7 ms·

A vegetarian calling meat eating "the most rational choice" ! It's destroying our planet and causing untold, horrific amounts suffering to animals just because

by zurn 12y ago

A vegetarian calling meat eating "the most rational choice" ! It's destroying our planet and causing untold, horrific amounts suffering to animals just because people get a kick out of chewing on other beings. PS. I've been around other European countries most my vacations and never had the problem. Worst case you get salads and omelettes.

Evgeny 12y ago
It's destroying our planet and causing untold, horrific amounts suffering to animals just because people get a kick out of chewing on other beings. You may be interested in this article: http://anthonycolpo.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands/ http://anthonycolpo.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-... Its arguments, in short, are: Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in: –at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein –more environmental damage, and –a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat. Now I'm not saying it's certainly right or wrong, but it may give a new perspective.
- xherberta 12y ago
  Interesting! Thanks! Animals do provide high quality fertilizers and ecosystem services. I'm trying to cut out factory farmed meat. Hence, budgetary constraints cause me to choose less meat and more pastured eggs. Soy is insanely toxic. Until recently, Asians didn't consider it edible, except for monks who used it to decrease libido.
- zurn 12y ago
  You are shifting the argument by cherry picking Australian beef production (vs meat production in general). Overwhelmingly most meat production is fed using harvest from cultivated land, hence the claims are irrelevant to the general discussion in addition to being factually uncredible. About the questionable facts: the 25x claim is not substantiated in any way. It doesn't in any way substantiate why use of fertilizers to grow plants for human consumption would be worse than growing grass for the equivalent nutritional value of cows. Lastly, even if you ignore the irrelevance and the bad claims, it concludes that ethically you should only eat rangeland grown meat and kangaroos, a clear counterargument for the usual meat eater diet!
  - Evgeny 12y ago
    You are shifting the argument by cherry picking Australian beef production (vs meat production in general). Yes, though not intentionally - this is just an article I read recently so it came up in my memory. I believe, though, that a lot of small animals die because of farming grains everywhere in the world, not only in Australia. Other factors, indeed, may vary greatly. Lastly, even if you ignore the irrelevance and the bad claims, it concludes that ethically you should only eat rangeland grown meat and kangaroos, a clear counterargument for the usual meat eater diet! I agree - if one's aim is to minimize the number of animal deaths or the amount of suffering, that seems to be the answer.
NotOscarWilde 12y ago
I stand by my claim: rational when it comes to personal nutrition. Destroying the planet and suffering of animals are worthy causes, but still unrelated to quality of personal nutrition.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
zurn 12y ago
There was this controversial art performance where the guy killed a cat with an axe and masturbated on the corpse to (among other things) make a point about killing animals for our enjoyment. He was sued and convicted for animal cruelty. The guy is currently a prof in the most prestigious art school in Finland. One of my heroes. http://www.quodlibetica.com/what-does-it-mean-to-kill-an-animal-in-the-name-of-art/ http://www.quodlibetica.com/what-does-it-mean-to-kill-an-ani... edit: As a metapoint, interesting how heavily my other comment is being downvoted. I hope it's because it's sligtly off tangent, an not because HN'ers are in denial about what they're doing with their eating.
conroe64 12y ago
If you drink milk and consume eggs, aren't you still perpetuating the same system? I mean after a cow no longer can produce milk it's not like it will go to a cow hospice.

by zurn 12y ago

Evgeny 12y ago

It's destroying our planet and causing untold, horrific amounts suffering to animals just because people get a kick out of chewing on other beings. You may be interested in this article: http://anthonycolpo.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands/ http://anthonycolpo.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-... Its arguments, in short, are: Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in: –at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein –more environmental damage, and –a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat. Now I'm not saying it's certainly right or wrong, but it may give a new perspective.

xherberta 12y ago
Interesting! Thanks! Animals do provide high quality fertilizers and ecosystem services. I'm trying to cut out factory farmed meat. Hence, budgetary constraints cause me to choose less meat and more pastured eggs. Soy is insanely toxic. Until recently, Asians didn't consider it edible, except for monks who used it to decrease libido.
zurn 12y ago
You are shifting the argument by cherry picking Australian beef production (vs meat production in general). Overwhelmingly most meat production is fed using harvest from cultivated land, hence the claims are irrelevant to the general discussion in addition to being factually uncredible. About the questionable facts: the 25x claim is not substantiated in any way. It doesn't in any way substantiate why use of fertilizers to grow plants for human consumption would be worse than growing grass for the equivalent nutritional value of cows. Lastly, even if you ignore the irrelevance and the bad claims, it concludes that ethically you should only eat rangeland grown meat and kangaroos, a clear counterargument for the usual meat eater diet!
- Evgeny 12y ago
  You are shifting the argument by cherry picking Australian beef production (vs meat production in general). Yes, though not intentionally - this is just an article I read recently so it came up in my memory. I believe, though, that a lot of small animals die because of farming grains everywhere in the world, not only in Australia. Other factors, indeed, may vary greatly. Lastly, even if you ignore the irrelevance and the bad claims, it concludes that ethically you should only eat rangeland grown meat and kangaroos, a clear counterargument for the usual meat eater diet! I agree - if one's aim is to minimize the number of animal deaths or the amount of suffering, that seems to be the answer.

NotOscarWilde 12y ago

I stand by my claim: rational when it comes to personal nutrition. Destroying the planet and suffering of animals are worthy causes, but still unrelated to quality of personal nutrition.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

zurn 12y ago

There was this controversial art performance where the guy killed a cat with an axe and masturbated on the corpse to (among other things) make a point about killing animals for our enjoyment. He was sued and convicted for animal cruelty. The guy is currently a prof in the most prestigious art school in Finland. One of my heroes. http://www.quodlibetica.com/what-does-it-mean-to-kill-an-animal-in-the-name-of-art/ http://www.quodlibetica.com/what-does-it-mean-to-kill-an-ani... edit: As a metapoint, interesting how heavily my other comment is being downvoted. I hope it's because it's sligtly off tangent, an not because HN'ers are in denial about what they're doing with their eating.

conroe64 12y ago

If you drink milk and consume eggs, aren't you still perpetuating the same system? I mean after a cow no longer can produce milk it's not like it will go to a cow hospice.