How do you, as a meat-eater, justify the violence inherent in your food?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Geronimo


for the record what is good about nature?

Oysters.

Venison.

Barramundi.


Not the stinking corpse lily, though. That smells.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DaShi


Actually, because of the way that Jon wrote it, I had a different interpretation of his. His next response seemed to confirm my initial impression. However, his last response made it clear to me what he was really getting at. So since, I didn't disagree with him, I couldn't very well argue against it. Then you, not seeing what's going on, decide to jump in. Since I had realized that there were actually two arguments going on, I asked you what you meant by your question. Your response was. . .well. . .rude. In fact, you were rather rude to begin with. Since the rest of your post is just based on your misunderstanding and you being you, there's no need for be to respond to it. The only thing I did wrong was to sink to your level.

Now if you are going to jump into other people's debates, try getting your bearing first. And be ready to field a few a questions, as you introduce new ideas into it. Also remember, if you act like a jerk, you're likely be treated like one. But if you need insults to win your debates. . .

[Edited - because I'm too nice ]

Jon said that livestock consumed much more food (and energy) than they give. I'm pretty certain that he implied what I tried to show in detail.

In any case, I gave you the chance to realize this with an open rhetorical question, and you missed it. Even if you assume that Jon didn't mean the same as I did, your reply to me was just off.

[Bkeela]

I don't understand this thread. I delight in violence and animal cruelty. I would torture the damn beasts to death myself if it was practical. The idea of production line death factories makes my heart sing.

I simply glory in the consumption of meat, and the thought of the animal having suffered greatly makes it taste all the sweeter.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I understand the point that you're trying to make, Jon. In absolute terms, humanity could create more food consumable by humans if we devoted all of our food creating processes to vegatarianism rather than our current omnivorous practices.

I think that this point is mitigated by two factors. The first is that current hunger problems stem from our system of distribution, not from our food production methods. We already produce enough food to feed everyone on Earth. Governments even pay farmers to let some of their fields lie fallow. The fact that we could theoretically create more food by switching all food production to vegatables is meaningless when these facts are considered.

The second point is that all of our methods of food production kill animals. Millions of animals die when humanity harvests its vegatables. Switching to vegatarianism would save cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys, but would lead to the deaths of even more field mice, snakes, etc. Why should vegatarians be anymore comfortable with the loss of animal life caused by their lifestyle than they are with the loss of animal life caused by the lifestyle of omnivores like myself?

as it is growing east asian demand for food in general, and animal protein in particular, combined with demands for ethanol, is starting to drive up the price of soy, corns, and other grains, IIUC. IF there were adequate roads to every hungry village in Africa, and IF they could attempt to buy food on the world market (by engaging in industrial production, or growing a non-food crop like cotton) then we would quickly see that the increment to demand would rapidly increase grain and soy prices.

AFAIK its simply no longer true that large areas of land are kept fallow by govt actions - in the US farm subsidies no longer work like that (although some wetlands have been bought off the market, for good reasons) and Euro subsidies never worked like that.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark as it is growing east asian demand for food in general, and animal protein in particular, combined with demands for ethanol, is starting to drive up the price of soy, corns, and other grains, IIUC. IF there were adequate roads to every hungry village in Africa, and IF they could attempt to buy food on the world market (by engaging in industrial production, or growing a non-food crop like cotton) then we would quickly see that the increment to demand would rapidly increase grain and soy prices.

In our imaginary world in which food distribution is not a problem, you have to take into account that the massive food glut that we have in the Western world would be better distributed. Americans would have much less food than then than we have now. Imagine a system in which every human on Earth was given between 1700- 2300 calories per day according to their nutritional needs(unless the physicality of their job or other legitimate reason demanded that the person receive more than that). That would free up great amounts of food in the west, food that would be transfered where needed.

AFAIK its simply no longer true that large areas of land are kept fallow by govt actions - in the US farm subsidies no longer work like that (although some wetlands have been bought off the market, for good reasons) and Euro subsidies never worked like that.

Maybe things have changed recently. I haven't checked into it for awhile. I do know that the EU subsidized fallow lands as recently as 1998

http://www.iht.com/articles/1998/06/27/farm.t.php

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


In our imaginary world in which food distribution is not a problem, you have to take into account that the massive food glut that we have in the Western world would be better distributed. Americans would have much less food than then than we have now. Imagine a system in which every human on Earth was given between 1700- 2300 calories per day according to their nutritional needs(unless the physicality of their job demanded it). That would free up great amounts of food in the west, food that would be transfered where needed.

So when you say distribution, its not physical infrastructre youre talking about, or even lack of buying power in the poor world. Its that we dont have strict calorie rationing. So youd impose a global system of monitoring everyones diet and physical activity, in order to preserve meat eating.

Pardon, but Id rather have vegetarianism than totalitarianism.

And BTW, in a free market context, I rather doubt that the market response to high grain and soy prices would be only or even primarily cutbacks in total caloric consumption, rather than shifts away from the least efficient forms of animal protein, which would now be quite expensive.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff

Maybe things have changed recently. I haven't checked into it for awhile. I do know that the EU subsidized fallow lands as recently as 1998

http://www.iht.com/articles/1998/06/27/farm.t.php

Youre missing the point of the article. The EU had a grain mountain because they subsidized production (in part). Adding to fallow areas was a way to reduce this.
In a completely free and unsubsidized market, the EU would probably produce LESS grain, not more.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark So when you say distribution, its not physical infrastructre youre talking about, or even lack of buying power in the poor world. Its that we dont have strict calorie rationing. So youd impose a global system of monitoring everyones diet and physical activity, in order to preserve meat eating.

Pardon, but Id rather have vegetarianism than totalitarianism.

I'm not arguing for totalitarianism anymore than you are. I'm saying that it's false to say that right now we don't have enough food to feed everyone as an argument for vegetarianism. It's a red herring. The food is there. It rots on our shelves and in our garbage cans, goes to our 3000+ calories a day diets, etc. Market forces have created this situation.

I doubt that the situation would be any different even if we ate no meat; there'd just be more food going to waste in the west. The world's financial infrastructure is set up in a way that ensures that some people starve, and strictly enforced totalitarian vegetarianism would not change that. We either have to accept that there are winners and losers in our system, or we have to accept that there needs to be some form of food distribution that corrects the current inequities.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark Youre missing the point of the article. The EU had a grain mountain because they subsidized production (in part). Adding to fallow areas was a way to reduce this. In a completely free and unsubsidized market, the EU would probably produce LESS grain, not more.

The only point that I was making is that the key issue in food production is economics, not food type. The goal is making money, not feeding people. The EU paid farmers to leave land fallow because they wanted to increase scarcity and thus prices. The glut was there initially because of subsidization, but that doesn't really touch my point.

I'm not arguing about which economic model is best when it comes to food. I'm saying that economics determine who gets food more than the type of food on the market. Clearly the state can encourage food production if it chooses, and such production can outstrip the demand. I don't see how this boils down into a compelling moral argument for or against vegetarianism.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I'm not arguing for totalitarianism anymore than you are. I'm saying that it's false to say that right now we don't have enough food to feed everyone as an argument for vegetarianism. It's a red herring. The food is there. It rots on our shelves and in our garbage cans, goes to our 3000+ calories a day diets, etc. Market forces have created this situation.

I doubt that the situation would be any different even if we ate no meat; there'd just be more food going to waste in the west. The world's financial infrastructure is set up in a way that ensures that some people starve, and strictly enforced totalitarian vegetarianism would not change that. We either have to accept that there are winners and losers in our system, or we have to accept that there needs to be some form of food distribution that corrects the current inequities.

At the margin, if you eat less calories, that will serve to depress the world price of grain. Ditto you shift the calories you DO eat to more efficient forms. Food rots generally due to the difficulties of exactly predicting consumption patterns. In a world with low food prices, and high labor values (which make daily shopping trips out of the question for first worlders) its not an irrational response. The market simply reflects the underlying costs and tastes, and gives a rational result GIVEN relatively low grain prices. Which means among other things that food wastage is not that costly, nor are large portions, nor is grain fed beef.


I dont think the world financial market is set up to cause some people to starve. In fact the LDC areas most tied in to the world financial markets, like China, are seeing increases in food consumption. The areas with the greatest starvation are those in africa where various factors make them ISOLATED from the world financial markets. Yes there are exceptions, like Argentina, where the financial markets damaged the prospects of the poor, but even Argentina is recovering from that.

I dont know what change in "distribution" you want. Personally I think the best way to eliminate the extremes of poverty is industrial development.

And I never called for totalitarian vegetarianism. I simply acknowledge that eating beef uses more grain per pound of protein than eating grain directly, or even eating chicken. I dont think that reducing consumption would lead to more wastage.

[snoopy369]

1. I like meat.
2. I don't feel a requirement to morally justify eating meat.

KISS

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Barnabas


Where I live now (Argentina), people eat over 70 kilos of cow meat per year, they top the list and I think they even double the next ones following them in the list (yanks)

rivers of cow blood

You guys should diversify your diet more. Add in pig, fish, lamb, and chicken along with some nice veggies.

[lord of the mark]

Historically in Argentina, with its abundant range land, beef was very inexpensive and a high beef diet made alot of economic sense.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You guys should diversify your diet more. Add in pig, fish, lamb, and chicken along with some nice veggies.

Fish

Veggies

Hippies like Oerdin

[MrFun]

IT'S UNETHICAL THE WAY WE PLANT AND HARVEST PLANTS!!


We need to stop eating meat AND plants.