"You can't love animal's if you're not a vegetarian"

[BNguyen]

Chris OBrien

I believe your response to my question is just as unrealistic - colonizing other planets? Within such a relatively short period of time, this would be the impossible choice and plan to pull off.
First off, only so many people could actually colonize at first in order to build a working and lasting infrastructure, and it would take an almost impossible amount of fuel in order to develop a working transportation system between the colonies and earth.
Our planet does not have infinite resources like your solutions would need, vertical farming would still require a vast amount of materials needed, a continuous stream of power (because frankly, everything that doesn't get sunlight will need UV lights and that would be very consuming. And it's obvious that a lot of places around the world are not going to follow a 'limited number of offspring' program as you would want them to, people are just built to respond negatively to any sort of control you put over them.
And, even if we were to let go of the animals we have and convert the land we used for them into crop land, we would still need to undergo crop rotation as well as fertilizing the unused land to get it back to a usable state. We take the nutrients we need to make fertilizer from areas where we don't grow crops and if we were to expand this operation to feed a population of such magnitude would be utterly ridiculous.

Given our current resources and abilities, we do not have the capability to grow enough food to support in my scenario a rapidly expanding population in a relatively short amount of time, more people would starve before we could get your plan off the ground.
And right now, places like India and China are unrealistic examples given that we are capable of feeding at least 85% of the population today.
And as you so clearly missed: THIS SCENARIO IS NOT ABOUT MEAT PRODUCTION!
I'm asking how someone who clearly doesn't understand the ramifications of the environmental impact we have on the planet no matter what we do would solve such an issue (in which people would most likely comply) given that the entire population of the globe would convert to plant eating and would suffer a rapid population increase.

And this:
"Ignoring your scenario and addressing the fundamental question that you've posed--"How [would] you would fix the problem if your life style was the cause of the problem?" I think that is obvious because it's exactly what vegans and vegetarians have already done. Again, most vegans and vegetarians have adopted their diets. They've identified a problem that their behavior helped perpetuate and they've altered their behavior accordingly."

This is not answering my question. I'm asking that if the plant based diet and the lifestyle it requires caused the problem, then how would you fix it to minimize the effects of starvation?
Stop ignoring the question with "I eat plants therefore I'm better than you meat eaters even if you say you don't eat meat directly, therefore I must be more intelligent"

 

[Loonyyy]

Chris OBrien

So where would you morally stand if we did switch over to an all plant diet, and over time, the human population expanded to require say four or five times as much land to produce food as we use now and due to this, we needed to destroy animal reserve land and forests in order to get the amount of land necessary in order to feed everyone? Would you still support a plant based diet if in order to fulfill it it destroyed animal habitats and caused numerous species to go extinct?
And for this example, I'm not talking about eating animals, I'm asking how you would fix the problem if your life style was the cause of the problem?

I think firstly you'd have to consider the problem with eating meat in that scenario. The inefficiency in the process of growing feed for livestock and keeping them would mean to continue eating meat in such a world would require even more space. So straight off the bat, vegetarianism would be the better alternative to eating meat in your scenario. Supporting a plant based diet would reduce the need to destroy habitat. Your argument fails on the face of it since you fail to understand the process of food production.

Having dismantled your case, I guess I should answer the question, huh? I think I'd go for a third option- I don't think that human population should be allowed to expand to the point where it must destroy the natural world to accomadate it, and would question the reason between allowing population expansion to quantities which endanger the population.


EDIT: This is what I get for not refreshing before posting.

Nguyen. You're still trying to question a Vegetarian or Vegan viewpoint with a hypothetical which does not concern that viewpoint. The problem is to do with food production and overpopulation in general, and has no relevance to a majority plant-based diet. He's not dodging your question, your question DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. The lifestyle problem in your question is EATING. If you mean to ask, should we continue to eat in that scenario, you've posed a scenario which is improbable in the extreme. How do we arrive at the precise point where our land is insufficient, and how do we run out of options, and why did we not limit our population or explore alternatives?

Which is exactly the response you got. Those who chose a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle are not those responsible for the problem. It's extremely odd that you'd question his reasoning when he's already closer to the ideal.

If we decided to destroy the land used by wild animals and use it for crop production, we'd be delaying the inevitable-we'd run out of land again sooner or later. The planet has limited resources, and is incapable of supporting an infinite amount of people. Sooner or later, population control will be an issue, and we'll have to deal with that. But the relation to vegetarianism is almost non-existant, and the question of whether the land reserved for wild animals is worth more or less than human population expansion (In my opinion, it's worth more, since I feel that population expansion in and of itself is worthless), is hardly going to get a specific answer from vegetarians, because it has literally nothing to do with whether you choose to eat meat, or consume animal products, or not.

 

[Angie7F]

I love dogs. They eat meat, so do I. Where's the problem in that?

My opinion, word per word.
If anything it is the humans that developed this crazy stuff called intelligence that sends them on a guilt trip about eating other animals.
You do what you gotta do to stay alive.

 

[BNguyen]

Chris OBrien

So where would you morally stand if we did switch over to an all plant diet, and over time, the human population expanded to require say four or five times as much land to produce food as we use now and due to this, we needed to destroy animal reserve land and forests in order to get the amount of land necessary in order to feed everyone? Would you still support a plant based diet if in order to fulfill it it destroyed animal habitats and caused numerous species to go extinct?
And for this example, I'm not talking about eating animals, I'm asking how you would fix the problem if your life style was the cause of the problem?

I think firstly you'd have to consider the problem with eating meat in that scenario. The inefficiency in the process of growing feed for livestock and keeping them would mean to continue eating meat in such a world would require even more space. So straight off the bat, vegetarianism would be the better alternative to eating meat in your scenario. Supporting a plant based diet would reduce the need to destroy habitat. Your argument fails on the face of it since you fail to understand the process of food production.

Having dismantled your case, I guess I should answer the question, huh? I think I'd go for a third option- I don't think that human population should be allowed to expand to the point where it must destroy the natural world to accomadate it, and would question the reason between allowing population expansion to quantities which endanger the population.

You do understand that my question goes around the entire meat production issue right? I'm asking that if it was done away with and we encounter that problem in a future of only having a diet of plants. I'm not including meat production into the argument at all, so no, it doesn't just fail.
While measures would be needed to be put into place in order to halt a population boom, isolated areas would still likely continue purely out of choice to do so, but I don't think an all plant diet is necessarily the end-all solution to such a problem.
With an increased population comes a greater demand for land needed to build homes, and currently, we tear down new land at a rapid rate in order to fulfill that, now add the land necessary to develop into viable farmland enough to feed the growing population and we have a low percentage of land that would be deemed good enough to actually use for growing.
What you people fail to realize is that the earth does not have infinite resources and in order to accommodate an expanding population even after an all-plant based diet economy, we would need to open up new areas to develop for food.
After all, when growing crops we have to deal with the threat of the weather such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and other such destructive forces are not entirely avoidable.

As I've read across this issue, a lot of people seem to think that 1) if we were to quite consuming meat, the industry would collapse and the government would have to recognize the choice (of the majority) to switch over. 2) that it would take a lot less land to feed people on a plant diet that an omnivorous diet. 3) that even with the sheer amount of crop rotation and need for resources, that it would be easy to maintain a plant-diet economy

Well, on one - not everybody is keen to this idea, a lot of people, and I'm sure yourself included, do not like to be told or even forced into doing something you don't want. As long as there are people who want meat, this omnivorous diet economy is going to continue. Two - even though it would take less land to accommodate a plant-diet, you still need to recognize that even with our current production levels of an omnivorous diet, people are still starving around the world. We have the resources to feed the people, but as long as money is to be exchanged and trade is business, the food will never reach the people that need it if they can't afford to acquire it. Three - we do not have enough land in order to 1) grow crops enough to feed people, 2)have land left over to perform crop rotation, 3) have the resources needed to ensure bountiful harvests that could continue to feed people if a disaster were to occur, for example, a fire that could consume a large amount of the crops or pest control.

As we continue to expand on the earth, our need for land to fulfill our ability to survive also increases and as we expand, we are competing with the flora and fauna in order to survive. We have too many issues right now in order to be able to survive on a plant-based diet especially when there are so many things that we have yet to control that work against us.
We have invasive plant species which can and do destroy the natural environment around them. As we continue to grow crops in areas where these plants did not exist, we increase the threat that such actions will have a negative impact on the environment which could cause animal populations to decrease or even go extinct - think in Australia when herders moved in, they saw the Thylacine as a threat and wiped it out. Or how farmers introduced kudzu to North America to fight soil erosion which only caused an infestation of the plant. Natural disasters occur every day - weather patterns, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis. These things are unavoidable and with a need for expanding farmland, we are more likely to encounter these problems than before when as primitive people we lived in smaller areas. And with an increasing need to feed our population, the resources needed are also dwindling - the amount of land that can be used, the suppliments needed to keep the land usable, fresh water. While eliminating the meat industry to supply at the very least the land portion of the equation, it would take much effort to minimalize the loss of animal life while converting the land into farmland, that and where would the animals go if we released them? Plenty of farm animals are not capable of surviving without humans, pigs are the most likely ones to pull it off, but even they can turn into pests. And the fresh water necessary to grow the crops doesn't just come from anywhere, it comes from our faucets and drinking sources. To grow more crops, we need more water and with a growing population to sustain, we also need more water, but we consume more water than the plants do, coupled with that that most of the fresh water we have is flowing right out into the oceans.
Even if we were to shift into using superstructures to grow crops, it would take an unbelievable amount of building materials and electricity to support them. Plants grow in buildings (and the buildings in this scenario would have to be enormous to prevent habitat destruction) would need a massive irrigation system as well as UV lighting to stimulate growth, and these would require enormous amounts of power to keep them going, such a frail and vulnerable system is likely to fail should the power source be even accidentally cut, and if this were to occur, the crops would most likely die before we could get it back up and going, causing widespread starvation.
But let's say that we could build and maintain a system of crops, the population boom would cause the system to reach it's limits in order to feed this population. So no, I don't believe an all plant based diet would be the end-all solution. My solution (coupled with the farming infrastructural plan) would be to utilize the oceans.
Only 30% of the plant is land and even less of that can be used for farming - i.e. deserts, frozen tundra, ice sheets, animal habitats, mountains, national parks and preserves, and add to the fact that humans, even with being able to alter our environments to live, only live where we are the most comfortable. With all of this, we would most likely run out of usable land long before we could get the system up and going, so I believe the ocean is the next best answer to solving the problem outside of Chris OBrein's plan of interstellar travel. The ocean is bountiful and if managed properly, could sustain just as much if not more people than a solely plant-based diet could.
Add to the fact that large portions of the year are devoted to simply getting the plants ready for harvest during this time, without a store of food to fall back on, we would starve before the plants produced edible food.

EDIT: had to add in disease (as long as we continue to genetically alter food - i.e. breeding plants to produce quality, well, produce, we are making plants that are losing their genetic diversity and therefore making them more susceptible to diseases, and as long as we are trying to develop plants like this, it would only be too easy for a disease to spread and wipe out the entire crop). As well as droughts - if we did not implement the superstructure crop plan and relied on open fields, if droughts were to occur, we would lose both the plants and time to outlast the drought. In order to decrease the effects, we would need to bring in water from outside sources, something that would 1)destroy the environment we got it from should we build something akin to oil pipelines or even used tanker trucks, as well as pollute the environment by shipping the water or even building the pipes.
And a third note: chemicals and the rick of poisoning the environment through crop runoff. As we continue to spread crop land, we increase the need for chemicals to prevent pests from destroying them. When we water our crops, we are letting these chemicals wash down into underground water sources or animal habitats and poison them. If we were to go organic, thus eliminating the need for chemicals, more than half of the crops would die from pests and little to no fertilizers to stimulate good growth.

Now if you can give an answer as to how we would deal with all of the problems I've stated, then we'd be good to go on an all-plant based diet.

 

[BNguyen]

I love dogs. They eat meat, so do I. Where's the problem in that?

My opinion, word per word.
If anything it is the humans that developed this crazy stuff called intelligence that sends them on a guilt trip about eating other animals.
You do what you gotta do to stay alive.

Thank you, my opinion exactly.
If humans didn't develop intelligence such as we have now, we wouldn't care how many animals we kill as long as our stomachs are full enough to carry us to the next day. Survival is key and if biting into an animal helps me stay alive, I'll most likely do it (excluding the animals I call my pets). Besides, when out in the wild, it is easier to find an animal to hunt that an edible plant.

 

[RoBi3.0]

Chris OBrien

So where would you morally stand if we did switch over to an all plant diet, and over time, the human population expanded to require say four or five times as much land to produce food as we use now and due to this, we needed to destroy animal reserve land and forests in order to get the amount of land necessary in order to feed everyone? Would you still support a plant based diet if in order to fulfill it it destroyed animal habitats and caused numerous species to go extinct?
And for this example, I'm not talking about eating animals, I'm asking how you would fix the problem if your life style was the cause of the problem?

Well in this completely bullshit "what if situation", there would be really only two choices. Let the human race, or at least a large portion of it die off. Choice number two consist a global switch to the most efficient and most substitutable means of food production in order to reduce that overall destruct that you have described. The means of food production I mentioned in growing crops and not meat.

So even in a completely bullshit scenario meant to make a vegetarian lifestyle look bad it actually becomes the best option. You know unless willing letting vast amounts of human beings starve to death is more your thing.

Okay now on to why this is a bullshit scenario. For world populations to reach level required to produce your scenario it would take many many many years of uncontrolled population growth. World governments would have to simply not give a shit for a few decades in order for the world population to get any where near that kind of out of control. furthermore is is the case now such growth would take place (if it happened at all) in third world countries, where technology and cultural practices have not naturally tapered of birth rates. So realistically uncontrolled population growth (If people choose to ignore it) would be contained to underdeveloped countries. Now this is sad but it is the truth. When faced if putting there own country's economies and ecosystems at risked, leaders of developed countries, especially the U.S. are more likely to ignore the over-population and hunger problem in third world nations then step in and put themselves at risk. Therefor after a famine or two the population would drop dramatically back below the maximum sustainable amount that can be supported by the land with in that country.

Secondly, what you described is a lose lose situation. There is not a best choice. Which is something a thought experiment meant to gauge morality kind of needs.

 

[RoBi3.0]

Holy double post batman!

 

[BNguyen]

Holy double post batman!

so just because it is a possible scenario but goes against your moral code that makes it a bullshit scenario?
You know, even if the government were to implement a system for population growth it isn't likely that people would follow it. I'm not in support of letting people die by their own stupidity, I want to prevent death as much as possible, but given our current situation and how much we tamper with the environment to maintain our level of society, we need to find other food sources, completely cutting off meat at the moment is not the best option - from an economic stand-point but if we were to tap a bit more into the ocean, then we could sustain a very large population, at least for a short while.

And no, it wouldn't take many years for the population to explode in my scenario, it would only take a handful of years, and a large number of people who are fertile and want to have continuous bouts of sex - i.e. under-aged teenagers and unintelligent adults which we have in abundance across the globe. And even if the world leaders were to favor the economy more than the people in a famine situation, the people would likely revolt and widespread panic and chaos would ensue long before they die off from starvation.
You seem to forget that the vast majority of people are not intelligent and will start a fight to survive when the time comes, all that we can do is hope to placate their anger long enough until the panic goes away.

 

[RoBi3.0]

Holy double post batman!

so just because it is a possible scenario but goes against your moral code that makes it a bullshit scenario?
You know, even if the government were to implement a system for population growth it isn't likely that people would follow it. I'm not in support of letting people die by their own stupidity, I want to prevent death as much as possible, but given our current situation and how much we tamper with the environment to maintain our level of society, we need to find other food sources, completely cutting off meat at the moment is not the best option - from an economic stand-point but if we were to tap a bit more into the ocean, then we could sustain a very large population, at least for a short while.

And no, it wouldn't take many years for the population to explode in my scenario, it would only take a handful of years, and a large number of people who are fertile and want to have continuous bouts of sex - i.e. under-aged teenagers and unintelligent adults which we have in abundance across the globe. And even if the world leaders were to favor the economy more than the people in a famine situation, the people would likely revolt and widespread panic and chaos would ensue long before they die off from starvation.
You seem to forget that the vast majority of people are not intelligent and will start a fight to survive when the time comes, all that we can do is hope to placate their anger long enough until the panic goes away.

I am fairly sure you have no clue what my moral code is. Second it is a bullshit scenario because there is a larger chance of Jesus parting the clouds and ascending from heaven then it actually happening(hint: I don't believe in heaven or "God").



The thing with effective population control is that you do not give people a choice to follow or not. China has in place a plan for population control ask any Chinese woman who has went and got pregnant after exceeding their limit (the limit is 1 child) if she is given a choice to keep the baby or not. I don't however believe that it needs to come to that kind of extreme proper family-planning education and better availability of contraceptives will go a long way. People as stupid as you seem to think they are, when given the choice to prevent having a baby or having one and watching it starve, will choose prevention. This is an actual problem currently in third world countries. In the U.S. is a little different as having enough babies you cant take care for actually gets you a free ride from the government. Which is a glaring problem with the welfare system IMO, but that is topic for another thread. As I point out below first-world populations are pretty stable anyhow.

Look despite your obvious displeasure with under-age teenagers and stupid adults fornicating the fact of the matter is that is industrialized nations population growth is not on the rise it is actually pretty stable. Places were population is current high is as I pointed of earlier in under-developed nations. They lack family-planning eduction and forms of effective birth control.

It is in these under-developed nation where populations would become out of control first. It is these countries that the overpopulation problem would be contained.

I find it laughable that you think the people would raise up if world leaders put their economies over starving people, because this is exactly the practices that are employed today. As I pointed out earlier in the thread farmers in America are paid by the government NOT to grow food so that the supply does not off-set the demand in an effort to stabilized food markets. Everyday people in the U.S. go hungry because they fall in between the gape where they can actually afford take care of themselves and were they qualify for welfare assistance, and this occurs in a nation that is 100% capable of feeding all of its people. Not to mentions the countless individual starving to death in Africa and other parts of the third world. Where are the people raising up to over throw our leaders? Here is a hint, they are not coming. The world is capable producing enough food to support our current population. The sad fact is that we do not do it because it is not profitable.

 

[BNguyen]

RoBi3.0
I already made a point in an earlier post about how we have the means to provide for our population and don't do it, we are essentially allowing the population that can't afford food to starve.
And stupid people will always do stupid things no matter how much you try to educate them over the issues, which is why kids still have sex, do drugs, smoke, and drink, and why we have so many car accidents because people will always take risks with what they got to work with, no matter how much you try, people will always have their brains work around with reverse psychology, the more you tell them not to do it the more inclined they are to do so.
And First World nations may have stable populations - i.e. not exploding, but the fact of the matter is we still have a large and growing percentage of people who can't afford to take care of their families and wind up being homeless.
I think we need to make an effort to have a population that meets the needs of the economy in order to be able to provide for everyone, but as long as we have uneducated and even educated yet stupid people, we will have a hunger crisis that politicians will not deal with for greed.

And the whole part of containing over population to third-world nations is not something that will forever be contained. Populations will continue to expand beyond our means to effectively govern them.
And maybe the people wouldn't rebel if the governments limited food sources... hah! couldn't say that with a straight face. You do understand that it's happened before don't you?
http://www.enotes.com/food-riots-reference/food-riots
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/food-riots-2011
http://www.euronews.com/2011/01/07/algerian-riots-over-food-prices-and-unemployment/

As long as people hoard the food sources, there will always be people who will protest and often turn violent in order to get at that food.

 

[BNguyen]

Now based on recent posts, this thread has gotten way off hand from what we were supposed to talk about so I'm dropping this here and now

 

[RoBi3.0]

RoBi3.0
I already made a point in an earlier post about how we have the means to provide for our population and don't do it, we are essentially allowing the population that can't afford food to starve.
And stupid people will always do stupid things no matter how much you try to educate them over the issues, which is why kids still have sex, do drugs, smoke, and drink, and why we have so many car accidents because people will always take risks with what they got to work with, no matter how much you try, people will always have their brains work around with reverse psychology, the more you tell them not to do it the more inclined they are to do so.
And First World nations may have stable populations - i.e. not exploding, but the fact of the matter is we still have a large and growing percentage of people who can't afford to take care of their families and wind up being homeless.
I think we need to make an effort to have a population that meets the needs of the economy in order to be able to provide for everyone, but as long as we have uneducated and even educated yet stupid people, we will have a hunger crisis that politicians will not deal with for greed.

And the whole part of containing over population to third-world nations is not something that will forever be contained. Populations will continue to expand beyond our means to effectively govern them.
And maybe the people wouldn't rebel if the governments limited food sources... hah! couldn't say that with a straight face. You do understand that it's happened before don't you?
http://www.enotes.com/food-riots-reference/food-riots
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/food-riots-2011
http://www.euronews.com/2011/01/07/algerian-riots-over-food-prices-and-unemployment/

As long as people hoard the food sources, there will always be people who will protest and often turn violent in order to get at that food.

So any of those food riots successfully overthrow any prominent world governments? Seeing how I have to ask that question, I am going to venture a guess that it is a no. I didn't say people wouldn't fight each other over food I am saying that they would not successfully overthrow any world leaders of note. Therefore they would not enact any sweeping changes to the world economic structures. A rather successful means of squashing a military resistance is to cut them off from their food supply. When they are fighting to get food I would have to imagine that cutting off their food supply would be easy. Any reasonable attempt to overthrow world leaders would require a high amount of organization, planning and forethought. In your scenario the vast amount of the world population is not smart enough to not fornicate themselves into extinction. So base on what you have provided in your scenario I don't think that is going to happen.

I was also trying to state that, and I apologize if this was not clear, that the majority of First-world nations would not experience any food shortages as they would be capable of quickly restructuring themselves to meet their own needs. Based on the fact that their population would be substantially smaller that third-world nations, and they would have better access to the financially and technological means to do so. Therefore food shortages would become a problem in third-world countries first.

Unless everyone suddenly develops globalized compassion and starts caring about who is starving half a world away it is not likely that any strife over food supplies in third-world nations will cause any sweeping changes in parts of the world not effected by the problem. In other words it would be essentially contained within third world nations.

 

[BNguyen]

RoBi3.0
The riots may not have had a huge effect but I'm sure the governments at least rethought the treatment of their citizens, after all, leaving things they way they were would not help the situation but prolong it.
And, in this day and age, it isn't likely that a First World nation would ignore poorer regions and not try to help seeing as how these things are constantly brought up in the media. If the governments tried to ignore the plights of these regions along with the people who are vocal enough to protest not doing anything about them would not have the support of the people.
While I do think each nation needs to focus their efforts on their own problems before linking to the global network, it is frankly impossible for them to completely put them off, however, they will still only limit their efforts to minor forms of charity and that which the poorer nations can afford.

 

[RoBi3.0]

RoBi3.0
The riots may not have had a huge effect but I'm sure the governments at least rethought the treatment of their citizens, after all, leaving things they way they were would not help the situation but prolong it.
And, in this day and age, it isn't likely that a First World nation would ignore poorer regions and not try to help seeing as how these things are constantly brought up in the media. If the governments tried to ignore the plights of these regions along with the people who are vocal enough to protest not doing anything about them would not have the support of the people.
While I do think each nation needs to focus their efforts on their own problems before linking to the global network, it is frankly impossible for them to completely put them off, however, they will still only limit their efforts to minor forms of charity and that which the poorer nations can afford.

There isn't any reason to suspect that first world nations would dedicate anymore or at least much more effort into third-world nations as they do right now. I as I said earlier if we cared about the overall well-being of those starving in the third world in the present day. We have the ability to produce the food it would take to feed them. Problem is we only devote a small amount of resource to the problem. Enough to say we are doing something to help, but nowhere near as what is needed to actually fix the problem.

I see the Governments helping much in the same way they do now. Enough to seem like they care but definitely not enough to put themselves in harms way or inconvenience themselves slightly.

This would never happen cause it is to extreme but I think it does a good job illustrating my above point about not wanting to inconvenience themselves. If a politically party or politician ever seriously entertained the idea of pooling all meat industry resources into producing crops to give to starving people in third-world nations. Meaning no meat for us but tons of starving people get to eat. The notion alone would be political suicide for that party or individual. At least it would be in Meat Crazed America. My point is as a whole we want to feel like we are "helping" we just don't want to sacrifice anything terribly meaningful to do so.

 

[BNguyen]

RoBi3.0
Your last point was what I was getting at. We need to fix our system so that maybe we can help people instead of sitting on our hands waiting for something to happen.

My entire scenario ago was meant as a means of figuring out how we could solve such a problem if the need arose for it. It wasn't entirely out of the realm of implausibility but it isn't very likely to happen; even so, we still need to think of solutions even if the problem doesn't come that way we can be ready to solve them.

 

[RoBi3.0]

RoBi3.0
Your last point was what I was getting at. We need to fix our system so that maybe we can help people instead of sitting on our hands waiting for something to happen.

My entire scenario ago was meant as a means of figuring out how we could solve such a problem if the need arose for it. It wasn't entirely out of the realm of implausibility but it isn't very likely to happen; even so, we still need to think of solutions even if the problem doesn't come that way we can be ready to solve them.

Well I can assure you that the solution does not lay within clear cutting rainforests or the mass destruction of ecosystems.

Really it is a extremely complicated problem. There really isn't one fix all solution, and not one that wouldn't require a large restructuring of society. As long as food is being used as a means of collecting wealth and social power there will people that have tons of food and others that starve.

As far as charity to Third-world nations go. I have always felt that it would be more meaningful if we instead of just giving them food helped them develop ways were they can be self sufficient, but that is often hard then just teaching someone how to farm. Like I said it is a very complicated problem.

 

[Chris OBrien]

Chris OBrien...
Now if you can give an answer as to how we would deal with all of the problems I've stated, then we'd be good to go on an all-plant based diet.

I don't know if you misread or just misunderstood what I've written, but I don't know how else to answer you. I given you as clear answers as possible given your posts.

If, as you insist, you have created a scenario that skirts the issue meat-production altogether, then it must disregard plant-based diets as well. It can't work one way, but not the other--at least not as you've framed it.

The scenario you originally posed is like asking "what if clipping your finger nails caused Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in Japan?" Well, it doesn't and can't, so I'd continue clipping my nails and focus on helping to solve the SIDS problem in ways that are realistic and effective.

Regardless, it is not the job of vegans or vegetarians to solve any of these rather unrelated and unrealistic scenarios or argue against any of these illogical, unfounded, and unsupported comments. If by some chance anything you mentioned became actual problems, they would not have anything to do with a plant-based diet. Every single one of those issues is just as likely no matter what diet is dominant, so saying "but what if it was caused by a plant-based diet?" is absurd and every scenario is completely irrelevant to a debate about the merits of plant-based diets versus meat-heavy diets.

I'll stop there because I'm only going to repeat what I've already posted and Loonnyyy and Robi have done a much better job responding to you already. Also you never answered any of my questions. I answered yours--I think it would be fair if you returned the favor.

I love dogs. They eat meat, so do I. Where's the problem in that?

My opinion, word per word.
If anything it is the humans that developed this crazy stuff called intelligence that sends them on a guilt trip about eating other animals.
You do what you gotta do to stay alive.

Thank you, my opinion exactly.
If humans didn't develop intelligence such as we have now, we wouldn't care how many animals we kill as long as our stomachs are full enough to carry us to the next day. Survival is key and if biting into an animal helps me stay alive, I'll most likely do it (excluding the animals I call my pets). Besides, when out in the wild, it is easier to find an animal to hunt that an edible plant.

Your statement is not factual. It is not easier to find, catch, kill, and prepare an animal to eat than it is to find edible plants. Animals run away. Plants don't. Also, you are describing a life or death survival scenario, which is clearly not your day-to-day experience. You go to the store and buy a pre-killed, cleaned, butchered, and packaged animal to take home and cook with gas or electricity and eat. You don't hunt and prepare all your food yourself. That would be a full time job and the opinions of people on the internet about your dietary choices would be the least of your concerns.

I agree with both of you, if humans hadn't developed our current level of intelligence, we probably wouldn't care how many animals were killed for our consumption. However, that is very much the point: We have developed that intelligence. We are capable of empathizing with animals and making a conscious decision to eat them or not.

Finally, you do not need meat. You choose to eat meat because you have been taught to, because you enjoy it, or because it is convenient to. There is no debate to be had. It is an indisputable fact that you do not need food made from animals to survive and thrive.

 

[BNguyen]

Chris OBrien

You know, I've kind of started ignoring you for a while now because you still failed to answer the question at all. I'm giving up this thread because nobody seems to have a good answer for the moral reason of giving up meat, and you sure as hell aren't giving one.
And besides, you tend to ignore the factual details of how much effort you need to grow a garden, it isn't as simple as planting a seed and forgetting about it till it blossoms fruit or a vegetable.


And this:
"If, as you insist, you have created a scenario that skirts the issue meat-production altogether, then it must disregard plant-based diets as well. "
no, it doesn't, it asks how you would deal with famine if a plant-diet economy and infrastructure was implemented before the fact without causing needless damage to the environment in order to produce more food.


The answer is that both sides have some fault in destroying the environment, animals with land consumption and feed while growing crops releases toxins into water supplies and animal habitats. There is no clear cut way to decrease our effect while providing enough food but the best way to off-shoot the release of toxins into ground water would be to farm fish - they breed rapidly and don't need expensive equipment or huge areas in order to raise them.

And yes, my point is factual - for an average person, you're more likely to find an edible animal than to find a plant that is edible. Most of the plants you'll run into are shrubs, trees, grasses, or flowers - very little of what you'll find in the wild is edible and even if it is, an average person won't be able to tell what parts are good for food and what aren't seeing as how a lot of wild-growing plants both look alike or have to be cooked a certain way before they are edible.

EDIT: Ignore my point on fat from plants, but still, my point being that even if overall a plant-based diet is healthy, not everyone can subsist on a plant diet for the sole reason that they are unable to stomach it, their bodies aren't capable of breaking down plants as easily as they can meat - not always but sometimes - I myself get sick from eating certain vegetables and fruits - I tried eating blueberries before and I puked after swallowing one.
And all plant-based diet is not feasible for every one of us if we cannot eat what's on our plate, and not from a moral standpoint but a physical one.

 

[BNguyen]

For the last time: I'm exiting this thread! Stop replying to my posts!

 

[Chris OBrien]

Chris OBrien

You know, I've kind of started ignoring you for a while now because you still failed to answer the question at all. I'm giving up this thread because nobody seems to have a good answer for the moral reason of giving up meat, and you sure as hell aren't giving one.
And besides, you tend to ignore the factual details of how much effort you need to grow a garden, it isn't as simple as planting a seed and forgetting about it till it blossoms fruit or a vegetable.


And this:
"If, as you insist, you have created a scenario that skirts the issue meat-production altogether, then it must disregard plant-based diets as well. "
no, it doesn't, it asks how you would deal with famine if a plant-diet economy and infrastructure was implemented before the fact without causing needless damage to the environment in order to produce more food.


The answer is that both sides have some fault in destroying the environment, animals with land consumption and feed while growing crops releases toxins into water supplies and animal habitats. There is no clear cut way to decrease our effect while providing enough food but the best way to off-shoot the release of toxins into ground water would be to farm fish - they breed rapidly and don't need expensive equipment or huge areas in order to raise them.

And yes, my point is factual - for an average person, you're more likely to find an edible animal than to find a plant that is edible. Most of the plants you'll run into are shrubs, trees, grasses, or flowers - very little of what you'll find in the wild is edible and even if it is, an average person won't be able to tell what parts are good for food and what aren't seeing as how a lot of wild-growing plants both look alike or have to be cooked a certain way before they are edible.

EDIT: Ignore my point on fat from plants, but still, my point being that even if overall a plant-based diet is healthy, not everyone can subsist on a plant diet for the sole reason that they are unable to stomach it, their bodies aren't capable of breaking down plants as easily as they can meat - not always but sometimes - I myself get sick from eating certain vegetables and fruits - I tried eating blueberries before and I puked after swallowing one.
And all plant-based diet is not feasible for every one of us if we cannot eat what's on our plate, and not from a moral standpoint but a physical one.

Oh well that explains it, then. I have chosen my words carefully and written very specifically, but you're ignoring me.

You never asked directly for a moral reason to give up meat, you presented a topic/scenario that seemed entirely irrelevant. The moral reason to not eat meat: Animals are sentient, they have the ability to suffer, and it is unnecessary. Humans have the ability to recognize all of these facts and make decisions based on them. Therefore, they should not be eaten--or at the very least not mass-farmed.

I am not ignoring how difficult it is to grow plants. You are ignoring that farm animals are fed with plants that are difficult to grow. Instead of feeding one population with plants (humans), you are arguing that it is preferable to feed multiple populations with plants (animals and humans) and that doing so is somehow more efficient. Every single problem you pose in regard to growing plants to eat is and would be a problem either way, because animals must be fed with plants of some kind.

Your scenario, again, is irrelevant to the debate. The answers I would give you have nothing to do with diet. The answers I would give you are the ones I gave you--find ways to grow food without using additional land, cap human population growth, research/develop/fund extra-terrestrial colonization projects. All three of these are at least as realistic as your scenario.

Fish farming is just as damaging to water environments as animal farming is to land environments. And fish still need to be fed, like all animals. Many fish farms currently feed their fish corn...

Humans will always affect the environment. The goal is not to have no effect at all. That is impossible. The goal is to be as responsible as possible and not perpetuate damaging practices just because they are common or convenient. I am arguing that farming plants does significantly less damage to the environment.

Your point about the accessibility of animals in the wild is not factual. An edible animal may be easier for an uneducated human to spot, but if this person is so "average" that they can't find any edible plants, then they probably do not know how to properly hunt, kill, skin, clean, prepare, and cook said animal. If edible plants were so rare in the wild, where do you think all the plants human beings farm to eat came from? Again, plants are much easier to gather and eat than hunting and killing animals. You don't even need to cook them. Eating meat raw isn't nearly as safe.

To your edit: You may not "stomach" blue berries well, but that is one single fruit. There are far more available, edible plants than there are animals in the world. The amount of human beings that are entirely, physically incapable of eating an all-plant diet is incredibly low if it exists at all. I am assuming that you don't eat a diet exclusively of meat, so you must be able to consume plants.

Fat from plants? You mean the fat that human beings need? Unsaturated fats? The fats that come without any cholesterol, whatsoever?

I am not even arguing that every human being should adopt an entirely plant-based diet, I'm arguing that humans should eat significantly less meat--as in a portion the size of a deck of cards 2-3 times per week at the most.

Sorry you're leaving the thread. Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I didn't answer your questions. You still haven't answered any of mine.