1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. We're currently having an issue where e-mails sent to gmail accounts are not going through and are bouncing back. We're currently working to resolve this matter and apologise for any inconvenience
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  4. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Should people move away from eating/using animal products?

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by keepitsimple, Nov 11, 2018.

  1. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    Why am I shamed for s***ing in the street? Animals do this all the time. I am just like any other creature, humans are not special.

    It's not rocket science, surely? Most vegetarians aren't objecting to the taste and texture of meat, but the fact that we kill animals to get it. If the taste, texture and nutritional value of meat can be precisely replicated, vegetarianism would practically lose definition over night.
     
    keepitsimple and WizardTrubbish like this.
  2. Erron Black

    Erron Black The Pretender

    No. Humans are omnivorous by nature.

    Leaving out half of your natural diet won't kill you as long as you intake a proper and healthy amount of nutrients.

    Though by doing this, if... theoretically, everyone did this, it would severely upset the balance of the food chain and population of the entire planet.

    Plant-life would be the only matter consumed by humans, which our population is currently at 7.2 billion people worldwide. A recent study of 11,000 of people at 17+ in America showed that only 2% of them were vegetarian, and only 1 in 4 of them were Vegan. Thus, 0.5% of Americans, statistically, would be vegan going off this study. Let's take this number for the overall population. 0.5% of the overall population is roughly 36 million people.

    Why is this important? Well, currently Veganism is really a non-issue because of how many people abide by it. It's an extreme minority of the population. Suddenly convert roughly... 7,164,000,000 people to veganism? We have a huge problem.

    Farm land would need to be increased heavily to support such a number of people which would effectively result in a lot of land completely deforested, demolished, and repurposed into area for agriculture. Hell, even now some crops have trouble meeting demands. Can you imagine the amount of trouble everything plant-based would face meeting the demands of 7.2 billion people daily?

    So not only would a LOT of wildlife be extremely threatened by habitat destruction, herbivorous/omnivorous creatures would have a massive struggle to survive due to the lack of food sources and the drastic increase in competition. Which would overall result in many, many, many more species dying out very fast as it would be a chain effect.

    Essentially, if you think everyone should convert to veganism to 'save animals' you're stupid and should consider the overall effect this would have on the world. There's no problem with veganism right now, and in fact, in the right percentages, it can be VERY beneficial to populations of every species in the world, but if everyone were to resort to veganism, it'd be no different than if everyone strictly ate animal products in the long-run.

    So frankly, if you want to go the vegan route, good on you. If you want everyone to go the vegan route and shame those for... you know, eating their natural diet, you're deluded and thoughtless.

    I respect people that choose to support a vegan diet, but I don't respect those that do or say without thinking of consequences and long-term effects.
     
    Genaller likes this.
  3. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    the mode of consumption of meat is inherently unsustainable, similarly all the modes of consumption under capitalism cannot be sustained without some massive reforms with how we distribute it

    but the number don't lie, meat is incredibly inefficient, it takes far more water and acres of land to make a burger than to make something sans meat

    and re: our natural diet, humans are hunter-gatherers, the agrarian diet could be argued to be largely unnatural, but thats kinda moot
     
    WizardTrubbish and keepitsimple like this.
  4. Peter Quill

    Peter Quill star-lord

    What I find very interesting about your post is how it doesn't take into account the sustainability issues involved with raising meat for consumption. From what I understand it actually takes significantly more water to produce cattle than it would to produce vegetation. You went onto this huge rant about how people who want veganism to be the norm to reconsider their effects on the world without addressing how factory farm meat affects the world re: sustainability. Ho-hum. Also, if we replace all the factory farmland that uses meat would that not provide a significant chunk which could be used to raise vegetables and other plant life for people?

    I had a very good post re: my thoughts on this topic in the last thread which has since been deleted so :v
     
  5. Erron Black

    Erron Black The Pretender

    I said the same issue lies in solely eating meat/animal products.

    In other words, I essentially said our entire population completely leaning towards one side of our omnivorous nature would be disastrous in the long run.
     
    Genaller likes this.
  6. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    the point is it's gonna be disastrous if we change nothing about our current consumption, and we need to eat far less meat and animal products overall
     
    keepitsimple likes this.
  7. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    It should be noted that we as a species eat way too much processed meat alone, in terms of our health. Colon cancer has been drastically rising, and a good part of it is from people just eating way too much processed meat, and now things like Deli Meat are seen as worse and worse for you as a consistent meal. So even if ethically you're of the mindset that eating other animals isn't wrong at all, there's a health issue to consider as well.

    But I'm also convinced as climate change affects things we'll get a billionaire or other similar person in power will start floating the idea we should just start eating other people.
     
  8. WizardTrubbish

    WizardTrubbish much more beastly

    Every definition of genocide I've heard of exclusively applies to humans
    I would argue that morality is not subjective but rather a natural consequence of the logical conclusions of certain premises that are definitionally true (ie "suffering is bad") or necessarily true in order to maintain a functioning society (ie "we should prevent bad thing"). Regardless, morality being subjective isn't exactly a mainstream position among moral philosophers and while it's obviously perfectly acceptable to hold a non-mainstream position, you really can't drop a claim like that as though it were self-evident without justifying it. What have you read that brought you to the conclusion that morality is subjective?

    Animals kill other animals to survive because they need to. Humans do not need to kill animals to survive. Additionally, humans are rational creatures capable of understanding right and wrong and thus can be held to a moral standard that you can't hold animals to. That's why we don't hold humans to the same standards we hold lions or wolves to.

    Personally I'm not of the mind that "should I contribute to unnecessary suffering?" is a question of lifestyle choice where all answers are equally valid.

    1/3 of plant crops worldwide are used to feed livestock. Combine that with the amount of land used for grazing and housing farm animals, and the fact that animal agriculture is significantly more resource intensive than plant agriculture and far less efficient, it's hard to imagine how the elimination of animal agriculture would result in any sort of increase in demand for farm land at all, let alone the apocalyptic scenario you're describing.
     
    keepitsimple, Scammel and chess-z like this.
  9. Erron Black

    Erron Black The Pretender

    You're also ignoring the blatant fact that over 7 billion people would be eliminating meat and other animal products from their diets entirely.

    Then taking into account those 7 billion people would have at least double, as a lot of people generally don't consume a lot of vegetation daily and with it becoming their only and primary source of food, the demand for crops and plant matter in general would be far greater than what livestock takes up currently.

    Not to mention populations for certain animals that we hunt which... generally are not at risk of extinction or endangerment by any means, would entirely lose their primary predators, which would, if not controlled by humans, which as veganism is strictly against the slaughter of animals, would no doubt result in overpopulation of a species. Sure, we could replace animal agriculture with farmland. But then what do we do with all those domesticated animals? You think letting them run around in the wild is fine? They're domesticated, they can't survive in the wild, which only results in their numbers declining largely. By 'freeing' these Cows, Pigs, Chickens, whatever it may be, you're only granting them a death sentence. That land would still be needed to keep these animals in tact.

    There's dozens of plausible scenarios that our entire population shifting to veganism would cause. Vegans simply look at it as "We don't need to eat animals, therefore we shouldn't and everything will be fine." It's not that simple at all. Just because scientists SAY mankind can survive solely off crops and plant-life doesn't mean there wouldn't be any negative drawbacks by the entire population of the human race doing this.

    Do you think veganism is beneficial and good? That's fine, but thinking that 7 billion+ people moving to it would be a good idea is foolish.

    It'd be like if the entire population of bears shifted to their herbivorous side and completely moved away from being carnivorous or hell, if Lions or Sharks went completely extinct randomly. An apex predator would effectively be removed from an ecosystem. The loss of an apex predator can result in ecosystems to collapse. If you think humans are somehow different in this regard, I have no idea what to tell you.
     
    Genaller likes this.
  10. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    This is an incredibly stupid argument and I don't know why you keep making it. In this scenario demand for meat is replaced - not duplicated - by further demand for agri-products. Agriculture is far less ecologically intensive than livestock-rearing, ergo more sustainable. Demand is a zero-sum game.

    Why do you think replacing cattle farms with the less-intensive agricultural equivalent is an ecological disaster?

    You think supermarket shelves are stocked by hunting?...

    The species die out over several years as demand falls and it becomes less and less profitable to breed them.

    This idea that veganism will gain a widespread foothold overnight is a strawman that several people in this thread have punched half to death. **** me, I'm a voracious omnivore but the omnivore lobby here is terrible.
     
    WizardTrubbish and keepitsimple like this.
  11. Minedreigon

    Minedreigon We are the Swarm

    Definitionally true? I believe as a human I am truly hopeless to grasp anything close to real, universal truth. To say morality isn’t subjective suggests to me that it is an innate universal fact that some things are “good” and some things are “bad” and I simply do not see how that is possible.

    Suffering is bad isn’t even a view held by all humans: some teach that suffering is necessary as it allows us to experience joy, and thus could infact be considered a good thing in the grand scheme of things (granted, this only holds up if we take “joy is good” as an axiom). The very fact that it being good or bad depends on the scale I’m looking at it suggests that it cannot be definitionally bad, and that such an objective truth of the nature of suffering does not exist.

    As for being necessary to maintain a functioning society, isn’t that also relative to humans? We have no case studies of other animals forming societies as complex as ours (I guess the closest to my knowledge would be ants, and that’s certainly extremely different, but not really comparable for many reasons) so I don’t think it’s accurate to say all societies must value the same morals to function just yet.

    I guess I view it in the same way I view mathematics. With an axinomial system in place, sure, maths is objective (but morality definitely isn’t as rigid and rigorous as modern mathematics) but we as humans crafted those axioms on our own intuition, so to call it objective as a whole seems a bit shady.
     
    keepitsimple and Genaller like this.
  12. satopi

    satopi All hail Satomine Night!

    I love my meat and I love my veggies so I should be allowed to have the best of both worlds. I like the taste of meat/seafood and I couldn't live without it. Just like you have the choice of eating vegan or plant based food, we have the choice of eating meat. Plus there's a lot of people out here who dislikes eating vegetables.

    It's hard when you're raised with this specific diet your entire life and if it isn't damaging or harming your life, most people wouldn't bother switching. Not to mention, vegan foods, even the plant based burgers and "meats" are expensive as heck! I enjoy shopping and looking through the fresh and ethical product section but those prices aren't budget friendly or people with a low income.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2018

Share This Page