Vegetarianism

[Alg]

But long-term working fixes are sooo hard! It's so much easier and more satisfying to throw money at the problem and hope it stops bothering us. That's why we have Priuses, carbon offsets, and the color green.

 

Until you realize that most people still get part or all of their electricity from coal burning. Including the electricity that charges your lovely electric cars.

[EarthySun]

I have no problem with vegetarianism it itself... in fact, I find the concept fine. However, people have differing reasons for it, and it turns out that I just plain hate most vegetarians.

 

My friend EJ was a vegetarian because that's how his dad raised him, but he ate meat during Thanksgiving or whatever (his dad was fine with it).

With that one friend as the exception, all other vegetarians that I've met, I've hated. For instance, there's a girl in my class who wouldn't eat the pizza from our school (ordered from Papa John's, not school-made) because it had pepperoni on it. I asked why, and she said she was a vegetarian and couldn't even take the meat off and eat it, nor could she wipe off the meat-juice with a napkin or anything of the sort. She says she's a vegetarian because whenever she eats meat, she "sees the face of the animal that died". -.-

I don't see why you would hate the girl for doing that.

 

I do that all the time. At my work, a lot of my coworkers order in pizza sometimes, and they'll say to me, "We got pepperoni, but you can have some if you want," assuming that I would be fine with removing the meat or fat. I would never, ever pick off pepperoni from a pizza, mop up the juice, and then turn around and eat it. That's like asking a vegetarian to drink a cup of chicken broth, just because it technically doesn't have meat in it.

 

And for what it's worth, while your friend EJ's reason is perfectly valid, I find that Random Girl's reasoning for being a vegetarian is far more honorable and respectable.

 

The real thing that annoys me about it is the whole "I see the animal's tortured face and feel super guilty D:" thing. That just isn't true. It isn't like they have some psychic perception that tells them whether or not they're eating meat, nor even what kind of animal it is. If she eats a school lunch, does she see a raccoon? Of course not. It might also help to add that this person is a daoist, who believes that the "Universe" will take care of everything, and that you can sit back and everything takes care of itself. :\ It's really the whole mindset that I dislike.

[Assume Nothing]

I have no problem with vegetarianism it itself... in fact, I find the concept fine. However, people have differing reasons for it, and it turns out that I just plain hate most vegetarians.

 

My friend EJ was a vegetarian because that's how his dad raised him, but he ate meat during Thanksgiving or whatever (his dad was fine with it).

With that one friend as the exception, all other vegetarians that I've met, I've hated. For instance, there's a girl in my class who wouldn't eat the pizza from our school (ordered from Papa John's, not school-made) because it had pepperoni on it. I asked why, and she said she was a vegetarian and couldn't even take the meat off and eat it, nor could she wipe off the meat-juice with a napkin or anything of the sort. She says she's a vegetarian because whenever she eats meat, she "sees the face of the animal that died". -.-

I don't see why you would hate the girl for doing that.

 

I do that all the time. At my work, a lot of my coworkers order in pizza sometimes, and they'll say to me, "We got pepperoni, but you can have some if you want," assuming that I would be fine with removing the meat or fat. I would never, ever pick off pepperoni from a pizza, mop up the juice, and then turn around and eat it. That's like asking a vegetarian to drink a cup of chicken broth, just because it technically doesn't have meat in it.

 

And for what it's worth, while your friend EJ's reason is perfectly valid, I find that Random Girl's reasoning for being a vegetarian is far more honorable and respectable.

 

The real thing that annoys me about it is the whole "I see the animal's tortured face and feel super guilty D:" thing. That just isn't true. It isn't like they have some psychic perception that tells them whether or not they're eating meat, nor even what kind of animal it is. If she eats a school lunch, does she see a raccoon? Of course not. It might also help to add that this person is a daoist, who believes that the "Universe" will take care of everything, and that you can sit back and everything takes care of itself. :\ It's really the whole mindset that I dislike.

 

Another mindset that bugs me is that 'killing livestock is cruel'. Even if they have the right to live, it's silly to say that killing these animals are 'cruel', because even out in the wild, they won't die of old age with their family by their bedside holding their hands. They usually get eaten, and being eaten is usually more frightening/painful than the way they get killed in a slaughterhouse.

[D Jay99]

I have no problem with vegetarianism it itself... in fact, I find the concept fine. However, people have differing reasons for it, and it turns out that I just plain hate most vegetarians.

 

My friend EJ was a vegetarian because that's how his dad raised him, but he ate meat during Thanksgiving or whatever (his dad was fine with it).

With that one friend as the exception, all other vegetarians that I've met, I've hated. For instance, there's a girl in my class who wouldn't eat the pizza from our school (ordered from Papa John's, not school-made) because it had pepperoni on it. I asked why, and she said she was a vegetarian and couldn't even take the meat off and eat it, nor could she wipe off the meat-juice with a napkin or anything of the sort. She says she's a vegetarian because whenever she eats meat, she "sees the face of the animal that died". -.-

I don't see why you would hate the girl for doing that.

 

I do that all the time. At my work, a lot of my coworkers order in pizza sometimes, and they'll say to me, "We got pepperoni, but you can have some if you want," assuming that I would be fine with removing the meat or fat. I would never, ever pick off pepperoni from a pizza, mop up the juice, and then turn around and eat it. That's like asking a vegetarian to drink a cup of chicken broth, just because it technically doesn't have meat in it.

 

And for what it's worth, while your friend EJ's reason is perfectly valid, I find that Random Girl's reasoning for being a vegetarian is far more honorable and respectable.

 

The real thing that annoys me about it is the whole "I see the animal's tortured face and feel super guilty D:" thing. That just isn't true. It isn't like they have some psychic perception that tells them whether or not they're eating meat, nor even what kind of animal it is. If she eats a school lunch, does she see a raccoon? Of course not. It might also help to add that this person is a daoist, who believes that the "Universe" will take care of everything, and that you can sit back and everything takes care of itself. :\ It's really the whole mindset that I dislike.

 

Another mindset that bugs me is that 'killing livestock is cruel'. Even if they have the right to live, it's silly to say that killing these animals are 'cruel', because even out in the wild, they won't die of old age with their family by their bedside holding their hands. They usually get eaten, and being eaten is usually more frightening/painful than the way they get killed in a slaughterhouse.

Except these animals wouldn't even be there if not for food production.They basically get created so they can be killed (and eaten).

 

Which brings us to the next question, is it better to create life and then let it live a pretty horrible life and kill it, or just not to create it at all?

[Assume Nothing]

I have no problem with vegetarianism it itself... in fact, I find the concept fine. However, people have differing reasons for it, and it turns out that I just plain hate most vegetarians.

 

My friend EJ was a vegetarian because that's how his dad raised him, but he ate meat during Thanksgiving or whatever (his dad was fine with it).

With that one friend as the exception, all other vegetarians that I've met, I've hated. For instance, there's a girl in my class who wouldn't eat the pizza from our school (ordered from Papa John's, not school-made) because it had pepperoni on it. I asked why, and she said she was a vegetarian and couldn't even take the meat off and eat it, nor could she wipe off the meat-juice with a napkin or anything of the sort. She says she's a vegetarian because whenever she eats meat, she "sees the face of the animal that died". -.-

I don't see why you would hate the girl for doing that.

 

I do that all the time. At my work, a lot of my coworkers order in pizza sometimes, and they'll say to me, "We got pepperoni, but you can have some if you want," assuming that I would be fine with removing the meat or fat. I would never, ever pick off pepperoni from a pizza, mop up the juice, and then turn around and eat it. That's like asking a vegetarian to drink a cup of chicken broth, just because it technically doesn't have meat in it.

 

And for what it's worth, while your friend EJ's reason is perfectly valid, I find that Random Girl's reasoning for being a vegetarian is far more honorable and respectable.

 

The real thing that annoys me about it is the whole "I see the animal's tortured face and feel super guilty D:" thing. That just isn't true. It isn't like they have some psychic perception that tells them whether or not they're eating meat, nor even what kind of animal it is. If she eats a school lunch, does she see a raccoon? Of course not. It might also help to add that this person is a daoist, who believes that the "Universe" will take care of everything, and that you can sit back and everything takes care of itself. :\ It's really the whole mindset that I dislike.

 

Another mindset that bugs me is that 'killing livestock is cruel'. Even if they have the right to live, it's silly to say that killing these animals are 'cruel', because even out in the wild, they won't die of old age with their family by their bedside holding their hands. They usually get eaten, and being eaten is usually more frightening/painful than the way they get killed in a slaughterhouse.

Except these animals wouldn't even be there if not for food production.They basically get created so they can be killed (and eaten).

 

Which brings us to the next question, is it better to create life and then let it live a pretty horrible life and kill it, or just not to create it at all?

That is the fault of the American Meat Industries, not the meat eater's. Bad practices in producing livestock isn't really our fault, because we're not the ones raising it.

 

If we're talking about life in the strict sense, growing vegetables for the sole purpose of harvesting it is also 'murder'. But personally, I think it's not entirely ethical to raise animals solely for slaughter though. Perhaps we should find a more sustainable wild food source, certain species of fish that never stops breeding.

[D Jay99]

Another mindset that bugs me is that 'killing livestock is cruel'. Even if they have the right to live, it's silly to say that killing these animals are 'cruel', because even out in the wild, they won't die of old age with their family by their bedside holding their hands. They usually get eaten, and being eaten is usually more frightening/painful than the way they get killed in a slaughterhouse.

Except these animals wouldn't even be there if not for food production.They basically get created so they can be killed (and eaten).

 

Which brings us to the next question, is it better to create life and then let it live a pretty horrible life and kill it, or just not to create it at all?

That is the fault of the American Meat Industries, not the meat eater's. Bad practices in producing livestock isn't really our fault, because we're not the ones raising it.

 

If we're talking about life in the strict sense, growing vegetables for the sole purpose of harvesting it is also 'murder'. But personally, I think it's not entirely ethical to raise animals solely for slaughter though. Perhaps we should find a more sustainable wild food source, certain species of fish that never stops breeding.

Well yeah but most meat eaters act like they can't do anything about it. While this is technically true, buying the meat that is produced that way isn't helping at all, especially when there's other meat you can buy that was produced in a less animal degrading way.

That last argument is pretty horrible too, it's like paying an assasin to kill someone and then claim it wasn't your fault because you didn't do it yourself.

 

Playing devil's advocate here for a bit since I really couldn't care less about cows

 

Also have you still not realized theres a substantial difference between the animals we raise to produce meat and plants? Because you keep bringing it up and it really holds no ground. No idea where but I think a mod/admin made a pretty good post on some differences between animals and plants.

[Zierro]

That last argument is pretty horrible too, it's like paying an assasin to kill someone and then claim it wasn't your fault because you didn't do it yourself.

 

Talk about horrible - look at that analogy. Buying food that originated in misery farms is not the same as hiring an assassin, not even close.

 

Firstly, a lot of consumers are ignorant about the miserable conditions (or they are aware of them, but do not want it that way), whereas the person hiring the assassin is directly asking for the miserable condition of murdering a human. Secondly, if a person were to stop being a consumer of those misery farms, it wouldn't really have an effect, whereas the hiring of an assassin is completely up to one individual - they are the direct cause of it. Thirdly, there is a substantial difference between a cow and a person.

 

So I agree with Not Trolling. The problem lies within the factories, not on our plates.

[D Jay99]

That last argument is pretty horrible too, it's like paying an assasin to kill someone and then claim it wasn't your fault because you didn't do it yourself.

 

Talk about horrible - look at that analogy. Buying food that originated in misery farms is not the same as hiring an assassin, not even close.

 

Firstly, a lot of consumers are ignorant about the miserable conditions (or they are aware of them, but do not want it that way), whereas the person hiring the assassin is directly asking for the miserable condition of murdering a human. Secondly, if a person were to stop being a consumer of those misery farms, it wouldn't really have an effect, whereas the hiring of an assassin is completely up to one individual - they are the direct cause of it. Thirdly, there is a substantial difference between a cow and a person.

 

So I agree with Not Trolling. The problem lies within the factories, not on our plates.

Well yeah you do have a point, analogies usually suck and so did mine :P

 

I don't agree with the last line though, since you can buy meat that wasn't produced in misery farms. The factories are basically able to exist because no one really objects, it's (watch this another analogy, watched movie about abolition of slavery last week) a bit like the slave trade really, most people thought it was okay or at least they didn't really care until a few individuals pointed out the flaws in the system and eventually even made the slave trade illegal. I honestly think we as a pretty advanced species should be able to survive without killing animals for food, and since someone has to start you might as well do it. Won't ever happen though ofc because most people are pretty uncapable of long-term thinking.

[Assume Nothing]

That last argument is pretty horrible too, it's like paying an assasin to kill someone and then claim it wasn't your fault because you didn't do it yourself.

 

Talk about horrible - look at that analogy. Buying food that originated in misery farms is not the same as hiring an assassin, not even close.

 

Firstly, a lot of consumers are ignorant about the miserable conditions (or they are aware of them, but do not want it that way), whereas the person hiring the assassin is directly asking for the miserable condition of murdering a human. Secondly, if a person were to stop being a consumer of those misery farms, it wouldn't really have an effect, whereas the hiring of an assassin is completely up to one individual - they are the direct cause of it. Thirdly, there is a substantial difference between a cow and a person.

 

So I agree with Not Trolling. The problem lies within the factories, not on our plates.

Well yeah you do have a point, analogies usually suck and so did mine :P

 

I don't agree with the last line though, since you can buy meat that wasn't produced in misery farms. The factories are basically able to exist because no one really objects, it's (watch this another analogy, watched movie about abolition of slavery last week) a bit like the slave trade really, most people thought it was okay or at least they didn't really care until a few individuals pointed out the flaws in the system and eventually even made the slave trade illegal. I honestly think we as a pretty advanced species should be able to survive without killing animals for food, and since someone has to start you might as well do it. Won't ever happen though ofc because most people are pretty uncapable of long-term thinking.

 

Just because some factories have poor practices, doesn't mean they all do. And I disagree with your point "since you can buy meat that wasn't produced in misery farms". That is unfounded and untrue, you can buy meat that isn't produced in poor conditions, it just isn't very widespread yet. This isn't our fault. All the government has to do is enforce fines, or taxation on meat products that are produced in a non humane way.

 

However, this raises the question, what is humane?

 

EDIT - It seems that I have misinterpreted a typo. My point will be defeated if the quoted post was indeed talking about the ability to buy meat through 'non misery farms'. If quoted post's interpretation was indeed a typo, then my point still stands.

[D Jay99]

And I disagree with your point "since you can buy meat that wasn't produced in misery farms". That is unfounded and untrue, you can buy meat that isn't produced in poor conditions, it just isn't very widespread yet.

Well I guess that's different in america then, in holland there's quite a lot of options if you don't want to buy meat that has been produced in a certain way.

 

And yeah that last point is indeed an important question and it really should be answered first before even starting this debate

[Saru Inc]

And I disagree with your point "since you can buy meat that wasn't produced in misery farms". That is unfounded and untrue, you can buy meat that isn't produced in poor conditions, it just isn't very widespread yet.

Well I guess that's different in america then, in holland there's quite a lot of options if you don't want to buy meat that has been produced in a certain way.

 

And yeah that last point is indeed an important question and it really should be answered first before even starting this debate

 

 

I mean to be honest, there's ton of organic meat around my area. Albeit to the west of us is like pure farmland, so that's probably a major factor.

[Giordano]

But how sure can one be sure these cows are raised 'properly'? Same goes with "organic" anything.

[Saru Inc]

Ummm. You can't? Usually if they don't taste as good, that's how you know. :XD:

[Giordano]

See, my point. I'll rather save the extra cash by buying regular. Going the commercialized way of healthy is just too expensive.

[Assume Nothing]

Reading back, I just noticed that I interpreted a typo. D Jay probably meant can't buy meant that wasn't raised in bad conditions, he wrote 'can' >.>

[Assume Nothing]

But how sure can one be sure these cows are raised 'properly'? Same goes with "organic" anything.

 

I'm pretty sure there are methods to check how good the conditions of the farm is. Evaluating how they are fed, how much space they have, how long they live, what they eat, and how much 'stress' the animals have. Organic is very different to 'Properly raised'. Organic just doesn't permit the use of unnatural pesticides (although, what is natural?).

[Skeptical]

But long-term working fixes are sooo hard! It's so much easier and more satisfying to throw money at the problem and hope it stops bothering us. That's why we have Priuses, carbon offsets, and the color green.

 

Until you realize that most people still get part or all of their electricity from coal burning. Including the electricity that charges your lovely electric cars.

 

But getting a fraction of your electricity from coal, while the rest comes from superior sources (read: every source of energy that is not coal) is still superior to burning petroleum to fuel a car. Pollution capturing techniques, heat recycling, and economy of scale all make it more efficient.

 

I agree with your criticism of consumption to repair the damage of consumption, though.

 

 

But how sure can one be sure these cows are raised 'properly'? Same goes with "organic" anything.

 

Certification systems are put into place: one that is quite common, and I'm sure you've heard of is USDA organic. It's not the solution to our problems (not by a long shot, but it's still a start).

 

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT&parentnav=AGRICULTURE

[Assume Nothing]

But long-term working fixes are sooo hard! It's so much easier and more satisfying to throw money at the problem and hope it stops bothering us. That's why we have Priuses, carbon offsets, and the color green.

 

Until you realize that most people still get part or all of their electricity from coal burning. Including the electricity that charges your lovely electric cars.

 

But getting a fraction of your electricity from coal, while the rest comes from superior sources (read: every source of energy that is not coal) is still superior to burning petroleum to fuel a car. Pollution capturing techniques, heat recycling, and economy of scale all make it more efficient.

 

I agree with your criticism of consumption to repair the damage of consumption, though.

 

 

But how sure can one be sure these cows are raised 'properly'? Same goes with "organic" anything.

 

Certification systems are put into place: one that is quite common, and I'm sure you've heard of is USDA organic. It's not the solution to our problems (not by a long shot, but it's still a start).

 

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT&parentnav=AGRICULTURE

 

There are other issues to establish before really arguing on the Environmental factor of eating meat. What exactly makes the larger portion of the pollution, is it the transport of grain, or is it the manure? Is it the farts? etc

 

Edit - Oh, and because of Electric inefficiency, it's not exactly environmentally friendly to use Electric cars as it may seem.

[Alg]

We're screwed no matter what we do. Though there are some methods that result in us being slightly less screwed. When we move away from coal (Which we apparently use here in the States because we have so much of it, countries use fuels that they have) and on to renewable or replenishable fuels, it will be better than burning oil.

 

If it isn't friendly now, it probably will be in the future.

[Skeptical]

But long-term working fixes are sooo hard! It's so much easier and more satisfying to throw money at the problem and hope it stops bothering us. That's why we have Priuses, carbon offsets, and the color green.

 

Until you realize that most people still get part or all of their electricity from coal burning. Including the electricity that charges your lovely electric cars.

 

But getting a fraction of your electricity from coal, while the rest comes from superior sources (read: every source of energy that is not coal) is still superior to burning petroleum to fuel a car. Pollution capturing techniques, heat recycling, and economy of scale all make it more efficient.

 

I agree with your criticism of consumption to repair the damage of consumption, though.

 

 

But how sure can one be sure these cows are raised 'properly'? Same goes with "organic" anything.

 

Certification systems are put into place: one that is quite common, and I'm sure you've heard of is USDA organic. It's not the solution to our problems (not by a long shot, but it's still a start).

 

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT&parentnav=AGRICULTURE

 

There are other issues to establish before really arguing on the Environmental factor of eating meat. What exactly makes the larger portion of the pollution, is it the transport of grain, or is it the manure? Is it the farts? etc

 

Edit - Oh, and because of Electric inefficiency, it's not exactly environmentally friendly to use Electric cars as it may seem.

 

It's the system of subsidies we have created for the industry: corn is grown*, using huge quantities of petroleum, then transported, adding to the fuel costs, before being fed to cattle that still have a huge distance to travel. Methane, yes, is produced by cattle, but it's moronic to insist that's what we should work on "fixing": we've already wiped out millions of buffalo and other large animals, and the complexities of the greenhouse models can barely take into account the effects of albedo, let alone that of a natural environmental product that is cycled in and out of the environment in much smaller quantities from just as many sources, and with a large effect then Carbon dioxide, I remain a skeptic. (Sentence was too long, but I'm starting to feel the urge to do homework, so it shall remain as it is.)

 

TO SUMMARIZE: the issue with consuming meat is not that of consuming meat, but of the idiotic systems we have created, including industrial feedlots, the treatment of manure as waste, excessive use of anti-biotics and the use of synthetic hormones, and the Wal-mart style supply chain.

 

Do you think petroleum is efficient? The war, transportation, refinement, distribution, and inherent small-scale inefficiencies of internal combustion can hardly be dismissed out of hand.

 

*Yes, I am a self-professed student of Michael Pollan, particularly in the criticism of modern food systems, nutrition"ism" and the modern world's attitude towards food. I highly recommend his work, and will happily engage in debate on any topic included therein, and many besides.)

[Assume Nothing]

But long-term working fixes are sooo hard! It's so much easier and more satisfying to throw money at the problem and hope it stops bothering us. That's why we have Priuses, carbon offsets, and the color green.

 

Until you realize that most people still get part or all of their electricity from coal burning. Including the electricity that charges your lovely electric cars.

 

But getting a fraction of your electricity from coal, while the rest comes from superior sources (read: every source of energy that is not coal) is still superior to burning petroleum to fuel a car. Pollution capturing techniques, heat recycling, and economy of scale all make it more efficient.

 

I agree with your criticism of consumption to repair the damage of consumption, though.

 

 

But how sure can one be sure these cows are raised 'properly'? Same goes with "organic" anything.

 

Certification systems are put into place: one that is quite common, and I'm sure you've heard of is USDA organic. It's not the solution to our problems (not by a long shot, but it's still a start).

 

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT&parentnav=AGRICULTURE

 

There are other issues to establish before really arguing on the Environmental factor of eating meat. What exactly makes the larger portion of the pollution, is it the transport of grain, or is it the manure? Is it the farts? etc

 

Edit - Oh, and because of Electric inefficiency, it's not exactly environmentally friendly to use Electric cars as it may seem.

 

It's the system of subsidies we have created for the industry: corn is grown, using huge quantities of petroleum, then transported, adding to the fuel costs, before being fed to cattle that still have a huge distance to travel. Methane, yes, is produced by cattle, but it's moronic to insist that's what we should work on "fixing": we've already wiped out millions of buffalo and other large animals, and the complexities of the greenhouse models can barely take into account the effects of albedo, let alone that of a natural environmental product that is cycled in and out of the environment in much smaller quantities from just as many sources, and with a large effect then Carbon dioxide, I remain a skeptic. (Sentence was too long, but I'm starting to feel the urge to do homework, so it shall remain as it is.)

 

TO SUMMARIZE: the issue with consuming meat is not that of consuming meat, but of the idiotic systems we have created, including industrial feedlots, the treatment of manure as waste, excessive use of anti-biotics and the use of synthetic hormones, and the Wal-mart style supply chain.

 

Do you think petroleum is efficient? The war, transportation, refinement, distribution, and inherent small-scale inefficiencies of internal combustion can hardly be dismissed out of hand.

 

To the last part of your rant; No, I don't think Petroleum is efficient, but that's a different argument altogether. I think a major step to reducing global warming would be improving the efficiency of cars, with non coal produced electricity. This would fix some of the problem of meat being such a huge greenhouse gas emitter.

 

I believe it should be a moral choice to eat meat or not, because most of the other factors, is the problems of the American Meat Industry, not ours.

[Skeptical]

But long-term working fixes are sooo hard! It's so much easier and more satisfying to throw money at the problem and hope it stops bothering us. That's why we have Priuses, carbon offsets, and the color green.

 

Until you realize that most people still get part or all of their electricity from coal burning. Including the electricity that charges your lovely electric cars.

 

But getting a fraction of your electricity from coal, while the rest comes from superior sources (read: every source of energy that is not coal) is still superior to burning petroleum to fuel a car. Pollution capturing techniques, heat recycling, and economy of scale all make it more efficient.

 

I agree with your criticism of consumption to repair the damage of consumption, though.

 

 

But how sure can one be sure these cows are raised 'properly'? Same goes with "organic" anything.

 

Certification systems are put into place: one that is quite common, and I'm sure you've heard of is USDA organic. It's not the solution to our problems (not by a long shot, but it's still a start).

 

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT&parentnav=AGRICULTURE

 

There are other issues to establish before really arguing on the Environmental factor of eating meat. What exactly makes the larger portion of the pollution, is it the transport of grain, or is it the manure? Is it the farts? etc

 

Edit - Oh, and because of Electric inefficiency, it's not exactly environmentally friendly to use Electric cars as it may seem.

 

It's the system of subsidies we have created for the industry: corn is grown, using huge quantities of petroleum, then transported, adding to the fuel costs, before being fed to cattle that still have a huge distance to travel. Methane, yes, is produced by cattle, but it's moronic to insist that's what we should work on "fixing": we've already wiped out millions of buffalo and other large animals, and the complexities of the greenhouse models can barely take into account the effects of albedo, let alone that of a natural environmental product that is cycled in and out of the environment in much smaller quantities from just as many sources, and with a large effect then Carbon dioxide, I remain a skeptic. (Sentence was too long, but I'm starting to feel the urge to do homework, so it shall remain as it is.)

 

TO SUMMARIZE: the issue with consuming meat is not that of consuming meat, but of the idiotic systems we have created, including industrial feedlots, the treatment of manure as waste, excessive use of anti-biotics and the use of synthetic hormones, and the Wal-mart style supply chain.

 

Do you think petroleum is efficient? The war, transportation, refinement, distribution, and inherent small-scale inefficiencies of internal combustion can hardly be dismissed out of hand.

 

To the last part of your rant; No, I don't think Petroleum is efficient, but that's a different argument altogether. I think a major step to reducing global warming would be improving the efficiency of cars, with non coal produced electricity. This would fix some of the problem of meat being such a huge greenhouse gas emitter.

 

I believe it should be a moral choice to eat meat or not, because most of the other factors, is the problems of the American Meat Industry, not ours.

 

Hearing something that you don't like doesn't make it a rant.

 

What special place do you live that is untouched by the industrial food system? I'm not kidding, I would love to live there.

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html 49.5 percent from coal. What do you suggest we replace that with, how do you want to fund it, and why is petroleum superior to the 50% of power generated that is not from coal?

[Assume Nothing]

But long-term working fixes are sooo hard! It's so much easier and more satisfying to throw money at the problem and hope it stops bothering us. That's why we have Priuses, carbon offsets, and the color green.

 

Until you realize that most people still get part or all of their electricity from coal burning. Including the electricity that charges your lovely electric cars.

 

But getting a fraction of your electricity from coal, while the rest comes from superior sources (read: every source of energy that is not coal) is still superior to burning petroleum to fuel a car. Pollution capturing techniques, heat recycling, and economy of scale all make it more efficient.

 

I agree with your criticism of consumption to repair the damage of consumption, though.

 

 

But how sure can one be sure these cows are raised 'properly'? Same goes with "organic" anything.

 

Certification systems are put into place: one that is quite common, and I'm sure you've heard of is USDA organic. It's not the solution to our problems (not by a long shot, but it's still a start).

 

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT&parentnav=AGRICULTURE

 

There are other issues to establish before really arguing on the Environmental factor of eating meat. What exactly makes the larger portion of the pollution, is it the transport of grain, or is it the manure? Is it the farts? etc

 

Edit - Oh, and because of Electric inefficiency, it's not exactly environmentally friendly to use Electric cars as it may seem.

 

It's the system of subsidies we have created for the industry: corn is grown, using huge quantities of petroleum, then transported, adding to the fuel costs, before being fed to cattle that still have a huge distance to travel. Methane, yes, is produced by cattle, but it's moronic to insist that's what we should work on "fixing": we've already wiped out millions of buffalo and other large animals, and the complexities of the greenhouse models can barely take into account the effects of albedo, let alone that of a natural environmental product that is cycled in and out of the environment in much smaller quantities from just as many sources, and with a large effect then Carbon dioxide, I remain a skeptic. (Sentence was too long, but I'm starting to feel the urge to do homework, so it shall remain as it is.)

 

TO SUMMARIZE: the issue with consuming meat is not that of consuming meat, but of the idiotic systems we have created, including industrial feedlots, the treatment of manure as waste, excessive use of anti-biotics and the use of synthetic hormones, and the Wal-mart style supply chain.

 

Do you think petroleum is efficient? The war, transportation, refinement, distribution, and inherent small-scale inefficiencies of internal combustion can hardly be dismissed out of hand.

 

To the last part of your rant; No, I don't think Petroleum is efficient, but that's a different argument altogether. I think a major step to reducing global warming would be improving the efficiency of cars, with non coal produced electricity. This would fix some of the problem of meat being such a huge greenhouse gas emitter.

 

I believe it should be a moral choice to eat meat or not, because most of the other factors, is the problems of the American Meat Industry, not ours.

 

Hearing something that you don't like doesn't make it a rant.

 

What special place do you live that is untouched by the industrial food system? I'm not kidding, I would love to live there.

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html 49.5 percent from coal. What do you suggest we replace that with, how do you want to fund it, and why is petroleum superior to the 50% of power generated that is not from coal?

 

About the efficiency of electric cars; That's a different debate altogether. And you're completely ignoring the fact that a large chunk of the other 50% will almost be as bad as coal. Where exactly did I say petroleum would be superior to whatever percentage of non coal produced electricity? Hmm?

 

And did I really say that there is places untouched by the industrial food system? No. I didn't. However, poor practices within those industries can't really be blamed on us. Practices would be things like method of slaughter, living conditions of livestock, and other things that are related to the production of meat.

[Skeptical]

We're screwed no matter what we do. Though there are some methods that result in us being slightly less screwed. When we move away from coal (Which we apparently use here in the States because we have so much of it, countries use fuels that they have) and on to renewable or replenishable fuels, it will be better than burning oil.

 

If it isn't friendly now, it probably will be in the future.

 

Another good point: building the infrastructure for petroleum is stupid: at this point, all we can look forward to is running out of it. Electricity, however, is just a medium. Is it perfect? Absolutely not.

 

But long-term working fixes are sooo hard! It's so much easier and more satisfying to throw money at the problem and hope it stops bothering us. That's why we have Priuses, carbon offsets, and the color green.

 

Until you realize that most people still get part or all of their electricity from coal burning. Including the electricity that charges your lovely electric cars.

 

But getting a fraction of your electricity from coal, while the rest comes from superior sources (read: every source of energy that is not coal) is still superior to burning petroleum to fuel a car. Pollution capturing techniques, heat recycling, and economy of scale all make it more efficient.

 

I agree with your criticism of consumption to repair the damage of consumption, though.

 

 

But how sure can one be sure these cows are raised 'properly'? Same goes with "organic" anything.

 

Certification systems are put into place: one that is quite common, and I'm sure you've heard of is USDA organic. It's not the solution to our problems (not by a long shot, but it's still a start).

 

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT&parentnav=AGRICULTURE

 

There are other issues to establish before really arguing on the Environmental factor of eating meat. What exactly makes the larger portion of the pollution, is it the transport of grain, or is it the manure? Is it the farts? etc

 

Edit - Oh, and because of Electric inefficiency, it's not exactly environmentally friendly to use Electric cars as it may seem.

 

It's the system of subsidies we have created for the industry: corn is grown, using huge quantities of petroleum, then transported, adding to the fuel costs, before being fed to cattle that still have a huge distance to travel. Methane, yes, is produced by cattle, but it's moronic to insist that's what we should work on "fixing": we've already wiped out millions of buffalo and other large animals, and the complexities of the greenhouse models can barely take into account the effects of albedo, let alone that of a natural environmental product that is cycled in and out of the environment in much smaller quantities from just as many sources, and with a large effect then Carbon dioxide, I remain a skeptic. (Sentence was too long, but I'm starting to feel the urge to do homework, so it shall remain as it is.)

 

TO SUMMARIZE: the issue with consuming meat is not that of consuming meat, but of the idiotic systems we have created, including industrial feedlots, the treatment of manure as waste, excessive use of anti-biotics and the use of synthetic hormones, and the Wal-mart style supply chain.

 

Do you think petroleum is efficient? The war, transportation, refinement, distribution, and inherent small-scale inefficiencies of internal combustion can hardly be dismissed out of hand.

 

To the last part of your rant; No, I don't think Petroleum is efficient, but that's a different argument altogether. I think a major step to reducing global warming would be improving the efficiency of cars, with non coal produced electricity. This would fix some of the problem of meat being such a huge greenhouse gas emitter.

 

I believe it should be a moral choice to eat meat or not, because most of the other factors, is the problems of the American Meat Industry, not ours.

 

Hearing something that you don't like doesn't make it a rant.

 

What special place do you live that is untouched by the industrial food system? I'm not kidding, I would love to live there.

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html 49.5 percent from coal. What do you suggest we replace that with, how do you want to fund it, and why is petroleum superior to the 50% of power generated that is not from coal?

 

About the efficiency of electric cars; That's a different debate altogether. And you're completely ignoring the fact that a large chunk of the other 50% will almost be as bad as coal. Where exactly did I say petroleum would be superior to whatever percentage of non coal produced electricity? Hmm?

 

And did I really say that there is places untouched by the industrial food system? No. I didn't. However, poor practices within those industries can't really be blamed on us. Practices would be things like method of slaughter, living conditions of livestock, and other things that are related to the production of meat.

 

Where do you think the other 50% comes from? Not coal, that's for sure.

 

Who designed this food system? Us.

Who buys the food from this system? Us.

Who tolerates the abuse of animals inherent in it? Us.

Who stands by and watches the environmental destruction it causes? Us.

Who has allowed corporate interests to control our food system? Us.

Who has decided that it's OK for propoganda to be fed to the country? Us.

Who has said "I know everything in my food is safe." Us.

Who supports the creation of GMOs, without knowing the risks? Us.

Who denies it's existence, pretends it's all alright? Us.

 

It's just as much my fault as yours. But we all have our share of the blame.

[Alg]

We're screwed no matter what we do. Though there are some methods that result in us being slightly less screwed. When we move away from coal (Which we apparently use here in the States because we have so much of it, countries use fuels that they have) and on to renewable or replenishable fuels, it will be better than burning oil.

 

If it isn't friendly now, it probably will be in the future.

 

Another good point: building the infrastructure for petroleum is stupid: at this point, all we can look forward to is running out of it. Electricity, however, is just a medium. Is it perfect? Absolutely not.

Thing is we're going to have to use it until something better comes up anyway. The best thing would be to wean ourselves off it. Having a very fast shift is probably going to lead to at least a few problems...