Let's Go Vegetarian

[Helga]

I'm a vegetarian, have been for 8 years

[NikolaiI]

I'm glad the guys begging for money on the access roads near me can get a $1 double-cheese burger. But those people who have a bit more money, I think should consider whether it might be better for their meat to be expensive. Why not enjoy something (meat, even) that isn't the product of torture and abuse rather than turning a blind eye to the horrible practices. I like the one meat meal a day idea, too. Just grabbing cheap meat at the grocery store is understandable, but there is insanity going on to make it possible, a bunch of corporate-driven bottom-line logic.

Very well said.

Commercial feed lots/inefficient meat production aside, is this also to imply that those who hunt to make up for what they cannot afford are wrong to provide for themselves and their families? Also, I didn't see any pictures of cows above.

But there is one in his avatar.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Then again you could be feeding those people with crops grown on the land allotted to growing feed for livestock. Cows are yummy and all, but that cow easily eats the equivalent of several meals for a human being every day of its brief life. I don't know what the currently accepted ratios are, but cows are one of the least efficient ways of producing food.

I've heard this argument a lot, and for several reasons, I'm not buying it. Yes, livestock do take up a lot of room. But saying that all that space could be used for crops which would feed just as many people is not necessarily correct- just because land is suitable for grazing does not mean that it is suitable for growing crops. The fact that cows eat the equivalent of several human meals is also not applicable here: you could say that our pets (say, riding horses for example) are also eating foods that could be consumed by humans/ grazing on land on which crops might be grown. Should we also stop keeping animals recreationally?

Only quote ...

Harvey Diamond: Enter an apple, a rabbit and a baby into the bassinet. If the baby is eating the rabbit, then playing with the apple, then I'll buy you a new car ...

Well obviously the baby wouldn't want to eat it raw

No that is fine, I'm largely unconcerned with the ethics of killing animals as long as it isn't done deliberately cruelly. I just have issues with the operation of industrial farms. The average North American would probably be a lot better off with smaller and fewer servings of meat anyway.

What is it specifically about industrial farms that you're against? I don't mean to imply that there are no problems, just that everyone says "Don't you see what's happening!?" when most don't actually know how those farms are run. Just looking for specific examples to carry on the discussion

No it isn't. You may as well say salt is a poison. Too much of it will kill you. So is a *bacon sandwich.

Well put To say that something is a poison because it is capable of causing damage is wrong. Alcohol is just a chemical compound, same as the vitamins we get from our precious vegetables. If you want to look at it that way, a number of vitamins can be poisons too- once they reach toxic levels in the body, trouble ensues. Though this really doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

[Paulclem]

I'm glad the guys begging for money on the access roads near me can get a $1 double-cheese burger. But those people who have a bit more money, I think should consider whether it might be better for their meat to be expensive. Why not enjoy something (meat, even) that isn't the product of torture and abuse rather than turning a blind eye to the horrible practices. I like the one meat meal a day idea, too. Just grabbing cheap meat at the grocery store is understandable, but there is insanity going on to make it possible, a bunch of corporate-driven bottom-line logic.

I really think a lot of people aren't aware of what goes on with these animals, there's such a disconnect. Of course people are gonna get upset if they're accused of being unkind to animals--they are only eating--but I think it is wrong to suggest nothing can be done about the problem.

It isn't a pleasant discussion, though, and I pretty much never bring it up outside of a thread specifically about it in an online forum. I certainly wouldn't shake up a meal with other people over it. But if someone is reading this thread, and they feel angry at me or whatever, sorry about that, and of course do whatever. But saying nothing can be done, as if that's the big winning justification to the issue, might actually have an effect on some people reading it.

I agree with you Billl, and I have the same experience. I have been veggie since 1990, (though you wouldn't guess to look at me).

I decided ages ago not to raise the issue with the people I work with etc. It makes those around you feel defensive. Plus I don't think soap box vegetarianism has any effect but to harden attitude and achieves nothing.

With this issue, it is hard not to sound pompous or flippant, but I would like to say that as a former meat eater, I did work in a slaughterhouse, (just weighing, not killing). At the time I was able to justify it - I had been a meat eater all my life. I was prepared to go along with the inevitable cruelty. It seemed the way of the world. How many meat eaters would do that though?

I did feel sad for the animals when I would go down to the pens at night for whatever, and see the ones in there waiting for the morning. I'm not saying that they knew anything about what was going to happen to them, they were scared in an unfamiliar environment.

Later, I made a moral decision about being a veggie. I would be wary of basing a moral decision like eating meat on the issue of taste. It is not a good grounding.

I will add that The Comedian's comment seems a sensible compromise. Leaving health aside, there are issues with the production of meat v the production of crops.

There - I've gone and been all pompous. I told you it was difficult.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I agree with you Billl, and I have the same experience. I have been veggie since 1990, (though you wouldn't guess to look at me).

I decided ages ago not to raise the issue with the people I work with etc. It makes those around you feel defensive. Plus I don't think soap box vegetarianism has any effect but to harden attitude and achieves nothing.

With this issue, it is hard not to sound pompous or flippant, but I would like to say that as a former meat eater, I did work in a slaughterhouse, (just weighing, not killing). At the time I was able to justify it - I had been a meat eater all my life. I was prepared to go along with the inevitable cruelty. It seemed the way of the world. How many meat eaters would do that though?

I did feel sad for the animals when I would go down to the pens at night for whatever, and see the ones in there waiting for the morning. I'm not saying that they knew anything about what was going to happen to them, they were scared in an unfamiliar environment.

Later, I made a moral decision about being a veggie. I would be wary of basing a moral decision like eating meat on the issue of taste. It is not a good grounding.

I will add that The Comedian's comment seems a sensible compromise. Leaving health aside, there are issues with the production of meat v the production of crops.

There - I've gone and been all pompous. I told you it was difficult.

Not pompous at all! That was very nicely and fairly put!

[Paulclem]

Thank you

[Virgil]

No that is fine, I'm largely unconcerned with the ethics of killing animals as long as it isn't done deliberately cruelly. I just have issues with the operation of industrial farms. The average North American would probably be a lot better off with smaller and fewer servings of meat anyway.

Just to make myself clear, I respect that Pip. Personally I've weighed both sides of the issue and have come down that it's better for society to have affordable meat than optimum humane practices. You obviously look at it differently. I understand. I don't know your background, but I grew up poor. I sympathize with the poor.

[Radha Krsna]

Back to first post please...

[billl]

Back to first post please...

Manawa Dharmasastra 5.48:
“na krtva praninam himsam
mamsamtpadyate kwacit,
na ca pranivadhah svargyas
tasman mamsam vivarjayet”
(Meat will not be obtained without hurting living things, and the persecution of living beings is an obstacle / abstinence in pure bliss, and therefore a person should avoid eating meat)

Manawa Dharmasastra 5.51:
“anumanta vicasita nihanta
krayavikrayi,
samskarta copaharta ca
khadakacceti ghatakah”
(He who permits the slaughter of an animal, he is cut, he who killed him, he who buy and sell, he was a cook, he is menyuguhkannya, and he ate it all should be regarded as the killers of animals)

Manawa Dharma Sastra = The Law of Manu

Forgive me, I did not mean to say that eating meat is the main cause of ozone destruction. I am just quoting the words of a brochure about a vegetarian. I just wanted to invite you for a vegetarian to love other living creatures.

Sorry, but you have edited the first post just today (just 3 minutes before this one). A discussion about vegetarianism has been going on. Why are you pointing back to a recently-edited first post? What did you change about the post? As I remember it, it also was about vegetarianism, and that has been the discussion so far.

[OrphanPip]

I've heard this argument a lot, and for several reasons, I'm not buying it. Yes, livestock do take up a lot of room. But saying that all that space could be used for crops which would feed just as many people is not necessarily correct- just because land is suitable for grazing does not mean that it is suitable for growing crops. The fact that cows eat the equivalent of several human meals is also not applicable here: you could say that our pets (say, riding horses for example) are also eating foods that could be consumed by humans/ grazing on land on which crops might be grown. Should we also stop keeping animals recreationally?

Those figures aren't talking about pasture and grazing use. I don't know if you've grown up in agricultural areas or not, but my father's family are all farmers and the highways of Quebec are lined with corn and soybean farms, and this isn't for human consumption but for animal feed. Most ecologist accept that free-range agricultural practices and grass feeding are not all that damaging in the long run. However, from the Cornell press release I posted earlier, cows in the USA consume 22 million tons of grain a year, for 7 million tons of cow. Most of that grain is consumed in the feed lots where industrial slaughter operations gather the animals and fatten them up as fast as possible to maximize their profits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot

[Red-Headed]

I understand that some people have certain qualms about the cruelties involved in slaughtering animals, most people probably do, but isn't this a bit overly sentimental? Without wishing to sound glib, don't vegetables have a right not to be pulled up out of the ground & slaughtered?

When I wash my hands thousands of bacteria are killed in the name of personal hygiene. I actually tried vegetarianism for a couple of years, predominantly more for perceived health benefits than for any tendentious political or religious reasons. I think it was a bacon sandwich which bought me back to being an omnivore. Meat has been a part of our diet for tens of thousands of years & is a rich source of protein. At the end of the day you could actually exist on a pure vegetable diet. If you tried to live on a pure meat diet I think you would get scurvy within a few weeks. Neither is really a balanced diet. The Royal Navy solved this problem with the introduction of fruit juices being served to sailors on long sea journeys, lime being one of the major ones, which is why Americans refer to English people as Limeys to this day.

Meat is an important part of our diet, you can get protein from other sources, but at the end of the day something usually has to die for you to consume it. It is a natural cycle. Something will probably consume us when we shuffle this mortal coil. What makes a sweet potato that much different from a cow?


Sweet Potato

Of all things living
I'd be a sweet potato,
fresh dug up.

~ Shinkichi Takahashi (1901 - 87)

[OrphanPip]

I understand that some people have certain qualms about the cruelties involved in slaughtering animals, most people probably do, but isn't this a bit overly sentimental? Without wishing to sound glib, don't vegetables have a right not to be pulled up out of the ground & slaughtered?

Well there are two major philosophical schools involved in animal rights advocacy. You have animal welfare advocates and animal rights advocates. I tend to be swayed by the welfare advocates. These people go back to preference utilitarian Peter Singer's 1970s Animal Liberation where he argued that since animals feel pain and can suffer we have a responsibility not to cause them harm. Singer accepts that killing animals isn't necessarily wrong because they don't have any concept of their own existence and they don't really "expect to live". It is however wrong to cause suffering to animals, because they do seem to display a preference for not being hurt. Plants feel no pain, and have no consciousness, thus they have no preferences, and thus they can't be harmed.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Those figures aren't talking about pasture and grazing use. I don't know if you've grown up in agricultural areas or not, but my father's family are all farmers and the highways of Quebec are lined with corn and soybean farms, and this isn't for human consumption but for animal feed. Most ecologist accept that free-range agricultural practices and grass feeding are not all that damaging in the long run. However, from the Cornell press release I posted earlier, cows in the USA consume 22 million tons of grain a year, for 7 million tons of cow. Most of that grain is consumed in the feed lots where industrial slaughter operations gather the animals and fatten them up as fast as possible to maximize their profits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot

See, you're the first person to actually specify that, which makes your argument far more legitimate as far as I'm concerned. And I can't help but accept your numbers: cows are consuming more than they are producing. Even so, I really don't see that as being a factor or particular importance: while I have read the current press releases stating that the wold currently has its highest-ever percentage of malnourished people, I have read in the recent past scientific journal articles stating that based on the world's current food production practices, there is enough food to eliminate malnutrition in the world, it is just not distributed in such a way. I'm sorry I can't source that, I don't think I have the papers anymore, and most online science journals want me to pay them for access.

I do know what a feedlot is and how they function. I'm studying animal biology through the Ontario Agricultural College at the University of Guelph, and a number of my early courses have been geared towards agricultural production and industry (with definite focus on welfare and housing). I've been on the feedlots.

Yes, the majority of the grain is consumed on feedlots, and while feedlots definitely have issues to be worked out, grain-fed animals do produce different meat than grass-fed ones. And as for the last-minute fattening up- it's not as though the cows are starved until just before slaughter and then stuffed until they're fat. There is a specific feeding regime which maximizes the right type of fat for good meat. Do you suggest that we grass-feed, or stop farming cattle altogether? And then what about dairy cattle? They consume more grain than they produce milk. How does this argument apply to them?

[Red-Headed]

Plants feel no pain, and have no consciousness, thus they have no preferences, and thus they can't be harmed.

This is an assumption. Nobody actually knows. What about bacteria? I understand that it is easier to identify with a cow than a turnip but modern slaughtering practises are as humane as they can be. I don't accept some 'religious' slaughtering methods though & I think that this is something that should be discussed more in the Western world.

[OrphanPip]

This is an assumption. Nobody actually knows. What about bacteria? I understand that it is easier to identify with a cow than a turnip but modern slaughtering practises are as humane as they can be. I don't accept some 'religious' slaughtering methods though & I think that this is something that should be discussed more in the Western world.

Plants have no nervous system, it is hardly an assumption. Let alone bacteria which don't even have organelles. o.O

@Classic

I'm not an advocate of completely stopping animal exploitation. I just think we should acknowledge that there is room for improvement in the current methods of industrial farming, whether for dairy, beef, chicken, pork, etc.

Arguably it would be better for the environment and more efficient to stop producing meat altogether, but this is an unrealistic expectation. There are other issues like water contamination/use and soil erosion. This is kind of a non-issue in a place like Canada, but in the Southern USA fresh water is getting scarcer every year and arable land is being depleted.

Boycotting meat produced by factory farms is a legitimate form of political expression. However, I think the only way any real change will occur is through legislation and sensible discussion of the issues. I don't think we can trust private industry to do anything except maximize its profits, so as consumers concerned with the ethical treatment of animals and the responsible use of resources we should remain vigilant and critical of the agricultural industry.

I don't drink milk because I'm lactose intolerant, but I know the PETA nuts are anti dairy farms these days. My grandfather ran a dairy farm, and I don't think any of his animals were particularly abused. I have significantly less faith in the agricultural industry today as the individual farmer becomes less and less relevant in the face of huge agribusiness.