Originally posted by twhiteheadOne major issue is the monoculture practice of planting thousands of acres of corn in one area and thousands of acres of potatoes in another. This causes an imbalance and that affects the insect population. Nobody could have predicted that the US is now in dire straits becuase the bees which polinate flowers are disappearing. Monoculture - imbalance - harmful insects - pesticides and insecticide - beneficial insects killed - more harmful insects etc etc ..
What over production issues are those? I thought that the US was a net importer of meat. Do they export grain? Why is over production a problem? Are we perhaps talking about perishables?
Zambian farming is no more 'traditional' than US farming nor is it particularly sustainable. Some farmers in both countries plan ahead and try to improve their land while others rape the land and move on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI certainly would not think that the aliens are immoral for wanting to use humans as food. Maybe my concept of morality is different from yours.
I've explained this several times. That you have a lack of empathy for other sentient beings and "dont place animals on the same level with humans regarding their ability to feel pleasure or pain or their ability to experience emotion" doesn't mean that I have offered no explanation. Since you've ignored my "Twilight Zone" reference, I'll give you a thoug ...[text shortened]... , as sentient beings, should not be afforded a right not to be used as a food source?
Does the cow living on a farm know that she are going to be killed on June 20th 2010? Does she live in fear ? Does she need to care for her young and put her affairs in order before that date ? Would the lives of other animals be affected significantly by her death? I think the answer to all these questions are No. Therefore a painless death is not immoral in my estimation.
Originally posted by Rajk999Painless death? What, a lethal dose of morphine?
I certainly would not think that the aliens are immoral for wanting to use humans as food. Maybe my concept of morality is different from yours.
Does the cow living on a farm know that she are going to be killed on June 20th 2010? Does she live in fear ? Does she need to care for her young and put her affairs in order before that date ? Would the lives o ...[text shortened]... nswer to all these questions are No. Therefore a painless death is not immoral in my estimation.
Originally posted by karoly aczelMilk is just as bad. What do you think happened to the baby cow that should have drunk it? yep. dead, or being used to produce veal. Cows only produce milk after giving birth.
I'm ashamed to admit TO MYSELF that I am not a strict vegetarian.(please note:this thread is not intended judge meat-eaters nor to try to convert people to vegetarianism.)
I do not buy meat, so in my dodgy reasoning I conclude that I am not contributing to the meat business. however when offered meat,or asked for it to be bought by my children, I eat i ...[text shortened]... tern religons like hinduism and bhuddism), BUT NOT ALWAYS
What do you guys and gals think?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMy apologies if I misunderstood and misrepresented your position.
I don't know where you got that idea. Perhaps you've confused me with someone else?
This was my position:
"...it seems that taking the life of a sentient being (non-human or human) entails a lack of moral consideration."
I'm not sure why you insist on bundling the behavior of animals with a moral choice that can be made by humans. They are not related. The latter entails a moral consideration of taking the life of a sentient being (non-human or human) where humans can and do live quite healthy lives, arguably more so, without having to kill sentient beings for food. Is it your position that human moral consideration is dependent on the behavior of animals?
You have clearly missed my point. If humans can make a moral choice regarding animals they kill for their own food, then surely they can make the exact same moral choice regarding animals that are killed for other reasons (food for Zoo lions), or animals that they allow to be killed for other reasons (park lions).
If it is morally wrong to kill an animal for food, then surely it is equally morally wrong to stand by and watch a lion kill the same animal for its food.
The only counter argument I can think of is that the lion requires meat to survive - which is why I have suggested a 'greater good' argument for killing the lion.
We essentially have control over animals and thus their behavior becomes our moral responsibility. If you keep a dog that you know bites everyone it can, then you are morally obliged to prevent it in some way.
Originally posted by Rajk999Yes. that too. But milk is a major factor when considering animal welfare in terms of number of slaughters. A lot of "vegetarians" increase protein intake by turning to milk/cheese etc. This is not helping, and arguably even worse, although I've never researched the stats. Presumably vegetarians want the farmed breeds of cow to become extinct (due to lack of demand) to save their suffering, right?
He would have to stop using leather wallets, shoes and belts.
Originally posted by twiceaknightRight .. the 'compassion' of the vegetarian could do more harm than good to the animals. Seems to me that eating less meat rather than no meat is by far the better option for all concerned. I think is a kind of 'feel good' thing for some people to say .. "hey .. I dont eat meat becuase I dont believe in killing animals". Probably makes them feel superior in some way.
Yes. that too. But milk is a major factor when considering animal welfare in terms of number of slaughters. A lot of "vegetarians" increase protein intake by turning to milk/cheese etc. This is not helping, and arguably even worse, although I've never researched the stats. Presumably vegetarians want the farmed breeds of cow to become extinct (due to lack of demand) to save their suffering, right?
Originally posted by twiceaknightSlaughtering the calves is neither necessary nor always carried out, so one could argue that drinking milk does not directly necessitate animal death - even though in practice it usually does.
Yes. that too. But milk is a major factor when considering animal welfare in terms of number of slaughters. A lot of "vegetarians" increase protein intake by turning to milk/cheese etc. This is not helping, and arguably even worse, although I've never researched the stats. Presumably vegetarians want the farmed breeds of cow to become extinct (due to lack of demand) to save their suffering, right?
But then one could make similar arguments about vegetarianism, ie the growth of crops is far from harmless to the environment and in many cases results in the slaughter or death of wild animals - though this tends to be a once off wipe-out for the larger species.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs I understand it, you could feed about 4 times as many people using the same area of land if everyone was vegetarian, not to mention the methane produced by cattle. But i'm really just trying to point out a logical flaw/contradiction in vegetarianism. Veganism on the other hand seems to make perfect sense with no contradictions. I tried it for a few months and felt great! I lost a lot of weight too, which is good cos i'm a bit fat.
Slaughtering the calves is neither necessary nor always carried out, so one could argue that drinking milk does not directly necessitate animal death - even though in practice it usually does.
But then one could make similar arguments about vegetarianism, ie the growth of crops is far from harmless to the environment and in many cases results in the slau ...[text shortened]... r or death of wild animals - though this tends to be a once off wipe-out for the larger species.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]We essentially have control over animals and thus their behavior becomes our moral responsibility.
My apologies if I misunderstood and misrepresented your position.
[b]I'm not sure why you insist on bundling the behavior of animals with a moral choice that can be made by humans. They are not related. The latter entails a moral consideration of taking the life of a sentient being (non-human or human) where humans can and do live quite healthy lives, that you know bites everyone it can, then you are morally obliged to prevent it in some way.
Maybe this gets to the heart of it. Should humans "have control over animals" or should humans allow nature to take it's course? Humans can make the choice to not kill sentient beings for food independently of this question.
Originally posted by twiceaknightI don't think milk is just as bad. Anyway this is just a progressive arguement-I'm not aiming at establishing any absolutes here...
Milk is just as bad. What do you think happened to the baby cow that should have drunk it? yep. dead, or being used to produce veal. Cows only produce milk after giving birth.
Originally posted by twiceaknightThat is only true for developed countries. Where I come from, much of the land is not suitable for crop production and can be improved by running animals on it, so to not keep animals would be a waste and bad for the local environment (ignoring the methane factor).
As I understand it, you could feed about 4 times as many people using the same area of land if everyone was vegetarian, not to mention the methane produced by cattle.
The various arguments against meat production vary significantly by country and farming methods.
I do see what you are saying about milk though - and the same argument would apply to eggs as egg laying chickens are frequently kept in tiny cages (cruel) and slaughtered when their productive period is over.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo Could I please ask you: Where do you draw the line? What about leather and fur? Would you draw the line at just eating meat or also using it for fashion,etc.?
That is only true for developed countries. Where I come from, much of the land is not suitable for crop production and can be improved by running animals on it, so to not keep animals would be a waste and bad for the local environment (ignoring the methane factor).
The various arguments against meat production vary significantly by country and farming me ...[text shortened]... are frequently kept in tiny cages (cruel) and slaughtered when their productive period is over.
Originally posted by karoly aczelWell that's the nub of it right there. Everyone has to make their own decision about where to draw the line. It ranges from gorging yourself on foie gras to self-sufficient organic raw fruitarianism. It's a personal choice.
So Could I please ask you: Where do you draw the line? What about leather and fur? Would you draw the line at just eating meat or also using it for fashion,etc.?