Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-05-2012, 11:26 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Just goin on record here....small farm style of food production, like I outlined above, most definitely CAN sustain the worlds food requirements. In fact food production per acre would increase in a big way.

I do get the sustainability issue though, when it comes to "little house on the prairie" farms. The issue is that we would need more farmers, and less machines. But perhaps if farming sustainably was viewed as a valuable career, by both the public and the government, we would attract a vastly larger number of people to farming. The government subsidizes farmers who use valuable land to grow corn for ethanol (a break even industry at best, and usually a loss industry), all the while ignoring, and often restricting food growers. I know. Not bloody likely to happen. But just wanted to point out that growing humanely treated, sustainable, environmentally friendly food could feed the entire world. Problem is it's a massive undertaking, that few are willing to participate in.

Just the land devoted to growing corn, in the US, is enough to grow all the food needed for the entire planet. Alas, no studies to cite, but it doesn't take much to calculate the acreage devoted to corn. Then, after catching your breath from reading that staggering number, calculate the average tonnage of food that could be grown and you'll see what I mean. ( just as a baseline, my far from perfect farming skills produce about a ton and a half of food every year per acre. And I have a shorter growing season here in Canada than the corn belt)

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stark Raving's post
04-05-2012, 02:19 PM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2012 02:38 PM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(04-05-2012 11:26 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Just goin on record here....small farm style of food production, like I outlined above, most definitely CAN sustain the worlds food requirements. In fact food production per acre would increase in a big way.

I do get the sustainability issue though, when it comes to "little house on the prairie" farms. The issue is that we would need more farmers, and less machines. But perhaps if farming sustainably was viewed as a valuable career, by both the public and the government, we would attract a vastly larger number of people to farming. The government subsidizes farmers who use valuable land to grow corn for ethanol (a break even industry at best, and usually a loss industry), all the while ignoring, and often restricting food growers. I know. Not bloody likely to happen. But just wanted to point out that growing humanely treated, sustainable, environmentally friendly food could feed the entire world. Problem is it's a massive undertaking, that few are willing to participate in.

Just the land devoted to growing corn, in the US, is enough to grow all the food needed for the entire planet. Alas, no studies to cite, but it doesn't take much to calculate the acreage devoted to corn. Then, after catching your breath from reading that staggering number, calculate the average tonnage of food that could be grown and you'll see what I mean. ( just as a baseline, my far from perfect farming skills produce about a ton and a half of food every year per acre. And I have a shorter growing season here in Canada than the corn belt)
Only an extremely small portion of corn is used for ethanol.
A huge chunk of it is used for animal feed.

Ohh and btw, the Ogallala Aquifer used to grow a huge portion of that corn is slowly but surely drying up.

I know first hand that Farming is extremely hard work, and it carries with it some serious health concerns.
Most people would not be willing to do that sort of work.

Quote:My position is not a baseline; I view it as a better overall option. It is solely Ovo-lacto vegetarianism.
Eating meat, at the moment, is causing animal suffering.
It is also more of an environment burden than simply farming vegetables.
We do not need meat to be healthy--arguably, overall, more people would benefit from avoiding it.
Thus, this trumps self interest(taste) and appeals to nature. It is natural, but it is detrimental.

Let's sharpen this discussion. Explain to me what is wrong with the above statements. Let's don't muddy up the water. Let's keep it sweet and simple if we can. Because I do feel like I am focusing too much on what a paragraph meant, and am missing the point.
Animals on small farms live far better lives than the chickens and cows that are continually forced to give milk and lay eggs.
So by your own position, you are causing far more animal suffering than say someone that only ate meat they hunted or form a small farm.

You can talk about veganism and the environment, but your really just blowing smoke up everyone's ass.
The only real solution is to reduce the surplus population. There are simply too many people...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 03:14 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
MJB, sorry, didn't mean corn for ethanol was a huge portion of the corn grown. It was just an example of corn subsidies. It applies to all the corn, including animal feed (corn is a terrible thing to feed cattle btw) and all the other factory uses like making glucose syrup.

As for the health concerns, I'm not sure what you're referring to. That is unless yo mean putting a little elbow grease into your job, which seems to be an allergy for a lot of people. Wink

Since you have first hand experience with farming, I don't need to tell you, but for anyone who doesn't know; much of the farmland in north America, and across the world, is becoming "dead land" Basically, that means the soil can no longer support plant growth without adding fertilizer. Re building soil structure and encouraging microbial life is, however, pretty simple, albeit somewhat time consuming.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 06:47 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Our ancestors have eaten meat for millions of years, and that affected our evolution anyway you look at it. Animal meat has been used for food obviously, but as-well as some goods through OUR history. Veganism is total ludicrous to me except if it is for health reasons.

"Take your Vulcan cynicism and bury it with your repressed emotions" - Captain Archer (Enterprise Captain)


"Religion and science have a common ancestor - ignorance" - A.C. Grayling
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 09:14 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(04-05-2012 06:47 PM)Eru Wrote:  Our ancestors have eaten meat for millions of years, and that affected our evolution anyway you look at it. Animal meat has been used for food obviously, but as-well as some goods through OUR history. Veganism is total ludicrous to me except if it is for health reasons.
I don't understand this talking point.
What ailment would make all meat unhealthy? It just sounds like a load of bollocks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 10:53 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Hey, Eru.

Captain Jonathan Archer is totally ludicrous to me, but I accept that you like him Cool

Picard all the way:




Vegans rule:




Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2012, 06:27 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(04-05-2012 02:19 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  
Quote:My position is not a baseline; I view it as a better overall option. It is solely Ovo-lacto vegetarianism.
Eating meat, at the moment, is causing animal suffering.
It is also more of an environment burden than simply farming vegetables.
We do not need meat to be healthy--arguably, overall, more people would benefit from avoiding it.
Thus, this trumps self interest(taste) and appeals to nature. It is natural, but it is detrimental.

Let's sharpen this discussion. Explain to me what is wrong with the above statements. Let's don't muddy up the water. Let's keep it sweet and simple if we can. Because I do feel like I am focusing too much on what a paragraph meant, and am missing the point.
Animals on small farms live far better lives than the chickens and cows that are continually forced to give milk and lay eggs.
So by your own position, you are causing far more animal suffering than say someone that only ate meat they hunted or form a small farm.
You just created an imbalanced scenario. On the meat side we have humane small farms treating their cattle well with no hormones and brutal slaughtering. And then you compare it to corporation dairy and egg production? Really? That's fair.

I buy free range chicken eggs that are shipped from local farms. Chickens lay the eggs when they want, and the farmers take them out of the nests when they are laid. As for milk, I drink soy. I avoid milk because I do not have a local farm as a source; however, I would approve of drinking milk if they were treated humanely with free range and only taken in to be milked when they need to be.

Price would go up, yes. Supply would go down, yes.

You won't get away with creating unbalanced scenarios. That was so blatantly obvious it was pathetic.

Quote:Animals on small farms live far better lives than the chickens and cows that are continually forced to give milk and lay eggs.
So by your own position, you are causing far more animal suffering than say someone that only ate meat they hunted or form a small farm.


You just created an imbalanced scenario. On the meat side we have humane small farms treating their cattle well with no hormones and brutal slaughtering. And then you compare it to corporation dairy and egg production? Really? That's fair.

I buy free range chicken eggs that are shipped from local farms. Chickens lay the eggs when they want, and the farmers take them out of the nests when they are laid. As for milk, I drink soy. I avoid milk because I do not have a local farm as a source; however, I would approve of drinking milk if they were treated humanely with free range and only taken in to be milked when they need to be.

Price would go up, yes. Supply would go down, yes.

You won't get away with creating unbalanced scenarios. That was so blatantly obvious it was pathetic.

(04-05-2012 06:47 PM)Eru Wrote:  Our ancestors have eaten meat for millions of years, and that affected our evolution anyway you look at it. Animal meat has been used for food obviously, but as-well as some goods through OUR history. Veganism is total ludicrous to me except if it is for health reasons.

Please, for the love of god, not with the appeals to nature. Go back to page one. Start from there, not page 20.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 10:29 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Quote: Vegans yes. Vegetarians, No. I have no health defects as a result of being a vegetarian, and am arguably in better shape than the majority of people. I do not take vitamins. And as mentioned earlier, we can obtain the exact nutrition from a vegetarian diet that mimics that of a meat eaters. As for evidence, maybe I should be demanding it from you.
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]I never once stated that Vegans/Vegetarians are unhealthy. I was simply arguing that the lifestyle is NOT HEALTHIER than eating meat. I also argue that I can obtain essential nutrients easier than a vegan or vegetarian. Vegans/Vegetarians either have to eat more supplement. Again, take away first world luxuries, and vegans/vegetarians would be missing nutrients. There is no proof that your lifestyle is healthier than mine. So I am saying eating meat is healthier IF you didn't have the luxury of the first world. This is the case I make against veganism being the moral baseline. It cannot be a baseline if your stance is a result of having the luxury to take that stance. Otherwise, is owning a Ferrari the moral baseline?[/font]
Quote: At 35.7% obesity rate. With only 3% of Americans being vegetarians , and 1% being vegans, I think I should demand that you provide evidence that your style is more healthy. Because this 35.7% obesity rate is arguably coming from at least 32.7% of meat eaters. That is 1 in 3 meat eaters are suffering from an illness that can kill them. Meanwhile you are concerned about small amounts of B12 or Iron consumption in a vegan diet?[align=-webkit-auto]
[align=-webkit-auto] [/align] [/align]
You cannot look into obesity rates and make the jump that vegetarians are healthier. If you want to do that, you need to look into studies that compare two like groups of vegetarians vs meat-eaters. That obesity statistics is loaded with variables. Do you know what type of food these obese people were eating? The majority of Americans are meat-eaters anyway. Even if the majority of them had healthy diets, the number of meat-eating obese people would still be higher than vegetarian obese.
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Say you and I are equally active and equally diet conscious. The only difference being that I eat meat with my meals. Are you saying that you'd be healthier than me? That's the proof I want. Here's something I just found with references within:[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
http://www.totalhealthbreakthroughs.com/...at-eaters/ [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

Quote: I dislike how you try to make it as if I go to great lengths to avoid eating meat. As if this will consume hours of your time. This isn't the case and you know it.
This is another example of your arrogance in your debating style. You assume your opinion is fact and press that unto others' views. You don't think this will consume hours of my time? Explaining to my wife that I suddenly want to drastically change our diet to a meat-free one? Much like my journey towards non-belief, this is not what was on the table when we were dating. I now have to convince her to change her diet with me. Well, I don't have to, but would have to have a separate shopping list and cook separate meals for her and my son and soon-to-be daughter.

That's the other issue, we have family that lives with us. They all eat meat. I would be the lone non-meat eater needing to spend the time to shop and cook for myself.

Another problem with your arrogant comment is that you suggest that the cultural issue is something to shrug off. Fish is a staple in the Asian culture next to rice. Would you try and convince Asians to stop eating rice too? Red meat is a delicacy in Korea such as Kalbi and Bulgogi. We have soups that we make with meat for times when we are sick. We make these meat dishes and soups for special occasions. Yet, none of this is a big deal to you. None of this requires "going to great lengths". Yea, how about you join my family for a day and convince everyone of your views.

But again, sure, I can fly solo. It will in fact require hours of my time at least initially to make the switch though since I will need to research what fits into the vegetarian scheme and what foods will provide the nutrients I want. I will also have to research vegetarian recipes then learn how to cook all of them since I won't be able to eat anything the family cooks.

You're right though, it's not a big deal and I know it Rolleyes

Quote: Well what if having children makes someone happy? Arguably having a child would make someone more happy than your love for meat. (To test this, would you give up your children if it was eating meat or them?) But nevertheless, feelings aside, we simply cannot overpopulate this planet. It is impossible to continue doing so. Sacrifices have to be made void of anyone's feelings. So when it comes to right and wrong, your feelings will have no merit in this argument with me. I hope I did well in my over population scenario to display why feelings are irrelevant.
Another flawed analogy of yours. Of course I love the children I already have. While I love the fact that I'm about to have another kid, it is not the same as already having a child or already having a child in utero. The happiness of the prospect of having children is VERY DIFFERENT from the happiness you have when the child is born.

So what you want to ask here is would I give up the possibility of having another child or meat eating. In this case, I'm perfectly happy with having just 2 children. My wife wants more, but I'm perfectly content. So yes, I would choose eating meat over more children. If you want the question to be retrospective to before I had children, then hell no. I would give up meat eating in a heartbeat. Consuming meat gives me deep happiness, but nowhere as deep as my love for my kids. What was the point of this analogy again?

I agree with you that limiting the amount of children would be ideal. This would help greatly with the number of people that abuse the system. I would help keep populations from growing out of control like the baby boomer generation. Thanks to that era, I probably won't have my social security waiting for me.

However, it's not practical. How do you regulate this? What are the ethical repercussions? What do you do with people who accidentally have more kids than the limit (failed condoms, procedures, etc.)? Rape victims?

You and I will never see eye-to-eye on this. I personally think you presented many flawed analogies and arguments. You have not provided any proof for the bulk of your arguments. Others have countered your claims such as the subject of farming. Most importantly, I dislike your arrogant debating style where you assume that you are factually correct others are basically idiotic.

I think this thread has exhausted my interest in the subject. Have a nice day.

P.S. I typed this during my lunch break which consisted of Kalbi and JaJang Myun (has beef). Guess I'm unhealthy and immoral.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 05:04 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Ya know what, lets try this from a different angle since NSV is a fucking idiot.

I think man on man butt sex is far more moral than heterosexuality.
It reduces suffering, like child birth, very painful and can cause death.
I know heterosexuality is more natural, but don't even think of saying that word or I will go on an absolute bitch fit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 05:17 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Jack.....


ssh

The adults are talking.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: