and twice a day
Yuck!
To be fair, I’ve never met a vegetarian activist who is strongly opposed to the killing of bacteria, viruses, or plankton. You do have the Jains who won’t squish the tiniest gnat, but they’re a really small minority. Almost everyone draws a line somewhere, saying it’s okay to kill, say, cockroaches, but not lobsters.
If we could breed bacteria that produced “real meat” proteins and flavor, I think only a tiny minority of heavily ideological (and not very logical) extremists would condemn it.
Why would it be better? Once they exist then they have rights. Before they existed, they weren’t ‘they’. They were 0. If they existed then they did so only in your imagination. Your imaginary creatures have no rights and shouldn’t be under consideration by anyone else (hence religion should have no other consideration than any other imaginary things)
I don’t remember if I’ve ever eaten veal so wouldn’t miss it if it disappeared (same with goose liver), but if the practice of raising the animals causes them distress and pain, then it should be looked at. I’m not sure anyone here is arguing different.
Dairy cows are pretty well treated. Dairy cows produce less milk when they are stressed. The only real cruelty in the life is dairy cows is that they have been bred to produce too goddam much milk. Having spent some time as a milk animal myself, I can assure you that is cruel. But not so cruel as to condemn the industry, especially as it moves to the cows being able to choose when to be milked.
The real problem with dairy is the veal. The normal treatment for veal calves in the US, at least until quite recently, was to individually cage each calf in a create just big enough for it to stand. I would guess that a calf, given the choice, would rather hang out with its mother and risk death from predation (life in the wild) to being locked in a cage, unable to touch another member of its species.
I posted a link to the veal institute above. Ten* years ago, the veal industry’s web site explained why they had to keep the calves in solitary confinement and pump them full of antibiotics. Today, it says that the group recommends veal be managed in group housing, and shows photos of little herds of calves in ordinary livestock pens.
That change appears to be the result of people like me refusing to eat US veal, due to the horrible conditions the calves are often kept in. So I’m feeling rather pleased by the change. Heck, maybe I’ll start eating veal, at least from some sources.
*possibly longer ago. I was appalled when I read it, and I’m certain of the main points of the content. But I don’t remember exactly when I read it.
But you could argue that bacteria, viruses, or plankton are not animals. However, nematodes certainly are animals, as much so as a cow.
Huhwhat?
Overfull udders are painful. From what I’ve been told, it can be excruciating.
Also, there’s probably issues with things like mastitis but I’ll let the breast-feeding moms and docs elaborate more if needed.
Yes, that was my point with the rhetorical question.
Oh, horsefeathers. What use is it being morally superior if you can’t remind others of your exalted status?
Similarly, it’s no good having an ignore list if you don’t tell listees that they’re being ignored, and why.
You know what? You’re just exactly right.
Yes, I nursed two babies. Over-full breasts are extremely uncomfortable. I developed mastitis both times, until the baby mastered the difficult art of suckling.
I understand milk cows will die of complications if they aren’t milked.
Which is of course why we need to get straight to the business of developing cows that actually want to be eaten, and are capable of saying so, clearly and distinctly.
Submitted without comment:
Researchers investigate possible link between carnitine deficiency and autism.
No whey!
You mean to tell me that “moooooo” does NOT mean “help yourself to a piece of my haunch”?
Of course, one need not eat meat to get carnitine, which is available in dairy (and even some plants) and can, in any event, be synthesized from amino acids.
Link.
I know it is probably pointless to contribute into this vapid anti-vegan/vegetarian echo chamber of a “debate”, but this is complete BS. Here is just a tasting of some scientific knowledge on the matter for you, but I won’t be surprised if on this issue the denizens of The Dope find themselves peculiarly (gasp!) anti-science:
[QUOTE=The Lancet, 2007]
To prevent increased greenhouse-gas emissions from this production sector, both the average worldwide consumption level of animal products and the intensity of emissions from livestock production must be reduced.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Climate Change, 2014]
We conclude that reduced ruminant meat and dairy consumption will be indispensable for reaching the 2 °C target with a high probability, unless unprecedented advances in technology take place.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Nature: Climate Change, 2016]
In addition, measures to change diets away from emissions-intensive food commodities, such as meat and dairy, towards more plant-based diets are seen to offer great potential for reducing GHG emissions, and could be associated with additional co-benefits in terms of improvements in human health, something policymakers are increasingly becoming aware of.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Regional Environmental Change, 2017]
A dietary shift towards reduced meat consumption is an efficient strategy for countering biodiversity loss and climate change in regions (developed and transition countries) where consumption is already at a very high level or is rapidly expanding (such as China).
[/QUOTE]
Great cites but prove nothing beyond what I already said. Yes, indeed, we eat too much meat and fatten it too much with grain.
That does not mean in any way shape or form we should not eat ANY meat.
Meat a benign Extravagance https://www.amazon.com/Meat-Benign-Extravagance-Simon-Fairlie/dp/1603583246
proves conclusively that eating some meat is better for the environment/
Just research pesticide and fertilizer run off, plus the dangers of monoculture for the dangers *farming *can do to the environment.
Exactly how much meat should we be eating? What are the consequences to the environment or the world if people stopped consuming animal products? Somehow, I think the benefits of not eating any meat are much greater than eating any amount of commercially farmed, highly agriculturally intensive, i.e. fodder-fed, livestock, which I think constitutes the vast majority of all the sources of our meat consumption. Currently when we farm plants, we farm way more of them for animal rather than human consumption. Maybe if meat would become a luxury product, like Beluga caviar, it would be OK for environmental reasons to eat it.
The day the animals we eat fight back in an organized effort to avoid our predation, I might be inclined to think that this analogy has some merit. 
Hell, the day the animals actually manage to communicate intelligently with us, I’ll stop eating meat on the spot. Pigs are pretty smart, but they really aren’t “people.”
I also call bullshit on the “brutal slavery” clause, which, I can tell you from personal experience, does not apply to range cattle.
The emotional argument is pointless, for being subjective. “Brutal slavery” and “It tastes good” are both equally useless here, because they aren’t “arguments,” just opinions. The ecological argument is reasonable, and I agree with Dr. Deth. Too much meat production is environmentally harmful and also reduces the overall calories we can produce. But I also agree (a little) with the OP, that we don’t need as high a human population as we have. I’m a practicing non-natalist, having no kids. So I’ve done my personal bit for the environment!