19 Aug 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOf course one can sustain human life on a vegetarian diet, but your point about efficiency is not the case in a blanket sense - for instance, there are areas (eg, the Welsh hills) where the soil is not fertile enough to grow edible cereal crops and where the most efficient land use is farming sheep to provide meat. In other words, if we were going to maximise food production from the available land, that would involve producing mainly vegetables, but also a little meat.
Eating meat is not required to stay alive and is an inefficient way to produce food. Eating meat is entertainment as much as bull fighting is.
19 Aug 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeThat may be true, but obviously the vast majority of meat production comes from soil which could be used to grow crops for human consumption as well.
Of course one can sustain human life on a vegetarian diet, but your point about efficiency is not the case in a blanket sense - for instance, there are areas (eg, the Welsh hills) where the soil is not fertile enough to grow edible cereal crops and where the most efficient land use is farming sheep to provide meat. In other words, if we were going to maxim ...[text shortened]... from the available land, that would involve producing mainly vegetables, but also a little meat.
19 Aug 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI know. But I think from an environmental point of view we ought to be doing our best to reduce meat consumption, but not seeking to eliminate it entirely.
That may be true, but obviously the vast majority of meat production comes from soil which could be used to grow crops for human consumption as well.
19 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraActually a fairly large proportion of meat is raised on crops - one of the reasons why meat is so much less efficient than vegies.
That may be true, but obviously the vast majority of meat production comes from soil which could be used to grow crops for human consumption as well.
19 Aug 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI am not a meat eater myself so not need to make apologies for killing animals for food but, so far as I am aware, the animals which are killed for that purpose are not first tormented and disabled prior to execution for the enjoyment of sadists.
How is it any more barbaric than killing and eating animals?
19 Aug 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorrathere is one thing to kill swiftly an animal to provide meat.
How is it any more barbaric than killing and eating animals?
another thing to kill it through a prolonged display of cruelty where the animal is being tortured and played with until it becomes so enraged it simply is no danger to an intelligent, calm human. not that the bull was very intelligent in the first place.
if it were up to me, there would be no picadors or any other people in the corrida whose role is to help the toreador and weaken the bull. there would be only one human armed with a knife no longer than 20 cm. and the bull would be a bear. if you want to enter such a sport, go ahead.
19 Aug 10
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusWell, if you look at the entire lifetime of the animal, I'm not so sure. A bull has to be big, healthy and impressive, so it needs to be taken care of quite well. I don't know what living conditions are like for them prior to their ceremonial killing, but I'd hazard a guess they are better than those of the average livestock.
I am not a meat eater myself so not need to make apologies for killing animals for food but, so far as I am aware, the animals which are killed for that purpose are not first tormented and disabled prior to execution for the enjoyment of sadists.