|
Significant amounts of agriculture products go to feeding other agriculture products. In the US, less meat production would mean that less soy/corn needs to be grown to feed the cattle/poultry/pork industry. While some land isn't good for growing anything other than grass, there is lots of good growing land that is used for things like poultry/pork.
Less meat production would mean less crops grown to feed those animals, less water usage, less sewage runoff, fewer chemicals and fewer chances to spread disease.
I definitely don't want meat production to go away though. I love me my bacon explosion. I make 1 or 2 a year.
My suddenly salavating mouth makes me so angry about deciding to follow that link.
That thing looks like it can shorten a man's life by a month or two just by looking at it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever postmodern gibberish makes you folks feel better about rationalizing your choices.I find the lack of even common sense knowledge about how dairy farming works saddening.
If you choose not to eat meat because you don't want to kill animals but still consume dairy you are doing it wrong. It is an absolute, there's no wiggle room or rationalization of it. Calves, kids, and lambs are useless to a dairy farmer, so they get slaughtered.
Now excuse me, I need to go make some veal scallopini with lemon cream sauce.
I know how it works. But people may have stances that aren't quite as simplistic as not eating animals because you don't want to kill them. For example, my lacto-ovo-vegetarian friend has explained their stance akin to this (we've discussed it a bit, and this is not their exact words but how I understood her):
"Killing animals for food is imposing unnecessary suffering on them; there's no getting away from this. There can't be an animal meat industry that doesn't cause loads and loads of suffering. "Consumer power" is pointless liberal BS though, so not eating animals or using animal products won't directly affect the meat industry. However, eating animals normalizes and entrenches meat-eating as a cultural phenomena, making it harder to fight against the meat industry in other ways.On the other hand, eggs and dairy don't inherently require animals to suffer, so even in a post-capitalist society without industrialized animal torture having dairy and eggs is possible. Due to this, it's less important to fight against dairy and eggs as a cultural phenomena."
Now, I can find them a bit naive (maybe because I'm a revolutionary defeatist lol), but there's nothing hypocritical about it, and it in itself is not a baseless or unsound analysis. I just find the imagined end of capitalism during our lifetimes to be unnecessarily hopeful.
Let me take a stab at rationalizing half measures:
I can't have a serious impact on any of the various food industries, let alone the milk or meat industries. Without dedicating much more of my life than seems healthy, I can't possibly actually *do* anything about what I feel is immoral.
Therefore, any choice on what I should or shouldn't eat is solely a selfish one to make myself feel better. Essentially, the optimal case is one where I eat exactly the amount of meat and milk and eggs and so on that satisfies my hunger for such things (I love meat, I love cheese, omelettes are nice) and yet doesn't begin to feel unpleasant because of guilt.
My solution: I rarely eat meat. That's enough for me. My frequency is less than once per week. However, if I really feel like it, I'll take a bite out of that bacon even if just yesterday I ate a hamburger.
In other words, I fully recognize that the only one who truly cares what I eat is me, and aim for maximum personal happiness. The symbolism of eating meat - the actual flesh of animals that were killed for that express purpose - weighs more on my conscious than eating cheese. Not rational, but true. So I avoid meat much more than I avoid cheese.
Does this make sense? to me it does. Much more than vegetarianism or pretending to not care at all (some people actually don't and that's fine, but many who do care pretend not to because they don't want to go vegan).
Significant amounts of agriculture products go to feeding other agriculture products. In the US, less meat production would mean that less soy/corn needs to be grown to feed the cattle/poultry/pork industry. While some land isn't good for growing anything other than grass, there is lots of good growing land that is used for things like poultry/pork.
Less meat production would mean less crops grown to feed those animals, less water usage, less sewage runoff, fewer chemicals and fewer chances to spread disease.
I definitely don't want meat production to go away though. I love me my bacon explosion. I make 1 or 2 a year.
My suddenly salavating mouth makes me so angry about deciding to follow that link.
That thing looks like it can shorten a man's life by a month or two just by looking at it.
You don't eat a lot of it. I typically cut it in about 3/4 inch medallions. It's usually a side dish type thing, it's just a meat side dish. The last time I made 2 they combined to about 4 lbs total weight, for about 20-25 people. We also had pulled pork, so I combined the two on a pretzel roll for a sandwich. It was delicious.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meat eaten in moderation is an important part of our diet. People are TOO into extremes these days. It's either gorge on platters of meat or no meat at all... both are unhealthy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never could understand the irrational fascination the Internet seems to have for fried pork rinds. I've detested the stuff since I was a child. I have nothing against meat, and will actually eat pork every now and then, but I'd have to be at starvation level before I'd touch bacon.Significant amounts of agriculture products go to feeding other agriculture products. In the US, less meat production would mean that less soy/corn needs to be grown to feed the cattle/poultry/pork industry. While some land isn't good for growing anything other than grass, there is lots of good growing land that is used for things like poultry/pork.
Less meat production would mean less crops grown to feed those animals, less water usage, less sewage runoff, fewer chemicals and fewer chances to spread disease.
I definitely don't want meat production to go away though. I love me my bacon explosion. I make 1 or 2 a year.
My suddenly salavating mouth makes me so angry about deciding to follow that link.
That thing looks like it can shorten a man's life by a month or two just by looking at it.
Actual fried pork rinds (aka Chicharrónes) are (1) wonderful, and (2) not bacon.
To save this endangered breed, eat it
“Every endangered species must have a purpose to survive,” says Henderson.
Why do I eat meat? I want animals to survive.
|
|
If you choose not eat meat but choose to eat dairy there are two explanations:
1. You are a hypocrite.
2. You are ignorant of the realities of dairy farming.There are no other options.
No matter how much you rationalize it or justify it dairy farming creates just as much pain and suffering as meat farming, largely because they'r essentially the same thing.
But again, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
Exactly - whatever makes me feel better about myself. I state so clearly in the post you quote - I am well aware of the realities of the dairy industry. One is not a hypocrite if he never claims to be anything other than what he is. In my case, that is a person who realized that doing a little good is better than doing no good, and therefore is looking for ways to do good with only acceptable self sacrifices, such as "eat meat a couple of times a month instead of every day." It coule have just as well been "avoid dairy products", but that's not the approach I chose because it suits me less.
Half measures are not hypocrisy, and are always better than no measures.
If you choose not eat meat but choose to eat dairy there are two explanations:
1. You are a hypocrite.
2. You are ignorant of the realities of dairy farming.
Or you're a vegetarian for dietary reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you choose not eat meat but choose to eat dairy there are two explanations:
1. You are a hypocrite.
2. You are ignorant of the realities of dairy farming.There are no other options.
No matter how much you rationalize it or justify it dairy farming creates just as much pain and suffering as meat farming, largely because they'r essentially the same thing.
But again, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
This is not even remotely true.
If course A caused X suffering and course B cause Y suffering, and X>Y, then it is a consistent utilitarian ethical stance to say that B is more ethical than A.
In this case, so long as your in take of eggs and dairy does not increase beyond in take of your pre-vegetarian diet, then the maths is clear, the vegetarian diet is more ethically sound.
Even if your intake increase, it it entirely possible that your diet is more ethical, upto fairly large intakes of dairy and eggs, because the sum of suffering caused by meat consumption was very high.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah there are lots of reasons to not or eat less meat. It's not total vegan = hypocrite. That stuff only really applies if you think you shouldn't eat meat or dairy because you think killing animals is wrong. and even on an ethics front you might be against factory farming but okay with free range or legally hunted wild game.
I have one friend who is mostly vegetarian, because as a little kid she found the texture of meat disgusting. She is okay with dairy, and oddly enough bacon, but its not really an ethical issue with her.
There are significant welfare issues relating to milk cows sure, but the numbers of animals in the dairy industry is relatively small(around 9 million milk cows in the US ). By contrast, the hog farming industry alone has somewhere in the region of 67.8 million pigs the U.S. according to the Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Census(2007).
Even if the suffering of an the average individual dairy cow is three times that of the average pig (which in modern pig units is questionable) the pigs alone have it by a country mile. In fact, an individual milk cow has to suffer seven and a half times as much to make the dairy industry a bigger welfare issue than the hog industry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then she has nothing to do with this.
If you are a vegetarian for ethical reasons but still eat dairy your ethics are inconsistent. No amount of ethical calculus, flam flam, rationalization, or goal post moving changes that.
If that fact makes you uncomfortable, either eat meat or stop eating dairy.
If me calling you ethically inconsistent bothers you, then either examine your ethics and resolve the inconsistency (see above) or grow up and stop caring if some random person on the internet likes you or your life choices.
They are not inconstant, they are just not absolutist.
Fundamentally, if somebody thinks that killing animals for food is morally wrong then they've improved the situation (albeit in a very minor way) by halving the amount of animals killed to feed them personally.
This holds true only in an economy in which meat is sourced locally either from that individual's family, or a neighbor. In our economy, this is not halfing the amount of animals killed to feed that person personally. It only halves the sale of animals that were already killed, for feeding that person personally. The amount of animals killed does not change.
I'm still not convinced that enough people will ever become vegan to render the meat industry defunct that way, seeing as that diet is simply not for everyone and not everyone has access to it for economic or health reasons even if it's what they want.
I think a more effective way to destroy the meat industry is to attack the structure of the industry itself and the structures that underlie it, but I am not educated in that matter, so don't ask me how that could be done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And then she has nothing to do with this.
If you are a vegetarian for ethical reasons but still eat dairy your ethics are inconsistent. No amount of ethical calculus, flam flam, rationalization, or goal post moving changes that.
If that fact makes you uncomfortable, either eat meat or stop eating dairy.
If me calling you ethically inconsistent bothers you, then either examine your ethics and resolve the inconsistency (see above) or grow up and stop caring if some random person on the internet likes you or your life choices.
I am really really confused on how the conversation ended up here, especially on a thread on climate change. And exactly why this topic would...aggravate a person to a degree indicated by the above message.
I'm still not convinced that enough people will ever become vegan to render the meat industry defunct that way, seeing as that diet is simply not for everyone and not everyone has access to it for economic or health reasons even if it's what they want.
I think a more effective way to destroy the meat industry is to attack the structure of the industry itself and the structures that underlie it, but I am not educated in that matter, so don't ask me how that could be done.
It doesn't have to, if the aim of the vegan, vegetarian, or person eating less meat is A, reduce their own culpability in the suffering caused, B, to reduce the amount of suffering.
If all those vegans, ect all eat meet like the average american, then the total level of suffering.
|
To wrap back to climate change and reference the current debate, not eating meat, but still eating dairy does reduce your contribution to the part global warming caused by cow methane (however small that is), but doesn't eliminate it.
Actually... it depends on what food source(s) you switch from and to. For example, everyone in the world giving up fish in favor of rice would result in a massive increase in methane emissions.
Indeed, the whole world going to some kind of vegan diet would likely have very little impact on global warming... it might even make things worse. Lower emissions diets are certainly possible... but they could include meats as easily as plants. In any case, the whole question is IMO a waste of time because it is one of those, 'If the human race were not the human race' arguments. That is, the entire human race will not change their eating habits. Not going to happen. Ergo, pointless argument.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is, the entire human race will not change their eating habits. Not going to happen. Ergo, pointless argument.
Well, relatively recently I've almost completely purged emmer and einkorn wheat from my diet, and I've given up aurochs 100% cold turkey.
For ethical reasons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever postmodern gibberish makes you folks feel better about rationalizing your choices.I find the lack of even common sense knowledge about how dairy farming works saddening.
If you choose not to eat meat because you don't want to kill animals but still consume dairy you are doing it wrong. It is an absolute, there's no wiggle room or rationalization of it. Calves, kids, and lambs are useless to a dairy farmer, so they get slaughtered.
Now excuse me, I need to go make some veal scallopini with lemon cream sauce.
I know how it works. But people may have stances that aren't quite as simplistic as not eating animals because you don't want to kill them. For example, my lacto-ovo-vegetarian friend has explained their stance akin to this (we've discussed it a bit, and this is not their exact words but how I understood her):
"Killing animals for food is imposing unnecessary suffering on them; there's no getting away from this. There can't be an animal meat industry that doesn't cause loads and loads of suffering. "Consumer power" is pointless liberal BS though, so not eating animals or using animal products won't directly affect the meat industry. However, eating animals normalizes and entrenches meat-eating as a cultural phenomena, making it harder to fight against the meat industry in other ways.On the other hand, eggs and dairy don't inherently require animals to suffer, so even in a post-capitalist society without industrialized animal torture having dairy and eggs is possible. Due to this, it's less important to fight against dairy and eggs as a cultural phenomena."
Now, I can find them a bit naive (maybe because I'm a revolutionary defeatist lol), but there's nothing hypocritical about it, and it in itself is not a baseless or unsound analysis. I just find the imagined end of capitalism during our lifetimes to be unnecessarily hopeful.
That analysis is mainly based in marxist thought, not postmodern.
If you are a vegetarian for ethical reasons but still eat dairy your ethics are inconsistent. No amount of ethical calculus, flam flam, rationalization, or goal post moving changes that.
You do realize that claiming something many times doesn't make it more correct, right? You also realize that a reasoning not being sound doesn't make it hypocritical, right?
To wrap back to climate change and reference the current debate, not eating meat, but still eating dairy does reduce your contribution to the part global warming caused by cow methane (however small that is), but doesn't eliminate it.Actually... it depends on what food source(s) you switch from and to. For example, everyone in the world giving up fish in favor of rice would result in a massive increase in methane emissions.
Switching from fish to rice would be an incredibly weird thing to do though. For the whole world to do it would be utterly bizarre. They have very few nutrients in common. Of all common grains, rice is one of the lightest on protein, for instance. Wheat and oat are both far higher.
A more reasonable comparison would be switching from fish to soy or wheat, but I really have no idea how that would affect greenhouse gas emissions. Also, thejeff didn't talk about switching out _just_ fish, so a more fair comparison would be what jeff actually said; stopping eating meat in general, and switching to vegan alternatives.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if I told you that humans are responsible for climate change, but not in the way you are typically told.
Fascinating videos!
I think my spouse may love these. The one on wolves actually dealt directly with a research item my spouse was involved with (or something very similar)...which makes it even more interesting.
What if I told you that humans are responsible for climate change, but not in the way you are typically told.
also, using fire to remove what was apparently vast swaths of forest from the praries of the us...
Tangentially related... this guy lives in my basement right now.
Nope. Guess again. I'll give you a hint, it's also (thankfully) not Lou Dobbs.
Lately he's been regaling me with conspiracy theories about how the Pope isn't actually visiting the US, but rather, it's a clone that's coming and it will be assassinated and trigger all these global events.
He was convinced the Earth was flat, but I was able to use the physics of light to convince him that wasn't true. He was a little sad.