Yes whining the most horrifying weapon known to mankind since the dawn of manOriginally Posted by hkkmr
Yes whining the most horrifying weapon known to mankind since the dawn of man
I think it's much harder to solve this problem then people think and the solution is not based on total abstinence/reduction of animal product or non-animal product. Animals provide more then just food as well so we must not discount that aspect of the issue as well as live stock farming has other benefits and utilizes resources that would other wise be wasted.
And this data as far as water usage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...eat_production
Beef = 16726
Pork = 5469
Cheese = 5288
Chicken = 3809
Eggs = 3519
Soy = 2517
Rice = 2552
Wheat = 1438
Maize = 1020
Milk = 738 (4x to account for 1 ounce of milk to be 1/4 of the caloric content of wheat) so 2952
Potato = 133
Also the water may be used but it is not technically lost, as it's not destroyed but released back into the environment. It's not like somehow the water is gone permanently.
It also seems that vegetarianism without the removal of all meta products is really the right way to go, certainly not lacto-ovo.
If you eat meat, then Chicken and Pork are likely as viable as Cheese and eggs. Milk is better then grain per ton(but it's caloric content may not be very high per ton, it's calories per ounce is 1/4 of wheat).
I would like to see data on legumes and yogurt, and many other products.
Given most plant products as these do not provide the caloric content for a individual to survive, they are of not much interest in this problem.
There are difference in caloric content for the other foods but it is less for the non-dry products and for meat it depends on leanness.
I do not see any reason to to advocate a vegan style diet with good water recycling systems, humane farming conditions. Except perhaps the not killing animals part, which I do not agree with.
I view the western world's problem with a high amount of meat consumption as most an issue of gluttony and lack of moderation which leads to health problems. Given the varied landscape of the earth, the uncertain nature of what a land is suited for agriculturally, the expertise we can attain in water recycling, and many other factors, strict vegetarianism is not necessarily of great benefit.
http://www.nyu.edu/sustainability/pd...FoodGraph2.pdf
Let's take a look at this chart and the division of calories by food type.
We can safely say 25% is too high a aggregate amount of meat being consumed. But it's unlikely for any major benefit to be achieved from reducing this number below 10% due to the diversity of the ecosystem and the advantages of livestock in some circumstances, as well as some of the nutritional and developmental advantages of meat consumption. At least from water usage. Also it's safe to say, that one should eat less beef.
So what is that number between 10% and 25% that should be aimed at, to maximize the efficient use of the environment and provide a balanced diet to individuals.
I haven't had time to do the exact calculation or analysis, so this is more or less off the top of my head. Someone who can provide more detailed analysis can provide more exact ideas about this.
I stopped eating meat when I was 12, partly because I thought the conditions the animals are kept in were both cruel and gross. I was never opposed to the idea of eating or killing animals in general. I also liked the idea of testing my will power because I loved meat and ate hot wings or ribs or steak whenever possible growing up. It was pretty impulsive; I just stopped cold turkey afternoon and didn't eat a bite of meat or fish for 6 years.
It forced me to be a little more creative and open-minded with food. I still eat a lot of beans, vegetables, and ethnic food even though I'm no longer vegetarian. It was a good way to kick my childhood addiction to McDonald's anyway.
I got some interesting looks when I told my fellow Kansans, especially my family that lives in western Kansas, that I was vegetarian, and I don't blame them. I can't blame them; I hated to associate myself with vegetarians that thought they were single-handedly saving the world and looked down on meat eaters. I think the meat consumption in American is ridiculous and wasteful, but it makes more sense to aim for everyone eating 20% less meat than to aim for 20% of the population to never eat meat again. Vegetarianism can be expensive and inconvenient especially if you live with meat-eaters or eat out a lot.
Anyway, I accidentally convinced my LII friend into being vegetarian with me for like 4 years just by talking to her about my reasons for it and showing her all the new food I was getting her into as a result. I also know an SEE vegetarian that did it because she was against killing animals (and probably also to be cool and different). Also, an SEI that is vegan for just about every reason and is an animal activist. Most of her family is vegetarian too, and they really enjoy making meat-free meals.
It never fails to surprise me how polarized omnivores and vegetarians are.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
It's honorable for a person to see themselves as a plaque for values which stand for preservation of the earths resources or for other reasons why they may choose this life style; however, I think it's nuts to pass out flier suggesting others should convert (it's nuts for any religion to do that IMO). People should be aware and try to strike a balance.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
How are they made aware?
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
In school, for one, their doctor for another.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It's not about water 'destruction', it's about where the water ends up going. If 'sweet' (aka drinkable) water ends up being evaporated and taken to 'salty' water, then it can technically be counted as destroyed. The technologies at the moment to treat salty water are way too expensive, MUCH MUCH MUCH more expensive than people switching to a vegetarian diet.
I'm curious as to how they got that number for milk... I wonder if they deducted it from the 'beef' consumption to avoid double counting, or if they just counted 'milking' cows or so. I'm skeptical about that low number.
Huh... nuts, cashews, almonds and so forth do not provide enough caloric content?Given most plant products as these do not provide the caloric content for a individual to survive, they are of not much interest in this problem.
What about potatoes?
What about corn?!
What?
ILE; INTP
5w6 so; rcUe|I|;
Dairy cows aren't a huge supply of meat. The technology at the moment isn't really a issue, the technology needs to be developed because people aren't going to stop eating meat. And it doesn't need to be just desalination techniques but recycling techniques as well. People are simply not going to switch to a vegetarian diet. Also there is land which is unsuited for farming vegetarian food but better for farming perhaps a meat product.
There are other comments like this in the link.
Given this analysis, water consumption may not be a huge factor for areas of sufficient rain.
I was talking about things like celery and lettuce not grains, which are included in the data. I've only included whats in the link and nothing else.
Most plant products don't have sufficient calories, most calories in plant products are from staple grains. Why don't you ever read what I say instead of misrepresenting me.
And I thought there are so many vegetal oils.. which are all fat and highly caloric.. silly me. There are also all kinds of beans (from the leguminous plants), very high in proteins and carbohydrates and calories, besides what Phthalate already meantioned (seeds, corn, grains).
The fact is, if I can live as a vegan, anyone can.
On a side note, in the future (in the next 40 years, approximately) there will be no longer enough vegetation on earth to feed and sustain so many farm animals, so humans will have to rely heavily on vegetal food. Meaning, there will be mainly vegetables and fruits and less meat and, probably, diary products.
(Is there even such a word as "vegetal" in English? I hope so..).
.
I dealt with childhood malnutrition so I know a little about not having enough to eat. And in situations of malnutrition, vegetarianism is retarded. If the Dalai Lama is a meat eater for health reasons, then maybe meat is not a bad product to eat in moderation.
Scarcity will reduce meat consumption and likely reduce meat production, but it will also make vegetarianism a unpopular idea. I don't know the full statistics on foods outside of that list but most vegetables are not a great source of calories which is why many societies have a staple grain which provides a majority of calories. Whether it be potato, wheat, corn, rice or some other staple. However people will want to supplement their diet with some meat for flavor, pleasure and also its nutritional value. Humans already rely heavily on plant food, as it's the majority of what people consume. Meat is and will remain a supplemental part of people's diet, largely determined by cost and available resources.
The fact remains, most people have no desire to be vegan, and with scarcity even less likely to become vegans. Veganism is also not great for young children, as people are at least meant to consume some dairy products initially.
The only real solution to meat production would be to manufacture meat products at a industrial level thru synthetic methods which would provide same or even higher quality product then natural meat products, at which point consumers will no longer have the demand for meat products. After that natural meat can become a delicacy for the rich and decadent.
Dairy products*, in my previous post.
@khmmr
Malnutrition is not the same thing as being vegan. And I've been anorexic for about 2 years and, honestly, malnutrition and hunger didn't bother me all that much. Actually, they didn't bother me at all. And tbh, people who only think of food and about having their stomachs full all day long piss me off and I look down on them. Of course, it's their natural right and nature made humans to be omnivores, but, if the Creator was crazy, should I not try to change things for the better? I too used to eat meat and liked it, but I was not aware at that time of the suffering animals have to endure. Billions of animals, each year... Psychopathic Eastern Asians torture dogs and boil them alive because of their retarded beliefs! The whole world is a fucking slaughterhouse. Maybe I'm not being rational... But I've heard of people who've been vegan for more than 25 years and don't have any health issues, so I don't think that Dalai Lama's example is too eloquent.
There are theories that state that the consumption of animals products lead to not only to heart diseases and stroke, but also to cancer.
As for the synthetic meat, I thought about it too, but I doubt it can be too healthy for the human body. I could be wrong, though. I'd rather not eat that, I don't even miss the taste of meat.
Metabolism says, you are what you eat, which means the moment you change what you eat, grow, breed, etc., it changes you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution
(http://neanderthin.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Meat-three-tim.../dp/B0007DPP0A
There are cases of vegans living healthy, therefore it is possible to live healthy with a vegan diet. It is very likely going to be more healthier option than the typical 1st world diet so I wouldn't worry about malnutrition if an obese McDonalds regular with diabetes would turn vegan, although I'd want to point out the importance of diet planning.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Stupid hippies
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
The question isn't merely if it is possible for one to live a healthy vegan diet, but would it pleasurable, what difficulty it would be to do so, whether it would be possible for all individuals to do so and whether or not it could be done in a situation of limited food choice and limited access to resources.
The answer to those other questions can be "No" for many individuals. I think a balanced omnivore diet is easier, more pleasurable, healthier and possible for individuals with limited food choice and access to resources(in many regions of the world farming isn't possible) while grazing land is abundant. 26% of the world is grazing land and only thru irrigation(could possibly cause groundwater pollution) would farming be possible.
I have no problem with people who want a vegan diet, but I do not see it as a either a healthy, pleasurable, easy, or environmentally conscious choice. When taken as anything but a lifestyle choice, it makes vegetarianism a dogma for something that is quite situational and complex.
Eat local, eat seasonal, eat fresh, eat balanced would be in my opinion a far better way to prescribe a dietary plan.
I think it's an individual's right to be a vegetarian or vegan, but I think my beliefs on dietary habits are more effective, more ethical in many ways(to people) and more considerate of the environmental differences of regions and socio-economic differences of individuals.
I believe there is an aspect of vegetarianism which I think is important. That is the creative invention of many vegetarian dishes and products. The limitation of plant only cooking is interesting in the sense of being able to produce some very high quality innovate cuisine. I am a fan of innovate vegetarian cuisine and would not wish to see it disappear.
I am not going to bother with your walls of text because, frankly, it makes the discourse more boring to navigate.
What is the vegan dogma? How is it so fundamentally different, as a lifestyle choice, nor any more dogmatic than the fact that I go for a cigarette few times a day. I'm advocating the reduction of some supplies and if someone wants to abolish the usage of some items in his/her life due to ethical reason, I congratulate them just like I congratulate the person who quit drinking completely after phase of alcoholism. Sometimes for some people in their individual circumstances, it is just simpler and/or easier to put a full stop.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
I don't think I fully expressed what I thought, I think It is dogmatic to view it as anything other then a lifestyle choice or as an general prescriptive, if it works for some individual, that's fine. However, I think it is not adequate as a general prescriptive. I see vegetarianism for anything other then a lifestyle choice as being false, I do not see it as being healthier, more pleasurable, easy, or environmentally conscious for many if not most individuals. Since I did not adequately express what I wanted to express I will change my original post.
How has vegetarianism manifested around you as something else than a lifestyle choice?
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
I haven't followed the discussion, but I came to announce that I'm turning vegetarian once again. I was a veggie from the age 14 to 18, but then I changed host families (I was in Scotland for high school exchange at that time), and the new family ate mostly meat courses. I kept eating meat after I came back to Finland, partly because I couldn't be bothered to count calories and nutrient intakes, partly because I had gotten used to meat again and liked it, and partly because I was just really really happy to be back home and didn't think much about anything else than partying and having fun.
Now that I'm an academic student I can get awesome upscale lunches for 2,50€ only from our school's restaurant I thought why not. It's ecological, i consider it more ethical than the "regular" diet, someone else will be taking care of the nutrients. At home I would eat mostly just porrige and noodles anyway since they're cheap. I also think I'm less likely to get fat if I cut off junk food (because that happens pretty darn easily at winter time in this dark and cold country), and I like my body fit. Plus I've heard vegetarians smell better. And meat makes me feel heavy. There really is no reason to not quit meat. I will still contuniue eating fish tho, because it's so healthy and tasty and also easier for myself & others, but I'll try to avoid rainbow trout & other farmed fishes that pollute the Baltic Sea which I love dearly.
Well some people say "Meat is murder" and other things.
I have never been part of a movement which didn't have any overtly simplifying slogans. However, I don't know how bad it is where you're from but in here a character who says something like that is a caricature or a stereotype joke. I recall hearing this said in serious manner maybe once and I take the liberty of assuming that I know more vegetarians/vegans/freegans as birds of feather tend to flock together.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
It's funny but you display many of the traits I've pointed out in this thread and how vegetarianism.
A. Often isn't vegetarianism, still the eating of fish. Technically you're pescatarian. I do think pescatarian is one of the more healthy diets you can enjoy but I don't think it's sustainable to the fish supply if everyone was, nor is it very easy in non-coastal areas except in affluent areas.
B. How easy it is for you to do is because of awesome upscale lunches at school.
C. Someone else will be making it and taking care of the nutrients.
D. Morally prescriptive.
Actually if I could easily get awesome upscale healthy food for 2.50 euro I would be there constantly, it seems like it's just a good way to go about it. I mean living in a 1st world country has it's perks, the choice of food and quality of food is immense, affordable and accessible. Paying only 10-20% of annual salary for food make it so. When you pay 25-50%(often significantly dependent on worldwide food prices) of your annual salary for food, and choice is limited by region and season, people don't often think about vegetarianism.
I think the east-asian/chinese/korean/etc diet is also very healthy(when done in the fashion that a individual would do because of lack of affluence), a green vegetable of some sort, pickled side dishes, rice, a meat dish containing only a small amount of meat, a soup made in various fashion containing a variety of vegetable, tofu and perhaps a little meat, stewed with the bones. Is this more or less ecological then eating pescatarian or vegetarian, I can't really give the exact figures, but I don't see it as very wasteful.
Also 1st world countries no longer drive demand for meat as it did in the past, but in the developing world as they grow more affluent. However in these countries often the meat being consumed is pork and chicken which from the link I posted earlier isn't much different in water usage than cheese and eggs.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/91840616/M...ion-Per-Person
Pork = 5469
Cheese = 5288
Chicken = 3809
Eggs = 3519
Anyways, it's not like eating more meat and getting more food in general has had no effect for many of these countries. The Japanese population has increase 4 inches in height and many countries have similar effect. I would not attribute the primary cause to meat eating(but just better nutrition in general, having access to the fats and proteins in meat being one of those). However, many diet related issues are also arising because of increased food consumption.
If I was working on solving sustainability issues, I wouldn't even think of vegetarianism, I would think something like 75kg/person or 60kg/person and how to hit that mark with meal planning, education and regulations.
I don't deal with too many vegetarian etc, Glam was one(but she was converted). ^_^
However, I have dealt with many service industry folks/chefs/etc who've complained about fickle eaters of the vegetarian persuasion. My view of most vegetarians are they're generally mostly normal folks who only occasionally get self-righteous over their dietary choice.
Also the prohibitive nature of vegetarianism is offense to me so I tend to gravitate against it. I think a balanced diet would reduce the large amount of meat eating that most people engage in and increase the ease of access to food that is healthy and is not marketed based on the abundance of meat in the food.
Since vegetarianism is a life-style choice, I would like vegetarian to stop evangelizing prohibition of meat or trying to persuade other prohibition of meat is more healthy for them or more ecological, as I view these as not true and dogmatic propositions. Eating less might be, but I don't really see any evidence that eating none would be.
My viewpoint is that in countries eating more then 100kg of meat per capita a year, less but not none.
You like to correct people when they say that they are vegetarians but when they don't fall in to your strict "no-meat" definition, the one you find offensive in it's prohibitionism. It sounds like you have created this Vegetarianism™ that has lots of the most stupid, self-righteous arguments.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
I think it's confusing for people to call themselves vegetarian or advocate vegetarianism when they eat meat.
It's like promoting abstinence while having a out of wedlock child or performing sexual acts.
Anyways I didn't create vegetarianism with stupid self-righteous arguments, various vegetarians groups and animal rights group like PETA have done a fantastic job of doing that themselves.
It's like Christians that complain when people complain about Christian fundamentalists or Muslims that complain when people complain about Muslim fundamentalists, it comes with the territory of labeling oneself and making oneself associated with that label. If you don't want to associate yourself with these vegetarian groups out there that are going to be criticized, change your label.
Like Agarina, she's a pescatarian, various vegetarian groups will say that she's not vegetarian, some vegetarian groups might be open enough to be inclusive of her. It all is very confusing.
If individuals are clear about what they advocate, there will be confusion. Let's be clear here, I think I advocate the same policies that you do, and that is less consumption of meat in first world countries and I guess in my estimation(from this discussion) and not the prohibition of meat.
If I were to go up to someone and say, "Be vegetarian", would that meaningfully convey what I am trying to communicate. Absolutely not.
I still haven't read the thread through so I'm not quite sure what you meant to say, but:
I never claimed to be morally superb or anything close to that due to turning vegetarian. I don't see myself as a better person than somebody who eats meat per se.
What I do think is that my diet change is a change for the better. I'm not perfectly selfless (I don't even believe in such thing) but in the end it doesn't matter if I do this only because it's easy (as someone else will count the nutrients for me) or cheap. The results will be the same regardless my motives. It would sure be even better if I could autonomously feed myself without causing any suffering to any creature, but I don't think that makes my current effort any less significant. By this decision I made the meat industry a little less productive, and being the self-absorbed fool that I am I may even eventually convince some other people to make similar changes in their diets etc.
I don't think you claim to be morally superb or anything like that. However the question is more of "is the pescatarian you better or worse morally then the meat eating you?" and whether or not it applies to others and how it applies to others.
I think the issue for me is that I don't see the pescatarian you as better or worse then the meat eating you, it's all the same to me.
In the same sense, if some advocate told me to be vegetarian, I would ask them why? And if their response was that the vegetarian me would be better then the meat-eating me, I would be offended.
I don't feel like complaining when a vegan takes a blotter of LSD that contains gelatine or a vegetarian doesn't specify being lacto-ovo nor does my diets fit easily in to any simple categories without losing their information value.
I am technically "omnivore" in your book if you want a simple, although very inaccurate description.
If, however, you want to favor the proper ethical diet category I have, try "freegan-pesco-lacto-ovo-semivegetarian with inclinations to fennovegetarianism, approximately".
It's a term that is surrounded with lots of varying definitions and a nuance that it implies to ethicism. There's not any particular form of vegetarianism and I find the term very suitable for any contexts involving reducing meat from ones diet.
Last edited by Aquagraph; 09-05-2012 at 11:22 PM.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
I don't complain about this either, but I do complain if they so happen to try and intrude on my life by advocating my prohibition.
If I was really trying to solve the sustainability problem, I wouldn't go about it personally but I would see what could be done to reduce per-capita meat consumption in 100+kg per capita countries to ~75kg. Certainly vegetarianism is one method which will work for a small group of people, but the question is whether the problem will be solve or just some individuals will get to label themselves.
I think to solve this problem, people have to work together without labels and nitpicking about the exact right path to go, people can eat what the want to eat with a wide range of dietary habits, but also to avoid the extremes of gluttony and undernourishment. What is this range that can be advocated, which will be pleasant and easily accomplished by a majority of the individuals, that's how I think about this.
Ehm, I'm a little confused now. Are you trying to say that
A) my decision of becoming a vegetarian didn't make me morally better in your books, or that
B) cutting off meat (other than fish) from my diet doesn't have positive ecological/ethical consequences?
In case of A:
I never claimed this is about me bettering morally. I already "confessed" that vegetarianism (or pescatarianism, whatever) being easy & cheap is a big factor in my decision. I'm not the saviour of the world, I'm a spoiled lazy ass comfort seeking 1st world brat. The positive (ecological, ethical, health-related..) consequences of my reduction of meat consumption still apply. Are they also "all the same" for you?
In case of B:
I'm too lazy to do this myself, but I'm sure you can find a lot of information about the ecological/health benefits of vegetarianism from Google. Also, as far as I'm concerned, the production animals aren't living too good of a life, and the lessening of their numbers (that vegetarianism inevitably causes) is a good thing since it reduces suffering.
These things aren't mutually exclusive you know. I can be a vegetarian without thinkin everyone else should be too. Making a personal life-change doesn't mean one loses the ability to focus on the bigger picture or promote changes on a global level.
I also find it funny that you, a meat-eater, seem to show much more interest in labeling than me or Aqua who both have heavily reduced our meat consumptions. Yet you are the one who complains about it hindering the solvement of the sustainability problem.
Nice.
Most animals are fairly dumb; as in, they are instinctual: eat, have sex, sleep, wake up find food and repeat the process. It's not like they sit their and think about what people are doing to them. For our concern, it's mostly the quality of food being produced under such circumstances.
My overall view/concern/knowledge is that eating less meat is far better for us; we overdo it because we can, because we don't hunt down our food and if we had to, we would eat less meat because it's hard to hunt game and it's hard to organize a group of people to do it. We would certainly respect life more if we do. As it is now, our meat is at Gelson's and no hunting or energy required, which means we have to consider what we exchange both emotionally and spiritually for what we eat. We just don't think about it any more.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I don't think there is any need to advocate vegetarianism, or pescatarianism, or any such -isms. And I would not pursue these prohibitive(by definition perhaps not by deed) measure to make the world better. Anyways, I like leather too.
Of course, as I noted, some areas of the world farming plants isn't viable, so it's ecologically sound to farm animals there. Also fish in the ocean. The difference between you eating 5kg of meat a year vs 0 is negligible compared to you eating 50kg of meat a year vs 20. There is a great deal of diminishing returns in prohibition vs moderation and I would say prohibition is not ecological efficient either due to many reasons such as not all land/ocean is arable for plant products.The positive (ecological, ethical, health-related..) consequences of my reduction of meat consumption still apply. Are they also "all the same" for you?
There's probably good range to aim for such as 25%-75% body weight in kg per year that would work for first world countries which maximizing ocean/land use while being sustainable. There's no doubt to me that many countries eating > 100kg of meat are likely consuming too much per capita, but a country consuming 0kg per capita wouldn't necessarily be better then a country that had moderate consumption and there would actually be significant negative consequences.
You have done a number of illicit substances. The production and distribution of these substances isn't too good of a life, would it be a good thing to reduce the intake of these substances? A man who doesn't drink or do drugs in Saudi Arabia, does this make it a good thing he doesn't drink or do drugs.
On the scale of good and bad, perhaps it can be said there is some limited benefit to these actions, yet how significant are these acts. Would I think any less of you(than what you could be) if you ate meat, would you think I'm worse( than what I could be) because I do. I would say any feelings I have about this is a kind of vanity. I choose not to judge these what I would consider insignificant acts within a large range of practice, these acts including the use of drugs, drinking and food. These are all acts that can be done in moderation, some of which can be beneficial such as the eating of meat(pleasure, health, ecologically as well as some regions of the world is better for producing meat then plant products which should be eaten for the sake of efficiency), also fish is well, just there for us to eat, and I don't know what to farm in place of fish in the ocean. Drinking red wine in moderation has a benefit to health, pleasure and romance.
It's often the case that max/more/less/none is not better, but moderate is better, and more or less largely a product of availability and cost, outside the control of the individual.
I might only have a problem with you being a vegetarian if you were at my party and you refused to eat my soup because it had chicken stock instead of veggie stock.
These things aren't mutually exclusive you know. I can be a vegetarian without thinkin everyone else should be too. Making a personal life-change doesn't mean one loses the ability to focus on the bigger picture or promote changes on a global level.My view point of vegetarianism and many vegetarians isn't "eat more meat" since I think in the US, "eat less meat" is the way to go, but "why does it have to be none", and "loosen up a little".
I don't really believe you or Aqua are the type of person that is very strict on this so this isn't really about you or Aqua.
Also one way to get people to eat less meat and more veggies is to dress up the veggies with a bit of meat/butter/animal product for flavor. I like Win-Win situations!
I'm not trying to label you, I'm finding fault with the label you are implicating on yourself, I'm also trying to find a more clear label to use which would not be as confusing as calling a fish-eater a vegetarian. Pescatarian, vegetarian, omnivore, whatever, I don't label myself any of these things and have no desire to label myself these things. I will only discuss these labels with those who have chosen to label themselves, or have implicated themselves thru some discussion, or in some discussion about individuals or groups that have implicated themselves.
FUCKIN PUSSIES
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Maritsa: "Most animals are fairly dumb; as in, they are instinctual: eat, have sex, sleep, wake up find food and repeat the process."
LOL. And so are most humans! You made such a simplistic and close-minded statement I wouldn't have expected from an INFj...
She had sex with her late cat. Forgive her. And by the way neverthesame, are you an animal?
To answer your question, Absurd, I accidentally heard my sister calling me "an animal with two legs", recently. I still wonder what she meant...:S
Martisa I'm really disappointed by vvhat you said. Children are also dumb in this meaning - still vve don't eat children at least not the ones I knovv! Sick people, like some vvith lovver IQ are also quite dumb.
But it doesn't mean they don't get hurt. It doesn't mean they don't get attached to someone - vvhich is also a very instinctual thing and yet very much valued by most individuals. Then, it doesn't mean vve have the right not to respect them.
In my opinion many of our problems are the result of the fact that vve started thinking too much and using our instinct too little.
Idk you I'm angry somehovv... Hovv could you say such a thing and in other threads you keep saying you'd like to have as many dogs as possible and you love them.
I'm not against eating meat, in fact for me not eating meat is more of an instinct thing - I just don't feel it's good for me and I just cannot eat it vvithout thinking of their pain. Hovvever, I knovv it's stupid and it doesn't help or solve anything. I'd also never expect it from somebody not to eat meat - animals eat each other as vvell. But I just feel the mass production of meat is soooo vvrong...But lack the knovvledge and I don't have enough insight to give solutions.
My bf keeps saying that I should meat because if the lion met me, he vvould eat me vvith no regrets. But I keep telling him the lion vvouldn't put me in a jar and throvv avvay if he didn't like me. And he thinks he vvould, if he vvere intelligent enough. And I hope he vvouldn't.
Anyvvay, these are vve, not the lions vvho rule our planet - as unfair as it is - and vve should take responsibility for our actions and respect other species.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
