Well, the problem with that is that if you just chew up a rock or a bunch of minerals, there's a good chance that your throat will be cut to ribbons from a bunch of sharp edges, or you just end up with a big rock sitting in your stomach that you can't actually pass.
...And that they don't contain most of the nutrients vital for life.
Anyways, there's other reasons we keep animals, and would you want to give up sources of cheap fertilizer and such?
I'm not an expert but...
I don't think manure has been a primary source of fertilzer in the developed world in several generations. Also, according to things i've read it's more expensive than innorganic fertilizers.
Though it is probably more sustainable long term among other things.
I'd be surprised if cow manure could be considered expensive by any means.
Nope. It's expensive in comparison to synthesized fertiliser. Organic manure also doesn't come with all the nutrients plants need to grow well, which means you still have to buy synthetic shit or additives. On the other hand, I don't think you can use inorganic fertiliser on it's own either (as far as I can remember, at least), but it's not of equal measure.
Wow, cow poo is NOT cheap. Maybe I should get a cow and sell the manure.
Eating fruit is, of course, a lot less ethical than eating vegetables. When you eat a piece of fruit, you keep the seeds inside from ever being able to grow up! It's even worse when you eat nuts, you monster. That's like eating babies, except it's vegan!
Humans need to be cruel to survive. Deal with it, and find ways you can reduce the cruelty and not just shunt it off onto something you don't find as cute.
Not at all. Fruit tastes good because it wants to get eaten (yes, literally - if it didn't, it would taste bitter and poisonous, like many parts plants doesn't want us to eat does). You see, getting eaten is part of the reproduction cycle. The seeds aren't broken down in our stomachs, and shat out in a steaming pile of manure. In short;
1. Fruit Tastes Good
2. Fruit Gets Eaten
3. Seed Survives
4. Seed Is Expelled
5. Seed Gets Free Fertilizer To Grow In!
It's all evolution, man. It's all evolutionary beneficial for all of us. Or well, it used to be, before toilets and sewers. But that is why you stand up to the Man and shit outside instead! It's ethical and exciting fun for the whole family!
Lemme ask you something: When you finish that apple, where do you put the seeds? In a nice area where it can grow, or into the trash can, to get shipped to a dark, infertile landfill?
true, but evolution works only in term of survivability of the specie, not of the single.
as a specie, cows, chicken and any animal in general which got symbiotic with humans is faring well (especially dogs)
Cats are doing pretty well, too. I'd rather have a dog, but I'd probably rather be a cat--they're more independent. Also, they can climb better.
true, but evolution works only in term of survivability of the specie, not of the single.
as a specie, cows, chicken and any animal in general which got symbiotic with humans is faring well (especially dogs)
Only if you define "fairing well" as "higher numbers of them exists", which I certainly wouldn't - it should be about the quality of the individual lives, not the numbers of them. Especially for dog, where the human breeding programs are focused more upon the appearance of the breed rather than their well being, leading to such "well being" as chronic back pain and inability to use their hind legs correctly (German Shepherd), common fungal infections as well as other nasty stuff (any dog with wrinkly skin), as well as genetic diseases and bad traits such as disposition towards blindness and eye conditions) being a lot more common than it would otherwise because of the rampant inbreeding. And that's not even getting started with the ridiculous cultural things we do to our dogs - cutting off their tails (which they need to communicate correctly to other dogs - it's like cutting off people's tongues, eyes, or hands), beating them, and so on. Yeah, people doesn't exactly treat their pets well either.
Evolutionarily speaking, it doesn't matter. Does the species survive in great numbers? It's done well.
Morally speaking is, of course, a different story. Not that morals aren't made more complex when applying them to a whole species at once.
i am also for good treatment for animals , but the corporations care only about money , so they keep only the required minimums in animal care .
Absolutely true. Which is why the customers must demand better care from the companies, and voters stricter regulation from their politicians. To the barricades!
I think you mean, "To the letter-writing station!"
Some companies have discovered that people are willing to pay more for products that have been proven to be environmentally friendly. The same almost certainly applies to moral thingies. If a company can get a third party to confirm that its critters aree bring treated well, I'm guessing the companies will be able to sell their products for more.
nature created us like this and as long as we won't be forced to do something , we won't do it .
humans are lazy asses from nature and we will only do something (about the earth problems) when it will be too late .
humans did all this (inbreeding , livestocking and farming) to survive without problems , humans like careless life , so we adapted the world to our benefit , ignoring lesser creatures and using them as little fuzzy slaves , for doing stuff for us and feeding us after death .
It's not exactly that nature created us like this. Nature created us, then we went off and did things we weren't expected to and multiplied and haven't had a chance for morals to affect our inbuilt behavior. Maybe it'd be better if women were turned off by lack of environmental awareness...natural selection, you know.
Author
Topic: DF versus RL (Read 5328 times)