Darwin’s Finch, I didn’t miss the point. You’re making the situation out to be that I’m the Orkin man, or something, walking around with a super-soaker filled with arachnicide. I squished a spider. I feel bad about that. There’s nothing I can do about it now. Was that a hypocritical thing to do? Sure. Can you use that one instance to say that I am a hypocritical person? That’s stretching it, a little bit. Can you use that instance to refute all of the other arguments I’ve made? You’ve said it yourself: No.
As for how your buying a burger kills animals other than the cows? Read the quotes I posted above. Okay. Now, I’m sure you understand the most basic, fundamental laws of economics. When you buy a burger, you create a demand for the meat industry to replace that one burger with another, for someone else to eat. You paying these companies gives them a monetary means to go out and create a supply of hamburgers, for which you are demanding.
You’re giving these companies the money, and the reason to do what they’re doing, and you continue to deny that fact. I’m sure your an intelligent person, so you must either not being honest, or just denying the fact. Do you not see the economically-proven link? Can any business majors out there give me a hand?
Way up above you said “Should we make changes to the meat industry? Absolutely. Do Americans in general eat too much meat? Sure. But neither of those is a good enough reason for me to stop eating meat.” How do you propose we make changes to the meat industry? How can we educate American to the point where they can make a more informed decision and eat less meat?
I don’t understand how you can cite these problems, and then refuse to offer solutions. Moreover, I don’t understand how you see youself “immune” to the answers. Sure, there are answers out there, but you obviosuly feel that none of them is are “good enough.” I don’t understand. You’re just going to put the question out of your mind until someone thinks of an answer that’s good enough for you? Please explain.
You said: “I say you are preaching because of your insistance on emotional argument, rather than factual argument. You conveniently ignore the fact that no matter what, millions, if not billions, of animals will die to support humans. Even if we were to all suddenly become vegan. Yet, you insist that eating meat is wrong because the cows and pigs and chickens and so on have to, you know, die.”
You know, I keep spitting out facts and data, you you just keep saying “I know, I know this already.” Why can’t you (we?) just discuss the data, instead of merely saying that you know it exists. If you already know about it, then it will allow us to have an even better discussion. I’ve been trying to move away from the food aspect for a long time, and focus on the health concerns and the environmental concerns.
I spent like an hour posting quotes form all over the place, and the only reponse you gave was “I know.” You could comment on them, refute them, agree to them, sing them aloud. I threw all of those quotes out there. What do you think?
I’m interested in debating these topics, but it’s impossible to do so when the spider, and the cat, “yum this tastes good,” and “stop telling me what I already know” keep getting reposted and resposted.
You know, repeatedly, you’ve spoken about “fixing” the problem. Well, never once have I claimed that a vegan lifestyle can “fix” anything (other than high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and being overweight.) It’s not about fixing the problem, it’s about doing your best to not be a part of the problem. Don’t you agree?
What is the problem? Living in a world where our habits and our choices are depleting the earth of it’s natural resources, polluting the resources we don’t take, and destroying the planet’s biodiversity at an alarming rate.
These are the problems. We can’t “fix” these problems with anything less than killing off the entire human race. But, we can work towards a more stable, sustainsable relationship with the earth.
Is that so unreasonable? The best, most effiecient way an individual can do this, I believe, is to stop consuming meat.
You don’t agree. That’s fine.
Do you agree that those issues are indeed problems?
If yes, how do we work on making those problems much smaller problems than they already are?
How about talking about these problems, instead of telling me you already know they exist?
Squish, you said “Make a case for me that agriculture is not destructive.”
I never did. It is destructive. I repeat myself: we cannot allow ourselves to starve, therefore we must eat. We cannot all grow our own food, so there must be (at least) agriculture. Do you agree? And we can’t divorce meat and agriculture. There must be agriculture to feed the animals.
Does this at all hurt the argument that agriculture creates far less waste and pollutants, and can provide food for far more people than the meat industries? Not at all. Do you agree?
“Address the pollution and killing caused by agriculture–even small-scale organic agriculture.”
We cannot live without dying. There’s going to be death. There is much less death, however, that comes as a result (en masse) of growing plants, than (en masse) of raising animals for meat. Please see my many other posts where I give, data, evidence, etc. of this. What do you think?
“Make a case for me that the industries that built your computer, the clothes you wear, and the house you live in are not destructive.”
The fact that I own a computer doesn’t pardon or excuse the horrible things being done by the meat industry. Sure, other industries are destructive. As per the OP, we’re talking about food. Everything is destructive, essentially. We cannot change this. We can, however, use vigilance and attempt to do as little damage as possible. Don’t you agree?
“In summary, make a case for me that there is any way for humans not to have an impact on the earth.”
This is ridiculous, as you well know. It’s not about not making an impact. It’s about making as little of an impact as possible. Don’t you agree?
“Address the fact that everything eats something else.”
Okay. I acknowledge that fact. We all eat somethig else. It’s much more efficient, however, to bring it down to a basic level, and eat things which have as little a negative impact on the earth as possible: plants. We cannot sttarve. We must eat something. The best thing to eat is plants, because they don’t poo, and they don’t eat as much as animals. Do you agree?
“Address the fact that scrubland that is worthless for agriculture should not be used for grazing.”
It should be used for grazing. I would much, much rather see grazing done on scrublands, instead of burnt-down rainforests. Don’t you agree. The problem is, so much meat is being consumed, the scrublands aren’t enough. Don’t you agree?
“Why, if you claim that the suffering of animals affects you so much, were you willing to torture an animal by malnourishing it?”
This is purely subjective. I’m sorry. I cannot concede this point. If I owned a cat, it would have a damn good life. There a perfectly viable vitamin supplements out there I could feed it. In this case, it’s merely a matter of two opposing scientific perspectives, which are irreconcilable. So, this is the last I will speak of the cat. Your effort would be so much better spent criticizing parents who constantly feed their overweight and malnourished children fast food. Do you not agree that this is a better cause?
“Why are you willing to allow the extinction of whole species?”
I’m sorry, I really don’t remember this point. Which species is in question? Please explain a little further.
“And again, have you ever actually observed nature by living with it for an extended period of time?”
I’d like to think so. No, I’ve never lived in the African wilderness. No, I’ve never hunted. Yes, I used to fish when I was a wee lad.
I like hiking. I didn’t live on Walden lake for a year, no. Have you? I fully understand the implications of the natural world.
Here’s a question for you: Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Or a pet store? Or to a crack house? Or to a runaway shelter? Or to a hospital in a third-world country? (No, I haven’t don all of those, either.) Or to a nuclear reactor? Or to a fish farm? Or to a scrap yard?
Are those “natural” things, in your opinion? You seem very concerned with the “natural state of things.” But I think that human beings are fairly far removed from “nature.” Meat eaters and otherwise.
Why do you consider wolfs/lions/bears, etc. not evil, but consider humans evil?
Animals have no other meams to sustain themselves. Animals do not burn down forests intentionally. Animals to not forsake their own species to make money. Animals to not create machines that cause pollution. Humans do. Don’t you agree?
“Why can you not accept that meat-eaters are not ignorant, but have the statistics, view the world in a holistic way, and still choose to eat meat?”
I can accept that. Many of you seem well-informed. But, I think you’re overlooking the fact that there are many many uninformed people in the world. Can you deny this? You think it’s perfectly okay for parents to feed their children a diet of mostly fast food?
The problems go beyond us, here, on this message board. This is what I would like to discuss. Implication, and possible ways to further educate those who need to be educated.
About the corn statistics, you said “Fine. I accept your statistics, but they’re still not going to make me give up meat. Also, I’d like to know more details on that corn statistic–are they talking about the whole corn plant? Because livestock eat husks and processed stocks, whereas humans only eat the grain.”
You accept them, that’s good. What implications do/can you draw from your acceptance of the data? Please expand.
As for the husk/grain dilemma, I don’t know. I’m sorry. I agree, though, that it is interesting. Instead of dwelling and theorizing about the husk/grain dilemma, though, please answer my question about the implications of your acceptance of my data.
(Also, FTR, I only use my television for watching videos and playing games. We have something in common.)
Lastly, I would like to disagree to your claim that “you use up just as many resources as the rest of us do” Frankly, you know nothing about me, other than I’m a strict vegan. You have no evidance for these claims, and it’s pure speculation. If you do have proof of this subject, I’d be very interesed to see it. But I can guarantee to you that my and my SO’s lifestyle necessarily use less resources than the lifestyle of the average person. But, I’m not going to get in a discussion about my personal life, so please don’t ask. I will just say that my diet and my shopping habits are more than likely very, very different from yours.
So, I’ve made a considerable effort to put little to no emotion into this post. I would appreciate if you could do the same. I am still very interested in these things, and would like to hear what people think. I will be good, turn off the emotion, and do my best to be a dilligent little debator. And so, I ask the same of you, in return. Cool? Looking forward to hearing your response.
Doc, glad I could be of service. As I stated above, if you already know the facts, then please use them to debate with, instead of telling me you already know them and posting what cuts of beef you prefer.
As for the spider, please read up above.
No, no leather. Yes, cotton. As much organic cotton as possible. I know that there is no way to stop the death of other creatures. I’ve already asid this above. It’s about reducing our effect to as little as possible, not eliminating any effect whatsoever. That would obviously be impossible.
Similarly, it’s not about pointing out each other’s shortcomings. It’s about idenitfying ang acknowledging problems, and discussing how we can make those problems smaller, and do our best to not make the problems worse. We all live in the same world, and breath the same air. That’s what makes this my problem, as well as yours. Your habits negatively effect me, and many others, and that’s a problem.
-TGD
