-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Meat-eating Vs. vegetarianism
- Thread starter GentleArtillery
- Start date
- Status
Neither do people/animals with damaged spinal cords or who are under the influence of anaesthetics. Does that mean it's okay to eat them too?
Because that's what the ethic seems to be...
themadhatter715
Mad as a Hatter
But they still have nervous systems. Good point, though. I DO think it's okay to eat animals, by the way. I'm just saying that plants can't feel pain. It's a fact.
THAT is what you assume. But, isn't this how bigotry works? The europeans assumed that, because the african were not like them, that they were not intelligent. Plants can move their flowers toward the sun; they must have some sort of nerves. A more 'democratic' nervous system? It's possible.
ForeverFlame
Well-Known Member
Animals eat each other all the time, so it's a very natural thing to do. I personally eat meat at least twice a day. 
Circle of Life, anyone?
Circle of Life, anyone?
themadhatter715
Mad as a Hatter
It is possible. They can respond to their environment. That has to do with the nervous system. Even so, it's a relatively simple nervous system and they probably still can't feel pain. But, like I said, it is possible.
-is fascinated and is going to research nervous systems of plants- ;]
FurryTrousers
Thingamedendums!
Neither is wrong, and people ate meat since the beginning of time, right? I've eaten meat before, and it is pretty tasty, but I chose to be a vegetarian in the end. I don't have a reason, I just want to be a vegetarian. I was raised as one, and I want to stay one. My brother eats meat all the time, I don't have a problem with it. And being a vegetarian doesn't mean that you're saving the environment or anything. So don't look at it that way. If you're a vegetarian, that doesn't mean you are a hippie, or a poser or anything. It's just a choice, and you shouldn't argue with people about their choices.
kochoupink
butts lol
The best argument I have ever heard for being a vegetarian (which I am not) is the environmental one. Less cows consumed = less land cleared for cattle ranching (a great deal of which is in the rainforest). Less farms for meat = less methane as well. Screw pain and nervous systems. You wanna talk morals, talk global warming. I feel like we do have a responsibility to protect our environment, and if eating less meat is the way to do it, then so be it.
For each kg of meat, a cow eats 7kg's of food. Whether or not we eat the cow is up to us, but its always going to eat the food. Killing it infact cuts its life short, meaning it eats less food, and theres more for the rest of us. Immoral, possibly. Necessary, yes.
Anyway, what should we do with all the animals if they die? Let them rot? Have sex with them (In PETA's case)? Or use them for our own survival. Its common sense. Theres food. Eat it.
Anyway, what should we do with all the animals if they die? Let them rot? Have sex with them (In PETA's case)? Or use them for our own survival. Its common sense. Theres food. Eat it.
kochoupink
butts lol
Supply and demand. Less demand = less supply. If people stop eating the cows, ranching will become less profitable, and people will turn to other forms of agriculture, which will ultimately be better for the environment and use less land. It takes time. Humans are omnivorous. It's okay to eat meat. Just not on this scale.
What scale is this? Exactly what amount are you talking about? Eating meat isn't as bad as it sounds, and all you enviromentilists do is copy each others statements. What is so bad about eating meat? There are so many worse forms of business, why destroy one of the oldest types because cows emit methane? Why don't you try and stop the companys that pollute and dump waste, ranching is a huge part of some countrys economys.
kochoupink
butts lol
For heaven's sake, I'm not a vegetarian. And ranching is fine as one of the "oldest types" of business. But it's no longer the way it was. Historically, people did not eat this much meat. Historically, meat came from small farms, not massive "ranches" (really little more than cow factories) created by clearing huge amounts of rainforest land. It's not about "stopping" anything. It's about bringing it down to a manageable scale. Yes, ranching is a huge part of some countries' economies, but it doesn't have to be. Just as tobacco farmers in North Carolina are now finding it more lucrative to grow Christmas trees (NC is now the #2 producer in the UShttp://ncchristmastrees.com/) and blueberrieshttp://www.newfarm.org/columns/george_devault/2004/0804/blueberries.shtml, it would be possible for ranch-based economies to turn to more environmentally friendly crops - coffee or cocoa for example, both of which need to be grown in rainforest-like environments (unlike cattle), and both of which still provide a great deal of money for the grower (especially with fair-trade movements gaining steam). And yes, many companies do pollute and dump waste, but many environmental laws have been passed to fix that, and it is improving - consider the Superfund, which is slowly but really fixing infamous sites like Love Canal and Rocky Flats.
As for methane, when you consider that cattle ranching is the #3 methane producer in the US alone (sourcehttp://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html), that hardly seems like a little problem.
Once again, there's nothing wrong with eating meat. There's just a bit of an issue with eating too much.
PS I love your sig!
Last edited:
First of all, thank you for correcting me haha i really dislike english. Secondly, my first post was pretty ignorant and unreasearched and for that i appologise. Not being an America, im going to try and understand the examples you gave as well as possible, but if i get it a little off, im sorry.
I dont believe i called you a vegetarian, but i did an enviromentalist. I never meant it as an insult, and although my post was pretty terribly written I do believe that most enviromentalists do recycle others arguements.
Meat eating levels have risen over 400% in the last 100 years, but the population has increased 600-700%. Therefore, although more meat is being consumed, and the ranches do take up more space, people are actually eating less meat than 100 years ago. (This trend is on a worldwide scale, not just America.)
Of course, this doesn't mean that the farms take up any less space and in fact do become massive. Historically, Meat did come from small farms. We also walked everywhere, and woman had no right to vote. Historically, meat farms were family owned and operated, because there was an abundance of avaliable land in certain places. The modernisation of the industry has lead to massive changes in the way we live. No longer do people own acres and acres of land to grow there own crops and raise there own cattle. We can travel down to the store to get precut and marrinated beef and pork. Although these plants are huge, and release massive amounts of methane, they support the population. People aren't going to stop eating meat because of the enviroment, and I personally would sacrafice my car before I did meat. The world has moved technologically more than ever in the past 100 years, and this technology allows us to utilise bigger farms, and increase output. We need the extra output to feed the extra people, and its no so much a matter of the size of the farms as much as producing more than needed beef. If there is an abundance of meat, it keeps prices low. The moment a market senses a change in the supply, or a possible decrease, prices soar. The world is having a food crisis, and the littlest scare will send meat to an unattainable price. The sensible thing to do would to gradually reduce meat production, but this could have dire consequences. Even the littlest change could send people to starve.
Here in New Zealand, sheep farming is our biggest industry. It accounts for almost half of our exports, and injects hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy. It is not practical to change our farms to a more eco friendly alternative because these farms are retrofitted for Sheep, such as massive Cow ranches are retrofitted for Cow's. They have milking plants, and of course some of these ranches could have there land put to better use, it would be too costly and effect supply too greatly for it to be a viable option.
As for methane levels, the source you provided states that the livestock methane levels have actually decreased by 2.9, and the overall methane given off has decreased by 60.4. It is a large problem, not a small one as i previously stated, but its heading in the right direction and it seems that the methane levels are always going to be crucial to the current population level.
I do agree with you though, we do eat too much meat. However, i don't think its ever going to change until were all long gone
And thank you! haha
kochoupink
butts lol
@Regan
That's much better!
Sheep ranching, especially in New Zealand, is an entirely different animal (pun possibly unintended) because it does not cause the destruction of rainforest land. Also, sheep are basically the coolest things ever, because wool is awesome.
The thing about the meat-eating increase v. the population increase is that population is increasing most rapidly in areas that traditionally do not eat a great deal of meat, anyway: India, China, and Sub-Saharan Africa. If you were to look at more "developed" countries with slower-growing populations, you would find that it is their meat consumption that is increasing.
Also, rainforest land can be reclaimed even after being completely destroyed, so retrofitting from cattle farming to another product is possible. The technology we've produced could be applied to creating more ecologically-safe alternatives to massive factory farming. It's important to remember, after all, that slash-and-burn is one of the most ancient agricultural techniques there is. It's time to move up, que no?
As for extra output necessary for feeding extra people, this brings us right back to vegetarianism thing. The fact is that more corn or soybeans can be produced per acre for less money and at less cost to the environment than beef. Also, corn diverted to cattle feed would instead be used as people feed.
As an American, I take my country's responsibility for the food crisis. America is one of the world's biggest producers of corn, and our government is subsidising ethanol production with it! WASTE! *end ethanol rant*
Overall, I still feel that vegetarianism is better for the environment - even if I would never do it. And the reason many environmentalists recycle (lolpun!) their arguments is because so many are true!
That's much better!
Sheep ranching, especially in New Zealand, is an entirely different animal (pun possibly unintended) because it does not cause the destruction of rainforest land. Also, sheep are basically the coolest things ever, because wool is awesome.
The thing about the meat-eating increase v. the population increase is that population is increasing most rapidly in areas that traditionally do not eat a great deal of meat, anyway: India, China, and Sub-Saharan Africa. If you were to look at more "developed" countries with slower-growing populations, you would find that it is their meat consumption that is increasing.
Also, rainforest land can be reclaimed even after being completely destroyed, so retrofitting from cattle farming to another product is possible. The technology we've produced could be applied to creating more ecologically-safe alternatives to massive factory farming. It's important to remember, after all, that slash-and-burn is one of the most ancient agricultural techniques there is. It's time to move up, que no?
As for extra output necessary for feeding extra people, this brings us right back to vegetarianism thing. The fact is that more corn or soybeans can be produced per acre for less money and at less cost to the environment than beef. Also, corn diverted to cattle feed would instead be used as people feed.
As an American, I take my country's responsibility for the food crisis. America is one of the world's biggest producers of corn, and our government is subsidising ethanol production with it! WASTE! *end ethanol rant*
Overall, I still feel that vegetarianism is better for the environment - even if I would never do it. And the reason many environmentalists recycle (lolpun!) their arguments is because so many are true!
Ice_Scyther
FFFFFFFFF-
While I would rather not get into a major debate, I do have an opinion on this argument: I don't care.
It's kind of like, why do people argue about the most stupid things? Who cares about whether you eat veggies or meat?
I could go on about this for a while, but I'd like to see if anyone shares my views.
It's kind of like, why do people argue about the most stupid things? Who cares about whether you eat veggies or meat?
I could go on about this for a while, but I'd like to see if anyone shares my views.
I actually had to think twice about using the sheep/NZ remark.. sadly enough i recently discovered the world thinks we have our way with the things. Id emplore anyone thinking this to visit NZ, and to realise that our females are alot more attractive than sheep, and they don't kick
Wool is itchy! And i realise sheep are different animals, but this topic is about meat in general and i was trying to show that not all animals are ranched in destructive enviroments, and that eating this meat doesn't hurt the enviroment but heals it as the sheep aid in many forms of enviromental build up (which i cannot recall at this moment, but if challanged i will find), and it also helps the economy.
I do understand that the meat eating trends i stated do not take into account the hungry western world but look at it as more a worldwide view. Its true that the increased production is feeding less people, but they get there sustinance from garbage cans and stuff..
I did not know that rainforest land could be reclaimed, but how do you mean? Will it thrive like it did before it was destroyed, or is the best we can hope for is a half assed pine forest to replace it? Just like there are industry standards and laws for pollution, i believe meat ranches should have to relocate/replant trees they destroy, and become more greenhouse gas neutral. Cattle farms here are becoming like that, using the manure to make energy which is sold back to the national grid, and the profits are used to fund tree planting programs.
Cutting the size of ranches would also cut dairy production, and I only speak for New Zealand here, but dairy prices are high enough (they have increased 32-80% in the last year), and cutting production would just drive up demand to a ridiculous price.
Vegitarians really do conserve food, as i previously stated it takes 7kg's of grain/feed to make 1kg of meat. However, the balance has been in check for some time and its now that the poorer countrys can afford more food that is causing the real problem. We have to start to change our own way of life now, or millions of people will starve. Meat eating does need to decrease, but not to such a rate that it causes problems due to decreasing production.
As for the biofuel comment, its a joke. Its one of the main reasons why were in this prediciment, and the sensible thing to do would to ban certain cars. (cars that get less than 20mpg, or engine sizes over 3,800cc.) This would be a sensible way to avoid almost every problem faced in the world today, from global warming to the food crisis, and that biofuel could be lowered to a 2-5% blend, releasing the strain on the global market.
masteroftime
OBJECTION BBQ!
I eat meat because it is tasty, and because animals eat other animals as well. It happens in NATURE! Why not?
- Status