Vegetarianism

thats great. If it doesn't matter to anybody but you, then why are you claiming that you are more ethical and peaceful than us? You said it yourself. It doenst matter to anybody but yourself, yet you make a blatant assumption about the world population that eats meat. 
 
To think people are leading a more peaceful and ethical life because they are vegetarian is to court genuine ignorance. No offence. The fact that you or me or the other guy are vegetarian does not mean our lives are less violent or more ethical. Murder of animals still happens. Torture of animals still happens. Destruction of habitat still happens. Claiming a more peaceful and ethical life is allowing yourself to block out the rest of the suffering and torture. Guess what...its still there. Until the last lock is broken...

But in saying that we do need people who are enraged at the treatment of animals, we do need people to stop buying the products, it all helps. But just don't think its any less violent or more peaceful, just because you quit meat. In fact, the fact that you know about these things should make you much less peaceful don't you think? It does for me.?
 
Um, wow way to take what I said out of context and completely misinterpret it.

Fuck this site, seriously.

I try to chime in after two pages of watching people bicker about things they don't really care about, with a personal fucking statement and suddenly I'm attacking the entire world that eats meat? Uh, no. I was making a statement that can be interpreted by any person with a patience as "This is what I am doing to try to make my life better for myself, as I see it."

 
whoa you guys really take things to heart...

in the end, its about making a smaller impact on the earth...it's not even about having remorse for each individual animal that you eat (although some people do...), but it's about trying to leave the earth in a better condition than when you came into it. the factories that farm cows, chickens, etc, they contribute hugely to the downfall of the earth....it IS more ethical...not because of animals, but because its YOU that is ultimately living in the mess you created.

and please, before you start to get all aggy, i'm not a vegetarian. i just think you're all taking things a BIIT too seriously.

 
re-read your statement, it comes off as an attack on meat eaters, claims nothing about your personal choice, makes you sound like a bitch i hate to break it to you
 
Being a vegetarian/vegan is more ethical than not. If you can't see that then your head is pretty far up your ass.

Regardless of your moral opinion on eating meat, anything that reduces your environmental impact is more ethical than not doing so.

That's not to say it's an all important decision. A meat eater who rides a bike is probably more ethical than a vegetarian who drives everywhere. I certainly don't feel good about how much I drive.

Every decision we make has an effect on the world, and to deny that is idiocy. I'll freely admit that there are many decisions I make that have very negative effects on the world. Just because I don't always make the best decisions doesn't mean I reject the value of the right decisions.
 
How is being a vegetarian/vegan more ethical? How is killing an animal for food unethical? Are sharks unethical? How about cats? My cat kills mice to eat, is that unethical of him?

What is unethical would be wasting things that you kill. However, nowadays I'm pretty sure almost all parts of the animals are used for either food or other purposes. I don't see how eating meat reduces your environmental impact. Not driving your car reduces your environmental impact. If everyone on earth stopped eating cows, there would actually be MORE damage done to the environment. They would eat more grass/greens and produce more methane than if they were indisposed.

The killing of the animals in and of itself is not unethical. Hunters and Gatherers have been doing it for thousands of years, as have every other carnivore and omnivore on the planet. It's how we get food and how we survive. What IS unethical, is taking without giving back to the environment. There are ways around this though, planting trees, reducing your environmental impact, etc. But to your original statement, not being a vegetarian isn't unethical. Getting buried in a casket is more unethical than eating a hamburger.
 
Convenient how supply and demand is the basis of capitalism and yet doesn't apply to the meat industry? Do your really think there would be more cows if we didn't eat them?

I very clearly stated at the start of my post that I was putting aside for the moment the ethics/morality of killing for food, and only talking about the ethics of the environmental effect of our diet.

If you don't see how not eating meat reduces environmental impact, you weren't paying attention in biology. Theres something called the biomass pyramid, which basically means that as you go up each level in the food chain the total biomass, or energy decreases tenfold. That means that even without any of the waste etc, meat is at least ten times less efficient as grain/non meat sources of food. (Not that soy, rice and other food sources don't have their problems as well.)
 
I missed your part about the ethics of actually killing the animals. Regardless, you are right about how it would be different without the capitalistic society that we live in. However, I was hypothetically speaking of if we all just switched over to being vegetarians. There would be little environmental good that would come out of it for a very long period of time, just a few reasons why were stated above.

I'm sorry I don't know about the 'biomass pyramid' seeing as how I took bio like...6 years ago. Anyways, arguing about being a vegetarian on an ethical standpoint when you are disregarding the livestock production and slaughter is quite irrelevant. You would still need tons of machines and fields and would still do damage to the environment planting all the additional crops and everything else that you would need. The argument is just going in circles. The ethics behind that portion of vegetarianism are to minimal to worry about.
 
If you want to be an asshole, I don't seem to remember when environmentality became a word. Seriously Quinny, you know exactly what I'm talking about. All I'm saying is that a vegetarian diet is one possible way to reduce your negative impact on the world, something that I think most people would consider part of leading a moral life.
 
Actually, because a ton of meat is grain-fed we'd need less grain production than we do now, hence less machines and less environmental impact. Not going in circles at all. Also, methane (a major source of which is beef) is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, so I wouldn't dismiss that as too minimal to worry about.

I'm not trying to be an ass about the biomass pyramid, but don't purport yourself to understand the impact of the meat industry when you're missing one of the most basic concepts of it.

Also, tons of beef is grazed on slash and burn rain-forest land, which is only useable for a couple years before more forest must be burnt down. Pretty scary stuff considering what the rain forests give us.

 
But see, all you are arguing is for switching over to just veg. However, even if Some Aspects of it are better, there will be negatives that will come with it as well. No system will ever be perfect. And until we try, we have no idea the impact that we would have from just eating veggies and the like. There isn't enough evidence to say that it is a more ethical situation. No matter what system you are on, there will be negatives, and you may not see them now, but they will be there. There is nothing you can do about it. How do you Actually know that switching over would be better? You don't, it's just idol speculation.
 
That was the vaguest, most useless statement ever. I'm going to put one sentence in front of it and change three words and turn it into a pro-slavery argument just to prove my point. I'll underline everything I change or add to it to make it clear.

We should not free the slaves because:

But see, all you are arguing is for switching over to just freedom. However, even if Some Aspects of it are better, there will be negatives that will come with it as well. No system will ever be perfect. And until we try, we have no idea the impact that we would have from just freeing slaves and the like. There isn't enough evidence to say that it is a more ethical situation. No matter what system you are on, there will be negatives, and you may not see them now, but they will be there. There is nothing you can do about it. How do you Actually know that switching over would be better? You don't, it's just idol speculation.
 
Now you're just being an asshole. Whatever, I don't really care anymore. I could really give two shits about whether or not the cheeseburger I eat is ethical or not.
 
well even if the facts aren't legit enough for you, think about it

bug animals need to be transported in bug trucks, vegetables do not

think of how much water a cow needs a day versus a stalk of corn

think of how much waste animals produce versus organic vegetables
 
Don't cows get alot of the water from eating grass? Anyway, the amount of food you get from a cow...compared to it's weight in corn. That amount of corn would take up much much more space. Which means in turn more water, more land, and more fertilizer, among other things.

Like I was saying earlier, there is just too many variables to compare them side by side in such a manner.
 
well i was originally talking about gas consumption

i understand the variables, and have chosen to be a vegetarian, there is a lot of debate going on here, can't we all just look at the facts and think for ourselves?
 
You need to learn how to argue effectively and stop spewing random shit. I'm sorry but half of your stuff is wrong, and you seem to have no concept of the burden of proof.
 
Too high strung to be posting in a vegetarian thread? What the fuck do those two things have to do with eachother?

For the sake of your own dignity, please stop typing.
 
okay so i don't feel morally obligated to stop eating meat because of the envrionment, simply because the water which is consumed by a cow will eventually be recycled into the water system, so in all reality that argument is bull shit, speaking of shit, they use the cows crap as fertilizer to feed the plants which vegetarians eat, and the meat industry using 1/3 of the gas of the entire country = crap, think of all the fuel the airlines use, think about all the millions of car that suck up minimally a tank a week, not to mention all the other transport vehicles, if you own a playstation than you're no less moral than a meat eater seriously this is why i hate vegetarians thinking they're better than every one else FUCK THAT SHIT fuck it seriously no body cares that much if a cow drinks some damn water

Grilled_Steak.jpg


it eat, it tastes wonderful
 
bahahaha you crack me up.

and ajay...mm that steak looks so fuckin good!

hoenstly i dont care if you're a vegan or whatever the fuck you want to call yourself. i eat what i want to eat. if you dont like it, shut your mouth and let me eat it.

since when did food have anything to do with ethics? so eating meat means im going to hell? so beit
 
I don't think you understand the actual facts.

One cow requires over 100 liters of water per day. 1 liter of milk requires 990 liters of water to be produced. And that water doesn't just magically go back to where it came from; the water tables get severely depleted when tens of thousands of liters per day are withdrawn. The water that does make its way through the livestock and back to the water table is no longer pure (about 50% of all water pollution in the US is from the livestock sector). In addition the livestock sector causes 55% of soil erosion in the US. The massive amounts of land that are required to grow feed for livestock (notably, only 10% of the energy in the feed reaches humans) and land taken over to grow livestock represent a massive portion of ecosystem destruction and loss of biodiversity. Also, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock account for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, more than transportation.

You might not feel obligated to stop eating meat, but you should be aware that supporting the livestock industry does adversely affect the environment. I personally love meat, I'm not going to stop eating it. However, I try to buy local and organic to reduce the negative impact.

(Data in this post taken from the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization's "Livestock's Long Shadow". H. Steinfeld,

P. Gerber,

T. Wassenaar,

V. Castel,

M. Rosales, C. de Haan

- 2006, 390 pp.)
 
yes but when that impure water is evaporated into the atmosphere it leaves behind the toxins in the water, however i'm not too concerned about soil erosion, and the cows were there to begin with, i dind't say shit about dairy cows because we don't eat dairy cows, but i do drink their milk, and it is delicious, i actually kinda find it humorous that cows farting is related to green house gases, but whatever, i'm going to eat my damn steak and enjoy it
 
No shit "environmentality" isn't a word. It was a pun for the sake of being more concise.

And I do know what you mean, but I frankly think your argument is bullshit. What about the acres of rain forest that are cut down in order for Brazilian framers to grow coffee and bananas? Or how about the vast tracts of wild habitat that have been displaced so we can grow wheat and corn? Not to mention all of the small birds and rodents that are inadvertently slaughtered by harvesting equipment. Hell, we could write a book on pesticides and herbicides. Or what about the billions of gallons that are diverted from rivers and lakes to that we can irrigate?

By your definition of "moral" and "ethical", you completely disregard the other aspects of agriculture that would also be considered harmful to the environment. That argument is weak at best. Not everybody can have a pasteurized self sustainable farm/ranch. It's just not possible.
 
New rule: because "moral" doesn't just mean whatever the fuck you think it means, if you don't have a reasonably well-thought out theory to base your claims of ethical superiority on, keep your mouth shut. I'm looking at... everyone.

By the way, there are good reasons for saying that an "environmentality" as Quinny puts it is a very ethical perspective... not the least of which is that the amelioration some of the more destructive effects that people have had on the planet is arguably an intrinsic good, or at the very least an instrumental good that will inevitably serve any intrinsic good you could possibly argue for. But I digress. JD to NS: READ A BOOK.

This one's awesome, and very cheap!

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Philosophy-Louis-P-Pojman/dp/0872206610/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200512200&sr=8-1
 
There needs to be a balance between conservation and agricultural practice, you can argue the ethical/moral ground of either case. But should this be the grounds for choosing not to eat meat? I'm very inclined to think not. Agriculture on any sort of large scale is inherently detrimental to the environment.
 
No, but agriculture could be managed better. The US produced a god-damned lot of food, but farms are getting larger and waste is increasing as such. Buying locally is something everyone can do, and it helps alleviate the energy and waste expended in transport and trade.

Also, check out the city of Havana in Cuba. In order to stall a failing harvest, the government decided to have people grow gardens in open and abandoned spaces in the city. Urban agriculture is possible, I'd love to get that started in my city.

Link - http://www.cityfarmer.org/cuba.html
 
Sustainable agriculture is a great thing, but it just is not possible to have it uniformly with the current means and technologies available. Take your Havana example, you couldn’t do that in a place like Phoenix.

It is improving though. The implementation of cover crops and natural pesticides helps, but the biggest problem US agriculture faces is rights to water usage.
 
I was watching something about the urban heat island effect and they said that by growing roof top gardens it could help alleviate(right word guys???) some of the problem. I think that the greenery doesn't absorb as much heat as black top and also transpiration or something makes it feel cooler locally on the roof. A bunch of people in my neighbor hood actually have like a whole acre of their yard devoted to growing fruits and veggies.
 
That's a fact based argument and I was making a point about the underlying principle which I think you can argue for quite convincingly. Ie, the contentious question is not whether doing things that reduce the harm to the planet is invariably ethical (it is under this analysis), the contentious question (which you're going after) is whether not eating meat really reduces harm to the planet. There are good reasons to say it does... but that's not what I was trying to point out.
 
Quinny, it wont let me quote you, I hate it when the site acts up.

Haha, yeah, I guess implementing this in Las Vegas or Barrow might be a

little counterproductive. However, it is totally do-able right now, and

as with all fields, start doing it and technological advancement in

this will soar. And you're totally right about water, fuck oil, wars by

the end of this century will be fought over water.

And as for cover crops and pesticides... meh. I see them as just

forestalling or causing greater harm. As with the whole GMO debate,

pesticides are slowly creating disease resistant monocrops...
 
I understand, I just felt like adding that two cents to put it further into the threads context (or just into my argument, if you like).
 
haha

why bother trying?

this is a vegetarian thread, it's obviously going to get flamed to fuck with people being like EAT STEAK LAWLAWLAWLAWL

and i was joking, i don't really care what any of you have to say, it won't affect my beliefs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top