|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
posted November 13, 2008 03:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sure, those are no longer times where breeding animals means having three cows that pasture on grass. But that's not an argument against breeding animals 
It actually is, you know. Considering the fact that humanity is living way above our limits (meaning we take more from our planet than it could possibly reporduce in the same time) we or our children will live to regret the day where we wasted huuuuge crop productions (for refernces please look at minions post above) on something that wouldn't give anywhere near the same amount of energy.
If we think in terms of effectiveness breeding animals is not efficient.
I still think it's ok for humans to eat meat though .
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 13, 2008 04:00 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 16:04, 13 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Can you eat grass?
No, but a cow can.
Where are the wasted calories you mentioned? 
Sure, those are no longer times where breeding animals means having three cows that pasture on grass. But that's not an argument against breeding animals
This wasn't an argument against breeding* animals. But against the false assumption that meat production is more environmentally sound than vegetarian.
*The application of the principles of GENETICS and biometry to improve the efficiency of production in farm animals
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 13, 2008 04:13 PM |
|
|
I see. Still, in the good old days, breeding animals was very efficient. They didn't need too much care (compared to what they receive now - medical care, genetically modified fodder and such) and you could turn the wasted calories of the grass into eatable calories of meat.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 13, 2008 04:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Can you eat grass?
No, but a cow can.
Hmm bak said that eating plants is just as bad as eating meat since both cause "suffering" and it's natural. Eating animals is TWICE because the animals (which are BRED, and only for "meat" purposes, not normal animals) cause it as well.
but yeah I know you weren't talking about my point 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted November 13, 2008 04:42 PM |
|
|
 !!
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 13, 2008 09:42 PM |
|
|
@Death
I didn't mean "equally bad", but "same".
Sure. Cows eat grass. We eat cows. It's called the circle of life. The food chain. That's the way we function. Some time ago, lions ate us while we ran around naked through Africa.
Plants do not need to murder any creature in order to survive (except for the insect-eating ones). So, in a way, you may regard plants as far nobler than any mammal.
However we can't be plants. Evolution made a choice for us a long time ago, and now we're reaping what we're sowing.
@Minion
If economy was focused more on ecological rather than military research and wars, ecological damage from both farming and herding would be reduced significantly. New forests can be planted, damage can be restored, the only question is whether it's profitable for the authorities. But that's another story.
Besides, Americans can as well cut down on their calories a bit.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 13, 2008 09:51 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:53, 13 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Plants do not need to murder any creature in order to survive (except for the insect-eating ones). So, in a way, you may regard plants as far nobler than any mammal.
However we can't be plants. Evolution made a choice for us a long time ago, and now we're reaping what we're sowing.
No you didn't get my point. I never said anything about being "nobler".
Let's take a somewhat silly but intuitive example. Let's say we need to eat 500 amounts total of "units" which can either be meat or plants. We can do combinations like 250 meat + 250 plants as well. Each such "unit" has an equal number of suffering, just to SIMPLIFY this whole thing (and I do consider, as you see, that plants suffer just as well as animals, so you can't use that argument )
Let us consider two scenarios:
1) 100% plants (500 plants).
total: 500 suffer
2) 250 meat, 250 plants (50%/50%)
total: 250 suffer (plants) + 250 suffer (animals) + 250 suffer (plants that are EATEN by such animals)
total therefore is 750 in this case
(and I assumed an animal meat 'unit' only eats 1 plant in its whole life, which is not true, but you see I even go extreme favorable in YOUR way and it still is not the same!!!)
And yes animals eat plants, it's natural. But such animals are bred by us. This isn't bad in itself, but we do not breed them just to let them live. We breed them for meat so their life is somewhat meaningless (and sometimes in dire conditions), and such animals eat the plants. This isn't the same as an animal in the woods eating plants, because such animals are bred by us for our meat purposes, not for their lives.
Technically if we wouldn't breed them, they wouldn't exist thus not eat any plants. (and of course they are also killed later by the same us)
3) No need for a third scenario since we can't do healthy with 500 meat (100%), but the result would be 1000
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 13, 2008 10:23 PM |
|
|
That is a silly argument that ignores that fact that plants eat as well. They require dead animal or plant matter to grow. The animals eat the plants which eat the animals which eat the.....
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 13, 2008 10:28 PM |
|
|
you forgot destruents, cor
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 13, 2008 10:41 PM |
|
|
I will say something divine after hours and hours of focus if one person admits (who hasn't done so yet) that there is a difference between doing it, and having to do it. Having to do it means go for it, but doing it for no reason but taste equals whatever its your prerogative.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 14, 2008 01:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No actually, you say eating animals is wrong and therefore eating plants is wrong as well. So our only option is to starve?
Nope. I hear clowns taste kinda funny at first.
I know I'm late with this, but I'll do it anyway 
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2008 01:43 AM |
|
|
Why can't we just say that might makes right and then be done with it?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 14, 2008 01:58 AM |
|
|
It might make it right, but who are we to say its right or wrong? Dont "aha" me because I've always said something which reflects that statement. Something along the lines of "eating meat might be ok but not eating it means we're not risking being in the wrong."
you want to eat meat knowing you don't have to, while knowing it hurts other beings, go ahead you might be in the right, but if your in the wrong knowing your potentially in the wrong, then you might have some answering to do one day, but maybe not.
And to address the plant issue one more time, for now, we need to eat something, why not choose the one that doesn't seem to show pain, doesn't seem to have a brain or nerves (btw animals have more nerves than humans do, they feel worse pain than we would over 50 times the nerves actually) etc. Would you choose the ones that show pain fear, agony, and have some mental characteristics that humans do? Even if we could leave plants alone and eat meat alone? (which we cant) I sure wouldnt, I would choose the most living thing. And before you start up about how do I go about defining life and yadda yadda, please, stop eating plants before you try to defend them, its really quite silly to try to take light away from my argument by preaching something you dont follow yourself.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2008 10:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It might make it right, but who are we to say its right or wrong? Dont "aha" me because I've always said something which reflects that statement. Something along the lines of "eating meat might be ok but not eating it means we're not risking being in the wrong."
I don't think it's a good way of living. If you're constantly doubting your choices and being afraid of "doing something wrong", I mean. Imho It's better to decide whether it is wrong or not and stick with it. Even if you are wrong.. who cares. It's only meant to give you some comfort in your life. After all, nearly every moral decision is relative, so whatever.
Quote:
you want to eat meat knowing you don't have to, while knowing it hurts other beings, go ahead you might be in the right, but if your in the wrong knowing your potentially in the wrong, then you might have some answering to do one day, but maybe not.
there is a lot of the natural suffering on the world. I mean, humans sparing animals will change almost nothing, it would be like -0,0000000001% to global suffering of all sentient beings or so, I guess In other words, too little effect to care. Besides, if people kill animals with proper methods, they do NOT suffer.. contrary to when they get killed by natural predators, which means being torn apart and eaten alive.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted November 14, 2008 11:58 AM |
|
Edited by Adrius at 11:59, 14 Nov 2008.
|
Many seem to use the argument "it's natural", well the only natural law imo, is the instinct to survive, and we're doing it perfectly.
Even if we destroy all other animals we can still cannibalize each other, so we'll survive no matter what, we're survivors... of course, that would be horrible but since our cloning technology is pretty decent we can always clone animals, which isn't really bad considering the option.
The only thing we really need to do is colonize another planet, if we do that no single event can destroy us all.
____________
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2008 12:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
there is a lot of the natural suffering on the world. I mean, humans sparing animals will change almost nothing, it would be like -0,0000000001% to global suffering of all sentient beings or so, I guess In other words, too little effect to care. Besides, if people kill animals with proper methods, they do NOT suffer.. contrary to when they get killed by natural predators, which means being torn apart and eaten alive.
Those you fell prey to predators, at least got to LIVE a little. We deprive even that from animals. We don't give them proper living conditions in order to make more profit. Imagine the world of Matrix (the movie), that the computers created for humans. Eternal prison. But, there is no "illusion" drawn between the animals eyes to make them FEEL better. They are just caged and they sit there, completely unaware what they should do, suffering from all kinds of mental problems because of being locked in small space. Not to mention physical harm, torture (in case of force feeding for example, or simply cutting the peaks and horns without anesthetics etc)
It may be "too little to care" for you. Just don't expect it to be for everyone.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2008 12:14 PM |
|
|
there are different methods of breeding. See eggs, they have the number 1, 2 or 3 which indicate what breeding method has been used (from most drastic cellular breeding to very timid one where chickens stroll around the backyard having a very normal life). You can choose. Just because people mostly prefer the cellular breeding due to lower costs and higher effectiveness doesn't mean breeding is bad by itself. Just the methods are.
And yes, I know it won't be "too little to care" for every person. And I don't care. Never tried to speak on behalf of all people and never will since it's arrogant and stupid, trying to act like some sort of God to tell people what is morally correct and what is not (again, most of it is relative anyway.) What I write is only about what I think.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 14, 2008 01:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That is a silly argument that ignores that fact that plants eat as well. They require dead animal or plant matter to grow. The animals eat the plants which eat the animals which eat the.....
I am talking about breeding here. That is, i know you're talking about a natural cycle and that is fine, but not so in breeding, since there we are the ones that make such cycle.
But then silly compared to what? I only explained to bak which thinks that, since plants suffer the same as animals, is a good argument for eating meat... and I proved it wrong, based on "suffering" factor.
Then again, maybe eating dead animals causes suffering too? 
What's next? Let's ban autopsy since it causes suffering to the dead person 
@mvass:Quote:
Why can't we just say that might makes right and then be done with it?
Because we are supposed to be civilized?
I'm pretty sure such argument could have been used for slavery as well, and the holocaust (but i will refrain from using the obvious words that start with "n" and "H" to avoid Godwin's Law... at least for now).
@Adrius:Quote:
The only thing we really need to do is colonize another planet, if we do that no single event can destroy us all.
Why should we survive? With such mentality I think it would be better not to. I mean seriously, if the Matrix robots were to colonize another planet to "survive" would we be happy about it? Then why are we for us, since we are the same?
@Minion: I perfectly agree. I don't understand why people make such a fuss about Matrix since we are doing THE SAME every freaking second, in fact WORSE (no virtual reality for animals). Why are the machines in Matrix "evil" while we are "good" and why don't we want the machines to survive? Why are we not too fond of the machines surviving? After all, it seems we ARE fond of humans surviving, which do the same to animals, so where is the bloody difference?
(in fact we do WORSE, so we have even less reasons to survive than the Matrix machines).
And for those that don't know about Matrix, it is basically a "human farm" where humans are harvested for energy (yeah it sounds funny but ignore that for the moment), and put into a virtual reality so they don't fight back (since they are not even aware of that they are in a human farm!)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted November 14, 2008 01:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why are the machines in Matrix "evil" while we are "good" and why don't we want the machines to survive? Why are we not too fond of the machines surviving? After all, it seems we ARE fond of humans surviving, which do the same to animals, so where is the bloody difference?
Because morals are relative? And what we do we consider 'good' while those that harm us are 'evil'
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 14, 2008 01:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because morals are relative? And what we do we consider 'good' while those that harm us are 'evil'
That's why I don't right?
Yeah for ignorants, morals may be relative, since they don't even take the time to see it from a neutral perspective.
Does that make me special?
seriously...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
