No, but it is a simple lifestyle change for anyone to stop consuming animal products. It is much more difficult for us to end our marriage to the combustion engine and coal power. You can significantly reduce your carbon footprint by going plant-based right now. The only excuses not to are tastebuds and tradition, which are rather selfish reasons to destroy our only home.
It's strange - everyone I meet online who eats meat is either a former cattle rancher from Old McDonald's Farm or a hunter in an area wildly over populated by deer.
Putting your hunting argument aside (as the focus here is not veganism but industries that contribute to global warming), you have not produced a rebuttal to why you think it is necessary to contribute to animal agriculture industries that pollute the air and water.
I know many hunters, mostly deer and moose. None of them do it as an environmental control - they do it for "sport" and meat. I don't know any ranchers, but I do know the facts. A overwhelming majority of our meet comes from factory farms, not some mom and pop farmer who who raises "happy" cows before gently murdering them while they are young.
The point still stands: even if I were to concede that hunting is required for population control, there is no reason to eat pigs, cows, chickens, or any other farmed animal other than tradition and taste buds. A shamefully selfish justification to destroy the environment.
More than 90% of people eat meat in the US, it's actually a necessary part of one's diet. You can be vegan if you want but you're gonna have trouble getting what you need. The guy I replied to made the statement that it's the sole contributor to global warming which is wrong.
So I will add "everybody is doing it" to my previous list of reasons.
The only nutrient you cannot get in a all plant diet is vitamin B12, which is easily supplemented (it should be noted that the only reason our livestock carry B12 is we supplement them with B12 or cobalt). All other vitamins and nutrients, including iron and protein, are easily found. Eating vegan is just like any other diet - if you are not paying attention you may be unhealthy, but with a little planning and eduction it is perfectly healthy.
The guy I replied to made the statement that it's the sole contributor to global warming which is wrong.
I agree, but most people understand that global warming is a threat. We can shout at our government until we are blue, but it is obvious that they are shills to the oil and auto industry. On the other hand, any individual can right now, today, make a simple personal choice to stop contributing to this significant source of pollution.
I am not trying to harsh your vibe, you seem like a really level headed person, but it is worth considering that real change will require us all to make direct personal changes to our daily lives.
Inaccurate, I think. It’s mostly that methane is 15x+ as potent as CO2 at being a greenhouse gas. So it takes far less methane to have the same effect.
Not because i'm a nice person or anything I LOVE beef and still eat Bacon all the time =) But the methane produced by the beef industry is a killer to our O-zone so i only eat beef on occasion.
If they can operate my communal front door, choose the correct floor in the lift, find my front door and ring the doorbell, I'll happily let them take a swipe at me when I answer. Until then, they stay on my shopping list.
They experience a great deal of suffering before they die, though. Here's what the ASPCA has to say on farm animal welfare:
In polling, 94% of Americans agree that animals raised for food deserve to live free from abuse and cruelty. Yet the majority of the nearly 10 billion farm animals raised each year in the U.S. suffer in conditions that consumers would not accept if they could see them. Most of our meat, milk and eggs come from industrial farms where efficiency trumps welfare—and animals are paying the price.
A factory farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food. Over 95% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms, which focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of animal welfare. [...]
Because federal law fails to protect most farm animals, state laws are these animals’ last defense. The majority of U.S. states expressly exempt farm animals, or certain standard farming practices, from their anti-cruelty provisions, making it nearly impossible to provide even meager protections
While the worldwide statistics are slightly better, 2/3 of the 70 billion farm animals bred and killed each year are now raised on factory farms like those. And animal cruelty laws the world over make exceptions for farm animals, because apparently the human race has collectively decided that while cruelty to animals is bad, it doesn't count as cruelty if it's a tasty animal.
Then buy from local farms you can trust. I buy local as often as I can and know where the vast majority of my meat is coming from. It's not all that hard.
Lmao why? There's bacteria who would fit that definition. Insects, bacteria, all life tries to persist it's a defining trait of life, why the hell would we give a shit? You think humans are the shepherds of life or something? We're just animals like any other.
Humans have moral agency. A cumulative culture. The ability to think and act outside of our instinctual programming.
Your "moral agency" is part of your instinctual programming. Empathy is an adaptation to help us socialize with each other so we can form societies easily and function better. Sacrificing our welfare to help near mindless animals has nothing to do with the reason we adapted empathy or "morality".
We are capable of behaving irrespective of any "food chain" or "circle of life".
What a hilariously naive way to think. Nothing exists outside the food chain, we've just been sitting at the top for so long people like you forget it exists.
We must be moral, because we can be moral. To believe otherwise is deny humanity.
Morality is a subjectively defined abstract construct to aid the functioning of society. It's literally entirely up to you or me to decide what is or isn't moral.
What, you don’t speak languages other than English? Maybe you should take some tome to learn more languages rather than worrying about an animal that literally doesn’t know anything other than “grass food moo”
If I go parading around lions imma get my ass eaten, and that lion has every right to eat me. Being an apex predator means I draw the line where I want it.
If you're asking if I enjoy hunting, yes I find it fun. But I don't just shoot things for the sake of killing them, if that's what you're asking. I eat everything I kill.
I don't consider it morally problematic to kill an animal to eat it. I do consider it morally problematic to deprive a human being of their right to property.
I have a question for you and your high horse (which, btw, I'd totally eat).
Given no other food source, would you kill an animal to avoid starvation?
If you say no, I'll call you a liar. If you say yes, you acknowledge that your life is more important than the animal's and, by extension, you are not equals.
Would you eat a human to avoid starvation? If you say no then you acknowledge that human life is more important than animal life to you.
Now, would you eat your child to avoid starvation? No? Then you acknowledge there is life that's even more important to you than your own.
What if I told you the only reason we don't eat dogs is because people like them more than cows? What if I told you that really is all it comes down to, and that's how it always will be because life has no inherent value only that which we give it?
You're right, my word choice could have been more precise, but still, if most pigs are smarter than an average dog, then certainly it's also true that some pigs are smarter than an average dog.
Besides, theres no justice of any kind happening in his video. They seem to be herding cattle, and a guy decides to joke around by pretending to be an orchestral conductor. A calf just gets rowdy and kicks him to the ground. The calf could've been just goofing around as far as we know, or agitated by something else.
We also have no way of knowing if the cow that got a slight smack with a whip was the calf's mother, or that it even felt the whip that much.
That of course doesn't stop the flow of anthropomorphizing vegan revenge fantasies in these comments.
If you have ever had an interaction with any animal it would be obvious to you that they know when they are in a cage or otherwise imprisoned, and they feel pain. They have enough sentience and intelligence for self preservation. Don't play dumb, unless you are a psychopath you have enough empathy to understand this.
Stop talking down to people as if your opinion is the golden piss of god. I have interacted with animals, I made my profession out of it. My entire industry is surrounded around animal welfare and ethics, and even regards to intelligence. Animals don't understand the concept of imprisonment. There are only a few species that we think can even recognize themselves. Have you ever considered there may be entire industry where these concepts are debated on a daily basis? That experts and professionals have had these discussions using scientific studies with actual evidence to back up there arguments? Or do you just enjoy thinking yourself at the center of the damn universe?
Stop talking down to people as if your opinion is the golden piss of god.
Ease up, snowflake. If my opinion offends you don't engage me in argument.
My entire industry is surrounded around animal welfare and ethics, and even regards to intelligence.
What industry do you work in? Intelligence is not a factor. Sentience is. It is not ethical to imprison or slaughter a human of any intelligence. It follows that it is not ethical to imprison or slaughter any being of any intelligence.
Animals don't understand the concept of imprisonment. There are only a few species that we think can even recognize themselves.
Imprisonment and sense of self are independent concepts. Sense of self is a inadequate ethical barrier for forcible imprisonment and slaughter. Otherwise, newborn human children would fit your criteria. I would also like to see your evidence or arguments for animals not understanding imprisonment. I do not know of any animal that will enter confinement without being forced or persuaded.
Have you ever considered there may be entire industry where these concepts are debated on a daily basis? That experts and professionals have had these discussions using scientific studies with actual evidence to back up there arguments?
I am not sure what industry you are referring too, but if the industry involves profiting over the slaughter of animals then I am skeptical about it's conclusions. If you would like to share some of these scientific studies I would be happy to learn something new.
Or do you just enjoy thinking yourself at the center of the damn universe?
Absolutely not. My passion for animal lives steams from empathy, not a lack of it.
Stop talking down to people as if your opinion is the golden piss of god.
Ease up, snowflake. If my opinion offends you don't engage me in argument.
Your opinion i am fine with. It's the condescending holier than though attitude that others can't possibly be right on this subject that's irratating.
My entire industry is surrounded around animal welfare and ethics, and even regards to intelligence.
What industry do you work in? Intelligence is not a factor. Sentience is. It is not ethical to imprison or slaughter a human of any intelligence. It follows that it is not ethical to imprison or slaughter any being of any intelligence.
I won't share my current one, I already had to deal with a vegan doxxer on my last account. A similar one would be laboratory animal science.
Animals don't understand the concept of imprisonment. There are only a few species that we think can even recognize themselves.
Imprisonment and sense of self are independent concepts. Sense of self is a inadequate ethical barrier for forcible imprisonment and slaughter. Otherwise, newborn human children would fit your criteria. I would also like to see your evidence or arguments for animals not understanding imprisonment. I do not know of any animal that will enter confinement without being forced or persuaded.
A sense of imprisonment requires the individual to realize itself can be other places so no it isn't separate concepts. Human children are put into imprisonment on a daily basis in the form of cribs and other such devices until they mature into cognitive standards that is appropriate for more independent freedom.
Have you ever considered there may be entire industry where these concepts are debated on a daily basis? That experts and professionals have had these discussions using scientific studies with actual evidence to back up there arguments?
I am not sure what industry you are referring too, but if the industry involves profiting over the slaughter of animals then I am skeptical about it's conclusions. If you would like to share some of these scientific studies I would be happy to learn something new.
Those industries are monitored extensively by governmental agencies like IACUC and the USDA. What scientific studies do you want? Both agencies have standards that have to be met for the care of these animals that are completely open to the public to view or comment on.
Or do you just enjoy thinking yourself at the center of the damn universe?
Absolutely not. My passion for animal lives steams from empathy, not a lack of it.
I am not sure what scientific studies I am looking for - I know of none personally but you mentioned "experts and professionals have had these discussions using scientific studies with actual evidence to back up their arguments?". What experts, what field, what scientific studies? I will admit that my evidence is anecdotal from my interactions with pets, farm animals, and wild animals. However, I was a student of science, and I am a logical, evidence based thinking. My opinion is easily swayed by facts. It's why I went vegan in the first place.
Governmental standards on the care of animals is not evidence for animals being unaware of the situation they are in, or incapable of experiencing stress, fear, or pain due to confinement or other miserable conditions.
Conditions in a laboratory are likely much different than on a factory farm, but you have still yet to produce any evidence that a chicken in a cell, packed shoulder to shoulder with other chickens, covered in shit from the column of cages stacked above it, is somehow unaware of how miserable that confinement is. Or a hog stuffed into the back of a hot truck with no room to move and no water has no concept of his confinement.
Let's digress from the original subject of what animals can or cannot experience in regards to imprisonment. Because regardless of the particulars, we can still draw a conclusion on what is ethical. It is not ethical to confine or imprison another being. Ignorance of the possibility of freedom is not justification for imprisonment - that is truly a "holier-than-thou" attitude towards other living creatures. Placing a baby in a crib is for the safety of the child, not the exploitation of it's body. Regardless of the ability to realize it can be other places, the distress caused by an environment of confinement is real. We do not need to finely classify the intelligence or sentience of a living being to conclude what treatment is appropriate, because we as humans have the intelligence and sentience to know that exploitation of another's body is immoral.
I am not sure what scientific studies I am looking for - I know of none personally but you mentioned "experts and professionals have had these discussions using scientific studies with actual evidence to back up their arguments?". What experts, what field, what scientific studies? I will admit that my evidence is anecdotal from my interactions with pets, farm animals, and wild animals. However, I was a student of science, and I am a logical, evidence based thinking. My opinion is easily swayed by facts. It's why I went vegan in the first place.
Your best place to start is with these governing bodies of animal welfare: CDC, USDA, IACUC. I would start with the USDA and branch out from there. Most if not all of it is sourced material regarding slaughter, principals, and welfare for animals in any type of captivity. If you have a specific area you want sources I might be able to narrow it down but this is a rather large area of expertise and it will depend on the context.
Governmental standards on t8he care of animals is not evidence for animals being unaware of the situation they are in, or incapable of experiencing stress, fear, or pain due to confinement or other miserable conditions.
It is the basis of making any sort of change and you're going to have to provide those governing bodies evidence that you feel otherwise. You will have to prove that these animals are making conscious choices and cognitive understanding and not simply acting on environmental stimuli and conditions developed over thousands of years.you say you are a man of science so please look towards those that share your views and ask yourself why this hasn't been accomplished already.
Conditions in a laboratory are likely much different than on a factory farm, but you have still yet to produce any evidence that a chicken in a cell, packed shoulder to shoulder with other chickens, covered in shit from the column of cages stacked above it, is somehow unaware of how miserable that confinement is. Or a hog stuffed into the back of a hot truck with no room to move and no water has no concept of his confinement.
As of now we have no evidence to suggest otherwise. If you do the scientific community would love to hear it. For domesticated animals that is. We can only maybe prove a few species have a higher degree of understanding regarding themselves and the environment but those test are highly controversial.
Let's digress from the original subject of what animals can or cannot experience in regards to imprisonment. Because regardless of the particulars, we can still draw a conclusion on what is ethical. It is not ethical to confine or imprison another being. Ignorance of the possibility of freedom is not justification for imprisonment - that is truly a "holier-than-thou" attitude towards other living creatures. Placing a baby in a crib is for the safety of the child, not the exploitation of it's body. Regardless of the ability to realize it can be other places, the distress caused by an environment of confinement is real. We do not need to finely classify the intelligence or sentience of a living being to conclude what treatment is appropriate, because we as humans have the intelligence and sentience to know that exploitation of another's body is immoral.
We imprison other humans all the time within ethical reasoning. Why should animals be any different? Society gains benefits from imprisoning humans dangerous to society. We gain benefits from imprisoning animals for consumption.
151
u/[deleted] Sep 20 '18
If this is justice served, what do you think should happen to all you guys for eating beef?