Vegetarianism

[Kevin]

I'm very pro-vegetarianism and save the animals and stuff, so I eat my meat raw. Much nicer than subjecting a poor defenseless animal to the ordeal of being fried. )-:

 

Lol, I hope that's sarcasm.

 

Meat is no longer an animal, that can feel anything.

 

No I'm being totally serious. I believe frying or boiling or roasting or griling meat is disrespectful toward the meat and should be stopped. It is a very wrong and painful procedure. But I understand these tactics are employed by majority.. thus I try to purchase as much meat as possible and eat it raw to spare it otherwise being cooked by another customer.

 

Meat no longer feels pain after it's dead (unless you cook things alive), and it doesn't stop it from being dead.

 

Ah, but it would be wrong to fry, boil, roast or grill meat dead or alive. That's what vegetarianism is all about: preservation of animalkind, and thus further destruction of plant-life. And that's why I started a campaign called project S.P.A.M: Stop People Afflicting Meat.

 

Mission - DON'T HURT THE MEAT! Be a good vegetarian! Annihilate the veggies instead! *Eats carrots and lettuce ruthlessly*

 

Popular misconception; Plants can't feel anything. They are sentient beings, hence, you shouldn't kill them for food. Nor should you breath, for you are killing thousands of microbes every breath you take. For anyone that disregards microbes as 'living organisms'; You are a size-ist. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed

 

But if I don't breathe, my body will not serve a promising vessel to those poor bacteria. I am sacrificial but not unreasonable; the genocide of hundreds of microbes globally will not stir my sympathies like the demolition of the homes of thousands of dependent bacteria would.

 

Wrong. A dead organism is easier to invade than a living organism.

 

I fully agree, hence Stop People Afflicting Meat. The campaign I started and it has a promising future. I bought a steak this morning and set it free in the wild, I think it'll have a happier life now

[Alg]

[D Jay99]

There is no such thing as an apple season really, if you harvest them and put them in some cool storage place they stay okay until next year's harvest.

Besides the point but hey

[Kevin]

You get apple season if you're wise enough to join S.P.A.M.

 

We shoot them. Annihilate the veggies. Save the meat.

[Skeptical]

At which point people need to make concessions.

 

If I choose to live in Canada, I will not eat constantly purchase pineapple, I will not purchase apples out of season, etc.

 

And yes, bunker fuel is an example of where my skepticism comes into play concerning global warming: when the amount of allowable sulfur was decreased, people called foul, since it actually has a cooling effect, as well as contributing to tens of thousands of premature deaths through lung disease. On topic, though, I have to say that there is likely quite a bit of room for improvement in how we transport food: use of trucks instead of railroads comes to mind.

 

you can get apples out of season because it is worth people in south america's time to ship apples to north america as there is money to be made.

 

However massive food programs to africa have no incentive besides charity.

 

No. It is worth multinational food corporations time to ship fruit from South America. It doesn't matter to the growers where it goes, and I don't blame them for it.

 

 

I call [cabbage] on government food aid.

 

The US offers cheap, or free grains to foreign countries, through subsidies to domestic growers, or through aid programs. Poor countries accept, since hey - it's free food. Suddenly, there's cheap grain to be had, something that subsistence farmers couldn't produce very efficiently. Those farmers are now out of work: who will buy grain for an extra $1 a pound? It now just happens to be the US now controlling the food market in this country. Political ends can now be achieved by using aid a threat: don't do what we say, the food stops flowing, people starve, and your government collapses.

 

Sure, sounds like charity to me.

[magekillr]

^^Truth.

 

America needs to end its farmer subsidies and start pumping those subsidies into solar and wind energy. People are opposed to ending farmer subsidies because they imagine mom and pop Joe/Jane farmer on their little tractor just trying to make a living. Wrong idea. The food industry is just as rampant and massive as Big Pharma, and should not be getting subsidies. At least Pharma produces some life saving drugs every once in a while. Food Inc. just gives us cheap high fructose corn syrup.

[Skeptical]

Well said, although I do feel obliged to point out that much pharmaceutical research is conducted by public institutions, with public money.

 

Related to the above: http://www.pnas.org/content/93/23/12725.full

[Kevin]

On the subject of S.P.A.M and its commitments. The steak I bought and let free yesterday is still in the same place.. guess it's happy where it is. :/

[Dupin]

On the subject of S.P.A.M and its commitments. The steak I bought and let free yesterday is still in the same place.. guess it's happy where it is. :/

Posts like these aren't really relevant to vegetarianism. I think you should start a blog.

[Giordano]

On the subject of S.P.A.M and its commitments. The steak I bought and let free yesterday is still in the same place.. guess it's happy where it is. :/

Posts like these aren't really relevant to vegetarianism. I think you should start a blog.

Please don't encourage him. :pray:

[Dupin]

On the subject of S.P.A.M and its commitments. The steak I bought and let free yesterday is still in the same place.. guess it's happy where it is. :/

Posts like these aren't really relevant to vegetarianism. I think you should start a blog.

Please don't encourage him. :pray:

This forum should be open to newcomers from all walks of life.

[Furah]

The only arguement i can say for vegetarianism is you can support a much larger population if everyone was a vegetarian. Plants get 100% of the energy of the sun, something eating the plants gets 10% of that energy, something the animals that ate the plants get 10% of that energy.

 

Thats why theres always more prey then predators in the wild. That is the only arguement for vegetarianism i find to be acceptable, any moral arguements on "eating meat is wrong" are for the most part a pointless debate to have with someone.

Yea, that's silly. First of all, we have more food if we eat meat because we have more options available. Second, our main limiting factor is a lack of space, not a lack of food.

 

Im not arguing for vegetarianism but im saying that is the only arguement i would find to be valid.

 

And lack of space is a problem however it takes 10 pounds of food for every 1 pound of meat. Thus if 1 acre of land produces 50 pounds of food, you can say that 5 pounds of beef is equal to 1 acre of land.

 

Thus it is still more efficient to be on an entirely vegetarian diet, however that isnt going to be a problem til we got 10billion+ people on the planet. Which is why im not advocating vegetarianism.

 

Also this isnt an opinion its science, even without people in the environment its true that you need a lot of plants for prey to eat, and you need a lot of prey to support predators, and counting how many predators there are is a good indicator of a healthy ecosystem.

I've stated before, what they feed the animals is not edible by humans. The animals also are dumped on land where you can't plant crops, as it's much cheaper for farmers as the land is worth substantially less.

[EarthySun]

At which point people need to make concessions.

 

If I choose to live in Canada, I will not eat constantly purchase pineapple, I will not purchase apples out of season, etc.

 

And yes, bunker fuel is an example of where my skepticism comes into play concerning global warming: when the amount of allowable sulfur was decreased, people called foul, since it actually has a cooling effect, as well as contributing to tens of thousands of premature deaths through lung disease. On topic, though, I have to say that there is likely quite a bit of room for improvement in how we transport food: use of trucks instead of railroads comes to mind.

 

you can get apples out of season because it is worth people in south america's time to ship apples to north america as there is money to be made.

 

However massive food programs to africa have no incentive besides charity.

 

No. It is worth multinational food corporations time to ship fruit from South America. It doesn't matter to the growers where it goes, and I don't blame them for it.

 

 

I call [cabbage] on government food aid.

 

The US offers cheap, or free grains to foreign countries, through subsidies to domestic growers, or through aid programs. Poor countries accept, since hey - it's free food. Suddenly, there's cheap grain to be had, something that subsistence farmers couldn't produce very efficiently. Those farmers are now out of work: who will buy grain for an extra $1 a pound? It now just happens to be the US now controlling the food market in this country. Political ends can now be achieved by using aid a threat: don't do what we say, the food stops flowing, people starve, and your government collapses.

 

Sure, sounds like charity to me.

 

It's charity if the intent was to help. What does the US have to gain by "controlling" an extremely poor, under-developed nation? <_< The reason that we give them food in the first place is because they can't produce enough, hence why the native farmers' food is so expensive for them to buy (as compared to free food, go figure). You're saying that they're in the wrong for doing nothing about their problem and leeching off US government aid instead of fixing their crippling issue, and then demonizing the US for helping them out. Can you offer me an example of how my country has decided to maliciously force weaker countries to do their bidding by keeping their citizens alive?

[Skeptical]

At which point people need to make concessions.

 

If I choose to live in Canada, I will not eat constantly purchase pineapple, I will not purchase apples out of season, etc.

 

And yes, bunker fuel is an example of where my skepticism comes into play concerning global warming: when the amount of allowable sulfur was decreased, people called foul, since it actually has a cooling effect, as well as contributing to tens of thousands of premature deaths through lung disease. On topic, though, I have to say that there is likely quite a bit of room for improvement in how we transport food: use of trucks instead of railroads comes to mind.

 

you can get apples out of season because it is worth people in south america's time to ship apples to north america as there is money to be made.

 

However massive food programs to africa have no incentive besides charity.

 

No. It is worth multinational food corporations time to ship fruit from South America. It doesn't matter to the growers where it goes, and I don't blame them for it.

 

 

I call [cabbage] on government food aid.

 

The US offers cheap, or free grains to foreign countries, through subsidies to domestic growers, or through aid programs. Poor countries accept, since hey - it's free food. Suddenly, there's cheap grain to be had, something that subsistence farmers couldn't produce very efficiently. Those farmers are now out of work: who will buy grain for an extra $1 a pound? It now just happens to be the US now controlling the food market in this country. Political ends can now be achieved by using aid a threat: don't do what we say, the food stops flowing, people starve, and your government collapses.

 

Sure, sounds like charity to me.

 

It's charity if the intent was to help. What does the US have to gain by "controlling" an extremely poor, under-developed nation? <_< The reason that we give them food in the first place is because they can't produce enough, hence why the native farmers' food is so expensive for them to buy (as compared to free food, go figure). You're saying that they're in the wrong for doing nothing about their problem and leeching off US government aid instead of fixing their crippling issue, and then demonizing the US for helping them out. Can you offer me an example of how my country has decided to maliciously force weaker countries to do their bidding by keeping their citizens alive?

 

Ahh, I do enjoy introducing people to the dark side. It's actually much more for corporations that the government, which is really just the step in between them and the organizations such as the WTO and World Bank.

 

http://rajpatel.org/2009/10/30/tortilla-prices-an-analysis/

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0506-09.htm

 

Somewhere to start, but you really need to read this book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Stuffed-Starved-Hidden-Battle-System/dp/1933633492/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257882274&sr=8-1

[Alg]

Including the [bleep] American ones? :3

Especially those. I mean, look at our president. Clearly the entire country is some kind of master race. It's only a matter of time before Europe and Canada are assimilated painlessly and silently. It could already be happening now. Then American hamburgers will be the only food worth eating.

[Kevin]

Including the shítty American ones? :3

Especially those. I mean, look at our president. Clearly the entire country is some kind of master race. It's only a matter of time before Europe and Canada are assimilated painlessly and silently. It could already be happening now. Then American hamburgers will be the only food worth eating.

 

Whatever floats your boat. I'm quite happy to overlook this procedure from my future mansion, supreme overlord of RuneScape and the widely respected and feared Iron Man, an observer with other things on his mind like fame and fortune, whatever crap the world descends into like the things you described.

[Zierro]

Yikes, new age trolling. I miss the good old days when we would just get called fat and stupid.

 

As for vegetarianism, is it immoral that I feel empowered when eating meat off the bone? I see a lot of people claim that the idea of it would/has made them feel awful, but personally I get an endorphin rush because it's symbolic of man conquering nature so much so that we now are the nature. Admittedly though, I am a bit speciest at heart.

[Skeptical]

Yikes, new age trolling. I miss the good old days when we would just get called fat and stupid.

 

As for vegetarianism, is it immoral that I feel empowered when eating meat off the bone? I see a lot of people claim that the idea of it would/has made them feel awful, but personally I get an endorphin rush because it's symbolic of man conquering nature so much so that we now are the nature. Admittedly though, I am a bit speciest at heart.

 

We have not conquered nature: we have temporary control over it, and the ability to end the world if our insanity ever prevails.

 

The modern world may have been paved over, sanitized, forests gone, rivers damned, mountains removed, and yet we now stand on the precipice of collapse. The evidence shows that we are racing down Hubbert's Peak, our acceleration driven by a suicidal desire to believe a finite resource can be stretched indefinitely. Our water is toxic, our air is poison to breathe, our trash coats the world, clog ecosystems, and our fertilizers turn waterways into massive algae farms.

 

We're holding a metaphorical gun to our collective head, stockpiles of nuclear weapons capable of ending all life several times over, or a far slower and more painful death by ecological suicide. That's one path - not a descent, but a dead end: there simply is nothing that way, a dead end for everything that we know. The second path is that we live. Whether or not we want to make that life anything worth living is a decision that's being made now.

 

Maybe vegetarianism is a component of the solution, maybe it's not. Will you ever manage to prevent people from eating meat? Never. It's pointless to try, simply because people's definition of freedom includes the choice of eating what they want to. So we take a different path: we can take down Big Oil, and we can stop ignoring profits above everything else. Choosing your battles is just as important as fighting them.

[Giordano]

Or just try to live your life, enjoying it by getting rich off oil or something. I'm not a matyr.

[Zierro]

We have not conquered nature: we have temporary control over it, and the ability to end the world if our insanity ever prevails.

 

The modern world may have been paved over, sanitized, forests gone, rivers damned, mountains removed, and yet we now stand on the precipice of collapse. The evidence shows that we are racing down Hubbert's Peak, our acceleration driven by a suicidal desire to believe a finite resource can be stretched indefinitely. Our water is toxic, our air is poison to breathe, our trash coats the world, clog ecosystems, and our fertilizers turn waterways into massive algae farms.

 

We're holding a metaphorical gun to our collective head, stockpiles of nuclear weapons capable of ending all life several times over, or a far slower and more painful death by ecological suicide. That's one path - not a descent, but a dead end: there simply is nothing that way, a dead end for everything that we know. The second path is that we live. Whether or not we want to make that life anything worth living is a decision that's being made now.

 

We're at the top of the food chain, our technology is far more advanced than that of any other living organism, and we have the ability to [bleep] up the world on such a great magnitude. Sounds an awful lot like we have overthrown nature - for the time being at least, because you are right about the ultimate entropy thing. At the time being, humans hold the largest influence on the world. Whether it was deserved or not is another story.

 

And also, no matter how efficient or well-planned-out we are, we're still all going to die. Of course we could elongate our stay, but you can't really blame humans for their inevitable demise. Taking an opportunity and working with it however you possibly can is a key element of humanity, and when possibility doesn't allow it, nature has taken its title back. We're not there yet. Right now we're alive and kicking.

[Assume Nothing]

If cloning is possible, would over-fishing be a problem anymore?

[Assume Nothing]

If cloning is possible, would over-fishing be a problem anymore?

 

cloning is basically articially creating a twin of another fish. It still takes as much food in an ecosystem to feed a quantity of cloned fish, or a quantity of natural fish

 

The smallest fish of the foodchain feed on plankton. We have plenty of that

[Giordano]

If cloning is possible, would over-fishing be a problem anymore?

 

cloning is basically articially creating a twin of another fish. It still takes as much food in an ecosystem to feed a quantity of cloned fish, or a quantity of natural fish

Over-fishing as in the shortage of fish to humans, is what I think he meant. Large fish farms will arrise like farms for animals. We will need a lot of plankton/fish food too, which would become a shortage. We clone that...and the cycle repeats itself.

[Saru Inc]

We have not conquered nature: we have temporary control over it, and the ability to end the world if our insanity ever prevails.

 

The modern world may have been paved over, sanitized, forests gone, rivers damned, mountains removed, and yet we now stand on the precipice of collapse. The evidence shows that we are racing down Hubbert's Peak, our acceleration driven by a suicidal desire to believe a finite resource can be stretched indefinitely. Our water is toxic, our air is poison to breathe, our trash coats the world, clog ecosystems, and our fertilizers turn waterways into massive algae farms.

 

We're holding a metaphorical gun to our collective head, stockpiles of nuclear weapons capable of ending all life several times over, or a far slower and more painful death by ecological suicide. That's one path - not a descent, but a dead end: there simply is nothing that way, a dead end for everything that we know. The second path is that we live. Whether or not we want to make that life anything worth living is a decision that's being made now.

 

We're at the top of the food chain, our technology is far more advanced than that of any other living organism, and we have the ability to [bleep] up the world on such a great magnitude. Sounds an awful lot like we have overthrown nature - for the time being at least, because you are right about the ultimate entropy thing. At the time being, humans hold the largest influence on the world. Whether it was deserved or not is another story.

 

And also, no matter how efficient or well-planned-out we are, we're still all going to die. Of course we could elongate our stay, but you can't really blame humans for their inevitable demise. Taking an opportunity and working with it however you possibly can is a key element of humanity, and when possibility doesn't allow it, nature has taken its title back. We're not there yet. Right now we're alive and kicking.

 

 

preach.

[Furah]

Ideally a safe clean energy renewable energy source that is found to be widely available would solve pollution, and with widespread recycling programs would solve the level of waste.

 

However both are a century or two off, and if cleaner energy is expensive then the 2nd and 3rd world will continue to pollute until their economies match that or first world countries

Actually they shouldn't be that far off, but big players in the oil industry will do anything to keep generating that profit, the same reason why a drug that could cure many addictions is illegal as the pharmaceutical companies would lose large amounts of profit, and why hemp (a non-psychoactive member of the cannabis genus) is illegal to grow in the US, because the paper mill, cotton, pharmaceutical, and oil industries would all lose large amounts of profit.