Animal rights

[ozleicester]

I will ask my question again from the grind my gears thread. Would you support a mass cull of cattle and other tasty animals in exchange for the world going veggie?

No, hilarious as that concept is... i wouldnt expect an overnight ban would ever be introduced

I support people thinking about their unnecessary eating of innocent creatures and i believe their intellectual evolution leads them to stop doing it. This of course make take quite some time, during which farmers will decrease their reliance on animals and replace them with crops.

Animals should be slaughtered in a humane way that doesn't cause suffering or as little as possible but that's about as far I go for animal rights.

The human race hasn't worked it way towards the top of the food chain to sit there eating a salad, those teeth as the back of your mouth haven't come about for you to eat peas. I have no idea how anyone can even be a vegetarian, meat is the finest food on the planet.

What about people who can't afford not to kill animals for food?

Excluding euthanasia, there is no "humane" way to kill the innocent, If you can find a Humane way to kill your mother without her approval, let me know.

The teeth at the back of your mouth have evolved to their current form from eating plants and nuts, they are teeth "designed" for grinding and chewing,

Vegetables are easily grown and harvested, cost is not an issue.

Funny that people are showing Oz pics of meat as if he doesn't know what meat looks like ?

I think im supposed to be either horrified or amused by pictures of carcass in various states of burning, I have been a meat eater for three quarters of my life and having lived in Oz for a good portion of that ive seen more than my fair share of various sized lumps of flesh on barbecues etc. Evolution by its very nature is a long process.

By the way... I just heard that Korea is now not going to hunt for whales.. good on them... apart from the names we give them fish/mamals... why is it OK to kill fish and not whales?

Edit; and by the way.. I assume that the folks who are sharing the delightful pictures might enjoy the pics here also ... warning GRAPHIC pictures http://www.environme...mane-death-myth

Edited 13 July 2012 by ozleicester

[ozleicester]

I'm vegetarian but put simply it's because I feel I can live a healthy life without eating meat. So I don't.

Not much more to it than that

Cool, to each his own.

I stopped eating meat based purely on the animal cruelty issues, i dont believe i have the right to take another sentient beings life...for my pleasure.

[Finnegan]

From the Grinds my Gears thread, since you avoided answering.

You are simply wrong, im not on a high horse or standing in judgement of you as a person...your statements are irrational and wrong.

Animals do not need to die for us to survive, you know this to be true even if you choose to deny it.

You example the burning of witches and slavery and say we have matured... but then cannot see that same maturation is required in respect to animals.

I've met some people, who, to this day will tell you that people of other races are lower on the food chain than they are and its reasonable for them to be treated as such... as its simply part of nature.

In terms of damage to the environment, the raising of livestock is one of the major causes of CO2 emissions and if we were to reduce meat production we would see an immediate and significant change to the environment for the better... and again re the positive effects of growing more vegetables etc, is so incredibly easy to see the positives that i can only assume you are either on the wind up.. or amazingly stupid.

Quote from Time

"The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions"

Read more:

http://www.time.com/...l#ixzz20CDqClSQ

im assuming from this point on that you are just trying a wind up as your statements are contradictory and plainly stupid.

edit - leaving the discussion of this to another thread..as this is for what grinds gears

Let's skip by all the unnecessary chest-thumping and personal attacks about intelligence and rationality because, ultimately, you're just going to make yourself look silly.

For a start, I'd direct you towards Shrappers' and Raw Dykes' comments about the livestock we've spent centuries breeding were we to come to some epiphany that our past deeds were immoral and swear off meat. What happens to this livestock? It certainly continues to produce greenhouse gasses, that's for sure, even more so if they're no longer destroyed "early."

And how exactly do we mass-produce enough food to sustain the planet's population without killing local natural populations and ecosystems? You've completely ignored the points about natural landscapes being decimated by grain and vegetable farmland or the impact human natural foraging would have on herbivorous food chains. I imagine you've also not considered what domesticated dogs, cats, reptiles, mustelidae and other meat-eating pets would consume were we to cease all meat production?

And I assume there's no wood in or piecing together your home given the impact of deforestation not only on the environment in the broadest sense but also given the birds, mammals, insects, arachnids, invertebrates, etc, that are all de-homed and - ultimately - destroyed by man's need for lumber.

Moreover, I'd have to further assume that you live in a naturally wooded area, cloth yourself in leaves and stripped bark and use no factory-built product that was produced on land that was once the natural habitat of some poor creature or two?

Animals need to die for us to survive every, single, day and the only way we could avoid that would be to live entirely "naturally" ourselves, revert to being pre-historic humans who dwelt in caves, huddled together for warmth and... oh... hunted for meat...

... shit...

[ozleicester]

From the Grinds my Gears thread, since you avoided answering.

Let's skip by all the unnecessary chest-thumping and personal attacks about intelligence and rationality because, ultimately, you're just going to make yourself look silly.

For a start, I'd direct you towards Shrappers' and Raw Dykes' comments about the livestock we've spent centuries breeding were we to come to some epiphany that our past deeds were immoral and swear off meat. What happens to this livestock? It certainly continues to produce greenhouse gasses, that's for sure, even more so if they're no longer destroyed "early."

And how exactly do we mass-produce enough food to sustain the planet's population without killing local natural populations and ecosystems? You've completely ignored the points about natural landscapes being decimated by grain and vegetable farmland or the impact human natural foraging would have on herbivorous food chains. I imagine you've also not considered what domesticated dogs, cats, reptiles, mustelidae and other meat-eating pets would consume were we to cease all meat production?

And I assume there's no wood in or piecing together your home given the impact of deforestation not only on the environment in the broadest sense but also given the birds, mammals, insects, arachnids, invertebrates, etc, that are all de-homed and - ultimately - destroyed by man's need for lumber.

Moreover, I'd have to further assume that you live in a naturally wooded area, cloth yourself in leaves and stripped bark and use no factory-built product that was produced on land that was once the natural habitat of some poor creature or two?

Animals need to die for us to survive every, single, day and the only way we could avoid that would be to live entirely "naturally" ourselves, revert to being pre-historic humans who dwelt in caves, huddled together for warmth and... oh... hunted for meat...

... shit...

sigh..ok, ill go slowly.

re livestock - Asked and Answered - see above

the earths land is being completely devastated by Livestock farming, for a simple example 1 acre can yield 20,000 lbs of potatos, or 165 lbs of beef. Add to that the incredible damage being caused by the excessive co2 from animal farming. Even the most ardent supporter of the meat industry must admit it is a more damaging industry to suggest otherwise just provides evidence of ignorance.

Most current grain farming is in place TO FEED ANIMALS, remove the animals, the land is returned to the growing of more useful vegetables.

Indeed i do have concerns for the creatures that are displaced or harmed by my life and i do try to do what i can to avoid causing further harm. One step at a time i guess. mind you if i can exist without causing harm.. i try to do so... for example, I dont eat animals.

Indeed some animals will die as we go about our life, however we can choose whether they die purely for our enjoyment and as we evolve we can minimise that suffering.

edit - a page that explains quite a lot... http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/101.html

Edited 13 July 2012 by ozleicester

[Zingari]

Hi Oz

It’s often said that vegan diets in the very young can be quite dangerous and lack enough protein and some vitamins. Is it worth the risk ?

Quite a lot of the farm fertilizers come from the manure and slurry of farm animals, and it’s a natural cycle .

Do we really want more chemically enriched foods?

What about wholesale relocation and force feeding veggie diets to populations such as Inuit ?

Wouldn’t the long term answer be global population control so that calories and foodstuff per acre is

less relevant ?

edit;

sorry but i've not watched the films yet

Edited 13 July 2012 by Zingari

[Captain...]

Most current grain farming is in place TO FEED ANIMALS, remove the animals, the land is returned to the growing of more useful vegetables.

How exactly do you remove the animals without killing them? You can't let them free and be wild certainly not in this country, they would breed unchecked numbers would increase and do even more damage, and destroy the crops we grow to replace them.

If it was a gradual process all that would happen is that the price of meat would drop due to a fall in demand so those still eating meat would then be able to eat more. If it was cheap enough I would have steak everyday.

You could go the other route and encourage the government to stop subsidising framers, drivingp the price of meat up to accurately reflect the cost of eating meat, so a steal or a chicken would cost the same as a weeks worth of veggies. But all this would do is drive down demand and farmers would kill unwanted calves and lambs at birth, as it would not be profitable to raise them.

Like I said there is no way to turn the world veggie without a cull of one way or another.

Ultimately, in theory I agree with you, we shouldn't treat animals the way we do, we should find a way to live in harmony with our natural world and not destroy it or enslave it, unfortunately years of doing so has left the natural world dependent on us to maintain the status quo. We destroyed the predators to protect the farm animals but now we need to destroy them too to maintain the balance. We have set about modifying vast swathes of land to provide food for us, and without our care and attention this land would become useless. Is that right? No, but it was all done in the name of progress and dominance, which we now all benefit from. The problem is it is only going to get worse as the planet over populates and the demand and need for resources increases. Ultimately what it will come down to is a stand off between a hungry man and a docile cow, that cow will lose every time, but don't believe for one minute that if the roles were reversed that cow wouldn't take you down in an instant if it could.

[Dr The Singh]

Everything in moderation is a OK!!

[ozleicester]

Hi Oz

It’s often said that vegan diets in the very young can be quite dangerous and lack enough protein and some vitamins. Is it worth the risk ?

I dont profess to know the ins and outs completely, i do know that a well balanced Vegan diet that includes nuts, tofu etc. certainly can provide all of the vitamins needed, and protein is available from myriad sources other than meat. Keep in mind that our current crop of youngsters are the most unhealthy for a few generations, so im confident a balanced Vegan diet is better than most are getting. Also... cows milk is a very unhealthy option for the young, and yet we force feed it to them. Not to mention the chickens and eggs that never see the light of day, are pumped full of antibiotics and hormones and land on our childrens plates.

Quite a lot of the farm fertilizers come from the manure and slurry of farm animals, and it’s a natural cycle .

True, and lets be honest, does anyone think this is a good idea...not to mention that many livestock are being fed a mixture of other animals...see mad cow etc. But it is certainly not a natural cycle and not necessary, natural fertiliser would be and is available.

Do we really want more chemically enriched foods? No, (well i assume not, but then some people seem to eat pretty much anything now...so the greater "we" may actually love it?) but if we increase the amount of crops...we can increase the resultant fertiliser.

What about wholesale relocation and force feeding veggie diets to populations such as Inuit ?

This is certainly a difficult area, and again i dont have all the answers, I wouldnt agree with relocation, but im sure if we were to progress and evolve we could discover ways of providing for these people. (and to be honest they are the least of our concerns i think...as they are not farming and distorting animals, they simply fish as needed)

Wouldn’t the long term answer be global population control so that calories and foodstuff per acre is

less relevant ?

There is enough food and arable land to feed the world, you are probably correct to suggest that there is overpopulation, but the fact that 30% of the UK is Obese while there are people starving in other parts of the world also suggests we have enough food to feed everyone...and with the greater productivity of land used for Veggies than livestock..we would have abundant.

edit;

sorry but i've not watched the films yet

Just be careful with "earthlings" it isnt pleasant.

[ozleicester]

How exactly do you remove the animals without killing them? You can't let them free and be wild certainly not in this country, they would breed unchecked numbers would increase and do even more damage, and destroy the crops we grow to replace them.

A gradual reduction in meat eating will reduce their numbers naturally and in truth if left to run free they would breed at a slower rate than currently

If it was a gradual process all that would happen is that the price of meat would drop due to a fall in demand so those still eating meat would then be able to eat more. If it was cheap enough I would have steak everyday.

Supply and demand works differently to that, as the demand dwindles, so to does the supply as farmers move to a more profitable form of farming, bear in mind it take a lot more investment to breed and farm animals than vegetables but at the moment the returns are much higher.

You could go the other route and encourage the government to stop subsidising framers, drivingp the price of meat up to accurately reflect the cost of eating meat, so a steal or a chicken would cost the same as a weeks worth of veggies. But all this would do is drive down demand and farmers would kill unwanted calves and lambs at birth, as it would not be profitable to raise them. Sounds a good plan, in fact the farmers would stop breeding the calves and lambs.

Like I said there is no way to turn the world veggie without a cull of one way or another. It will take time, its not a on/off situation slowly the need for and therefore the production of livestock for meat will dwindle.

Ultimately, in theory I agree with you, we shouldn't treat animals the way we do, we should find a way to live in harmony with our natural world and not destroy it or enslave it, unfortunately years of doing so has left the natural world dependent on us to maintain the status quo. We destroyed the predators to protect the farm animals but now we need to destroy them too to maintain the balance. We have set about modifying vast swathes of land to provide food for us, and without our care and attention this land would become useless. Is that right? No, but it was all done in the name of progress and dominance, which we now all benefit from. The problem is it is only going to get worse as the planet over populates and the demand and need for resources increases. Ultimately what it will come down to is a stand off between a hungry man and a docile cow, that cow will lose every time, but don't believe for one minute that if the roles were reversed that cow wouldn't take you down in an instant if it could.

Just because weve always done it, doesnt mean we always should. and regars the cows... be prepared , if you havent seen it before...you will enjoy this video

[FoxyPV]

If people want to eat meat, fair fvcks to them but we eat too much of it culturally.

In theory killing animals in a quick, pain free (as much as it can be pain free) manner would be preferable but given the size of the industry it's unlikely to happen.

Re: vegans - there is a lack of b12 in the diet but everything else can be made up for through beans, pulses and veg. It all depends on the cooking skills of the parents(as with all kids) as to what they eat.

Personally I don't how people could give up eggs, milk and cheese.

Ironically, at the moment, one of the major causes of deforestation is to grow soya crops to feed the west's hunger for bio fuels and meat free alternatives.

[Captain...]

Liked the video but disagree with your economic analysis, because the process of breeding animals is a long term one, any fluctuations in demand will be ridden out because the breeding program for the next 5 years is already in place, demand will be boosted by further marketing campaigns and price drops, it would take a concerted effort from the very top, and a global effort, because any drop in demand in the UK will be made up by flogging it cheap to other countries, or the government will subsidise local farmers further so the impact is mainly felt on the imported meat.

My point wasn't that we have always done it so we always should, my point was that right now the eco-system is dependant on humans to maintain its balance, because of what we have done to it, and part of that balance is in control of animal populations. Take Sweden for example, where they need to hunt and kill moose to stop the population getting out of control, because all the wolves and other moose predators were driven out. The same would happen here with cows. Or if you released all the fat chickens into the wild you would see a boom in the fox populations, which again could require a cull of foxes.

I guess the question is what would you prefer, a non meat eating world with enforced culls of animals to control the populations and their carcasses burnt, or a meat eating world where all animals killed are consumed and not wasted (and farming practices are improved).

[Rincewind]

I would rather eat meat from a dead animal than one that is alive.

[ozleicester]

Liked the video but disagree with your economic analysis, because the process of breeding animals is a long term one, any fluctuations in demand will be ridden out because the breeding program for the next 5 years is already in place, demand will be boosted by further marketing campaigns and price drops, it would take a concerted effort from the very top, and a global effort, because any drop in demand in the UK will be made up by flogging it cheap to other countries, or the government will subsidise local farmers further so the impact is mainly felt on the imported meat.

My point wasn't that we have always done it so we always should, my point was that right now the eco-system is dependant on humans to maintain its balance, because of what we have done to it, and part of that balance is in control of animal populations. Take Sweden for example, where they need to hunt and kill moose to stop the population getting out of control, because all the wolves and other moose predators were driven out. The same would happen here with cows. Or if you released all the fat chickens into the wild you would see a boom in the fox populations, which again could require a cull of foxes.

I guess the question is what would you prefer, a non meat eating world with enforced culls of animals to control the populations and their carcasses burnt, or a meat eating world where all animals killed are consumed and not wasted (and farming practices are improved).

I think i may not be making myself clear about my concept of it being long term, by long term im talking a generation or more.

Also im talking about people deciding to stop eating it.. rather than having it forced upon them.... people evolving and making the choice.

Ideally there would be no cull or mass release as the reduction has taken place slowly. There would be the risk of overpopulation of some creatures but by sensible management this could easily be avoided.

[Guest]

Oz, you argue your case well and politely other than stating that non-meat eaters are more evolved human beings. I like the cut of your jib, even though I will continue to eat meat in moderation.

[Captain...]

I think i may not be making myself clear about my concept of it being long term, by long term im talking a generation or more.

Also im talking about people deciding to stop eating it.. rather than having it forced upon them.... people evolving and making the choice.

Ideally there would be no cull or mass release as the reduction has taken place slowly. There would be the risk of overpopulation of some creatures but by sensible management this could easily be avoided.

By sensible management you mean a cull?

That is what I am getting at, of course we could gradually phase out meat eating, but it will still mean animals will get culled because we need to use that space to grow crops/veggies to feed people. Without a cull the animals will live on the land until they die naturally.

The question is, would you be happy with a cull of animals to facilitate a meat free world? Or would you prefer we destroyed more forest land to provide the space for the animals or to grow the extra crops needed?

[Rincewind]

Butchers will be put out of business.

'Would you like your celary with the grissle on madam?'

'Would you like your carrot minced sir?

McDonalds belly busting lettuce burger.

[Guest]

By sensible management you mean a cull?

That is what I am getting at, of course we could gradually phase out meat eating, but it will still mean animals will get culled because we need to use that space to grow crops/veggies to feed people. Without a cull the animals will live on the land until they die naturally.

The question is, would you be happy with a cull of animals to facilitate a meat free world? Or would you prefer we destroyed more forest land to provide the space for the animals or to grow the extra crops needed?

He's not talking about a cull at all. Stop "flogging a dead horse" so to speak. It doesn't take long to reduce an animal species that you forcibly breed simply by restricting breeding.

[MPH]

"Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself."

- George Orwell,

"FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD"

Well thats a load of codswallop..

What does a fox produce? Or over here in the states... what does a possum produce? or a racoon? They all eat meat and give nothing back. Its called being part of the food chain. and you know what? None of them have any regulations on how to kill an animal decently or properly... although respect to the Possum - it goes directly for the chickens head..

Just because someone wrote a couple of decent books doesnt make them an expert on anything else..

[Captain...]

He's not talking about a cull at all. Stop "flogging a dead horse" so to speak. It doesn't take long to reduce an animal species that you forcibly breed simply by restricting breeding.

I would never flog a dead horse, that would be cruel, dead animals have rights too.

If you are not going to kill animals, how are you going to manage it, no farmer is going to maintain the capacity to produce say 100 cows, and not fulfil that capacity, if demand drops so much it is not profitable to maintain the capacity for 100, he will reduce his capacity to say 50, turn the freed up land into crop land, and kill 50 of his current herd. I don't think you can allow cattle to go wild in the UK, you will either be condemning them to a slow and painful death, or they will destroy the balance of the eco system. I promise you that by decreasing demand for meat a lot of animals will die, they will die anyway, but at least they will provide food rather than just be killed and left to rot/incinerated.

You may not believe me, so just humour me for a few minutes, these are your 2 options, better regulations on the farming industry improved conditions and treatment of animals, but people still eat meat, or a meat free world where populations of pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys etc are all controlled by hunting and culling where populations get too big. (or foxes and other predators as mentioned before).

That is mainly aimed at Oz but anyone else can answer.

[Zingari]

Oz, you argue your case well and politely other than stating that non-meat eaters are more evolved human beings. I like the cut of your jib, even though I will continue to eat meat in moderation.

I agree with this

In fact it seems most of you ozzies and ex pats from around the world are more polite and willing to discuss without the need for insults .

Presumably you all left the UK before it became JK (Jeremy Kyle land ) or do you just live more pleasant lives and this is reflected in your attitudes ?

[Christoph]

[Captain...]

I agree with this

In fact it seems most of you ozzies and ex pats from around the world are more polite and willing to discuss without the need for insults .

Presumably you all left the UK before it became JK (Jeremy Kyle land ) or do you just live more pleasant lives and this is reflected in your attitudes ?

Does meat eating extend to ass licking?

Just kidding, love you all.

[Zingari]

Does meat eating extend to ass licking?

Just kidding, love you all.

Was I that obvious ?

[ozleicester]

Does meat eating extend to ass licking?

Just kidding, love you all.

Was I that obvious ?

Everyone knows the best meat is on the rump

Thanks for the kind words.. and the interesting discussion, i will have a look and respond over the weekend

[ozleicester]

Bugger it, ill respond now.. what better way to spend a friday night ... (my vegetarian ways dont leave me enough energy to go out at night )

Oz, you argue your case well and politely other than stating that non-meat eaters are more evolved human beings. I like the cut of your jib, even though I will continue to eat meat in moderation.

I recognise that the evolved statement could be considered offensive, and i dont wish to offend, but i also believe that in the same way the average non racist is more evolved than our EDL type englanders...i think that those who recognise that animals are sentient beings who we do not have the right to kill for our pleasure are more evolved.

By sensible management you mean a cull?

That is what I am getting at, of course we could gradually phase out meat eating, but it will still mean animals will get culled because we need to use that space to grow crops/veggies to feed people. Without a cull the animals will live on the land until they die naturally.

The question is, would you be happy with a cull of animals to facilitate a meat free world? Or would you prefer we destroyed more forest land to provide the space for the animals or to grow the extra crops needed?

No, by management i mean managing..including steralising if required. I will be clear that i do not support culling.

Butchers will be put out of business.

'Would you like your celary with the grissle on madam?'

'Would you like your carrot minced sir?

McDonalds belly busting lettuce burger.

Ah yes, but Theres a fortune to be made in greengrocery... get in early

I would never flog a dead horse, that would be cruel, dead animals have rights too.

If you are not going to kill animals, how are you going to manage it, no farmer is going to maintain the capacity to produce say 100 cows, and not fulfil that capacity, if demand drops so much it is not profitable to maintain the capacity for 100, he will reduce his capacity to say 50, turn the freed up land into crop land, and kill 50 of his current herd. I don't think you can allow cattle to go wild in the UK, you will either be condemning them to a slow and painful death, or they will destroy the balance of the eco system. I promise you that by decreasing demand for meat a lot of animals will die, they will die anyway, but at least they will provide food rather than just be killed and left to rot/incinerated.

You may not believe me, so just humour me for a few minutes, these are your 2 options, better regulations on the farming industry improved conditions and treatment of animals, but people still eat meat, or a meat free world where populations of pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys etc are all controlled by hunting and culling where populations get too big. (or foxes and other predators as mentioned before).

That is mainly aimed at Oz but anyone else can answer.

I prefer a world where we dont treat animals as something for our abuse and pleasure... i think there are more options than just the two you suggest