Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[agrarian_miner]

So, I took keen enough interest in what rephikul was saying that I decided to register here, and defend the justness of vegetarians in a way he (I feel I may presume) will respect.

First, I would like to start with the assumption that we all want what is best for mankind.  I am making the statement that it is in the individuals' best interest to work together as a society....  If you would argue that historically it is more justifiable to be a raider than a farmer, then you are either sociopath or a hardcore us-vs.-them nationalist.  The conversation would be over.  If you feel humanities' future and betterment is best served through cooperation and teamwork, then we may continue.

If you were to peer inside the mind of the modern geologist/ Earth-Scientist academic, you would see a sea of urgency and pessimism involving this planet's future.  Even ignoring the experts' growing sense of despair, it is quite easy to see that large portions of the world are either starving or lack sustainable levels of freshwater.   If you are to combine that with growing population levels, increased strain on our oceans ecosystems, deforestation, and more and more excess carbon being pumped into our atmosphere, I think any forward thinking individual should fear a mass die-off.  Why should an American fear a mass die-off, when it would be mostly people in other parts of the world doing the dying?  Stability.  If you think terrorism and war are widespread now, wait to see what happens when entire crops go bust around the world, and countries organic resources run dry.

Now, so far, I have not argued about vegetarianism, only environmentalism.   I am clearly an environmentalist, and even if your forecast is less dire than mine, you should at least be cognizant that there are really smart people who see things as being even more dire than I do.

So now for the break down.

Land usage:  Ultimately as a species, we should be as close to dirty elves as we can be.  Forests are our natural buffer from mass extinction.  The more trees, the cleaner air, the better for our crops, the better the weather patterns, the easier our survival.  As a species we should aim to have every inch of land we don't need having trees growing on it.  So what happens when we have cattle farms?  Well, depending on the type of farm, one of two things.  For a traditional/free-range nomadic herder arrangement, things don't look so bad.  Sure, you may be able to grow some trees on that grass field, but not enough to make a difference.  Other crops could be grown, but without other, harmful farming techniques, there probably wont be high enough of a yield to make a difference in a typical grassland.  There are a few problems though.  First, look at places that are somewhat densely populated that have been doing this for centuries, such as most of Spain.  Unless you have huge plains, cattle will damage the quality of land gradually over the years, leaving room for heavy erosion, and a reduction in the quality of life.   Also, producing meat this way is very expensive, and can not feed that many outside of the herders and their families.   As a means of feeding millions, in other words, free range, traditional meat is highly inefficient.    Now the American way of raising meat... that is where the real land inefficiency takes place.  Acres and acres of land that could be perfectly good forest are used to grow corn.  Did you know that you need to grow eight pounds worth of corn for every one pound of Beef that is consumed?  In fact, if meat was eliminated completely, you could convert every farm into a more environmentally friendly but smaller yield organic farm, and still be able to grow quite a few forests where there is now only corn.

Water usage  The amount of extra freshwater needed per pound of flesh created is a similar equation to the amount of extra grain needed, except its even worse.  Not only do you have to water the many extra crops, but also you need to water your non-free-range-herd.   Freshwater is a valuable resource that we often take for granted living in North East United States.  Yes, I assume that is where each and every one of you live.  Unfortunately in America's real bread basket water is not in such easy supply, and we should be trying to conserve as much as we can so we may feed ourselves for as long as possible.   Back in the 20s-30s there was a dust bowl because of the rampant farming in areas in the middle of the country just didn't have enough water.  Instead of learning our lesson, we rebuilt those farms, but with new technology.  Now, like dwarves, we run on water stored in giant aquifers, that we just pump water out at need.    These aquifers replenish a little every year, but nowhere near the level that we draw from them.

Yes. People are that short sighted.  Water is precious.

Pollutants  Life the first two points, this is also an issue of the exorbitant amount of extra farming we have to do in order to grow flesh instead of plants.  In order to create high yields we use all sorts of fertilizers and pesticides that poison are water, and muck everything up.  While they may be a necessary evil, the few pollutants we use, the healthier are ecosystem will be, and the more likely we can restore the planet before massive die-offs.   I should also mention that cows put an unhealthy level of carbon into the air through their digestive systems.  While these are not humble numbers, they pale in comparison to humanities use of fossil fuels as power, and our need to live in Suburbia.  Note that agriculture releases more methane in the air then cars. Remember, the less forests we have, the greater of a problem this methane is.

Over-fishing  Honestly, I know very little about ocean ecosystems.  The only people I know who are screaming about the falling skies and the end of the world louder than your run of the mill Earth Scientist though, are Marine Biologists.   Generally, I just take their word that we should stop eating most seafood.  Also there are some studies I don't understand very well about farm fish being yucky.
 

Ultimately, you will not see me making any cases against game meat.  Hunters, enjoy your venison, cause I have no argument against you.  After you get used to a vegetarian diet, there is not much of a point in partaking in that hobby though.  Hunting would, after-all,  probably take away good dwarf fortress time.  Also for all your "survival is the only objective point of existence" philosophies, I sort of doubt you, or any of us, are much of a jock.

You should note that I do not expect other people to be vegetarian.  I am willing to make sacrifices because I am willing to do my part to make humans and their environment prosper for that much longer by making what is, for me, a small sacrifice. 

If you are the type  who needs meat to be healthy, or just must have to have meat once a month to be happy, all the power to you.   In other ways I am irresponsible, and I hope you can carry my weight in those cases, and I will do my best to carry yours.  As people, we need to be a team, or life will suck for everyone. The least I demand is not to be derided.

 If you like to pretend that everybody can eat and live however they like without harming anything, I feel you you are overly optimistic.  We trust different scientists, so our worldview is different.

If you think, one person can't make a difference, maybe you are right, but we are changing the culture and people are getting healthier and more environmentally conscious every day.  And why be part of the problem?

If you acknowledge my points, but think, 'I get what I want,' or 'nothing really matters' you are kind of a thug, or at least a parasite.

[DJ]

Even if everyone switched to vegetarianism, it'd just delay the inevitable disaster. What we really need to do is curb our population growth, and for that to happen the entire third world needs to get a better standard of living.

[lordnincompoop]

So, I took keen enough interest in what rephikul was saying that I decided to register here, and defend the justness of vegetarians in a way he (I feel I may presume) will respect.

Welcome to Bay12, Agrarian Miner. You have gotten off to a great start.

First off:

...then you are either sociopath...

...you are kind of a thug, or at least a parasite.

Though these aren't really bad, I'd have to call these out as ad hominem attacks. No no no.

If you were to peer inside the mind of the modern geologist/ Earth-Scientist academic, you would see a sea of urgency and pessimism involving this planet's future.  Even ignoring the experts' growing sense of despair, it is quite easy to see that large portions of the world are either starving or lack sustainable levels of freshwater.   If you are to combine that with growing population levels, increased strain on our oceans ecosystems, deforestation, and more and more excess carbon being pumped into our atmosphere, I think any forward thinking individual should fear a mass die-off.  Why should an American fear a mass die-off, when it would be mostly people in other parts of the world doing the dying?  Stability.  If you think terrorism and war are widespread now, wait to see what happens when entire crops go bust around the world, and countries organic resources run dry.

A lot of the suffering today is not caused by food or water shortages. They are caused by bad rule, lack of distribution, class divides, etc.
The average first world citizen lives in a state of excess, and that excess food, if it were to be distributed equally, would most likely me more than enough for the world.
War will simply take its toll on resources, were they to happen. In a time of war, the economy suffers because production levels decrease, which causes shortages. Food is also consumed by the army in large amounts, so that they can stay fit and in fighting condition. In a scarcity, one cannot afford to wage wars and have casualties.

Did you know that you need to grow eight pounds worth of corn for every one pound of Beef that is consumed? In fact, if meat was eliminated completely, you could convert every farm into a more environmentally friendly but smaller yield organic farm, and still be able to grow quite a few forests where there is now only corn.

If you're going to give us facts, cite sources, arrite?

Also, are you saying we should eliminate meat products completely, and eat corn instead? I have to say, that's rather preposterous. Where would the cows go, for one? They are also of help to farms, because their manure provides organic fertilizer.
Eating an entirely corn-based diet is unhealthy at best. Corn simply can't provide the full range of nutrients needed for a human. Neither can meat, but that is my point exactly: You cannot have one without the other.

Also, assuming this bogus fact of this is true, it is simply not that simple. Meat efficiency does not work that way, and nor do cows. The free-range cow, which you mentioned, eats mainly grass and hay, neither of which we can eat. They may eat more of that than they produce meat, but what they eat is inedible to start with. This renders the inefficiency argument ineffective (har har).
As for corn-fed cows, there is a reason the corn is called "feed corn". It is generally inedible/unpalatable by humans, has been modified so that it fails human food standards etc.

Water usage  The amount of extra freshwater needed per pound of flesh created is a similar equation to the amount of extra grain needed, except its even worse.  Not only do you have to water the many extra crops, but also you need to water your non-free-range-herd.   Freshwater is a valuable resource that we often take for granted living in North East United States.  Yes, I assume that is where each and every one of you live.  Unfortunately in America's real bread basket water is not in such easy supply, and we should be trying to conserve as much as we can so we may feed ourselves for as long as possible.   Back in the 20s-30s there was a dust bowl because of the rampant farming in areas in the middle of the country just didn't have enough water.  Instead of learning our lesson, we rebuilt those farms, but with new technology.  Now, like dwarves, we run on water stored in giant aquifers, that we just pump water out at need.    These aquifers replenish a little every year, but nowhere near the level that we draw from them.

Yes. People are that short sighted.  Water is precious.

Again, stop claiming things and start citing.
The case that we should eliminate cattle for the purposes of water-conservation is weak.  There are many less important uses of water to cut down on, such as swimming pools and gardening. if the situation is as dire as you say it is, why are the swimming pools so important then?

I should also mention that cows put an unhealthy level of carbon into the air through their digestive systems.

Are you serious? You're actually arguing the cow-fart theory? As seen here, livestock flatus only account for 1-2% of emissions. I'd say those numbers are pretty humble, relatively speaking.

Note that agriculture releases more methane in the air then cars. Remember, the less forests we have, the greater of a problem this methane is.

This is because cars are not designed to release methane, and last time I checked cars did not fart.
No, cars release another type of gas that is much more harmful: Carbon Dioxide. This gas contribute much, much more to global warming than methane: 26% as opposed to methane's 9%, and 1.46 W/m² as opposed to 0.48. If you're going to cut emissions, cut CO₂.

Ultimately, you will not see me making any cases against game meat.  Hunters, enjoy your venison, cause I have no argument against you.  After you get used to a vegetarian diet, there is not much of a point in partaking in that hobby though.  Hunting would, after-all,  probably take away good dwarf fortress time.  Also for all your "survival is the only objective point of existence" philosophies, I sort of doubt you, or any of us, are much of a jock.

This is unreasonable. What do you think will happen when you remove all other sources of meat? People will start going after undomesticated animals, which I think would do more damage to the ecosystem than domesticated ones do now.

You should note that I do not expect other people to be vegetarian.  I am willing to make sacrifices because I am willing to do my part to make humans and their environment prosper for that much longer by making what is, for me, a small sacrifice. 

Not so much part of the debate, but what? This here makes no sense, because you're pretty much contradicting yourself. I find it hard to believe that you can take this position and the one you have right now, because in your previous arguments you have been pushing for the removal of the meat industry.

[Zrk2]

Re Agrarian-Miner: Mmmm.... Communist undertones aside, yes people are shortsighted, but I don't think we should force them to change. THat should be up to each individual person to do should they so choose.

I was kind of hoping for a morality based debate... Anyone?

[G-Flex]

Though these aren't really bad, I'd have to call these out as ad hominem attacks. No no no.

They really aren't. He's arguing that a position is bad because believing in it makes you those things.

A lot of the suffering today is not caused by food or water shortages. They are caused by bad rule, lack of distribution, class divides, etc.
The average first world citizen lives in a state of excess, and that excess food, if it were to be distributed equally, would most likely me more than enough for the world.

This isn't entirely untrue, but water shortage is becoming a serious problem. We've got aquifers drying up right here in the US, even.

If you're going to give us facts, cite sources, arrite?

I cite basic thermodynamics. The vast, vast majority of energy that an animal eats goes into keeping it alive and letting it do what it does, and is not reclaimed by eating the animal. On top of that, the digestion process itself (by you and by the animal) is not exactly 100% efficient. A thought exercise: You eat somewhere around 2000 calories a day. That's 730,000 calories per year, and if you're fully grown and not getting more muscular or fatter, then basically none of that is making you worth more in terms of food. Even an animal that is growing spends the vast majority of its energy on things that would not be reclaimed, such as its basal metabolic rate and whatever activity it engages in.

Eating an entirely corn-based diet is unhealthy at best. Corn simply can't provide the full range of nutrients needed for a human. Neither can meat, but that is my point exactly: You cannot have one without the other.

There are vegetable products that are not corn. Strange, but true. The point was just that meat is thermodynamically inefficient, with corn being an example.

The free-range cow, which you mentioned, eats mainly grass and hay, neither of which we can eat. They may eat more of that than they produce meat, but what they eat is inedible to start with. This renders the inefficiency argument ineffective (har har).
As for corn-fed cows, there is a reason the corn is called "feed corn". It is generally inedible/unpalatable by humans, has been modified so that it fails human food standards etc.

You're still using land and expending much money/effort to raise those cattle, which could go towards other things, so the argument still holds to at least some degree.

if the situation is as dire as you say it is, why are the swimming pools so important then?

He didn't claim this. It's entirely possible he's against inefficient use of water in general.

Not so much part of the debate, but what? This here makes no sense, because you're pretty much contradicting yourself. I find it hard to believe that you can take this position and the one you have right now, because in your previous arguments you have been pushing for the removal of the meat industry.

Speaking against the meat industry is not the same as advocating for its forcible removal.

Re Agrarian-Miner: Mmmm.... Communist undertones aside, yes people are shortsighted, but I don't think we should force them to change. THat should be up to each individual person to do should they so choose.

Honestly, you could say this about anything. It's easy to say "it should be up to the individual to decide his own ethics", but in many cases it's not. That's why cockfighting, rape, and money laundering are illegal, after all. Part of the purpose of government and law, like it or not, is to enforce a given ethical consensus.

This isn't to say that I advocate the forcible removal of the meat industry either, although I think it could be made much, much more humane than it is now.

[Zrk2]

Re Agrarian-Miner: Mmmm.... Communist undertones aside, yes people are shortsighted, but I don't think we should force them to change. THat should be up to each individual person to do should they so choose.

Honestly, you could say this about anything. It's easy to say "it should be up to the individual to decide his own ethics", but in many cases it's not. That's why cockfighting, rape, and money laundering are illegal, after all. Part of the purpose of government and law, like it or not, is to enforce a given ethical consensus.

This isn't to say that I advocate the forcible removal of the meat industry either, although I think it could be made much, much more humane than it is now.

Strawman. Cockfighting is needlessly harmful to animals, and rape and money laundering are violations of others rights, and so they should be illegal. The government should not enforce an 'ethical consensus' it should protect the rights of the individual. (Strawman inbound) Many governments have manipulated society's 'ethical consensus; uncountable times over the centuries to justify abuses and the violation of basic rights:
-The crusades
-Antisemitism throughout the ages, culminating in Nazism
-Invasion of Iraq
 

[Leafsnail]

Strawman. Cockfighting is needlessly harmful to animals, and rape and money laundering are violations of others rights, and so they should be illegal. The government should not enforce an 'ethical consensus' it should protect the rights of the individual.

The individual what?  I guess you could say "It obviously should be for humans and only for humans" but that's an... ethical consensus enforced by the government.

[Zrk2]

'the individual' as in, a single person. The only role of the government is to protect the rights of the citizens, not to force some morality on them.

[Leafsnail]

The only role of the government is to protect the rights of the citizens, not to force some morality on them.

Not that I actually think the government should stop people eating meat, but note that the bolded is a form of morality in itself.  Why should it only apply to humans and not to animals?

[Zrk2]

The only role of the government is to protect the rights of the citizens, not to force some morality on them.

Not that I actually think the government should stop people eating meat, but note that the bolded is a form of morality in itself.  Why should it only apply to humans and not to animals?

Because animals do not think, they are not sentient, they do not have 'feelings' the the normal sense of the word. They do not need rights, because they are not self aware!

[Eugenitor]

Spoiler: Large and awesome image (click to show/hide)

[breadbocks]

The problem with Vegan/Vegetarianism is that many a time the won't eat meat/animal products because "it kills animals" or something along those lines. Guess who farm animals depend on to keep them fed and safe? I'll give you a hint. It isn't themselves, more often than not.

[freeformschooler]

I'm actually a vegetarian for my own reasons.

I started out for my airtight, wussy belief that no harm should be done to animals, blah blah blah, etc. I was younger, and stupid, even though I'm not saying it is or isn't a valid belief either way. Anyway, I have to say I'm still a vegetarian because I have a mental disorder (a quite rare one) that really cooled down ever since I became a vegetarian. I thought that the connection was unlikely until I relapsed several months ago and just started eating meat again. My disorder snapped back full force, like an awful rubber band, one that's angry, and coming closer to me, and oh no I see it now, the rubber band is telling my close friends how terrible I am, now it's looking in my general direction with mild discomfort oh no.

[Zrk2]

Well shit. And Eugenitor, that was sort of what we're trying to avoid...

[G-Flex]

Strawman. Cockfighting is needlessly harmful to animals, and rape and money laundering are violations of others rights, and so they should be illegal.

Define "need". One common argument that vegetarians use is that it isn't necessary to eat animals, and at least in the case of some number of individuals, they're right (although that isn't the case on a global scale, quite obviously). Piss-poor factory farming conditions are also not "needed" in order for people to ever eat meat or dairy/egg products.

The government should not enforce an 'ethical consensus' it should protect the rights of the individual.

And those rights have nothing to do with ethics? They are ethical in nature, and aren't written in stone, either.

(Strawman inbound) Many governments have manipulated society's 'ethical consensus; uncountable times over the centuries to justify abuses and the violation of basic rights:
-The crusades
-Antisemitism throughout the ages, culminating in Nazism
-Invasion of Iraq

Yes, and those are cases where the government either doesn't adequately reflect the will of the nation as a whole or actively manipulates it toward their own ends.


There is nothing super-special about "rights". They weren't blasted into stone with lightning on a mountaintop, nor did Joseph Smith dig them up written on golden plates. The sooner you realize that human rights are something agreed upon by a collective rather than something absolute and concrete, the better.

Spoiler: Large and awesome image (click to show/hide)

How constructive of you.

Because animals do not think, they are not sentient, they do not have 'feelings' the the normal sense of the word. They do not need rights, because they are not self aware!

You're drawing a false dichotomy. Whether an animal can "think" or "feel" is not some boolean attribute; different animals do so to different degrees. Yes, humans can do so in a more advanced and organized fashion, but the old idea that we're on some pedestal qualitatively different from all the others, and that that is the only significant difference between animals in general, is a straight-up lie.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "they do not have 'feelings'". Hell, for a lot of animals, that's almost all they do have. I'd say most animals have the ability to suffer, and to varying degrees, and that's the most relevant thing here.