5 ms·
Ahh chinese traditional medicine, a blight on our poor animal friends.
by voz_ 4y ago
Ahh chinese traditional medicine, a blight on our poor animal friends.
- PretzelPirate 4y ago> a blight on our poor animal friends. Let's not forget that most of the world kills and eats our animal friends when they can just eat plants instead. For most of us, animal products are no more necessary than Chinese traditional medicine.
- mechanical_bear 4y agoNo thank you.
- x3haloed 4y agoYep. Most human activity is a blight on animals.
- voz_ 4y agoThere's a massive difference between farming protein sources of domestic animals for nutrition and paying people halfway around the world to kill severely endangered animals for fake quackery and bullshit.
- steve_adams_86 4y agoI think the point here is that they are equally unnecessary, not necessarily equally bad. Of course some people truly do depend on animal protein. Almost anyone reading this almost certainly doesn’t. That makes it seem at least a little bizarre that we ridicule TCM yet continue munching animals on a daily basis. If you’re only concerned about conservation then farming wouldn’t be a concern at all. It just depends on where you’re looking from.
- hrbf 4y agoWell, as long as there are people insisting on calling animals “protein sources”, instead of what they are (living, feeling beings) how can we expect anyone to develop the empathy required to see killing animals “for quackery” – or any other reason for that matter – as wrong?
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoAh, but paying people halfway around the worlds for fishing endangered animals for meat is so much better. All the destruction if amazon for beef pasture is worth it. You could gave eaten some beans instead. In the context of industrial western narions, there is nothing behind this argument except arrogance and superiority complex.
- otabdeveloper4 4y agoFarming is vastly more destructive for ecosystems than animal husbandry. (For maximum efficiency we now combine both, of course, but it's indstrial farming that's the real killer, not cow farts.)
- steve_adams_86 4y agoAnimal husbandry is farming, isn’t it? Or is the dictionary definition getting a little stale?
- rex_lupi 4y ago"Agriculture", they meant.
- ranguna 4y agoThe major destructive agriculture is the one that is done to feed animals not the one for humans. If you get rid of animal farming you'll also get rid of a substancial amount of agriculture (not all of it if course, humans will still need to eat, but not as much as cows, pigs, chickens etc combined)
- otabdeveloper4 4y agoYou don't need to feed grain to domestic animals. Humans have raised cattle on natural grass for thousands of years just fine.
- ranguna 4y agoExcept now you have a population of over 8 billion people. Things stop working when you scale to that level. So either we go back to the same total population we had thousands of year ago or we start thinking how we can be more efficient with our food.
- steve_adams_86 4y agoI’m not sure where you live, but in North America almost everyone is eating meat from intensive livestock operations. By almost, that’s over 90% of all meat produced… I’m going to guess less than 1% of North Americans who eat meat manage to completely avoid these meats. The vast majority are primarily eating these meats. Humans raise animals on grass, but relatively few animals. If we only eat grazed cattle, then very few people will get to eat it — or — we would all need to eat far less of it. Further, evidence of grazing storing carbon effectively has been largely debunked, and it’s clear now that grazing land would likely be best left to the wilderness, allowed to be restored as forest or meadow or whatever it was. We stand to gain far more from allowing natural ecology develop and thrive than from eating more steak. No you cannot scale up grass fed meat, you should not, and the entire idea is so full of holes it can barely hold itself anymore.
- rex_lupi 4y agoSince when our species become herbivorous?
- ranguna 4y agoOmnivorous maybe
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]