I myself am a meat eater. I do however recognize the need for the human race to shift to a vegetarian based diet if we are to feed everyone in this world the same way we feed ourselves in the 1st world. Add to that, naturally occuring fresh water levels are going to go down from roughly 5% of the worlds water to 3% in the coming century which means we are going to have to make priorities.
So far, the only reason I have for not shifting to a vegetarian diet is a cynical one -
"I do believe the world is fucked no matter what I do, so why not enjoy it while I can?"
Obviously, summed up in a sentence like that, it sounds awfully edgy. But I'm curious, are there any valid moral arguments for still eating meat and not going vegetarian? We can substitute all of the nutritional elements with healthier alternatives.
>third world lives have value
Let's assume, for arguments sake, and since we're not retards, that they do. If you don't agree, state why and how it applies.
>wild game only exists in first world countried
How does this apply?
>a country cannot filter fresh water from seawater
I did not assume such a thing at all but I know it's a very expensive process. If it were easy and cheap, we wouldn't have a drought in California.
>Let's assume, for arguments sake, and since we're not retards, that they do. If you don't agree, state why and how it applies.
They don't, they can't feed themselves and yet they don't stop breeding, I say let them sort it out.
I honestly think vegetarianism is the morally correct choice and I commend anyone who lives that way. I didn't eat meat for around 5 years and then a few months ago I just started eating it again on a whim One day I saw a good burger and I simply ate it, the lives of a few dead animals don't sting enough to make me a vegetarian again.
>They don't, they can't feed themselves and yet they don't stop breeding, I say let them sort it out.
Your argument is just dumb and wreaks of a 20 year olds attitude of "i know everything". It's obvious you see the world in black and white - which it isn't.
Come up with a real argument.
>all these retards shitting on third worlders
Who do you think contributed more to food scarcity? Some African pleb family who eats yams or an Amerifat who eats mcdonalds every day. The food used to grow the amerifat's burger could probably feed an entire African family. How does it make sense to blame them?
There's nothing wrong in both vegetarianism and eating meat daily.
Veganism may be hurtful especially because you're skipping eggs which are likely the single most healthy food known to man but vegetarianism?
It's nothing. Same goes with eating meat. The point is to have healthy, balanced diet fit to your needs, not to be some idealist retardo-assfaggot.
Yes, but I'm trying to discern out a positive argument for eating meat. If you have one, I'd love to hear it. As I said, I eat meat, but I don't have a good moral argument for doing so.
The animals suffer and die. It's immensly bad for the enviroment. Red meat is also not good for you in excess.
>The animals suffer and die.
The more animals suffer the shittier the meat is.
If you cramp animals in tight space and give them food with steroids they will give much, much worse meat(but get more of it). If you'd torture animal before killing it, you'd also spoil the meat(and you won't even get more of it).
>It's immensly bad for the enviroment.
didn't globalwormthinkers blamed industry for everything not so long ago? Oh, how quickly the facts change
>Red meat is also not good for you in excess.
Vitamin D very important micro-element. It helps with being depressed, strenghtens your bones, makes you age slower. It's also used to kill rats since overdose fucks-up liver. The reason why we prefer it over strychnine is simple - relatively low doses strychnine can kill a man, and you'd have to eat tons of vitamin-D pills for rats to even feel it. It also applies to bigger animals.
The water crisis in California is completely artificial. No one is going to die of thirst. Or even not be able to take a shower. The regulations in California are just dumb and the farmers are taking all the profit. Just the water used in growing almonds for export is more than the water used be all the cities in California.
I wonder how much vegetarianism has increased the population density of India?
>The more animals suffer the shittier the meat is.
Noble points that do not apply since you cannot control this when purchasing meat. Most animals DO suffer.
>didn't globalwormthinkers blamed industry for everything not so long ago? Oh, how quickly the facts change
This is not a global warming issue so I don't see why you're applying it. This a resource issue.
>Vitamin D very important micro-element. It helps with being depressed, strenghtens your bones, makes you age slower. It's also used to kill rats since overdose fucks-up liver. The reason why we prefer it over strychnine is simple - relatively low doses strychnine can kill a man, and you'd have to eat tons of vitamin-D pills for rats to even feel it. It also applies to bigger animals.
Can easily be replaced, by milk for instance.
So again, I'm looking for good arguments FOR eating meat. The fact is most animals DO suffer and we CAN replace meat with just as healthy alternatives. So why do we keep eating meat - besides that it's "good"?
>The water crisis in California is completely artificial. No one is going to die of thirst.
I don't doubt you but I think it's more complex than that. I'll let you have this point since it's not what this debate is about anyway - a water crisis could erupt on a great scale since we're getting less fresh water each year and more mouths to feed.
>as for India
I don't think vegetarianism has been discussed by anyone as a form of population control.
Why not reduce the amount of meat you eat rather than exclude it. Biologically we are omnivores. But the production of meat is obviously much more wasteful/harmful overall (not just in terms of water usage).
>I don't think vegetarianism has been discussed by anyone as a form of population control.
I couldn't google up anything. But it makes sense to me. More efficient use of farmland by feeding humans instead of animals, could allow for higher human populations. Allowing India to be the crazy swarm of humanity we often see.
Absolutely and I do think that this is the way the world is going to turn anyhow. For instance, Meatless Monday's are a thing:
And it's true, you don't have to eat meat every day. Historically, we didn't. Meat was a luxuary food and only when we began getting used to higher standards did we start eating meat every day because why not Carpe Diem, huh?
>there arent any valid moral arguments on the contrary
Yes there are and many are listed in this thread already.
>I couldn't google up anything. But it makes sense to me. More efficient use of farmland by feeding humans instead of animals, could allow for higher human populations. Allowing India to be the crazy swarm of humanity we often see.
I'd argue, in that case, that vegetarianism is a part of culture. In India's case Poverty and Culture are what's made it population boom. An uneducated populace doesn't give a shit about population control. India's case strikes me as pretty text book to be honest. As with China, a huge country which spots of urbanization here and there.
Furthermore, the amount of farmland needed to feed meat is more than what it takes to feed humans. That makes sense. First you gotta cultivate land so that you can use that food to feed the food you want to eat. Doesn't take an expert to figure that one out. Now this supposes that farmland is "limited", which it is but only if everyone were to rise to the same standard of living as we are today.
HOWEVER, since oil is on the way down we also need farmland for other things. In Brazil, huge swaths of land are being cultivated for the purpose of growing rapeseed, from which you can make biodiesel.
So there's another argument against meat.
So far I'm not seeing a single argument for eating meat, save for the standard, lazy and edgy teen argument of "lol I don't care".
Which is what I myself subscribe to in my real life.
The animals suffer far less than you think. It's really a non issue. I can go into specifics if you like, I've helped in the slaughtering of around 600000 animals so I'm pretty well versed in their preslaughter care.
I would like specifics actually.
What about all that talk about a central nervous system?
Also, I'm not thinking about the slaughter. I know the slaughter is as humane as can be - and if you want to eat meat you have to accept that somehow it does so discussing it's method of death is pretty meaningless. I mean how they live and are treated while alive.
I'd like to point out something. Which is often not noted in these discussions. Some of the biggest cattle stations in Australia (the biggest being a little larger than Israel, and some 7 times bigger than the largest in the USA) simply could not be used for the growing of crops. If they don't have cattle, it's completely wasted land. Good land generally isn't used for feeding beats.
Animals are rendered unconscious before being killed, so they feel nothing. Up until that point they live happy lives, without fear of predation or the imminent threat of starvation or even malnutrition.
Animals are handled humanly from the farm, through the transport, and then through to the storing and handling before slaughter.
Sure you could make an argument for chickens, but who cares about chickens living in shitholes?
Domesticated life for an animal is far better than being free.
Another concern would be the mass extinction of domesticated species. Or at least the, being very close to extinct.
You don't kill a cow and drain it of it's milk. This argument also assumes that if you can't go "all in", then it's not worth doing at all.
If by drinking milk and eating meat you contribute to the death of animals, then surely cutting down on one of them is prefereable to not doing anything at all.
A good point.
Even more mice are killed when yielding crops to feed animals, so that's another point for vegetarianism if anything.
>Domesticated life for an animal is far better than being free.
Don't they live half the year locked up in a barn? Cows just stand around in their booth? How is this a better life?
A lot of vegans also make the argument that "cow's milk should be for their own kids" which I think is a pretty ridiculous argument. But how would you counter it?
>Another concern would be the mass extinction of domesticated species. Or at least the, being very close to extinct.
Are you suggesting that if we let cows "free" they'd be extinct within a few years since they are a domesticated breed of cows? If so, this is a good point.
On dairy farms, all male cows are sent to slaughter at a very young age. Which might be what he was referencing.
If we wanted to try and be a little more kind to the water supplies whilst continuing to eat meat, we'd need to see a shift in our perception of meat.
Animals like kangaroo take far less water and food to raise. It's also extremely healthy and quite tasty. However the market is limited because people see them as cute animals and. It the pests they are.
Also some are shot from the wild for human consumption, the majority are used for pet food.
Go to YouTube and search for helicopter mustering Australia. It'll show you the land cows roam free on.
And no, I've never seen a farm the houses their stock. Even dairy farms move cattle in and out of milking sheds. It would costs millions to build barns large enough to house enough cows for an economically viable farm.
Same with sheep and goats, camels and llamas
Roo's are tasty, aren't cloven hoofed (don't cause as much erosion), and are much better adapted to Australian conditions. Much better choice in many Australian regions as a source of meat.
Sorry, I forgot to address the last part. Cows would go extinct because they would not be let free. Stocks would be used up rather than let free. Otherwise governments would need to reimburse farmers for lost revenue.
Another point to consider would be the dramatic effect on global economies. The loss of jobs would be insane. From helicopter pilots to stockmen and jackeroos. Crops don't generate as much work as animals. I'd be out of a job. Fencing on farms wouldn't be as important if they only are for crops.
They're not a true answer tho. It would be very very hard to muster, transport and then slaughter Roos in the numbers needed to feed the country. At the moment all Roos are killed by contract shooters, gutted and hung on Utes and the. Transported to chillers before being processed.
Also, kangaroos do huge amounts of damage to the land, not to mentions the lives they take every year. Tasty, sure, but they're fucking shit animals.
All good points from a "human first" perspective. The government could imburse the farmers for their cows however - I mean it IS possible, even if highly costly.
Are there any numbers on how many jobs are generated via the meat market / crops? It'd be interesting to see for a variety of reasons.
This is branching it out, but it isn't improbable that in the future we'll be leading a society where not everyone has a job - or at least a full time job - and that such a society isn't even desireable. For instance, in the roman empire not all romans had "jobs" in the way we think of it. Rather, they had slaves that did stuff for them. Today we have machines instead. In such a society (or should I say Utopia?) the economy part is redundant. However, that would be practically impossible to achieve.
>kangaroos do huge amounts of damage to the land, not to mentions the lives they take every year. Tasty, sure, but they're fucking shit animals.
wot? It's a source of healthy lean meat, if it was just harvested from wild populations fencing wouldn't be to big an issue, surely the logistics would be easy enough to deal with these days.
Kangaroos don't live in large groups, which makes mustering more difficult, especially is not specifically raised for meat. They are also fast, nimble creatures, capable of speeds well over 40km an hour with the endurance to beat horses and the nimbleness to make rounding on motorbike difficult.
They also jump over fences which would require them to be killed as soon as transported to an abattoir. Something which isn't easy to do and would effect the profitability of the endeavour hugely.
It's just too inefficient at the moment unless we go back to a system when men go out and hunt for their food. And I know very few people who are capable of humanely shooting a roo and the. Processing it.
I can't offer concrete numbers on employment figures for meat industry vs crops. But the man power needed to run a cattle station is greater than to grow crops. The processing and packing process also isn't that huge,y labour intensive compared to the processing of animals.
Maybe 100 people needed to slaughter and bone 2000 sheep in a timely manor.
It'll happen naturally in a few decades. Africans still pop out 8 kids per couple because it's natural human instinct too, since for most of history half of your kids would die young and children were also your only hope of retirement or security in old age.
This has died down in developed countries because half of our babies don't die. Most of Africa is in the weird spot right now where they're still culturally used to popping out a ton of kids but they have medicine advanced enough that half their babies aren't dying anymore. Give it a decade or two and it will die down, the same thing happened in Europe and the Americas with the invention of modern medicine (hence why population in Europe exploded in the 19th century), the same thing happened in Asia when they westernized, the same thing will happen in Africa.