Animals as food, Animals as objects of abuse

[acid-brain]

When I said that "Animals do it" my point wasnt to say that just because animals do it, its also morally acceptible. My point was to say that there is no morals. For me atleast.

There's no such thing as morals for you? So you don't think that rape is immoral for some people?

 

We are capable of great and complex thoughts, but tell me this... What have we done with it? Look at the history. LOOK at what we have done with our complex brains that are, o, so high and mighty. And lets not say "Mmm'yeah but those people are idiots". No no. They are humans with that exact brain. You say animal kingdom is a dark place with rapes, suffering, mutilation and murder? Really? Cause the only real murder, rape, genocide, greed, hatred, hypocrisy and war that I see WE created. Our brains are more imperfect than you think. You think that the fact that we fret about things such as money, our jobs, bills, government and other illusory parts of our fucked up way of living is something to be proud of? We may be capable of great thought, but I also think that humans are the most stupid and fucked up beings of them all.

I can't speak about your personal experience of the world, but humans have done amazing things. We have discovered many of the laws of the universe, have explored other planets, have eradicated diseases, have brought much of the world out of poverty, and are improving our technology all the time. I live in a country that has not been threatened by war in over 70 years, am extremely safe, have a great deal of freedom, and can expect a good life free of most of the fears that haunted my ancestors. There are definitely problems in the world but what I see around me does not fit your pessimistic view of life. Humans have built a magnificent civilization and we should be proud of our progress.

 

We are two total strangers communicating over an internet forum dedicated to a rare style of music made by synthesizers that were not available less than 30 years ago. Just consider how revolutionary and amazing that fact is and how many opportunities we have compared to people before us.

 

However, the natural state of the world is not so pleasant. The animal kingdom is indeed a dark place with rapes, suffering, mutilation and murder. It is absolutely ruthless, with predators spending all their energy hunting and killing prey that are in states of perpetual anxiety. We didn't create that, it's the natural state of things, as are diseases, earthquakes, tsunamis, and most of the other unfortunate things in the world. Fortunately through our technological progress we have overcome many of those problems. We have massively improved our lifespans and quality of living and it is reasonable to assume that things will continue to get better for most humans on earth.

 

I simply value all life equally. I dont have that trip of humans and animals being of a higher order than plants. We exist thanks to them. I eat animals, I eat plants. I dont kill unnecessarily. I dont torture. The question now is if you guys that value animals so much more that plants, eat only plants? Or if you are only talking emptily...

So you value your mother as much as a blade of grass?

 

Yes, I am a vegan, unless I make a mistake I never buy products that contain dead animals. Everything I say here is sincere.

[Starkraver]

We are capable of .... humans are the most stupid and fucked up beings of them all.

 

 

We can point at whatever you said and say hey, its been going that way since we are born, its gonna go that way till I die. Because, we are a f'ed up species. What are your guesses.? How many more generations will survive with that attitude.? You want me to point you how f'ed up the health of our oceans are? the rising temperature all over the place. We can continue to be 'Idiots' dance the dance of death when it comes or we can actually act on it, BECAUSE we are the ONLY beings capable of it. Try and co-exist with a sustainable way of life or else our loss. Nature always finds a way to balance things. The real question is can we unite and move forward. (Honestly, I dont think this will happen, look at your own argument. You are not even ready to accept that there is a possible alternate. which actually exists and people do follow that way of life.

I understand your stand. If you think its right , You do it. I cooked chicken for the first time yesterday. (Its a big thing in Hindu family, but I had to do it for my pet. I would do it again and again till she recovers.

 

 

I simply value all life equally. I dont have that trip of humans and animals being of a higher order than plants. We exist thanks to them. I eat animals, I eat plants. I dont kill unnecessarily. I dont torture. The question now is if you guys that value animals so much more that plants, eat only plants? Or if you are only talking emptily...

 

I dont eat meat. I used to, but I stopped. No one is high and mighty All are equals and interdependent.

[Starkraver]

@Acid Brain - where are you from.?

 

All that you said about the "great things" that are achieved made me laugh. All that came at hefty cost!

And probably from a 3rd world country.

[MrAnarchy]

Yes. There are no morals for me but of course i believe that there are for others, dont have to believe really, its right in front of me. Does that mean that I rape women or kill people? No. I simply dont do that because I dont have a need to. Not because its made into a law that "Murder and rape is an EVIL thing to do!". if someone threatened my life, I would kill him, atleast I would try. Wouldnt you? So murder on its own doesnt have to be something you dont want to do.

 

Doubt you would be so optimistic if you were one of the refugees that was fleeing because a human with a brilliant brain that kills in the name of a god is pointing a gun at him. The world is not as happy as you think. Depends where you live. Here in Serbia there are so many miserable and poor people.

Im not purely melancholic and destructive as I may seem from writting this. I do have a big problem with the way society works however.

 

Predators hunt for food, not for entertainment like humans do nowadays. So the predators that you are describing are we.

 

Dont call me a pessimist and try and read between the lines. I enjoy life as much as I can. Going to see X-dream live in Belgrade tonight actually. And I value all the cool stuff that humans do, but they do not outweigh the negatives. And being aware of that doesnt make one a pessimist.

 

Sorry for deraling the topic Starkraver.

[Starkraver]

OK Acid Brain - You are born and brought up in UK.?

 

If yes, then you are a hypocrite. All the goodie goodie things that you described have been made possible at a price of millions of innocent lives. So I dont think its right of you to say what you did.

 

@Mr.Anarchy - X-Dream!! Very nice! Have fun.

+1 on the f'ed up society. And agree on that negatives outweighing the positives.

[acid-brain]

@Acid Brain - where are you from.?

 

All that you said about the "great things" that are achieved made me laugh. All that came at hefty cost!

And probably from a 3rd world country.

 

Doubt you would be so optimistic if you were one of the refugees that was fleeing because a human with a brilliant brain that kills in the name of a god is pointing a gun at him. The world is not as happy as you think. Depends where you live. Here in Serbia there are so many miserable and poor people.

Im not purely melancholic and destructive as I may seem from writting this. I do have a big problem with the way society works however.

 

And I value all the cool stuff that humans do, but they do not outweigh the negatives. And being aware of that doesnt make one a pessimist.

 

I absolutely agree with you both that progress has come at a big price, and that one's happiness in life still depends a lot on where one is born. Some people are lucky and others are not. What I am stating is that the world has recently improved massively in almost all places, so the likelihood of living a happy life is far greater than it was 100 years ago. This is not just an opinion, it is backed up by a lot of evidence.

 

For example: In 1900 the world average life expectancy was 31 years. In 2010 the world average life expectancy was 67.2 years.

 

Human lifespan has more than doubled in 100 years! 100 years ago, it was absolutely normal to live a life plagued by disease and hunger and die at age 31. Now people in almost every country in the world can expect far, far better. Check out this graph.

 

Another fact: over the last 200 years global child mortality has dropped from roughly 33% to less than 5%.

 

These are facts to celebrate. True, life still sucks for many, many people. But on the whole the world is becoming a far better place.

 

If yes, then you are a hypocrite. All the goodie goodie things that you described have been made possible at a price of millions of innocent lives. So I dont think its right of you to say what you did.

 

Myself and many other people are ashamed of the colonial history of the European empires. Please remember that what I am saying would still apply if I was living in Chile or Finland or many other countries in the world. Being a hypocrite is saying one thing and doing another. We should be opposed to the exploitation and suffering of others, and work hard to stop things like slavery and the torture of animals (for instance), but that should not stop us from feeling positive that all people's prospects on Earth are generally improving.

 

Enjoy your X-Dream concert MrAnarchy!

[Starkraver]

Fair enough.

[Starkraver]

also, @Anarchy - watch out for those heavy metals and carcinogens. Bio-accumulation & Bio-magnification are against you

[Padmapani]

Most vegetables are an integral part of a plant. To my knowledge atleast. Not sure about cereals. Can you get cereals without harnessing the whole plant?

 

you can get them without harming the mother plant. but cereals are basically little baby plants themselves

 

 

For example: In 1900 the world average life expectancy was 31 years. In 2010 the world average life expectancy was 67.2 years.

 

Another fact: over the last 200 years global child mortality has dropped from roughly 33% to less than 5%.

 

These are facts to celebrate. True, life still sucks for many, many people. But on the whole the world is becoming a far better place.

 

they are not separate facts. they are one and the same fact. with a child mortality rate of today you'd have a life expectancy pretty close to what we have today 100 years ago. if you were an 18-year old man (women were worse off due to complications with childbirth) in 1900 you could expect to live to around 70 years old, just as you could if you lived thousand years ago or in babylonian times.

the big difference is really just child mortality, which we have dropped to almost zero with hygiene, antibiotics and vaccinations (especially with the eradication of smallpox). the greeks (i think?) wouldn't even consider a child to be truly part of their family until it had survived smallpox.

 

 

also, @Anarchy - watch out for those heavy metals and carcinogens. Bio-accumulation & Bio-magnification are against you

i hope you stay clear of mushrooms, then

bio-accumulation is only really a problem with fish and liver (and mushrooms). normal meat (especially when it's not from carnivores (which we normally don't eat) is pretty safe in comparison).

[acid-brain]

they are not separate facts. they are one and the same fact. with a child mortality rate of today you'd have a life expectancy pretty close to what we have today 100 years ago. if you were an 18-year old man (women were worse off due to complications with childbirth) in 1900 you could expect to live to around 70 years old, just as you could if you lived thousand years ago or in babylonian times.

the big difference is really just child mortality, which we have dropped to almost zero with hygiene, antibiotics and vaccinations (especially with the eradication of smallpox). the greeks (i think?) wouldn't even consider a child to be truly part of their family until it had survived smallpox.

 

I noticed that too after I posted but then I did some research and found out that it is not really true:

 

"Yes, the decline of child mortality matters a lot for the increase of life expectancy. But as this chart shows there is much more to it...

Child mortality is defined as the number of children dying before their 5th birthday. To see how life expectancy has improved without taking child mortality into account we therefore have to look at the prospects of a child who just survived their 5th birthday: In 1845 a 5-year old had a expectancy to live 55 years. Today a 5-year old can expect to live 82 years. An increase of 27 years." (source)

So to make a rough guess that's still a 20 year increase in life expectancy since 1900 after ruling out the increase caused by far lower infant mortality.

 

Anyway, to return to the original topic of the thread, farm animals' lifespans have, on the other hand, been going way down since 1900. Animals are pumped full of growth hormones and food and killed as soon as they reach a certain age and weight at an extremely young age. It just isn't profitable to keep them around for longer.

[Starkraver]

Mushrooms are not part of the regular diet here, (they come in if you are feeling psychedelic )

 

Bio-accumulation is fairly common in ruminants(pesticides, insecticides) which are a delicacy for meat eating folks. But if its all completely organic, then there's nothing to worry.

 

Interesting view on the life expectancy. But thats not right. Few years ago, many many many more people would have died of epidemics than now. So the % of living your complete life was very very very less.

 

Famines, hunger, malaria, TB etc just to name a few. so a person in 1900's (atleast here) crossing 70 would be a challenge. But I see what you have done they are definitely interlinked.

 

Its kinda reverse of what you are implying I guess. The average increased. And then the IMR & MMR

[Padmapani]

 

I noticed that too after I posted but then I did some research and found out that it is not really true:

 

"Yes, the decline of child mortality matters a lot for the increase of life expectancy. But as this chart shows there is much more to it...

Child mortality is defined as the number of children dying before their 5th birthday. To see how life expectancy has improved without taking child mortality into account we therefore have to look at the prospects of a child who just survived their 5th birthday: In 1845 a 5-year old had a expectancy to live 55 years. Today a 5-year old can expect to live 82 years. An increase of 27 years." (source)

So to make a rough guess that's still a 20 year increase in life expectancy since 1900 after ruling out the increase caused by far lower infant mortality.

 

Anyway, to return to the original topic of the thread, farm animals' lifespans have, on the other hand, been going way down since 1900. Animals are pumped full of growth hormones and food and killed as soon as they reach a certain age and weight at an extremely young age. It just isn't profitable to keep them around for longer.

alright, 55 it is then. so we meet in the middle and were both right to some degree

 

growth hormones are forbidden for farm animals (i have a source at least for beef) here in the eu. but yeah, it's not like that everywhere and some of those substances (especially beta receptor agonists) make life for those animals pretty unpleasant; i would not stop short of calling it torture.

 

 

 

Interesting view on the life expectancy. But thats not right. Few years ago, many many many more people would have died of epidemics than now. So the % of living your complete life was very very very less.

Famines, hunger, malaria, TB etc just to name a few. so a person in 1900's (atleast here) crossing 70 would be a challenge. But I see what you have done they are definitely interlinked.

tb is correlated pretty well to hunger, but you're right and i completely forgot about malaria. effective medicine for that isn't around for long and 100 years ago we even had malaria here in europe. praise ddt even if it bio-accumulates (who needs birds of pray anyway j/k) .

i was thinking of historical figures from the greeks to medieval times and many of them lived to ages above 70. but that's likely skewed because these people were not among the poor ones affected by hunger (and therefore more susceptible to tb, ...). so in the end the figures from acid brain with 55 years are likely more accurate.

[HappyHorse]

I think when an animal has lived in quality, it can be used for food and be killed.

BUT in the current way we live and consume most animals are looked upon as a product, not as a sentient being, so I almost quit eating meat.

I try and check the origin of the meat and invest time in learning if it was raised in a good healthy and proper way so it had a quality full life.

That is the least we can do.

 

Over consumption not only made animals like product, but we pollute the earths atmosphere in a very harsh way. eating less meat can only not help the animals, but also ourselves and the global context (biosphere).

[acid-brain]

I think when an animal has lived in quality, it can be used for food and be killed.

BUT in the current way we live and consume most animals are looked upon as a product, not as a sentient being, so I almost quit eating meat.

I try and check the origin of the meat and invest time in learning if it was raised in a good healthy and proper way so it had a quality full life.

That is the least we can do.

 

Over consumption not only made animals like product, but we pollute the earths atmosphere in a very harsh way. eating less meat can only not help the animals, but also ourselves and the global context (biosphere).

 

I have respect for people who take the time to investigate the origin of meat to make sure that they are buying from good sources. Also some people I know strictly eat only animals they have brought up on their own property so they can guarantee its good treatment. Personally I don't have the time for that, and think it is safer to just be a vegan, that's my point of view. I agree that if an animal has a good life and it is killed humanely then it is probably not ethically wrong to eat it. The problem is that, as far as I can see, in the real world this is rarely the case. Nowadays most small farms have disappeared and instead the food we buy comes from huge industrial operations where the individual life of the animal is meaningless.

[Starkraver]

reason it the way you want. Animals are Animals. Killing is Killing.

 

Sustainability --> (<<Wastage) --> lower trophic levels --> Hence, Vegetarianism :P

And how will you sustain when there will be no world as we know it.

 

Global warming will take your winters/spring/ice/lifestyle and all that away from your beloved temperate zones soon.

 

I wish I had a magic crystal.

[HappyHorse]

 

I have respect for people who take the time to investigate the origin of meat to make sure that they are buying from good sources. Also some people I know strictly eat only animals they have brought up on their own property so they can guarantee its good treatment. Personally I don't have the time for that, and think it is safer to just be a vegan, that's my point of view. I agree that if an animal has a good life and it is killed humanely then it is probably not ethically wrong to eat it. The problem is that, as far as I can see, in the real world this is rarely the case. Nowadays most small farms have disappeared and instead the food we buy comes from huge industrial operations where the individual life of the animal is meaningless.

 

 

True; but in my region I found one (bio) butcher and one (bio) farmer. And I by almost all my stuff there now.

I've been searching for this for years and finally found it and it really made me so much happier and complete (as a human, cause I feel much more in a real connection with nature, my environment, my real true soul and life energy).

[Padmapani]

Global warming will take your winters/spring/ice/lifestyle and all that away from your beloved temperate zones soon.

yes please! what we love about our temperate zones is certainly not the bad (=cold) weather.

 

i do think one of the main reasons why no one is acting on climate change is that the temperate areas mainly profit from climate change (longer growth period -> more crop yield; shorter winter -> less energy needed for heating -> better air quality, ...).

[Starkraver]

yes please! what we love about our temperate zones is certainly not the bad (=cold) weather.

 

i do think one of the main reasons why no one is acting on climate change is that the temperate areas mainly profit from climate change (longer growth period -> more crop yield; shorter winter -> less energy needed for heating -> better air quality, ...).

Yeah. Let's not forget the trade routes.

 

We are doomed!

[MrAnarchy]

yes please! what we love about our temperate zones is certainly not the bad (=cold) weather.

 

i do think one of the main reasons why no one is acting on climate change is that the temperate areas mainly profit from climate change (longer growth period -> more crop yield; shorter winter -> less energy needed for heating -> better air quality, ...).

While what you said is true I don't think we should be happy about that. Plants and animals that live in the sea dont tolerate the rise of water temperature. Many species are going extinct and its only going to get exponentially worse with time. And when a species goes extinct, so does the the one that feeds on it and so on. Not even we are going to be able to deal with that cascading shit storm. Not sure if we can even do something about it at this point...

[Starkraver]

I met a cow today, she was very happy & healthy. I gave her food, petted her and her calf.

 

Now it's totally ok for me to kill her , chop her up & savour her meat. You know, coz she was happy and raised well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I meet her everyday. Pics of her calf are on FB!)

[Starkraver]

While what you said is true I don't think we should be happy about that. Plants and animals that live in the sea dont tolerate the rise of water temperature. Many species are going extinct and its only going to get exponentially worse with time. And when a species goes extinct, so does the the one that feeds on it and so on. Not even we are going to be able to deal with that cascading shit storm. Not sure if we can even do something about it at this point...

Warming from all the cool waters of melted ice?

 

My friend, pray that it won't happen or your lands will be too small to hold the population which will migrate from the worst affected places.

 

Oh wait, I forgot Russia! Huuuuuge gains for it. I have read they are already exploring arctic for oil & gas. But who wants to settle there so yeah, imagine the stress on your land

 

Choose wisely. Your future, your choice.

[Padmapani]

While what you said is true I don't think we should be happy about that. Plants and animals that live in the sea dont tolerate the rise of water temperature. Many species are going extinct and its only going to get exponentially worse with time. And when a species goes extinct, so does the the one that feeds on it and so on. Not even we are going to be able to deal with that cascading shit storm. Not sure if we can even do something about it at this point...

of course it's not a good thing. still we can enjoy the upsides (warm summers and milder winters) too . i think we're responsible for a greater amount of species going extinct through other means (agriculture, pesticides, deforestation, fishing, ...). the habitat of most species will just move a bit to the north (or south respectively) with climate change. but yeah, coral reefs are an exception to that.

 

My friend, pray that it won't happen or your lands will be too small to hold the population which will migrate from the worst affected places.

 

 

Choose wisely. Your future, your choice.

let's do some calculations . europe has a population of 742 millions on an area of 10 million km2 (density: 75 people/km2). even if we took up all 1.2 billion indians our population density would be 192 people/km2 which is just over 50% of what india has today (368 people/km2). space is not going to run out soon, and i think it would only be fair to allow for migration.

 

 

i don't think so. there is no choice. if we were to stop climate change we'd have to stop (and i mean completely stop) using oil, coal and gas immediately. even if half of the world's population would (and could) get their energy from wind/hydro power (solar panel's aren't as good as these two) and would practise asceticism concerning any products that have any co2 footprint associated with them (which is pretty much everything available right now), then the end result would only be delayed by a few years. stopping climate change is utterly unrealistic; we have to adapt and make the best of it.

[Starkraver]

choose wisely thing was just for fun

It's known, there's no going back. Why do you think our country is pressing for mitigation + "adaptation" measures?

Calculations - Hopefully I will visit just to meet you all & not as an immigrant.

 

btw, did you subtract the area that's gonna submerge under water? Not sure on how your side of the world will be affected. It's gonna be real bad for Bangladesh and few cities on both east & west coast of India.

Have to all the places(which will be affected) soon! It's already 2016

As I was thinking(&searching) about the isostasy related after effects from melting ice caps. I stumbled upon this.

News: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/09/melting-ice-sheets-changing-the-way-the-earth-wobbles-on-its-axis-says-nasa

[Padmapani]

choose wisely thing was just for fun

 

It's known, there's no going back. Why do you think our country is pressing for mitigation + "adaptation" measures?

Calculations - Hopefully I will visit just to meet you all & not as an immigrant.

 

btw, did you subtract the area that's gonna submerge under water? Not sure on how your side of the world will be affected. It's gonna be real bad for Bangladesh and few cities on both east & west coast of India.

 

Have to all the places(which will be affected) soon! It's already 2016

 

As I was thinking(&searching) about the isostasy related after effects from melting ice caps. I stumbled upon this.

 

News: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/09/melting-ice-sheets-changing-the-way-the-earth-wobbles-on-its-axis-says-nasa

 

ah, ok .

 

well, our politicians still talk like they'll take decisive action, at some time in the future, to stop climate change and complain that the countries on other continents don't want to do anything at all (as if they'd be stopping emissions, it's always the fault of the others...).

 

no, i didn't. so when are we talking? the maps where large parts of each continent are underwater are only accurate in a few thousand years (even by pessimistic estimates — it'll take a long time until all of antarctica has melted). i wouldn't expect anyone except the netherlands (plus maybe denmark?), bangladesh and a few island nations (i've heard the maldives already bought some territory in india) to have a real problem during our lifetimes. and a quarter of the land area of the netherlands is already under sea level, protected by dams. they should know how to live with rising sea levels

 

that's an interesting article. i haven't thought about that before, but it's quite logical with so much mass redistributing...

[Starkraver]

ah, ok .

 

well, our politicians still talk like they'll take decisive action, at some time in the future, to stop climate change and complain that the countries on other continents don't want to do anything at all (as if they'd be stopping emissions, it's always the fault of the others...).

I understand when developing nations(NOT China!) accuse the US & EU. But I really have a tough time understanding the rationale behind the same accusations coming from developed world.your countries are small enough to have a real participatory democracy unlike our representative one. Such politicians shouldn't be entertained. If you dont want to curb your "growth" out of fear of being left behind, you gotta be able to reasons and will to defend that statement and stand. But of course its all hypothetical idealistic talk.

what do you think the folks over there are aware/worried about the effects and willing to act with or without the political will.?

 

FUN FACTS :

 

no, i didn't. so when are we talking? the maps where large parts of each continent are underwater are only accurate in a few thousand years (even by pessimistic estimates — it'll take a long time until all of antarctica has melted). i wouldn't expect anyone except the netherlands (plus maybe denmark?), bangladesh and a few island nations (i've heard the maldives already bought some territory in india) to have a real problem during our lifetimes. and a quarter of the land area of the netherlands is already under sea level, protected by dams. they should know how to live with rising sea levels

When.?? -- Thats a good question and a very important aspect when we talk about how climate change will affect different countries which will inturn affect whole world.

BBC ran an article about it(rising sea levels), just yesterday : http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160408-this-is-how-far-seas-could-rise-thanks-to-climate-change.

 

Maldives has not bought any land AFAIK, they did express interest few years ago. Right now they are selling land to foreigners

Pacific Islands are doomed and so is Bangladesh. Bangla is practically a flood plain of 2 huge rivers. So if and when the himalayan glaciers melt, the Northern Plains of India and Bangladesh will be severely affected. (beautiful geomorphological tectonic forces at play here. Rivers originating in the himalayas erode it, carry silt, deposit in bangladesh and keep it afloat. And as the himalayas loses mass it rises and the cycle continues)

I have no idea about the rising sea levels will affect the Atlantic, may be you can point me to some articles?

that's an interesting article. i haven't thought about that before, but it's quite logical with so much mass redistributing...

That's what I thought Ever since I read the theory of Isostasy, I was wondering what would be the impact of melting glaciers of Greenland. I guess I have to read a bit more.