Nightime, you said “Therefore, if eating meat is wrong, eating vegetables is also wrong. Except that eating meat does not actually cause the land not to be used, because the land would not be used anyway. Therefore by your argument eating meat is fine, but eating vegetables is wrong.”
First, you have not offered a cite for the “farmers being paid not to grow” spiel. I need to see some proof of that before I can put stock into your argument.
Second, How does meat not actually cause the land not to be used?
Second, if it’s all a matter of economics, and lack of money, than whether or not meat doesn’t actually cause the land not to be used is irrelevant. Land being utilized or not, poor people aren’t going to have money.
Third, if you can show me an organic farm that gets paid not to produce crops, I’ll bake you a carrot cake. I’m sure you won’t be able to. The demand is way too high for organic produce.
You said “You say that if we stopped eating meat, land would be free to grow crops. But we are already not using the land we have because we want the prices to stay high. Therefore your argument fails.”
Hold on, champ. I still need to see a cite. Even if you can produce one, that was one aspect of one argument, it doesn’t crumble the enitre entity of veganism.
Not “we.” I don’t want to keep the prices high. Keep me out of your generalizations.
And, one more thing. This improper use of land in no way excuses other, improper uses of land. The fact that some land is not used, in no way excuses the grain wasted by feeding livestock. Two wrongs don’t make the problem become any less severe than it already is.
Also, I never said that I wanted to “get rid of the meat industry.” You’re putting words into my mouth. I’m calling for people to be more responsible consumers. I’ve said this quite a few times.
Even if you’ve just proved whatever it is you’re trying to prove. We till have a huge problem on our hands! And you know what, proving whatever you were proving did absolutely nothing to assist in the lessening of that problem!
So, you would contest and say there are absolutely no advantages, as far as the environment and global hunger are concerned, to veganism?
You think my efforts are completely baseless, fruitless, and even (?) more harmful than your own? You seriously believe these things?
-TGD
Nightime, you said “Ahh, but you are forgetting one detail. The corn would not even have been grown in the first place, were it not for the cow.”
Cite? That’s ridiculous.
“Because it is profitable to grow corn for cows, but it is not profitable to grow corn for starving people around the world.”
Cite?
So, since them’ poor folk is already poor, let’s not do a damn thing but keep everything the way it is. Since we’re already wasting land, let’s do our best to waste it as thoroughly as possible, and make an even bigger mess! Listen to yourself!
It’s simple. Less cows would necessarily equate to less rainforest being cleared away. It’s simple. This, in and of itself, is a good enough reason to not give your money to the meat industry. If you care at all about the state of the environment, biodiversity on our planet, or the air we breathe, it shouldn’t take too long to put all of the dots together.
Nightime, you said “Ahh, but you are forgetting one detail. The corn would not even have been grown in the first place, were it not for the cow.”
Cite? That’s ridiculous.
“Because it is profitable to grow corn for cows, but it is not profitable to grow corn for starving people around the world.”
Cite?
So, since them’ poor folk is already poor, let’s not do a damn thing but keep everything the way it is. Since we’re already wasting land, let’s do our best to waste it as thoroughly as possible, and make an even bigger mess! Listen to yourself!
It’s simple. Less cows would necessarily equate to less rainforest being cleared away. It’s simple. This, in and of itself, is a good enough reason to not give your money to the meat industry. If you care at all about the state of the environment, biodiversity on our planet, or the air we breathe, it shouldn’t take too long to put all of the dots together.
Nightime, you said “Ahh, but you are forgetting one detail. The corn would not even have been grown in the first place, were it not for the cow.”
Cite? That’s ridiculous.
“Because it is profitable to grow corn for cows, but it is not profitable to grow corn for starving people around the world.”
Cite?
So, since them’ poor folk is already poor, let’s not do a damn thing but keep everything the way it is. Since we’re already wasting land, let’s do our best to waste it as thoroughly as possible, and make an even bigger mess! Listen to yourself!
It’s simple. Less cows would necessarily equate to less rainforest being cleared away. It’s simple. This, in and of itself, is a good enough reason to not give your money to the meat industry. If you care at all about the state of the environment, biodiversity on our planet, or the air we breathe, it shouldn’t take too long to put all of the dots together.
Sorry, but that is exactly the point. If that same plot of land were used exclusively to feed humans, the environmental impact would be exactly the same. Therefore, the fact that it is being used to feed cows is irrelevant to the damage it causes. Farming is destructive. Large-scale farming even moreso, regardless whether the food goes to cattle, goes to humans, or winds up in a landfill. Your argument is that feeding cattle is wasteful and harmful to the environment; here is a case where the crop itself, not the cattle, not the meat industry, is responsible for a great deal of harm.
Waste material (in the form of the manure that you are so fond of) helps to fertilize the soil. Clearing of rainforests is not restricted solely to the meat industry. Wood from the trees found in such forests are a hot commodity, you know. Again, even without the cattle, land would be cleared for irresponsible uses.
[bolding mine]
Note, in particular the bolded part. The cow is not the problem. People are the problem. People who have their own agendas without regard to the effects of said agendas.
I think you read a little too much into my words. I never said shit about responsibility or justification. I said that we aren’t different from animals. Maybe I should have been a little more specific, if so it’s my fault. Animals (not all) eat each other, humans are a type of animal that has needed to eat meat for centuries (although some people say that we no longer actually have to eat meat). So we do what it is in our nature to do: we eat meat. We might not have to anymore, but how does that have any moral implications? I know that you like to tout out statistics on rain forests and Mcdonald’s, but let’s say I hunt my own deer, cook it an eat it using fire wood and twigs. Am I more morally/ethically right than someone who orders McD’s? And if so, why? If not why? Where are you drawing your morals from?
Also I had a few other questions:
Why does great power = great responsibility? Who’s to say what is responsible, you?
Seems as though you went off on a rant, then you go on to say “I sincerely hope you never have children”, why? Are you trying to say, in a smug and condescending way, that whatever ethics/morals you have are better than mine? This leads me to; why are your morals and ethics better than mine? Is it because you care about an animal more than I do? Is it because you prefer, naively, to think that the things you eat do not kill or endanger animals? Or that the animals you endanger do not count because you are above me, because when I “grow up a little” I’ll “figure it out”.
Originally? The Hohokam and their descendants, the Pima/Maricopa tribes, grew corn, squash, beans and cotton. The Hohokam’s massive canal system was the model for modern Maricopa County’s canal system. Today, crops raised using Salt River Water in Maricopa County include: cantaloupe, watermelon, honeydew, peaches, citrus, broccoli, lettuce, cabbages, onions, green onions, radishes, cauliflower, spinach, escarole, kale, turnips, swiss chard, cilantro, parsley, endive, leeks, spinach, wheat, barley, feed corn, alfalfa and of course, our most famous crop: cotton. Please note that of all the crops listed, only two are “feed crops” for livestock. This information is from the Maricopa County Extension Service; county extension services provide information for and about agriculture throughout the US.
Why an electric one, was my question. I live in a region where night-time temperatures regularly get below freezing for three or four months. I use non-electric blankets–why don’t you?
I’ve thought about the implications of my lifestyle; you obviously haven’t thought about yours. Also, you’re the one who’s doing the preaching; therefore, you must hold yourself to a higher standard than us poor ignorant heathens or risk being called a hypocrite.
As far as agricultural subsidies, look, I’m tired of doing your homework for you. So, as a primary source (you do know what that means, don’t you?), I’ll tell you that since at least the 1960s the US government has paid farmers not to grow crops. I’m surprised that as a vegan you didn’t know that. I’m surprised that as a vegan you are apparently clueless about agriculture.
You aren’t reading my posts, are you? I said I couldn’t find it. You know, I’m getting tired of being forced to repeating myself.
Cut out all the environmental stuff, I’m dealing with your original bit. You know, the “unnecesary death” bit. Bears, like humans, can eat vegitable and animal matter. By YOUR definition of unnecesary death, every time a bear chooses to eat salmon instead of eating berries, it is commiting the same evil as a human killing an animal for food. It doesn’t matter that bears can’t plant crops, they can eat plant matter, and there’s plenty of that out in the forest. Quit dodging the question by going into economics and production and deal with your claims of “unnecesary death” and why a bear has different standards than humans.
So in other words, no, you can’t supply a cite. Thank you.
What the fuck? Saying it THREE TIMES is not enough for you to get it through your skull??? Yes, it is being cleared away! Did I word the damn sentance clearly and simply enough for you this time? Sheesh…
Boy, I hope you don’t have any wood in your home, some trees are cleared from the rainforests to make wood. Clearly, you must support the clearing of the rainforests by supporting the wood industry. And it sounds like you’ve got more electrical appliances than I do, you must be in support of the air and water polution that the power-generating industry creates. A bike? Any idea how much destruction and polution is caused by the industries mining metal for the bike, or rubber for the tires? You shouldn’t buy that stuff, you’re supporting the industrialization of the world, which has far larger ecological consequences than livestock production.
Oh, I forgot. That only applies to “evil” industries like meat.
I swear, if we see more idiotic statements like that, we’re going to have to come up with a new version of Godwin’s law…
You’re going to have to do a lot better than claiming that an as-yet un-declared portion of the US’s beef market comes from “rainforest beef”, if you’re going to cinvince me not to eat meat. Especially since I’ve already pointed out (Twice!) that I eat very little if any beef anyway.
Whereas you obviously don’t know the difference between the two. I will take that as a “No, I can’t back it up, so I will continue to spout nonsense.”
**
I’m sorry…where did you provide the proof that my actions are directly responsible for extinctions? Oh, that’s right…you didn’t. Because you can’t.
I am not in denial. As you may have noticed, had you actually read what I (and others) have wrote, I know, and can accept that my very existence precludes the existence of other organisms. I am aware of the consequences of my actions. Animals die to feed me and others. You think that’s wrong, I don’t. Deal.
**
You got me there. Obviosuly, you aren’t even using logic. See below:
To which I can really only respond, “What the hell are you talking about?!”
Great, you want to play duelling factoids again. OK, I’ll play along. From that same site:
**Since 1989, a global population of 5.2 million people is climbing by nearly 90 million/year. The population growth rate in Central America is 2.8%, the second highest in the world after Africa. Predictions show the region doubling in about 20 years.
The developing countries, which account for most of the tropical rainforest biospheres, have almost 75% of the world’s people but only about 15% of the world’s goods.
The popular wood products made from trees found only in rainforests, such as mahogany or rosewood, have become a booming industry.
Experts tie extensive logging to flooding of massive land areas in Thailand in 1988.
Hundreds of items that people in industrialized nations use every day come from tropical rainforests.
Most of the forests in India and Nepal have been cleared for agriculture.
Extensive use of powerful pesticides on banana plantations in Costa Rica has been tied to huge fish kills in nearby rivers and streams.**
So, what have we learned from this?
Perhaps one should, then, ask why aren’t the Brazilians properly managing their forests and making the alleged 3 to 100x as much money?
To which I can predictably reply, “yes, I knew that.” Humans have been driving species to extinction pretty much from the start. What does this have to do with meat?
**
Great. now show me the studies from these alleged “experts”.
**
Which conveniently ignores any considerations as to distribution of said food. Food isn’t free, unless you grow it or kill it yourself (and even then, there is a cost involved). People don’t become farmers or ranchers because they are altruistic.
You have all inspired me. You beat the vegetarianism righ out of me. I’m going to give up veganism and go on a permanent Atkin’s diet. Nothing but meat for Dalmuti. It’s probably for the best, anyway. I’d hate to turn 30 without hemmaroids. What fun would that be?
I’m going to take the knowledge bestowed upon me from this thread, and share it with the world. I’m going collect the wisdom of all these “ignorance-free” dopers, and teach teach teach everyone I meet, especially children:
"I don’t have to explain myself any more than a grizzly bear does."
I also made up my mind to go to an animal shelter, adopt as many cats and dogs as possible, cut them up, and feed them to one another. We did this to cows, which everyone else seems to be cool with. So, hey? I guess I’m cool with it too. Maybe I can be the one to discover Mad Cat Disease . . .then I’d be hip. And the cats don’t mind. They’re carnivores.
Also, I’ll be sure to make a habit of kicking other people’s pets. They’re only animals, as I’ve learned here, so there’s really no reason not to.
Since there’s more than enough food to go around, and starving people aren’t really starving, they’re just not working hard enough, I think a new hobby of buying cheesburgers and throwing then at the homeless is in order. They need discipline.
I’m going to have many, many children, and feed them lots and lots of hamburgers, just to spite environmentalists. Those damn hippies are always ruining the taste of my prime rib.
I also think I’m going to invest in rainforest grazing. The way you guys described it, it’s the best thing since pre-sliced bacon. All the dead endangered critters make their way into the cow, and it makes the burgers tase even better.
Last note, it’s funny how much everyone defended meat: It’s innocent. It’s not destroying anything. The cow’s like it.
But most people actually took the time, for some reason or another, to point out of “very little” meat they eat. Why would do put forth the effort, and belittle the champion you were working so hard to defend? It doesn’t add up.
Anyway. I’m bored with both your scientific bigotry and your inability to see a bigger picture. As you’ve told me: you can find a cite to support anything. Nit picking’s great if your a nit. Not if you’re not.
I wish you the best of luck of living a long, healthy life. Maybe we’ll bump into each other at McDonalds, someday. I’ll be the guy buying burgers for everyone, mooing like there’s no tomorrow.
Good luck. (You’re going to need it.)
-The Great Dalmuti
Are you done embarrassing those of us at the “vegetarian but not even a little bit loony” table? I sure hope so.
Incidentally, four years ago a world-renowned Indian economist by the name of Amartya Sen won a Nobel Prize for his work in demonstrating that, far from being an issue of scarcity, famines are a result of resource distribution inefficiencies. It would serve you well to read it.
Dalmuti, you must have an extremely warped world-view (Not to mention vocabulary and logical process) if you seriously think anyone here actually was proposing the idiocy you put foreward in that “last post” (The cows like it? Are you seriously thinking that’s what anyone seriously said?). But no, I generally give people more credit than that, so I’m going to have to assume that was just a trollish “screw you guys” post of someone who doesn’t want to actually confront any of the points brought up against their unreasonable declarations. The school-yard “I can’t win so I’m going to mock you guys for being right” bit. Feel free to prove me wrong by actually presenting reasonable points, I’d be more than happy to carry on a decent debate over it, but I won’t exactly be holding my breath; Your track record started out pretty low on this topic and kept on plumeting.
You do much more to hurt the reasonable vegetarians’ possition than you do to help them.
Should I even mention that after what, FOUR times now, you still seem to be under the mistaken impression that people are promoting the destruction of the rainforest as a good thing? After this many times, I have to conclude that you must be purposefully blind to what’s being said to actually mis-construe it that far.
