Vegetarianism

[Skeptical]

I don't see how an influence can be "undeserved". If a country influences the world, it influences the world. It obviously did something to "earn" that influence, or else there would be none.

 

Yes, a military empire and one of the only modern economies that was not destroyed during WWII.

[Zierro]

Therefore it has earned the influence it has caused. Whether it's a good or bad thing is debatable, but the connotation you get from "undeserved" or "unearned" just does not make sense in the context of something having an influence on the world.

[Skeptical]

Influence that George W. Bush has/had on world: undeserved.

 

Influence that Martin Luther King had on world: deserved.

 

 

Their actions and words shaped the world. One accomplished this through political connections that used him to further their own economic and political goals. The other through a grassroots social movement to end discrimination, and establish civil rights as a basic human right in the developed world.

[Kimberly]

>walk into a thread about vegetarianism

>see references to politics

>my face

[Skeptical]

I apologize. My fault, and the rest of the forum should not be inconvenienced.

 

I will withdraw to avoid further disruption. I do respond to PMs, if anyone wishes to continue this discussion.

[Assume Nothing]

How much greener would the world be if the government started charging tax on every kind of red meat available?

[Skeptical]

A lot greener, until the rioting and assaults on Washington started.

 

At which point they will realize we could just have adopted a different strategy concerning how animals are raised. People's problem should not be with consumption of meat, but the industrial murder machine.

 

(This is OT, I'm pretty sure).

[obfuscator]

An industrial murder machine which is basically necessary to fuel the amount of meat the world consumes...

[Skeptical]

Have you ever heard of Polyface farms? It was featured prominently in The Omnivore's Dilemna by Michael Pollan, and Food Inc.

 

There are alternatives, we just don't care to pursue them.

[obfuscator]

Interesting. I'd never heard of them

 

While their cause is admirable, I question the effectiveness of it were to be adopted en mass. For example, they don't ship. Precious few people want to drive more than ten minutes to buy their meat.

[Skeptical]

Which is exactly why agriculture must be decentralized.

 

And they do ship; but not far, since Joel says (correctly) that it would defeat the purpose. This was discussed in Dilemma, and I think briefly in Food Inc., right before their huge plug for Wal-Mart.

[obfuscator]

But agriculture can't be truly decentralized. For example, People in the middle of a desert still want to eat meat.

 

I agree that steps can be taken in that direction - but there will always be some centralization.

[Skeptical]

I didn't say that no transportation was possible: just that it must be over short distances.

 

The majority of people in North America live in cities: agriculture within the city limits is possible, on rooftops and such, and new technology for building massive vertical farms could be a step forward, although the jury is still out on that. Outside of that, we can conduct our agriculture without intensive farming: a system of rails lines being employed to transport food comes to mind, the end of excessive pesticide, fertilizer, anti-biotic and hormone use, and employment of more efficient methods of production (cold-blooded fish such as tilapia, crop rotation, use of closed-loop farm systems) can all contribute to sustainability.

 

It will cost more in the short term, but that's nothing compared to the destruction that intensive agriculture is doing to the environment.

[Myweponsg00d]

I actually don't see why it must be decentralized.

 

The problem with the major meat companies aren't in their size, it is in their practices. If one large meat-packing company existed somewhere, I don't really understand why they wouldn't be able to just adopt Joel's practices on a larger scale, and freeze and ship their meat to the whole country?

 

What is the difference between one enormous sustainable farm and 10,000 farms the size of Joel's?

[obfuscator]

I'd assume the profit margin. I doubt Joel's farm makes as much profit. And even so, they may sell meat for higher prices to make it economically viable, which the majority of people don't want to pay.

[Assume Nothing]

I'd assume the profit margin. I doubt Joel's farm makes as much profit. And even so, they may sell meat for higher prices to make it economically viable, which the majority of people don't want to pay.

Government starts taxing all imported meats, and all 'environmentally bad' meats. Joel's farm would be unaffected. Now, the money incentive/disincentive is gone.

[obfuscator]

Government increases taxes for 95% of population. Government removed from power two years later. New party repeals legislation.

[Myweponsg00d]

I'd assume the profit margin. I doubt Joel's farm makes as much profit. And even so, they may sell meat for higher prices to make it economically viable, which the majority of people don't want to pay.

 

But I still don't understand why a non-greedy centralized sustainable farm couldn't exist? He isn't making much money right now, so it would be an investment for him to grow...but then the increase in growth would lead to more profit coming in eventually. No?

[Skeptical]

A large farm might be possible, but there are numerous inherent issues:

 

It will be extremely expensive to operate. Less per calorie produced yes, but the start-up and operational costs would be much larger than something like Polyface farm's, if it was to be worthwhile. In our current economic system, that would necessitate it being run by a corporation, which inherently does not concern itself with the environmental, social, and ethical impact of it's ownership. As such, a regulatory agency must be placed in charge on monitoring it. Now, so far the EPA has proven to be mostly ineffective, heavily influenced by corporate influences concerning GMOs, and a recipient of intensive criticism by both the left (who believe it is ineffective) and the right (who believe it is inexpensive/necessary.) A complete overhaul of both it's powers, responsibilities and funding would be necessitated. At this point, the owners of the farm can now pursue policies which violate the actual spirit of sustainable agriculture: ship it across the country? No problem. Beef prices too high? Well, maybe we can keep them in CAFOs for part of the year. At this point, we have come full-circle back to the original issue, which is of industrial agriculture.

 

That could happen to smaller farm: at which point they are bought out, bankrupted, or simply steamrolled by agri-business interests. They simply cannot compete on the same playing field as companies like ConAgra.

 

Then, we can move on to some of the inefficiencies that are inherent to it, such as land required, difficulty in maintaining a cohesive philosophy when management is hands-off, and the increased drive towards mechanization that is found on a larger scale.

[Myweponsg00d]

A large farm might be possible, but there are numerous inherent issues:

 

It will be extremely expensive to operate. Less per calorie produced yes, but the start-up and operational costs would be much larger than something like Polyface farm's, if it was to be worthwhile. In our current economic system, that would necessitate it being run by a corporation, which inherently does not concern itself with the environmental, social, and ethical impact of it's ownership.

I'm still not getting this...if a ton of ethical farmers got together to start a corporation, why would it NEED to be heartless? Why do we automatically assume that there could never be a corporation who isn't mainly driven by attaining the highest profit?

 

As such, a regulatory agency must be placed in charge on monitoring it. Now, so far the EPA has proven to be mostly ineffective, heavily influenced by corporate influences concerning GMOs, and a recipient of intensive criticism by both the left (who believe it is ineffective) and the right (who believe it is inexpensive/necessary.)

I think I might understand this part of it...Joel already has a hard enough time dealing with pressure from people who want him to use different methods. Maybe he couldn't get away with it on a large scale? But again, if it were a large enough movement, maybe people would see the BS behind this legislature and get it changed? We do live in America after all.

A complete overhaul of both it's powers, responsibilities and funding would be necessitated. At this point, the owners of the farm can now pursue policies which violate the actual spirit of sustainable agriculture: ship it across the country? No problem. Beef prices too high? Well, maybe we can keep them in CAFOs for part of the year. At this point, we have come full-circle back to the original issue, which is of industrial agriculture.

 

That could happen to smaller farm: at which point they are bought out, bankrupted, or simply steamrolled by agri-business interests. They simply cannot compete on the same playing field as companies like ConAgra.

 

Then, we can move on to some of the inefficiencies that are inherent to it, such as land required, difficulty in maintaining a cohesive philosophy when management is hands-off, and the increased drive towards mechanization that is found on a larger scale.

I still feel like we would be making a lot of assumptions here about what a corporation must do. CEOs don't have to be billionaires.

[obfuscator]

Tell that to the CEOs ;)

 

I think what they do at that farm is great. Problem is, they're one in a million. In a society dominated by money you'll always have the majority of the people trying to squeeze out the highest profit possible. Hence why the majority of corporations make only a half-hearted attempt and being "environmentally friendly" or whatever else.

[Assume Nothing]

Tell that to the CEOs ;)

 

I think what they do at that farm is great. Problem is, they're one in a million. In a society dominated by money you'll always have the majority of the people trying to squeeze out the highest profit possible. Hence why the majority of corporations make only a half-hearted attempt and being "environmentally friendly" or whatever else.

 

Is there any way to make it more costly for a farmer to be 'less environmentally friendly', or make it more profitable to produce environmentally 'good' meats?

[Skeptical]

It is illegal for a corporation to be environmentally responsible beyond the requirement of law, unless it is profitable for shareholders. Corporations are externalization machines: their sole purpose is to offload the cost of their profits onto society, the environment, and their workers. They are a corruption of capitalism, created by a legal error, and fundamentally psychopathic.

 

Essential reading: http://www.amazon.com/Corporation-Pathological-Pursuit-Profit-Power/dp/0743247442

[Myweponsg00d]

It is illegal for a corporation to be environmentally responsible beyond the requirement of law, unless it is profitable for shareholders. Corporations are externalization machines: their sole purpose is to offload the cost of their profits onto society, the environment, and their workers. They are a corruption of capitalism, created by a legal error, and fundamentally psychopathic.

 

Essential reading: http://www.amazon.com/Corporation-Pathological-Pursuit-Profit-Power/dp/0743247442

 

Thank you for giving me the answer I was looking for.

 

I can't really blame huge corporations for putting unethical practices into play, since basically all they are doing is following the law. All of my hate for corporations has now been transferred to a hate toward legislature and Wall Street

 

Joel can implement less-than-profitable practices because his company is not publicly traded, correct?

[Skeptical]

He's quite profitable: it's just that he is not willing to do anything to increase profits.