i suggest you read through the entire topic as this has been addressed time and time again... and you may have a greater understanding of what i am saying....however...

it would/will be a generational change, those that are farming meat or feed for meat will have time to see the alternatives and turn to an equally profitable but less cruel alternative. There will be no flooding and no disaster in the third.. or any other world (out of interest, do you know we currently create enough food to feed every person on the planet, we just choose not to).

The planets arable land will not change...as it stands at the moment, for every 1 Kilo of animal protein (meat) produced... livestock are fed 6 Kilo's of plant protein.

Restaurants will continue to provide breakfast dinner and tea... it wont contain the carcass of innocent creatures is the only change. This applies for all providers of food. All of these businesses you mention will provide an alternative that people will be happy to eat and the pricing will not change other than as it would normally. It is a case of supply and demand.

[Captain...]

..its starting make sense now

Captain Gareth Shrapnel, speaks

I have said... on numerous occasions throughout this topic, that i have no problem with self protection.

Ha ha, it does read as something Gareth would say doesn't it.

But would you put down an animal, or be ok with that, if it is perceived as a threat to other animals, and possibly small children, although it has not actually attacked a child, for example an aggressive species of dog, like a pitbull, that is banned in the UK.

[Zingari]

Do you agree that space exploration would have been nearly impossible without frying a few doggies such as Laika first ?

Do you think humans should sacrifice animals in this way ?

( I realise that for every Laika there are probably thousands killed unnecessarily so in wasteful experiments)

sorry if you've already gone over it oz , just say if you have and roughly where to look the thread is quite long now

edit;

maybe you should do a list of FAQs with where to find the answers

[Captain...]

Do you agree that space exploration would have been nearly impossible without frying a few doggies such as Laika first ?

Do you think humans should sacrifice animals in this way ?

( I realise that for every Laika there are probably thousands killed unnecessarily so in wasteful experiments)

sorry if you've already gone over it oz , just say if you have and roughly where to look the thread is quite long now

edit;

maybe you should do a list of FAQs with where to find the answers

Well he has already said he is happy for some animals to die to provide the science to create synthesised bacon, so I would guess he is ok with that, as long as it is not excessive or cruel, like testing cosmetics on animals.

[Zingari]

Well he has already said he is happy for some animals to die to provide the science to create synthesised bacon, so I would guess he is ok with that, as long as it is not excessive or cruel, like testing cosmetics on animals.

Yes, but the animal that's died is in retrospect , how about doing it with over and over with no idea of the possible benefits ?

[ozleicester]

Ha ha, it does read as something Gareth would say doesn't it.

But would you put down an animal, or be ok with that, if it is perceived as a threat to other animals, and possibly small children, although it has not actually attacked a child, for example an aggressive species of dog, like a pitbull, that is banned in the UK.

If it is a "perceived" threat, then no i would not support it being put down, I mean, if you considered me a "perceived" threat would you have me put in prison? I know a shedload of people wandering the streets of Australia and Leicester that are more of a threat than any pit bull... they are the ones we need to ban

Do you agree that space exploration would have been nearly impossible without frying a few doggies such as Laika first ?

Do you think humans should sacrifice animals in this way ?

( I realise that for every Laika there are probably thousands killed unnecessarily so in wasteful experiments)

sorry if you've already gone over it oz , just say if you have and roughly where to look the thread is quite long now

edit;

maybe you should do a list of FAQs with where to find the answers

I thought space travel was all made up?

No, we should not use animals to experiment on or send into space.

And Captn... i cant change the past, the animal that has created the petri dish meat is long gone and it would be foolish to waste what we have learnt from it. We just do not need to continue killing.

[Captain...]

If it is a "perceived" threat, then no i would not support it being put down, I mean, if you considered me a "perceived" threat would you have me put in prison? I know a shedload of people wandering the streets of Australia and Leicester that are more of a threat than any pit bull... they are the ones we need to ban

I thought space travel was all made up?

No, we should not use animals to experiment on or send into space.

And Captn... i cant change the past, the animal that has created the petri dish meat is long gone and it would be foolish to waste what we have learnt from it. We just do not need to continue killing.

Aye, and the animal I buy all processed and packed from the supermarket is long gone, it would be foolish to waste that delicious juicy lump of ass, or slice of leg.

[Zingari]

If it is a "perceived" threat, then no i would not support it being put down, I mean, if you considered me a "perceived" threat would you have me put in prison? I know a shedload of people wandering the streets of Australia and Leicester that are more of a threat than any pit bull... they are the ones we need to ban

I thought space travel was all made up?

No, we should not use animals to experiment on or send into space.

And Captn... i cant change the past, the animal that has created the petri dish meat is long gone and it would be foolish to waste what we have learnt from it. We just do not need to continue killing.

it's only the manned moon landings that i have some reservations about , not low earth orbit stuff

(in bold )that wasn't the question

I asked if you think space exploration would have been impossible without the use of animals?

How would it have been achieved other than sending animals (or unwilling or unwitting human guinea pigs from prisons or mental homes etc) first ?

[OzFox]

it's only the manned moon landings that i have some reservations about , not low earth orbit stuff

(in bold )that wasn't the question

I asked if you think space exploration would have been impossible without the use of animals?

How would it have been achieved other than sending animals (or unwilling or unwitting human guinea pigs from prisons or mental homes etc) first ?

Laika might have been toast, but Ham the Astrochimp did ok

[Captain...]

Laika might have been toast, but Ham the Astrochimp did ok

But Zingari's question is what that an acceptable risk to take with the lives of animals to further our understanding of the universe?

[OzFox]

But Zingari's question is what that an acceptable risk to take with the lives of animals to further our understanding of the universe?

I know, I know....

No it's not. As I said before, I can't believe we're spending shed loads of cash looking for life elsewhere and knocking it off at a rate of knots here. case in point, I'm just looking at footage of bulldozers knocking down koala habitat...with the koalas still in the trees.

[RumbleFox]

Hi there

Interesting thread this. First off, I am a carnivore but obviously I believe in animal rights. We are steering away from animal testing and hunting and all that here right? This is just about eating meat?

I can see why someone would choose to be a vegetarian but to say everyone should be and it is somehow morally wrong to eat meat I feel goes a little too far. The obvious argument is that lots of other animals eat meat to survive and, whilst I concur that we are capable of living without ingesting the flesh of other creatures, we do have incisors. We evolved to be carnivorous animals. In fact it was only when we started to cook and eat meat that we gained the necessary nutrients to evolve in the manner that we have. We would not be the conscious, creative, beautiful species we are now unless we had started to cook and eat meat. I know that just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it is CORRECT but eating meat played a huge role in creating the miracle that is the human race and I feel that should not be overlooked.

Also, I have a friend who has an illness which means she is advised by doctors to eat meat. I know anecdotal arguments are often tiresome but there are lots of people who need to eat meat in order to live a healthy life. What would be the answer for these people? Left to die or shunned because of there dirty habit (yes, yes that was a cheap emotive argument but it is worth noting that this argument is not always black and white).

I don't know, of course I agree in trying to reduce the suffering of the animals but I think that eating meat is fine.

Interesting topic though and when I am more awake I might think of other points to make.

Cheers

Rumble.

[Darkon84]

Hi there

Interesting thread this. First off, I am a carnivore but obviously I believe in animal rights. We are steering away from animal testing and hunting and all that here right? This is just about eating meat?

I can see why someone would choose to be a vegetarian but to say everyone should be and it is somehow morally wrong to eat meat I feel goes a little too far. The obvious argument is that lots of other animals eat meat to survive and, whilst I concur that we are capable of living without ingesting the flesh of other creatures, we do have incisors. We evolved to be carnivorous animals. In fact it was only when we started to cook and eat meat that we gained the necessary nutrients to evolve in the manner that we have. We would not be the conscious, creative, beautiful species we are now unless we had started to cook and eat meat. I know that just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it is CORRECT but eating meat played a huge role in creating the miracke that is the human race and I feel that should not be overlooked.

Also, I have a friend who has an illness which means she is advised by doctors to eat meat. I know anecdotal arguments are often tiresome but there are lots of people who need to eat meat in order to slive a healthy life. What would be the answer for these people? Left to die or shunned because of there dirty habit (yes, yes that was a cheap emotive argument but it is worth noting that this argument is not always black and white).

I don't know, of course I agree in trying to reduce the suffering of the animals but I think that eating meat is fine.

Interesting topic though and when I am more awake I might think of other points to make.

Cheers

Rumble.

Good post Rumble, been a while since Ive seen you post, and wheres the 'x' at the end?

Aaaaanyway, Im going to be a right argumentative and stirring nob now.

Whats everyones views on Peta, and their almost Nazi-esque propaganda? Is it fine for them to sexualise poster campaigns with naked women in order to get their vegan/vegetarian point across? Surely that could be deemed as sexist, which would then mean women are to be seen as objects and not equal to man? Isnt the animal rights movement about rights and equality?

Raising something from a closed topic, about the alcohol/rape posters that got banned.... could something like this be banned, for suggesting that eating meat can kill you or make you impotent?

[RumbleFox]

Thanks Darkon and an intersting point.

Oh and here you go.... X

[OzFox]

? Is it fine for them to sexualise poster campaigns with naked women in order to get their vegan/vegetarian point across. Surely that could be deemed as sexist, which would then mean women are to be seen as objects and not equal to man? Isnt the animal rights movement about rights and equality?

I've got no problem with Peta, even though some of them are clearly bonkers.

However extreme they are, it doesn't even come close to the extreme cruelty inflicted on animals on a daily basis

[Darkon84]

I've got no problem with Peta, even though some of them are clearly bonkers.

However extreme they are, it doesn't even come close to the extreme cruelty inflicted on animals on a daily basis

Even the burning down of fast food restaurants etc? Destruction of property and putting lives at risk? Scaremongering and propaganda? Objectifying women and sexism? (I know not all of them are idiots and burn places down etc, but it doesnt really do them any favours )

I have said all along that I DO think things need to be done about the way SOME farms are run etc, but they way they go about it is not exactly the best way to do it. There really is an issue, but lets not forget that not all farms etc are run by tyrants hell bent on causing suffering to animals

[Charl91]

So should we stop animals eating other animals then? Should we be trying to make every animal vegetarian? o.O

[OzFox]

Even the burning down of fast food restaurants etc? Destruction of property and putting lives at risk? Scaremongering and propaganda? Objectifying women and sexism? (I know not all of them are idiots and burn places down etc, but it doesnt really do them any favours )

I have said all along that I DO think things need to be done about the way SOME farms are run etc, but they way they go about it is not exactly the best way to do it. There really is an issue, but lets not forget that not all farms etc are run by tyrants hell bent on causing suffering to animals

I think their philosophy is that extreme acts of cruelty to animals warrants extreme actions on their part. Fair enough. At least they're entertaining

[marty78]

I'd like to touch on previous points regarding pets, what are we going to do with the domesticated animals?

Can we realistically make cats and dogs, the most common pets, fight for life in the wild and fend for themselves?

Is it even possible to make these animals become undomesticated without them becoming extinct?

What about wild animals facing extinction, do we have the right to interfere with nature and take these animals into captivity to help them breed and continue existing?

On a separate note what about Human parasites that cause no real medical harm but we currently kill. Do we have the right to destroy head lice for example?

[OzFox]

I'd like to touch on previous points regarding pets, what are we going to do with the domesticated animals?

Can we realistically make cats and dogs, the most common pets, fight for life in the wild and fend for themselves?

Is it even possible to make these animals become undomesticated without them becoming extinct?

Cats and dogs are good survivors. Feral cats in particular have done so well here in Australia they are wiping out some native animals

What about wild animals facing extinction, do we have the right to interfere with nature and take these animals into captivity to help them breed and continue existing?

It's mostly us making them extinct in the first place. In an ideal world, we should try and stop that. If it came to it, they're better off extinct than miserable in a zoo in my opinion. Re-release into the wild isn't possible in many cases because we are destroying the habitat they live in.

On a separate note what about Human parasites that cause no real medical harm but we currently kill. Do we have the right to destroy head lice for example?

You've gotta draw the line somewhere

[marty78]

Cats and dogs are good survivors. Feral cats in particular have done so well here in Australia they are wiping out some native animals

It's mostly us making them extinct in the first place. In an ideal world, we should try and stop that. If it came to it, they're better off extinct than miserable in a zoo in my opinion. Re-release into the wild isn't possible in many cases because we are destroying the habitat they live in.

You've gotta draw the line somewhere

I think some dogs in particular would struggle to live in the wild, admittedly because of how we have bred them to have a different shaped faces, shorter legs or to fit into handbags.

The head lice example is still killing innocent creatures but for the purpose of our personal comfort and our vanity rather than for food. Is it any better?

[Darkon84]

A recent study by Loughborough University has found that carnivorous plants in bogs in Sweden are eating less insects to gain the required level of nitrogen in their diet. Instead, they are getting it from increased levels in the ground. The Nitrogen levels in the ground have risen because of greater air pollution, and so the chemicals fall with the rain and filter down.

Is this a good thing because they are eating less 'carcass'? Or is it a bad thing because man is forcing change upon them?

Scientists studying carnivorous sundew plants in Swedish bogs found that nitrogen deposition from rain reduced how many insects the plants trapped.

Pollution from transport and industry causes nitrogen-rich rain, meaning more reaches the ground in some areas.

"If there's plenty of nitrogen available to their roots, they don't eat as much" says Dr Jonathan Millett.

Dr Millett from Loughborough University led the study, which was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and is being published in the New Phytologist journal.

The findings are based on tests on the round-leaved sundew plant, drosera rotundifolia. By measuring the amount of nitrogen of insect origin and comparing it to the amount taken up by the plant's roots, scientists could examine the proportions of each taken by plants in different locations.

They found that plants living in lightly polluted areas got 57% of their nitrogen from their prey. In more heavily polluted areas that figure dropped to between 20% and 30%.

Continue reading the main story

Efficient killers

But the species as a whole is not thought to be benefitting from this alternative source of nutrition. In fact, the discovery could prove to be bad news for the sundew in the longer term.

"Basically, it's like adding more fertiliser," said Dr Millett.

"For an individual sundew it looks like its better. They're bigger and they'll probably be fitter and do better, but the problem is that they have to divert resources into being carnivorous."

Carnivorous plants actually benefit from nutrient-poor environments, because they have less competition from other plants.

Their animal-digesting abilities seem to have evolved as a way to survive in these habitats, and the plants need a great deal of energy to "run" the complicated traps they use to capture and digest their prey.

If other plants move in as nitrogen levels in the soil increase, these predatory mechanisms could prove more of a hindrance than a help.

"When there's more nitrogen available... the non-carnivorous plants can 'out-compete' them," says Millett.

"You might get some local extinctions at very high levels of nitrogen deposition."

Sensitive carnivores

The outlook for the future of carnivorous plants, more generally, seems bleak, although they are not as thoroughly researched as other, easier-to-study plant groups.

"People kind of suspected that carnivorous plants would be susceptible to pollution, because they tend to be quite sensitive to changes in their environment," says Dr David Jennings from the University of Maryland, who completed a study on the conservation threat to carnivorous plants last year.

"They don't really have very well-developed root systems, so any changes there can cause a lot of harm," he says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18416601

Told you I was being argumentative

[marty78]

A recent study by Loughborough University has found that carnivorous plants in bogs in Sweden are eating less insects to gain the required level of nitrogen in their diet. Instead, they are getting it from increased levels in the ground. The Nitrogen levels in the ground have risen because of greater air pollution, and so the chemicals fall with the rain and filter down.

Is this a good thing because they are eating less 'carcass'? Or is it a bad thing because man is forcing change upon them?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18416601

Told you I was being argumentative

"But the species as a whole is not thought to be benefitting from this alternative source of nutrition. In fact, the discovery could prove to be bad news for the sundew in the longer term."

Plus Oz has stated that he has no problem with Animals eating meat for survival and I'd assume that would also be the case for plants.

No, I have not changed sides by the way.

[Darkon84]

"But the species as a whole is not thought to be benefitting from this alternative source of nutrition. In fact, the discovery could prove to be bad news for the sundew in the longer term."

Plus Oz has stated that he has no problem with Animals eating meat for survival and I'd assume that would also be the case for plants.

No, I have not changed sides by the way.

You sure you've not changed sides? Just joking.

I knew that article was a bit weak to use in terms of an argument, and was just using it as a poor form of stirring it up a little, but its still an interesting read.

[marty78]

Are plants sentient? Not a new question but we know they react to their environments.

Can they feel pain? Can we be sure they don't and if they do is that better or worse than animals feeling pain?

Are we any more justified cutting plants up for food than we are animals?

http://en.wikipedia....on_(physiology)

http://www.environme...e-flora?image=1

http://www.environme...sentient-plants