U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-12-2018, 09:28 AM
 
Location: trapped in the body of a dying animal
3,401 posts, read 1,443,886 times
Reputation: 3610

Advertisements

A friend of mine is a vegetarian... and it has nothing to do with food sustainability. She just loves animals and says she won't eat anything with a face. My wife asked her one time why she won't eat scallops (for instance). They have neither a face nor a brain. She didn't really have a answer to that... frankly I think she just likes to be a martyr.

I'll never be vegetarian or anything like that, but I do kinda admire her sticking to her beliefs. I have no problem with vegetarians so long as they're not preachy about it. What I can't wrap my mind around are people who love animals and claim they could never kill one... but eat meat.

Is it somehow more moral to pay some Mexican in a processing plant to do the killing for you?? It's a view that I can't really respect.

Personally I think that if you eat meat, then you are plenty willing to kill critters. Hunting and cutting up your own critters is a good way to understand what you're doing when you eat meat. I find it a far more *honest* practice than maintaining a false moral purity by paying someone less fortunate to do your killing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-12-2018, 09:47 AM
 
1,269 posts, read 1,031,234 times
Reputation: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head View Post
A friend of mine is a vegetarian... and it has nothing to do with food sustainability. She just loves animals and says she won't eat anything with a face. My wife asked her one time why she won't eat scallops (for instance). They have neither a face nor a brain. She didn't really have a answer to that... frankly I think she just likes to be a martyr.

I'll never be vegetarian or anything like that, but I do kinda admire her sticking to her beliefs. I have no problem with vegetarians so long as they're not preachy about it. What I can't wrap my mind around are people who love animals and claim they could never kill one... but eat meat.

Is it somehow more moral to pay some Mexican in a processing plant to do the killing for you?? It's a view that I can't really respect.

Personally I think that if you eat meat, then you are plenty willing to kill critters. Hunting and cutting up your own critters is a good way to understand what you're doing when you eat meat. I find it a far more *honest* practice than maintaining a false moral purity by paying someone less fortunate to do your killing.
I agree. For the most part.

In being vegetarian or vegan, with modern farming, you kill off tons of other animals because of the displacement of grassland for farmland, a farmland that is sprayed with pesticides and on it's way to becoming sterile.

That is the issue. Veg peoples are digging a hole to fill another (If they do not want to harm animals). I am just raising that awareness, that if you really love animals then you should think about the environment they live in, and ultimately we live in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2018, 08:28 PM
 
10,629 posts, read 2,909,494 times
Reputation: 9158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werone View Post
I agree. For the most part.

In being vegetarian or vegan, with modern farming, you kill off tons of other animals because of the displacement of grassland for farmland, a farmland that is sprayed with pesticides and on it's way to becoming sterile.

That is the issue. Veg peoples are digging a hole to fill another (If they do not want to harm animals). I am just raising that awareness, that if you really love animals then you should think about the environment they live in, and ultimately we live in.
You are so very wrong. The math is the math and energy is energy.

But if you can't understand it then it is going to be hard to explain. I'll give it one more college try......

If the USA went largely veggie, the SAME farmland that is now used to grown corn and soybeans for Animals - would be capable of creating as much as 10X the veggies we would need.

Result #1 - LESS farmland monoculture - less farmland used, more revert to wild (and to wild animals if you like them)....

Result #1 - the vast acreage that is used for feedlots (again, most meat is factory farmed) would stop being polluted to the extent it is.....and revert back to wild or to other uses.....

Repeat to yourself over and over again - TEN TO ONE.

No one is digging a hole to fill another! Since you understand that comparison, what you are doing is taking a polluted hole your already dug (chemical laden farms and feedlots) and filling them up 9/10th of the way.....only using 10% of them instead of 100% and therefore capable of much cleaner and better stewardship.

If that explanation is not clear...well, I'll have to give up. It's all about input vs. output. You are effectively arguing that if we all bought 5 MPG cars the world would be much better off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2018, 09:47 PM
 
1,012 posts, read 699,476 times
Reputation: 1556
Capitalism may be the ruin of the Earth. Sounds like a bad stretch but, if we produce 50 or 100 mpg cars people will buy gas less frequently the oil industry will tank (see what I did there... aww... crap).

So yes, if people ate less beef, drove less, the amount of resources used would be reduced, such that replenishment could be possible or at least, depletion slowed way down. ...but do you really believe ConAgra, Monsanto, Exxon or BP would EVER allow that?! ...if you do, I got a bridge to sell you...

Despite my attitude, and the fact that I embody many "Trumpian" stereotypes, I really do believe in cleaning and reusing shopping bags, plastic utensils, not taking bags for things that already have handles, keeping good metal items for years, not buying new versions of perfectly good appliances I already have (although that's in part because I'm a tin-foil hat guy who does NOT trust Windows 10, Facebook or, any "smart" appliance).

I'd tolerate the idea, if I knew it would be applied fairly but, except for a few isolated instances, like the military or certain communes (which have their own different set of problems), everybody is just "out to get their's". So my natural response, as it is for most people is, "Well then, I'm gonna get mine."

I really do believe we need to use less stuff.

...but, most people will never get disciplined enough to do that. Mother Nature will somehow give many of us the swift kick in the rear needed by just doing something to reduce the number of people...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2018, 11:58 AM
 
1,269 posts, read 1,031,234 times
Reputation: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
You are so very wrong. The math is the math and energy is energy.

But if you can't understand it then it is going to be hard to explain. I'll give it one more college try......

If the USA went largely veggie, the SAME farmland that is now used to grown corn and soybeans for Animals - would be capable of creating as much as 10X the veggies we would need.

Result #1 - LESS farmland monoculture - less farmland used, more revert to wild (and to wild animals if you like them)....

Result #1 - the vast acreage that is used for feedlots (again, most meat is factory farmed) would stop being polluted to the extent it is.....and revert back to wild or to other uses.....

Repeat to yourself over and over again - TEN TO ONE.

No one is digging a hole to fill another! Since you understand that comparison, what you are doing is taking a polluted hole your already dug (chemical laden farms and feedlots) and filling them up 9/10th of the way.....only using 10% of them instead of 100% and therefore capable of much cleaner and better stewardship.

If that explanation is not clear...well, I'll have to give up. It's all about input vs. output. You are effectively arguing that if we all bought 5 MPG cars the world would be much better off.
Where are you getting your statistics?

What you are implying is not correct AT ALL.

I am against feedlots and Monoculture.

Result #1 - Tell yourself over and over again. Without sustainable agriculture we will be dependent on chemicals and GMO to feed ourselves.

Result #1 (Two #1's ?) - Where do you get that the yield is TEN to ONE from sustainable farms?

Sources Please.

If you want sources for yields on organic farms... then I have lots of those!

This MATHEMATICAL reference from 2012 has a yield of 80% when compared to "Modern" Agricultural methods

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...08521X1100182X


Heres another from same resource, from 2018, with highlights of:

We used data from a 13-year old farming systems comparison in the Netherlands.


The yield gap between organic and conventional farming diminished over time.


This coincided with higher nutrient use efficiency and spatial stability in the organic system.


Transition from conventional to organic results in fundamental changes in soil properties.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...67880917305595



There is plenty more. So maybe you should rethink your position?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2018, 06:28 PM
 
10,629 posts, read 2,909,494 times
Reputation: 9158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werone View Post
Where are you getting your statistics?

What you are implying is not correct AT ALL.

I am against feedlots and Monoculture.

Result #1 - Tell yourself over and over again. Without sustainable agriculture we will be dependent on chemicals and GMO to feed ourselves.

Result #1 (Two #1's ?) - Where do you get that the yield is TEN to ONE from sustainable farms?

Sources Please.


There is plenty more. So maybe you should rethink your position?
Sources are above.
You are quoting "ifs" and I am quoting the reality. 80 to 95% of our meat currently comes from factory farming techniques.

Let's talk again 100 years in the future if thing have changed to what your "science" says.

We are discussing now....and, in fact, the past (I've been veggie for 48 years).....and the future (as it stands, we won't be using your figures....well, maybe never, but certainly not in the next couple of decades)....

If we obtain 100% of our power from a Tesla Energy Tower than that 5MPG (or elec equiv) car might not be a bad thing....but we don't get our energy that way. Same with your sustainable animal practices. They represent a tiny portion of the US meat production.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2018, 02:39 PM
 
1,269 posts, read 1,031,234 times
Reputation: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
Sources are above.
You are quoting "ifs" and I am quoting the reality. 80 to 95% of our meat currently comes from factory farming techniques.

Let's talk again 100 years in the future if thing have changed to what your "science" says.

We are discussing now....and, in fact, the past (I've been veggie for 48 years).....and the future (as it stands, we won't be using your figures....well, maybe never, but certainly not in the next couple of decades)....

If we obtain 100% of our power from a Tesla Energy Tower than that 5MPG (or elec equiv) car might not be a bad thing....but we don't get our energy that way. Same with your sustainable animal practices. They represent a tiny portion of the US meat production.
The yields are not "ifs" but reality. Organic farming yields high volumes of biomass and tasty, healthy food.

Ok. Maybe I think our misunderstanding lies in what each one of us is trying to say.

I am trying to promote sustainable farming. The only way to ensure high yields from farming without the dependence on fossil fuels and petrochemicals is to build soil and add grassland to our farms, that can produce lots of food at a sustainable proportion. That does mean less meat, but a higher quality meat without antibiotics and steroids.

That is not a bad thing. We changed to modern farming in the 1950's, we can change back, and with the knowledge we have now, we can have almost equal yields as fertilizer based farming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Log "cabin" west of Bangor
5,566 posts, read 6,542,620 times
Reputation: 9822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werone View Post
The yields are not "ifs" but reality. Organic farming yields high volumes of biomass and tasty, healthy food.

Ok. Maybe I think our misunderstanding lies in what each one of us is trying to say.

I am trying to promote sustainable farming. The only way to ensure high yields from farming without the dependence on fossil fuels and petrochemicals is to build soil and add grassland to our farms, that can produce lots of food at a sustainable proportion. That does mean less meat, but a higher quality meat without antibiotics and steroids.

That is not a bad thing. We changed to modern farming in the 1950's, we can change back, and with the knowledge we have now, we can have almost equal yields as fertilizer based farming.
I am a member of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA) and I grow fruits and veggies using organic methods (not 'certified' due to the cost). Organic farming requires a high manual labor component, with lower yields of produce that [often] do not have as pleasing an appearance. The price of organic produce is significantly higher than that of 'factory farmed' produce because of the amount of labor involved and the lower yield. It's like attempting to build cars by hand and expecting the price to be competitive with those coming off an assembly line.

While 'organic' farming may be 'sustainable' on a small scale, it cannot compete with 'factory farms' using modern methods, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. It's cute that you think it is competitive, but it isn't true. In order to do away with 'factory farming' you would also need to do away with a significant percentage of the population...hmmmmm...where to start?...Oh, I know...

Organic farming is sustained mostly by suckers who have more money than brains, and/or who have drunk the kool-aide of fear-mongering against Monsanto (and others) and paranoia against GMOs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 12:05 PM
 
18,318 posts, read 15,403,991 times
Reputation: 34525
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
Generally the concern seems to be targeted at the treatment of animals and use of fertilizers and pesticides. I never hear vegetarians or vegans discuss development, human populations and urban sprawl. These things contribute to the imbalance in our ecosystem due to loss of habitat and pollutants that are associated with construction, traffic, industry, and products we use. Loss of habitat equates to loss of food and shelter for wild animals which leads to starvation, disease, death by vehicles and increases in hunting limits. As far as livestock every year I see more and more local farms bought for development; subdivisions, shopping centers, golf courses. When local farmers are not raising livestock in more natural and humane conditions or rotating crops it feed the monoculture and intensive animal farming.
There are also those who abstain from meat due to environmental concerns. Raising livestock produces far more methane gas and ozone-destroying power than all the cars in the world. It leaves a very large carbon footprint for the numbers of people it feeds.


New Study Shows the Major Environmental Impact of Meat Production | TIME.com


More and more big companies are moving toward the future:


https://www.fastcompany.com/40508181...-gets-on-board
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
530 posts, read 154,203 times
Reputation: 1343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werone View Post
I agree. For the most part.

In being vegetarian or vegan, with modern farming, you kill off tons of other animals because of the displacement of grassland for farmland, a farmland that is sprayed with pesticides and on it's way to becoming sterile.

That is the issue. Veg peoples are digging a hole to fill another (If they do not want to harm animals). I am just raising that awareness, that if you really love animals then you should think about the environment they live in, and ultimately we live in.
Perfection is impossible, but by eschewing meat and animal products we are at least not condemning billions of living creatures to a life of incredible suffering in the horrible, inhumane conditions of modern animal agriculture each year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top