What are the ethics of eating animals? What do you think of Peter

They'd eat us if we didn't eat them.

>>8657519
That's not true at all, though

>>8657525
lions eat people

>>8657512
We are at the top of the food chain, not eating animals is unnatural and immoral. If lions stopped eating animals, the ecosystem would collapse.

>>8657519
>>8657547

Do you believe that it's acceptable to eat them at such a proportion?

According to a 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 6.6 million cows were commercially slaughtered in the U.S. in 2012, which results in an average of 18,032 cows killed each day. Including steers and heifers, a total of 32.95 million cattle were commercially slaughtered, which averages to 90,027 killed each day.

In the hunter gatherer days, we've sustained ourselves with an omnivorous diet. Also, killing animals was more personal back in the day. It was necessary. Today, a lot of people can't look at animals being slaughtered, but we just ignore it and eat meat.

In the book, Singer mentions how we domesticate dogs, yet have ham in our dinner tables. Pigs are just as sentient as dogs.

I haven't read it, but since he argues that infanticide is ethical, I don't think he's arguing against eating meat, just against cruel housing and treatment of animals that are slaughtered.

>>8657548
>Do you believe that it's acceptable to eat them at such a proportion?
Yep

>>8657548
>Pigs are just as sentient as dogs.
Carnivore meat tends to taste nasty, omnivores or herbivores are delicious. IQ isn't a recipe factor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cUX-prmAx8

>>8657548
There are no ethics, it comes down to a feeling, which doesn't weaken its value. I believe that if you were properly educated, you should feel empathy and, out of a deep compassion, care about living creatures. It doesn't have to be rational, and frankly the common arguments are strong enough, should this not be the case. The fate of a cow in our current, industrial-like “farms” should resonate within yourself.

>>8657548
I dont like the idea of animals being slaughter for our consumption but the alternative is some retarded vegetarian/vegan diet where i need to food that i hate and drinks vitamins so i dont get malnourished. i've never seen a vegetarian that look good they always look sickly.

>>8657519
We're omnivores, not carnivores.

>>8657567
The converse is also true; recipe is not an IQ factor. So why is it acceptable to kill and eat a complex species?

>>8657512
It's unethical if you're atheist.

ITT: weirdly the lowest brow conversation on all of lit.

pepe threads get more thought.

>>8657559
and no, he's arguing against eating anything with interests.

>>8657958
Why do vegans always resort to just passively calling meat eaters stupid, ignorant, sheep, etc. when they run out of invalid arguments?

>>8657958
>ITT: weirdly the lowest brow conversation on all of lit.
Well repost it on /pol/ where it belongs.

i've read Practical Ethics, but haven't gotten around to Animal Liberation. it was good.

it took me awhile to finally admit to myself that what i was doing was, by my own ethical code, immoral and completely unacceptable. critically examining ones actions can be a painful process, but that's self-growth.

>>8658043
>self-growth

people needs they're meats. If they don't eat aminals they gonna eat peoples. that means YOU, bub.

>>8657678
fucking complexitist shitlord
simple organism lives matter

>>8658053
I agree. black lives DO matter.

File: 1477401199020.jpg (324KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1600x1200px

ITT: People spooked by ethics.

Animals are your property, it would be irrational not to eat them unless you gained from not eating them somehow.

>>8658057
That was already the joke retard.

File: 1376361726525.png (313KB, 701x394px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 701x394px

>>8658068
>not understanding meta humor
>on 4chan

>>8658073
t.retard

>>8657991
I find more often it's omnis going on the attack at the simple mention of veganism. Either way, you get dickheads on both sides.

File: Trump King of Trolls.jpg (122KB, 1064x656px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1064x656px

>>8658065

>>8657512
>let all the handicapped die
And that's why analytical philosophy is a shit.

File: land_mammals.png (33KB, 619x495px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 619x495px

>>8657512
Because, if you're a good sized land mammal, you have three options to survive in this world:
>Be man
>Be man's pet
>Be man's food
Let's face it, if we all went vegan, cows would be extinct in less than a generation.

Singer is a colossal fucking utilitarianist faggot. We read some of his texts in school, and my ethics prof, otherwise a very mild person who never forces her ideas on us (or mentions them at all), shat all over him when the students ended their discussion.

Kant's answer to the problem of animal rights is probably the best I came across.

>>8657512
>What are the ethics of eating animals?
an eaten animal is freed and cannot be enslaved again any more! :3
that's the true animal liberation

>>8658311
#BlackLiberation
#FeedOurStarvingVets

File: women against UCC.jpg (96KB, 1080x882px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1080x882px

Goddamn "animal liberation movement".Reminds me of Pic Related.

>>8658404
i don't see any ladies participating in that ladies rally... at least no afab ladies

Most of the ethics ITT are pretty bad. Naturalism/practicalism is not the same thing as ethics

I'm not an ethicist though, I just don't eat meat because I don't like the taste

>>8658416
>not liking the taste of meat

whoa........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0O_VYcsIk8

The reason there arent more vegetarians... is because of vegetarians.

>>8658411
And that's where the one of the similarities lie .

File: afab_ladies.jpg (616KB, 1920x1324px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 1920x1324px

>>8658411
>at least no afab ladies
They'd be shot, burned, and eaten like wild deer, but maybe not in that order.

>>8657512
I haven't read any Singer but I became a vegetarian on ethical grounds. Me and my partner also have been slowly changing what kinds of clothes we buy/where we buy them from. We are hoping to go further from there into our other purchases in the future.

Asides from the normal arguments against eating meat a big one for me was environmentalism. Ignoring economic and humanitarian realities of the whole world stopping eating meat overnight it would instantly reverse global warming. So eating meat is also fucking over our environment in a huge way.

>>8658431
This is exactly like how people seem to think about gay people. There are a lot of them and almost all of them you have no idea they are gay. So when you meet someone whose homosexuality is a big part of their identity they become the only thing you associate homosexuality with. It's exactly the same with vegans and vegetarians.

>>8657559
He only argues for infanticide as a hypothetical method of argument. He doesn't propose actually killing babies.

Reminder of tragedy of commons. Unless eating meat makes you feel bad, which would be undetstandable, there's no reason not to because it's not gonna have any effect.

>>8659620
This is in no way a tragedy of the commons situation, nor is it that the tragedy of the commons is an ethical concern, it merely describes a logical action from the point of self interest.

>>8659645
>nor is it that the tragedy of the commons is an ethical concern
This was implied nowhere but thanks for telling us.

>>8659667
>This was implied nowhere
>there's no reason not to
You are clearly using the tragedy of the commons as I means to solve an ethical problem.

>>8659599
He does propose killing babies, particularly babies which will lead terrible lifes on account of incurable ailments.

If it is completely certain that their life will result in a net negative of fulfilled interests, they should be offed.

>>8657548
I don't base my ethics on emotion and retarded concepts such as 'utility'.

>>8657547
>unnatural and immoral

Mein Gott *sniff*

captcha: edgeway

>>8659620
>not gonna have any effect

How do you mean? Like, because a single consumer not eating meat wouldn't translate into less slaughterings, it doesn't have an effect? That's picking the consumer to be in a vaccuum, and the producers to be in the wider context of the world. One or the other, lad.

>>8657547
genealogical fallacy.

And on the internet, of all things.

There are several options when it comes to animal rights.

On the one hand, you can hold that no moral axiom are binding, in which case you can do whatever you want as regards animals, but everyone can do whatever they want in general, which you might not like.

On the other hand, you can pick any one (or several) of conventional moral axioms, none of which allow the moral countenancing of animal suffering except by specious arguments.

Insofar as you want to hold to any conventional moral principles, you ought to be a vegan, and to regard animal exploitation as more-or-less on par with normalised human chattel slavery. Logically speaking, moral veganism is inevitable, unless you are a solipsistic cannibal.

>>8659351
>implying global warming isn't a net positive

>>8659831
>you can have no morals
>you can have morals that say animals aren't people but they're stupid
>you can have morals that say animals are people and putting cows in pens is just like selling black people
>logically speaking
ur an idiot

I've read Singer (utilitarian) and Korsgaard (kantian), and it seems to me the argument is pretty much the same.

Humans are animals.
There is no significant difference between human pain and animal pain.
There is no significant difference between human death and animal death.

You can try to smuggle in the concept of human via moral agency, personhood, potential personhood, personhood by association etc., but it always fails because of marginal cases. And all other rationalizations are just fallacies.

>>8659903
>There is a significant difference between human pain and animal pain because of personhood.
>There is a significant difference between human death and animal death because of personhood.

this is true btw

File: my-property-2923447.png (176KB, 500x524px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 500x524px

>>8659920
Personhood is a spook if ever I saw one.

File: drug-routes.jpg (589KB, 900x641px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 900x641px

>>8659920
I'll go torture some babies and senile people then.

>>8659942
That's what Singer argues for, not the anon you quoted.

>>8659903
>but it always fails because of marginal cases.
Animal rightsists argue that animals are moral patients just like insane people and babies. But consider the following: we wouldnt let one moral patient kill another moral patient. We wouldnt let an insane man kill a baby. We wouldnt punish him, but we wouldnt let him either. So by that logic we should stop all the carnivores from hunting which will lead to their extinction which will fuck up the ecosystem.

Nobody reads Kant: the thread

>>8657547
There is nothing ecologically stable about humans devouring almost every single niche of animal possible. And the "food chain" is way outdated, fucktard. The trophic pyramid has been totally inverted. It would be okay if humans had small populations but we don't.

>>8659351
so much this, I'm vegetarian for environmental reasons mainly. You'd be surprised how many vegetarians there but confirmation bias makes people remember the crazies.

>>8659673
So if I would try to use a flower to solve an ethical problem that would imply that flowers are an ethical concern?

File: tmp_5854-images(7)42567697.jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

>>8659706
>I don't base my ethics on emotion

>>8659724
>Like, because a single consumer not eating meat wouldn't translate into less slaughterings, it doesn't have an effect?
Yes.
>That's picking the consumer to be in a vaccuum, and the producers to be in the wider context of the world.
No.

>>8659890
How would it be a net positive?

>>8660238
>which will fuck up the ecosystem
There's your difference genius.

I eat animals to be alive.

>>8660346
qué?

>>8659706
literally what else is there

>>8658249
>cows would be extinct in less than a generatio
Yo do realise that vegans want that to happen? Better not to exist than be a deformed creation serving only to satisfy man's glutton.

>>8660440
memes

>>8660325
No because your flower situation and the tragedy one have nothing in common. You said you view eating animals as ethical because of the tragedy of the commons (of which that does not apply in this case anyway). In order to answer in this way you HAVE to be deriving moral relevance from the tragedy. But the tragedy has nothing to do with morality so you have to explain why the tragedy (which is where you stopped) is actually a reason to eat animals. To go back to your flower example it would be exactly the same if in answer to the question of how you justify eating meat you said flowers. To which, as I did to the tragedy example would reply there is no moral compulsion to what you said, nor any attempt to justify it.

>>8660238
>we wouldnt let one moral patient kill another moral patient
Unless you were the most hardcore deontologist no one agrees with this. There is a purpose to animals killing other animals for food. There is no purpose to a crazy man killing a baby. There is no purpose to dolphins keeping rape slaves and torturing baby dolphins. Just because something is a moral patient does not mean you are never allowed to ever do harm to them.

>>8660440
Deontology and virtue ethics.

>>8661011
>But the tragedy has nothing to do with morality so you have to explain why the tragedy (which is where you stopped) is actually a reason to eat animals.
I thought it was obvious. Next time I'll state an opinion here I'll make sure to think of idiots like you and spell everything out in detail.

>>8657547
Watch Cowspiracy.

>>8661011
>There is a purpose to animals killing other animals for food.
You can kill people for the same reason.

>>8661020
So I'm the idiot when you use the tragedy of the commons without knowing what it is? Because as I said the tragedy has nothing to do with what the situation you are trying to apply it to. Also way to go with missing the point of my post.

>>8661026
But we don't need to outside of extreme circumstances.

If there's one thing I can honestly appreciate about existence in this realm is that I can lol at your cucked life.

>>8661011
>There is a purpose to animals killing other animals for food
So there's nothing wrong with humans killing cattle for food, right?

>>8659903
>Humans are animals
Strange how we call that reductionism in any debate except this

>>8661096
No, at least in this line of reasoning, because we are moral agents unlike every other animal, well maybe dolphins or elephants. I haven't really thought about them. Also we don't need to kill animals to eat. A cat is a hypercarnivore and will die without meat.

File: 14772248266860.gif (2MB, 765x1006px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 765x1006px

>>8657512
If eating animals was cool for everyone from Aristotle to Kant it's cool for me.

Peter Cucker can shut thefuck off honestly speaking.

Animals especially cattle and piggos are cucks of the human race.

Cope.

>>8661128
>If eating animals was cool for everyone from Aristotle to Kant it's cool for me.

meat industry then =/= meat industry now
also global warming

File: 1779.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

Daily reminder that if the whole of humanity were to be vegetarians, we would need another Earth's worth of arable land to make vegetables, and the Malthusian catastrophe that would ensue would diminish the world population down to a level that is congruent with the output of vegetables.

In other words, you would be condemning probably a billion or more people to death, while simultaneously claiming that it this is utilitarian.

>>8661155
Well no one sane is saying that the whole planet should become vegetarian overnight. This also ignores the advances in technology that massively improve the the productivity of arable land. Huge amounts of tracks of land would be freed up by the reduction in meat eating since animals requires enormous amount of land. Also I don't believe and want source.

> while simultaneously claiming that it this is utilitarian
You don't have to be a utilitarian to be opposed to eating meat.

File: Shadow-the-hedgehog--with-motorcycle-min_(1).png (2MB, 3277x2135px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3277x2135px

Tell me why does it take a fucking nation scale catastrophe for modern ethics to even concern itself with humans anymore?

Veganism = opium of the nu male intelligentsia for real

How about Mr. Cucker sorts out what's "just" and "unjust" inside our fucked up capitalist society before he concerns himself with fucking DOGGOS?

Like half of the world population being cucked to hell and back for the two-three decades they're even alive?

B-BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PIGGOS BOSS THEYRE LIKE ALMOST HUMAN TOO

Why this meme? 99% of airtime for modern ethics = veganism?

Go fuck yourself in a fire etc

>>8657512
The ethics of eating animals = "raise and slaughter them with a minimum of suffering"
>What do you think of Peter Singer
He's a semi-literate con man

>>8661175
I sincerely doubt technology will ever be able to sustain a population of 7 billion people and counting on vegetables only, given the fact that our planet is mostly deserts and tundra.

>You don't have to be a utilitarian to be opposed to eating meat.

No, but the topic of this thread is Singer, and he's a utilitarian.

>>8661203
And why is it okay to do with to other animals but not humans?

>>8657512
It's retarded.

>>8657519
>cows and pigs would eat us if we didn't eat them
lolwut

>>8657548
>6.6 million cows were commercially slaughtered in the U.S. in 2012
And?
The US population is north of 300 million people and the US exports beef overseas. Sheer number != an argument.

>In the hunter gatherer days, we've sustained ourselves with an omnivorous diet.
Like now, you mean?
>killing animals was more personal back in the day
Do you build your own apartment? Raise your own wheat? Ferment your own sauerkraut? "We take advantage of the division of labor and economies of scale' is a statement, not a rebuttal.

> we domesticate dogs, yet have ham in our dinner tables. Pigs are just as sentient as dogs.
As in 'not sentient at all'? As in 'some cultures won't eat pork and some culture do eat dogs, and why does Singer think the entire planet is like his boring middle-class Midwestern life'?

>>8661205
You underestimate the power of GM foods. Enormous amount of land that can be but isn't can be used for agriculture and the amount of land that can yield crops due to GM foods would increase greatly. Don't forget that it is possible to create synthetic meat which once we get better at it will be an amazing source of easy food that takes up very little space.

Even if the population of 7 billion is too much you can over time implement population control to reach a sustainable level. Again no one sane is saying that this needs to happen overnight.

>>8661068
>So I'm the idiot when you use the tragedy of the commons without knowing what it is?
>If I claim that someone said something stupid before me nothing I said can be dumb!
Yes, you are the idiot.
>But we don't need to outside of extreme circumstances.
We don't need to kill animals anymore, and even if you wanted to argue about muh protein it'd still be obvious to you that we don't need to kill nearly as many as we do and that most animal eating in the developed world is done for enjoyment.

File: shut it.jpg (57KB, 400x559px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 400x559px

>>8659351
>Me and my partner
stopped reading

>>8661155
What do you think meat industry animals eat? Spoiler: it's not grass.

>>8661216
>Only 12 million died in the holocaust
Fucking pussies. Do you know how many people live in Europe?

>As in 'not sentient at all'? As in 'some cultures won't eat pork and some culture do eat dogs, and why does Singer think the entire planet is like his boring middle-class Midwestern life'?
And some Germans like to kill Jews and turn their skin into lamps. But hey it's cultural!

>>8661232
>>If I claim that someone said something stupid before me nothing I said can be dumb!
Did you just call yourself dumb?

>>8661229
>Don't forget that it is possible to create synthetic meat which once we get better at it will be an amazing source of easy food that takes up very little space.

This I certainly agree with, and if it was possible to grow meat commercially that way I would support it.

>>8661238
>Spoiler: it's not grass.

Maybe not in America, but I mostly eat grass-fed meat where I'm from.

>>8660266
>if humans had small populations but we don't.
Ooooh. Aren't you ignorant!

>>8657537
People rarely eat Lions though

>>8661210
>"Why can I eat plants but not animals? Both are alive"
Humans are self-aware and capable of moral choices. A cow is not.

>>8661214
Pigs will kill and eat humans; you have to be careful of children near hog pens and an injured grown man will be attacked and devoured fairly quickly
>FFS, have you even *seen* a farm?

>>8661288
Yes, humans are moral agents but you didn't show how other animals are not moral patients.

>>8661239
Killing one person = immoral crime.
Saying 'the sheer tonnage of wheat harvested' is about commodities.
Communications major, then?
>Germans, Jews
That has nothing to do with animals other than Nazis seeing some people as being animals, not human and the reason the Nazis are so repellant is *BECAUSE* they treated humans like animals.
Further, Singer was contrasting pigs and dogs in an ignorant, parochial way.

>>8661284
Depends on where you live, in point of fact

>>8661294
That's because I neither stated nor implied animals are not moral patients.
Indeed, the reason to avoid cruelty to animals is because they are moral patients.

>>8661119
Im gonna make my goulash tonight in memory of faggots like you.

>>8661313
I don't think I follow you. Both humans and animals are moral patients which is why we avoid cruelty to animals, but we sill kill them for some reason where we don't kill people?

>>8657547
>We are at the top of the food chain

You're at the top of nothing. You couldn't even feed yourself in Bulgaria, let alone in Nature.

>>8661307
No people rarely eat Lions anywhere you retard

>>8661327
No.
Human are full moral agents. Capable of making moral choices.
Animals are *at best* moral patients.
This difference is why killing an animal for food = not immoral if done humanely. But killing a human without serious justification = morally wrong.

>>8661331
They are protected in Africa because people kill them for food, fuckwit.

File: 0lBXFeW.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

>Animals
>Having value outside the one we ascribed to them

File: tumblr_lifth807JE1qi2f27o1_250.gif (420KB, 248x288px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 248x288px

>>8661342
What we ascribe or what society ascribes. What if I want to make an animal my lover.

Not OP, just want to talk about horses fucking girls

>>8661335
If animals are moral patients then to kill them without serious justification is morally wrong.
>Animals are *at best* moral patients.
>because they are moral patients.
Which you just admitted to here. So you have to explain why we can kill hundreds of millions of moral patients every year.

>>8661348
Animals are animals. They are made for eating. The attempts to philosophize the actions of vegetarians is irrelevant to reality, as is most philosophy. Show me a an animal subject to moral law, and I'll show you a monad.

>>8661364
Humans are animals.

>>8661348
>FFS
so... you don't know the difference between a moral agent and a moral patient?
I suggest you take a few entry level classes in philosophy, move on to actual ethics, and then - once you have a grasp on basic vocabulary - read some books.

>>8661155

This is absurd. You would probably need even LESS arable land if:

1. People would stop wasting food
2. Land used to grow animal food was used to grow human food
3. Restaurants were abolished
4. Government took over all food production
5. Food was partially rationed

How putrid do you have to be to invoke "another Earth's worth of arable land" and take all of our food-related transgressions for granted?

>>8661379
Animals are basically moles to blue whales and everything in between.

I am not an animal, I consume them in a coordinated industrial way. They exist for me.

>>8661364
>discuss philosophy
>"stop philosophizing you fucking nerd lmao"

>>8661364
Logic isn't real, thus I don't have to listen to logic and can believe what I want.

>>8661385
Whales consume more and moles are more useful, you're not even a very significant animal sweetie.

>>8661245
>his reading comprehension is THIS bad

>>8661387
I would never discuss philosophy, I'm not a greasy 20 year old who keeps his piss jars next to his bed, or a handwringing normie who just wants to get a good grade on the LSAT.

Reality is as I perceive it. I perceive cows as hamburgers. Fuck OP and insincerity.

>>8661394
>logic

>>8661396
Whales once lived in their millions and communicated via sonic waves across thousands of miles of ocean. It is possible that they had their own civillization of sorts. My ancestors shredded them for lamp oil on their way to the moon. Fuck whales.

>>8661381
>Moral patients are things towards which moral agents can have moral responsibilities. On this definition, all moral agents are also moral patients, but moral patients need not be moral agents.
Do you enjoy waking up knowing you are going to be this wrong everyday?

>>8661403
i perceive you as a faggot

>>8661400
About as bad as your understanding of what the tragedy of the commons is.

>>8661410
I perceive you as an incorrect internet bot. I don't even believe you are real.

>>8661407

>being this idiotic

Your ancestor would've shredded you for free.

>>8661454
No, he would have sold me whale oil.

>>8661418
Wait, did you think my understanding of what the tragedy of the commons is excellent? Because you haven't been whining about it for it to be clear what your stance is.

>>8661474
*is is excellent

File: retard chamber.jpg (98KB, 576x768px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 576x768px

>>8661409
My argument
>it is wrong to kill humans because they are moral *agents*
>Killing animals humanely is acceptable because they are only moral patients
It is a simple concept, yet after repeating it you can't seem to grasp it.
>I do love that you obviously hit the first link on google after finally looking it up

>>8661155
>Daily reminder that if the whole of humanity were to be vegetarians, we would need another Earth's worth of arable land to make vegetables
Source?
Cows don't just magically create more energy than they consume, in fact if anything they're incredibly inefficient at converting it to muscle mass and other edibles.

>>8661205
>I sincerely doubt technology will ever be able to sustain a population of 7 billion people
Yet we can and do sustain more than 7 billion animals as livestock.
Even if you were to make the argument that Food for one (say) sheep < Food for one human, in terms of sheer biomass, animal livestock dwarfs humans.

>>8661205

Food production and distribution are not Technologically limited, they're Mentally limited.

The amount of food the planet can cyclically produce is so great that it's functionally infinite. It's only made finite by a fiction-based economy and State-sanctioned Psychopathy - Capitalism and Socialism.

File: you what.gif (2MB, 245x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x281px

>>8661205
>I sincerely doubt technology will ever be able to sustain a population of 7 billion people
FFS
There are a 7 billion people now and the planet EASILY generates a large surplus of food.
Go to the UN's World Food Summit - they speak about this very openly. People aren't going hungry because the world doesn't produce enough food, they are hungry because they lack access and power.
According the the USDA and the UN if you were to use *organic* farming techniques
- not GMOs, not super fertilizer, totally sustainable organic farming
The American states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas could produce enough calories and varied enough to feed every man, woman, and child on the planet like a middle class American,
I was just at a conference on efficiency and a French agronomist pointed out that the food waste from French restaurants alone (i.e., the food thrown out for being old, improperly cooked, not aesthetically pleasing, etc.) is equal to the total food imports of Africa. If you took just the food good enough to eat but discarded for being not aesthetically pleasing in Europe and North America you could feed every man, woman, and child in Africa with 114% of the calories of the average American.
There is no problem with food PRODUCTION.
There is a problem with food ACCESS.

>>8658249
>Let's face it, if we all went vegan, cows would be extinct in less than a generation.
Oh no! that's horrible! they would loose their precious holocaust-existence of rape, torture and murder!
how grateful they should be we allow them to keep living.

>>8658423
>eating for the taste

File: 1471145988062.jpg (23KB, 500x550px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x550px

>>8657512
>ethics
Stop right there champ