Meat-Eating vs. Bestiality

[Penumbra]

Here is the evidence from the peer-reviewed literature on raising and using animals for human consumption:

The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity.

Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency.​

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf

Plant-based diets in comparison to diets rich in animal products are more sustainable because they use many fewer natural resources and are less taxing on the environment. Given the global population explosion and increase in wealth, there is an increased demand for foods of animal origin. Environmental data are rapidly accumulating on the unsustainability of current worldwide food consumption practices that are high in meat and dairy products. Natural nonrenewable resources are becoming scarce, and environmental degradation is rapidly increasing. At the current trends of food consumption and environmental changes, food security and food sustainability are on a collision course. Changing course (to avoid the collision) will require extreme downward shifts in meat and dairy consumption by large segments of the world's population.​

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/100/Supplement_1/476S.long

The consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity. Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss, and both livestock and feedstock production are increasing in developing tropical countries where the majority of biological diversity resides. [. . .] Livestock production is also a leading cause of climate change, soil loss, water and nutrient pollution, and decreases of apex predators and wild herbivores, compounding pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. It is possible to greatly reduce the impacts of animal product consumption by humans on natural ecosystems and biodiversity while meeting nutritional needs of people, including the projected 2–3 billion people to be added to human population.​

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697

Click the links to conduct further research.

Absolutely, the broad system of conventionally raised livestock and other animals is horrendous for both the animals and the environment. I'm 100% opposed to the current system, and I've already read more links like that than I can count.

Using feedlot cows as the worst example, they fatten them up quickly towards the end of their lives with corn and other grains rather than letting them eat grass. They have to grow an enormous amount of grain for this and waste tons of water, and those monoculture farms growing all that grain are bad for the soil. The cows get sick eating the grain, can get each other sick by being so close together, so they have to give them preventative antibiotics. The whole feedlot is so aesthetically ugly that they're strongly hesitant to even allow filming in it.

In contrast, grass fed cows, raised on farms in areas of natural grasslands, using modern rotational grazing techniques on farms, are fine for the environment. Permaculture farms often include natural ponds for collecting rainwater. Farmers can actually reverse desertification by using modern rotational grazing techniques, since it can accelerate growth of the grass when performed correctly. They're almost fully self-sustaining, requiring very little external input, which is good for the environment and increases food security due to being so decentralized and locally adopted. Compared to endless fields of grain, dense grasslands hold a lot more water, carbon, and nutrients in the soil.

Chickens, goats, sheep, turkeys, and a variety of other animals can also be used on various types of permacultures, whether they're grasslands, orchards, etc. When the farm is designed to mimic nature, to make use of the natural relationships between plants and animals, the animals are contributors to the system rather than just an environmental cost that comes when animals and plants are farmed separately.

Here's a farmer explaining modern rotational grazing:

Examples of reversed desertification with modern rotational grazing:

What you posted is otherwise fine, but it doesn't actually address my argument. None of that has anything to do with permacultures; it has to do with Big Agra factory farming. Permaculture farmers, including the ones that raise animals, are opposed to factory farming.

 

[Valjean]

Literally raping an animal is Degenerate. Socially unacceptable. End of story.

And when it's the animal on top? Who's being raped then?
Do animals understand that rape is a degrading assault? How would they learn this? Even on the receiving end, it may be annoying, but is it any worse than the painful, laborious, uncomfortable uses we put animals to routinely?

 

[Timothy Bryce]

And when it's the animal on top? Who's being raped then?
Do animals understand that rape is a degrading assault? How would they learn this? Even on the receiving end, it may be annoying, but is it any worse than the painful, laborious, uncomfortable uses we put animals to routinely?

Lack of consent = rape

It's not complicated. Nice try though.

 

[Valjean]

So consensual sex with a male animal is OK?
What's your opinion on using guard animals, riding animals or beasts of burden? Do they have a say? Is their slavery and imprisonment less onerous than sex?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You've not supported your own claims and seem to be seeking to "win" a debate through emotional appeal, which I don't have time for.

Thanks, but, no thanks.

I'm obviously not going to take the time to post the reams and reams of evidence, witness accounts and medical information that I have seen and gone through myself. I wouldn't even know where to begin honestly. Here's a list of good documentaries you should watch, if you actually care to be informed on the topic:

Food, Inc.
Earthlings
Cowspiracy
Forks Over Knives

Here's a link to a CDC website explaining the facts of the risks and detriments of using antibiotics in live-stock: http://www.cdc.gov/narms/animals.html

Here's a link to a full report on CAFO's (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) by the group "Union of Concerned Scientists": http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...ents/food_and_agriculture/cafos-uncovered.pdf

Also all fact-based. An excerpt: "CAFOs are characterized by large numbers of animals crowded into a confined space—an unnatural and unhealthy condition that concentrates too much manure in too small an area. Many of the costly problems caused by CAFOs can be attributed to the storage and disposal of this manure and the overuse of antibiotics in livestock to stave off disease."

Here's a link to a site hosting footage of undercover investigations done by the organization "Mercy for Animals": http://www.mercyforanimals.org/investigations

And I think, by now, we should have all heard about this: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer
The World Health Organization's report on the topic of processed meat as a causes for cancer.

Google anything you've ever heard of as a detriment to meat-production if actually want to learn anything. Though I am guessing by your demeanor that you are one of those types who put their hands over their ears and yell "LA! LA! LA! LA! LA!" at the top of your lungs when anyone challenges your precious meat-eating habits.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That you are a vegan who realizes that the choice to eat meat is not some great ethical violation is refreshing. Though I do know plenty of others. I can imagine your experience with some meat eaters is frustrating, but perhaps it is the way you go about it.

I admit I can be a bit direct and butt heads with people. And I do stray into the emotional side of the arguments at times - but there are a ridiculous number of facts to be brought to bear also - which is what, I think, ultimately frustrates most meat-eaters I end up getting into it with. The facts can't really be refuted.

I tell them that I don't believe it is wrong to eat meat, but that it is wrong to support the business gathering it for you in the ways that they do - but that isn't good enough for them, and they still see it as a challenge no matter how I go about it. Ultimately, as soon as you bring in the abuse factor, they get insulted. They feel you are calling them out as animal haters, or at least complicit in the pain these animals experience day in and day out. The simple fact is that they ARE complicit.

The simple fact is that they are ignoring the facts, and not making their choices based on even a logical interpretation of the situation at hand. You love your dog and yet you eat a cow? Logically there is no difference between a dog and a cow as a living, breathing, feeling, thinking and even "lovable" organism. Even dairy - thought of in logical terms - why would a human being ever evolve to require the gestational milk of an entirely different species (cows)? Obviously we don't "need" cows milk. We need calcium - and there are plenty of other sources to be had without going through the trouble of forcibly impregnating a cow, stealing her calf, and relentlessly milking her day after day until she becomes useless in that endeavor and we can kill her for her meat. Logic. Simple, plain logic.

 

[Chakra]

I'm obviously not going to take the time to post the reams and reams of evidence, witness accounts and medical information that I have seen and gone through myself. I wouldn't even know where to begin honestly. Here's a list of good documentaries you should watch, if you actually care to be informed on the topic:

Food, Inc.
Earthlings
Cowspiracy
Forks Over Knives

Here's a link to a CDC website explaining the facts of the risks and detriments of using antibiotics in live-stock: http://www.cdc.gov/narms/animals.html

Here's a link to a full report on CAFO's (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) by the group "Union of Concerned Scientists": http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...ents/food_and_agriculture/cafos-uncovered.pdf

Also all fact-based. An excerpt: "CAFOs are characterized by large numbers of animals crowded into a confined space—an unnatural and unhealthy condition that concentrates too much manure in too small an area. Many of the costly problems caused by CAFOs can be attributed to the storage and disposal of this manure and the overuse of antibiotics in livestock to stave off disease."

Here's a link to a site hosting footage of undercover investigations done by the organization "Mercy for Animals": http://www.mercyforanimals.org/investigations

And I think, by now, we should have all heard about this: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer
The World Health Organization's report on the topic of processed meat as a causes for cancer.

Google anything you've ever heard of as a detriment to meat-production if actually want to learn anything. Though I am guessing by your demeanor that you are one of those types who put their hands over their ears and yell "LA! LA! LA! LA! LA!" at the top of your lungs when anyone challenges your precious meat-eating habits.

I would also add nutritionfacts.org to the list.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I would also add nutritionfacts.org to the list.

And there are hundreds of others that could be tacked on also.

The best part of it all is - you want "pro-meat" "facts" - all you're going to find is a bunch of either poorly constructed, simplistic statements, or propaganda from someone tied to the manufacture and processing industry. This one is a gem - one of the top returns from Google searching for "positive meat facts":

http://authoritynutrition.com/7-evidence-based-health-reasons-to-eat-meat/

Number 2 on their list of reasons not to avoid meat: "Meat Contains Nutrients". Whoa! Watch out! We have a genius in our midst. And number 5 is also fantastic: "There is Only a Very Weak Correlation With Cancer". Such a relief!

And a quote from another top result - from Reader's Digest - "You can still fit a daily serving of red meat into a healthy diet." I love it. A "daily serving". In other words - even as the article is supposed to cast a positive light on meat, they are still telling you not to eat too much - and implicitly stating that even twice a day is probably too much.

 

[Chakra]

And there are hundreds of others that could be tacked on also.

The best part of it all is - you want "pro-meat" "facts" - all you're going to find is a bunch of either poorly constructed, simplistic statements, or propaganda from someone tied to the manufacture and processing industry. This one is a gem - one of the top returns from Google searching for "positive meat facts":

http://authoritynutrition.com/7-evidence-based-health-reasons-to-eat-meat/

Number 2 on their list of reasons not to avoid meat: "Meat Contains Nutrients". Whoa! Watch out! We have a genius in our midst. And number 5 is also fantastic: "There is Only a Very Weak Correlation With Cancer". Such a relief!

And a quote from another top result - from Reader's Digest - "You can still fit a daily serving of red meat into a healthy diet." I love it. A "daily serving". In other words - even as the article is supposed to cast a positive light on meat, they are still telling you not to eat too much - and implicitly stating that even twice a day is probably too much.

If I recall correctly, according to the WHO report simply 50 grams of meat a day puts you at risk. So much for moderation.

 

[Penumbra]

For those that are interested, this is the permaculture orchard I discussed earlier in the thread. It's a combination of an orchard and some surrounding grasslands with animals.

It's called Chaffin Family Orchards, it's located in California, and has been around for about a century:

Their farm blends animals and plants together in a way that mimics nature as much as possible, which provides mutual benefits that are generally unavailable to farms that don't have animals. It's a particularly good example of a permaculture, including the fact that they collect and use rainwater for their farming needs.

Every reasonable person agrees that the factory farming method of meat production is awful, so if you're a vegetarian comparing the ethics of vegetarianism/veganism to omnivorism and want an apples to apples comparison, then compare where your food comes from to a farm like this. Permacultures like this are built on recreating natural relationships.

The basis of the farm is that animals are used for pest control, fertilization, grass mowing, and weed reduction for the trees, and are kept free-ranging on grasslands on the farm around the orchards at other times. The trees produce dozens of types of fruit as well as olive oil, and the farm also sells a variety of animal outputs like meat, eggs, and wool.

-Cows and sheep are brought in the orchards to eat the grass, keeping it manageable without mechanized mowing methods. They also fertilize the soil. Then, the cows are sold as grassfed beef, and the sheep's wool is sold year after year.

-Goats are brought into the orchards to clear out the vines and weeds from around the tree trunks, eating the berry vines that would kill the trees. Then they fertilize the soil, and are eventually used for milk or meat.

-Chickens, both meat and egg-producing types, are brought into the orchards to peck away near the trunks for bugs, acting as a natural pesticide. They fertilize the trees with nitrogen-rich waste.

-Switching from conventional mechanical methods of orchard management to these animal-based method has reduced their fuel use by 85%.

-A multilayed farm like this that makes use of symbiotic relationships produces more pounds and calories of food per acre than a vegetarian farm. And they do it with fewer inputs of fertilizers because they incorporate animals into the balanced system, and they collect their own rainwater with a massive pond.

The ethics of food are a lot more complex than just animals vs plants. If you get food from, say, a farm that grows vegetables or grain or nuts or soybeans, brings in truckloads of external fertilizers (including organic varieties), uses a lot of pesticides (including organic varieties), has soil that retains a lot less carbon, water, and nutrients than dense grasslands, and uses mechanized planting/harvesting equipment, then the simple fact that it lacks animals is not sufficient for sustainability. There are a ton of variables involved when it comes to which food choice is best for the area, and permacultures closely align those variables to how nature works by itself, with animals and plants providing for the needs of the other.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm a meat eater myself. Just a preemptive clarification in case someone thinks about accusing me of repeating vegetarian propaganda (whatever that is).

So, I have been thinking about why I and many others who have no religion oppose bestiality, and one of the most common reasons given is that one can't have the consent of animals to acts of bestiality. However, we also don't have the consent of animals to use them for labor or in industrial farming. We don't have their consent to slaughter them either.

With the above in mind, what makes meat-eating acceptable and bestiality unacceptable?

What an interesting line of thought! I think it all comes down to how we decide what is moral and/or ethical. At some point in the past, eating other animals was a normal function of human behavior and survival. There were no Whole Foods stores to buy your "organically grown" soy meal substitute (all GMO, by the way)

 

[Penumbra]

There were no Whole Foods stores to buy your "organically grown" soy meal substitute (all GMO, by the way)

USDA certified organic food cannot use GMOs. It's part of the definition.

If they get caught using genetically modified seed, they can lose their certification.

 

[Curious George]

I admit I can be a bit direct and butt heads with people. And I do stray into the emotional side of the arguments at times - but there are a ridiculous number of facts to be brought to bear also - which is what, I think, ultimately frustrates most meat-eaters I end up getting into it with. The facts can't really be refuted.

I tell them that I don't believe it is wrong to eat meat, but that it is wrong to support the business gathering it for you in the ways that they do - but that isn't good enough for them, and they still see it as a challenge no matter how I go about it. Ultimately, as soon as you bring in the abuse factor, they get insulted. They feel you are calling them out as animal haters, or at least complicit in the pain these animals experience day in and day out. The simple fact is that they ARE complicit.

The simple fact is that they are ignoring the facts, and not making their choices based on even a logical interpretation of the situation at hand. You love your dog and yet you eat a cow? Logically there is no difference between a dog and a cow as a living, breathing, feeling, thinking and even "lovable" organism. Even dairy - thought of in logical terms - why would a human being ever evolve to require the gestational milk of an entirely different species (cows)? Obviously we don't "need" cows milk. We need calcium - and there are plenty of other sources to be had without going through the trouble of forcibly impregnating a cow, stealing her calf, and relentlessly milking her day after day until she becomes useless in that endeavor and we can kill her for her meat. Logic. Simple, plain logic.

Again, I think it is the way you approach the subject, that evokes the responses that you are getting.

For instance, you just switched a meta-conversation about your approach to saying the meat eaters you discuss this with are illogical, cows are loveable, and humans don't need cow milk.

While I understand that you have undoubtedly given this lots of thought, I would think that organizing those thoughts into a presentable, respectful way might go a long way to ameliorating some of these conversations which you have.

 

[Nous]

So you would have no problem with someone doing such painless stuff to, say, your child?

Comparing a sapient being to a barnyard animal is beyond asinine.

A "sapient"?

Didn't you use the term "humane" upstream to describe the abuse and slaughtering of livestock animals? But now you claim it isn't "humane" to do the same things to humans? What does "humane" mean in your world?

 

[Nous]

Once you start comparing human beings to poultry, it's probably time to bow out of the debate.

So you don't think humans should be treated "humanely" like you want animals to be treated?

 

[Valjean]

Why is a barnyard animal not sapient?
Why is there nothing comparable between humans and livestock?

 

[Nous]

You're the one making claims about humans' teeth, etc., that you can't substantiate. Obviously you (et al.) make such claims about humans being "omnivores" in order to try to somehow justify the perversion of using, harming and killing animals to satisfy one's own unnecessary and momentary desires.

no

So you're claiming now that you didn't make a claim about humans having "omnivore" teeth? It's one of your claims that you obviously can't substantiate. That your Young-Earth-Creationist gibberish.

What was your reason for asserting the falsehood about humans having "omnivore" teeth?

 

[Nous]

You apparently have missed her points if this is that with which you reply.

She is talking about a type of farming that is very different from the livestock sector today, and she has clearly identified why the proposed method is better than both the livestock sector today and any sector developed without animals.

I haven't seen any evidence that raising and using animals for human consumption under any conditions is better for the environment, or the animals, or the climate than raising plants for human consumption. Present that evidence.

 

[psychoslice]

I am a vegetarian, but I also think I rather nibble on a leg of a cow than humping it.

 

[Valjean]

What are we discussing in this thread, anyway? It seems to have diverged into at least three tangential discussions.