Vegetarianism

[Matt]

Quote by: Sappho I see I shall need to qualify myself every time I am responded to. It seems that my belief in ethical food consumption irrespective of whether you are an omnivor or herbavor is being ignored.

How is it being ignored? Simply because you do not like my responses doesn't mean it is being ignored. You eat more ethically then most omnivours, I'll give you that.

There are many kinds of suffering, some worse than others. But that some are worse than others does not or at least should not devalue lesser sufferings. We should act to reduce all suffering where we have the power to do so.

So the apple is suffering in the grocery bag? Trying to focus on reducing all suffering is a lofty task, and is practically impossible then anything other then in a dream world. Meat production causes the most un-needed suffering out of all food production, therefore we should put our attention to fixing that problem first. You preach about this, but you haven't even done the first big step, cutting out meat from your diet.

Last time I checked then, grazing animals ate grass in fields. They have the stomach for it you see. I have never seen, however, a grazing animal in the wild pursue grains. Have you? No! Of course you haven't. It's not natural. So where it is that I say, animals have a right to life quality, an example of that would be cattle being allowed to be cattle, grazing grass and herding as is their want. I do not support the use of grain feeding in animal populations as it is not their diet. It times of drought, which Australia seems to spend most of her time within, hay is a better option than grains. Cattle don't need to eat grain. They are not designed to eat grain. That we have cattle eating grain is cause for concern, just as many techniques to havest vegitation is cause for concern.

But most cattle do eat grain. You are focussing on a very small portion of the cattle industry, non-factory farm cattle. Most people in developed countries get their meat from factory farms.

I have already pointed out that I am an active ethical eater. I only eat meat that has been left to graze grass, herd with their kind, shelter in shade trees scattered abouts.

Though your 'ethical' eating takes alot of energy to make. Field feeds cattle which feeds you. But it could be that the field could directly feed you. That is more ethical eating, since it takes less energy, let alone having to cause an animal to die before their time.

I consume very little mass produced foods. Cocoa, coffee and tea products are my weakness, however.

Good for you.

If we were more ethical in our meat production, human grain consumption would not be impacted as the cattle, sheep and pigs would not eat grains. Sure there would be less meat to eat, by producing ethically, but what of it. People eat too much meat and the by products already.

Two reasons that is a faulty statement: A) Most livestock are being fed grains, and only in a dream world would they not be B) You're missing my point, if the livestock still need hay from fields, it is taking away food that could be going to humans, because those fields could have been planted with something we consume. Furthermore, land is being used up for livestock when we could get food direct from it.

There are three main grains that present staples for humans. Rice, Corn and Wheat. Wheat is not an issue, assuming you have the right location and soil quality. Rice contributes about 17% of the global methane output. That is significant and would rise astronimically if we all converted to vegitarianism.

It is 'vegetarianism'. Sorry, one of my pet peeves.

But if we went to a vegetarian lifestyle, all the methane from livestock would dissapear, which would be huge. Furthermore, rice and other plant products are needed for people to live, meat however is not.

With regard to corn...

So? We would be having those problems if we were vegetarian or not, since we would still eat corn. But we wouldn't be having these problems if we became vegetarian:

It is believed by most scientists that the disease may be transmitted to human beings who eat the brain or spinal cord of infected carcasses. In humans, it is known as new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD or nvCJD), and by April 2008, it had killed 163 people in Britain, and 37 elsewhere with the number expected to rise because of the disease's long incubation period. Between 460,000 and 482,000 BSE-infected animals had entered the human food chain before controls on high-risk offal were introduced in 1989. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is more still to the problems faced with food production. Take Equador as an example. And whilst it is that animal husbandry is to blame, so to is agriculture to blame for this deminishing availabiltiy of land.

Doesn't follow. Agriculture is needed, meat production is not. Meat production is like "Dad, can I have my a new iPod, I really want it." It is a want, not a need in developed countries. Therefore it should be eliminated sinxe it causes un-needed cruelty, enviromental damage, and starvation.

Like the United Nations states:

A 2006 United Nations report summarized the devastation caused by the meat industry by calling it "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." GoVeg.com // Meat and the Environment

Lets have a look at Australia unethical approaches to agriculture. As an asside, the Murray/Darling has become so bad now, that the Federal Govt has taken over its management and is buying back water allotments from farmers in the region because, as pointed out above, the river 'is boing turned into a polluted drain with salts from ajacent irrigation areas. Irrigation is used for crops and not animals.

Crops are needed, meat production is not though. You keep blaming crop production, but if it didn't happen, you'd be dead right now. On the other hand, I keep blaming the meat industry, and if no more meat was produced, I'd be fine. Meat is a un-needed want in the developed world, but crop production is a need.

Some info to mull over:

According to the nonprofit group Greenpeace, all the wild animals and trees in more than 2.9 million acres of rainforest were destroyed in the 2004-2005 crop season in order to grow crops that are used to feed chickens and other animals in factory farms. GoVeg.com // Meat and the Environment // Wasted Resources // Rainforest

It is hugely inefficient to feed crops to farmed animals instead of eating the crops ourselves; it takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of animal flesh.4 If we simply ate soy and other plant foods ourselves instead of feeding them to farmed animals, we would not need to raise nearly as much crops and we could eliminate the need to decimate the rainforest. On top of all that, by eating only plant foods instead of animal flesh, we would have enough food to feed every person in the world, making an enormous impact in the struggle against world hunger. GoVeg.com // Meat and the Environment // Wasted Resources // Rainforest

[Matt]

My final example is a global one.

Yes, of course. We are a growing population, therefore we will need more food. But to limit the amount of land we use, we can simply change to a vegetarian diet, so none of that land has to go to un-needed practices.

Vast tracts of land are needed to grow crops to feed the billions of animals we raise for food each year. According to scientists at the Smithsonian Institute, the equivalent of seven football fields of land is bulldozed every minute, much of it to create more room for farmed animals. Of all the agricultural land in the U.S., nearly 80 percent is used in some way to raise animals—that's roughly half of the total land mass of the U.S. More than 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to create cropland to grow grain to feed farmed animals. Livestock grazing is the number one cause of threatened and extinct species both in the United States and in other parts of the world. Philip Fradkin, of the National Audubon Society, states, "The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and subdivision developments combined." GoVeg.com // Meat and the Environment // Wasted Resources

And just a note, yes, alot of the info comes from bias sites, but that doesn't change the facts or the studies or quotes which they mention.

Quote by: Sappho (My post was too long... so this is part two.) In summary then Matt, where you say... "If all the energy and land being used for meat production shifted to crops, no one would be starving.", you are being extremely niave and simplistic.

Actually, I'm not.

On top of all that, by eating only plant foods instead of animal flesh, we would have enough food to feed every person in the world, making an enormous impact in the struggle against world hunger. GoVeg.com // Meat and the Environment // Wasted Resources // Rainforest

Many factors are impacing upon agriculture due to the unethical food production practices entailed. Being vegitarian, does not exclude you from your part in the unethical consumption of food. Indeed, you seem to be promoting it through simplistic, feel good, catch cries.

Of course being vegetarian doesn't end all the unethical practices. But it is a huge step in the right direction.

Matt if you really care about living things, then your eating would be sourced from ethical alturnatives which are out there. You would avoid the supermarket and seek to form co-opperatives to purchase directly from the farmer for example, or, you would purchase that old fashion food now called 'organics', or, you would lobby tirelessly for ethical food production, and, you would not eat vegitation out of season.

Not everyone has access to that type of food, neither does everyone have a bank account for it You are simply doing 'the pot calling the kettle black'. By eating meat, you are causing, like the National Audobon Society agrees with me, horrible damage.

However, having read you here, all I get is... 'meat bad, vegitation good'. Well, that's wowserism Matt. In reality, meat is good if got from an ethical producer who values life quality and reducing suffering. In reality, vegitation is bad where it is that the growers persue additatives which are known for their detrimental environmental effects, producing food that has reduced nutritional value.

I have showed you and others how meat is a health concern, causes starvation, causes cruelty, and causes enviromental damage. Sure, vegetation may do that to, but not the same extent and it is needed, unlike meat.

And most meat isn't gotten from an ethical producer, people get it from factory farms because it is cheaper. Unless you can change the costs of meat, that wont change.

To sum it all up, meat is an un-needed contributer to enviromental damage, starvation, and cruelty.

[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary links to non-vegetarian, preferably government or professional organization sites for these?

Why should I have to link stuff while you always come up with excuses so you don't have to?

I'm just saying most doctors I've heard about or talked to don't seem to be well educated on the topic, that's all.

[Gods_Mercenary]

As you are the one asserting that medical proffessionals are not as informed as you in an area concerning their profession, I thought that you had a damned good reason for thinking so, given that they have been extensively schooled in human physiology.

[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary As you are the one asserting that medical proffessionals are not as informed as you in an area concerning their profession, I thought that you had a damned good reason for thinking so, given that they have been extensively schooled in human physiology.

Their profession does not indicate they are well schooled in vegetarianism. Also, you can say all you want that they say that a well executed omnivour diet is healthy, but you have no proof or quotes to back up your statement. Therefore, it is worthless.

[nerdvincent]

I did it! I finally adopted a vegetarian diet. Started 3 days ago, going well. Slight withdrawal symptoms, but it's just like cigarette: it is for the better. I'm a bit tired, unfocussed, nervous...but I take it as a detox.
Yummy spinash looking at me...-_-'.

[Matt]

Quote by: nerdvincent I did it! I finally adopted a vegetarian diet. Started 3 days ago, going well. Slight withdrawal symptoms, but it's just like cigarette: it is for the better. I'm a bit tired, unfocussed, nervous...but I take it as a detox. Yummy spinash looking at me...-_-'.

That's great. Congrats :)

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'd have to spend way to much money on protein supplements if I wanted to keep lifting weights, it's expensive enough as it is.

[kharvel]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I'd have to spend way to much money on protein supplements if I wanted to keep lifting weights, it's expensive enough as it is.

Talk to Tony Gonzalez, the wide receiver of the KC Chiefs. He went vegan late last year and hasn't lost any muscle mass.

[kharvel]

Beijing takes dog off the menu for Olympics - Yahoo! News

BEIJING (Reuters) - Beijing has asked hotels and restaurants in the city to take dog meat off the menu for the duration of next month's Olympics and September's Paralympics. Dog is eaten not only by the large Korean community in China's capital but is also popular in Yunnan and Guizhou restaurants. A directive from the Beijing Food Safety Office issued last month ordered Olympic contractor hotels not to provide any dishes made with dog meat and said any canine material used in traditional medicated diets must be clearly labeled. Concerned that canine dishes might offend animal rights groups and Western visitors, Beijing said restaurants expected to be popular among foreign visitors must stop serving dog meat "to respect the dining customs of different countries." The directive "advocated" that all restaurants serving dog suspend it during the Olympics but made no mention of the many popular establishments with donkey on the menu. Criticism from Westerners caused the dog meat-loving South Koreans to ban canine dishes for a period of time during the 1988 Seoul Olympics. (Reporting by Liu Zhen; Editing by Nick Mulvenney and Jeremy Laurence)

Like the flesh of "long pig", the flesh of a dog is animal flesh just like cow flesh or pig flesh.

Why do non-vegetarians prohibit or discourage the consumption of certain animal flesh and not others? Dogs are not an endangered species and can be productively raised to provide abundant and "nutritious" animal flesh that can be safely consumed by non-vegetarians.

The reaction of non-vegetarians to certain types of animal flesh is very puzzling, indeed.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: kharvel Talk to Tony Gonzalez, the wide receiver of the KC Chiefs. He went vegan late last year and hasn't lost any muscle mass.

I don't doubt it, but he also has far more disposable incoem than me for expensive supplements and whatnot.

[Matt]

Quote by: kharvel Beijing takes dog off the menu for Olympics - Yahoo! News Like the flesh of "long pig", the flesh of a dog is animal flesh just like cow flesh or pig flesh. Why do non-vegetarians prohibit or discourage the consumption of certain animal flesh and not others? Dogs are not an endangered species and can be productively raised to provide abundant and "nutritious" animal flesh that can be safely consumed by non-vegetarians. The reaction of non-vegetarians to certain types of animal flesh is very puzzling, indeed.

It is because of emotional attachment most likely, same reason alot of people wont eat horses.

Non-vegetarians advocating not to eat dog while they are having bacon for breakfest makes no sense, since dogs and pigs are of equal intelligence.

Though I do have to admit if I was forced to eat a whole chicken or a mouthful of dog I'd choose to eat the chicken. I couldn't handle eating dog. I can't really handle eating any meat, but I'd choose most things over dog, due to emotional attachment. But I don't have to even make that choice, since I'm vegetarian.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Hell, I'd eat some dog, provided its not my pet.

[kharvel]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Hell, I'd eat some dog, provided its not my pet.

Why not? Animal flesh is animal flesh. The fact that it is your pet is not pertinent to the consumption of animal flesh.

[kharvel]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I don't doubt it, but he also has far more disposable incoem than me for expensive supplements and whatnot.

You are under the mistaken impression that Mr. Gonzalez takes "expensive supplements and whatnot".

[Gods_Mercenary]

Really? He takes no supplemental protein? just what he can get from plants? that requires a good deal of knowledge.

[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Really? He takes no supplemental protein? just what he can get from plants? that requires a good deal of knowledge.

Someone who has alot of money can pay people to research info for them and prepare their diets.

[Gods_Mercenary]

agreed, but I'd imagine that'd require more money than the supplements in the first place.

[kharvel]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary agreed, but I'd imagine that'd require more money than the supplements in the first place.

Vegetables and produce are more expensive than animal flesh because animal flesh consumption is institutionalized in this society and the production of animal flesh have been mechanized to a large extent, accordingly.

[Gods_Mercenary]

only that, but I'd have to spend time educating myself, as well as going to specialty stores, most likely.