Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wallener · 05-29-2005, 09:33 AM

People genuinely dependent on "grazing lands" for food do not grow animals for (occassional) meat, they grow them for (daily) dairy. Male offspring are slaughtered as soon as practical as they are a burden on limited resources. Hence Veal and Lamb.

Non-"humane" meat isn't cheap - the costs are merely being deferred to the future generations who will ultimately have to deal with the resultant environmental damage. Current meat (and dairy (and egg)) production in the US is extremely heavily subsidized by the state and is, frankly, the antithesis of a free market.

Tzar Bomba · 05-29-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.S. Lewis

I think it is immoral to give cows a second thought when human children in Africa die daily of diseases that could be prevented with 10-cent vitamin A capsules.

In order for this conflict to be remotely rational, our resources would have to be so limited that only one problem could be dealt with.

Instead of not eating humane meat in order to free up our resources for making vitamins, why not just give up the other superfluous crap in our culture? I guess if people really were that resource-limited, they could give up stuff like reality TV, cosmetic surgery, fashion.......

The reason people don't help the poor is because they don't give a shit about the poor, not because they don't have adequate resources to do it.

MagiNoir · 05-29-2005, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

Wrong counterexample. We raise cows that wouldn't otherwise be alive for the purpose of having them die in fulfill our eating needs. Now replace "cows" with "humans" and "eating" with "military" and let us know how much interspecial equivalence you're still willing to posit.

There is a difference between farming and culling.

If we didn't farm we would be hunters ans gatherers following buffalo herds and debating if it is immoral riding horses ro should we run instead.
We eat a large quantity of fish which isn’t farmed. Should we just fish until there are no wild fish then stop eating fish.
Where are we to find enough easily digestible protean without farming?

MagiNoir · 05-29-2005, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danielboy

It is bifurcation, but it still does show us our priorities. (i.e. before we save cows, we might want to save dying african children first)

Children are dying in Africa because of war and politics.

Wallener · 05-29-2005, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagiNoir

Where are we to find enough easily digestible protean without farming?

With the number of us now on the planet - can't be done.

ThinkDifferent · 06-01-2005, 11:49 PM

Well. What about "killing" Plants to eat? They have life too.
What about the millions of microorganisms that get killed during our daily chores?

Looks like the only way to not kill/harm any living thing is to drop dead immediately.

Is drinking milk immoral? Here neither an animal nor a plant is being harmed. Just assume that the milk is from a Hybrid cow that can produce more milk than it's calf can drink and it is this excess milk which is used for consumption.

The AntiChris · 06-02-2005, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThinkDifferent

Well. What about "killing" Plants to eat? They have life too.
What about the millions of microorganisms that get killed during our daily chores?

Looks like the only way to not kill/harm any living thing is to drop dead immediately.

That's a great argument to counter the claim that to "kill/harm any living thing" is immoral.

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll find anyone on this thread who makes such a claim.

Chris

premjan · 06-02-2005, 02:31 AM

People need to reproduce at at a lower rate, but for this they need to come to collective agreements perhaps.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2005, 09:33 AM	#31
Wallener Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,043	People genuinely dependent on "grazing lands" for food do not grow animals for (occassional) meat, they grow them for (daily) dairy. Male offspring are slaughtered as soon as practical as they are a burden on limited resources. Hence Veal and Lamb. Non-"humane" meat isn't cheap - the costs are merely being deferred to the future generations who will ultimately have to deal with the resultant environmental damage. Current meat (and dairy (and egg)) production in the US is extremely heavily subsidized by the state and is, frankly, the antithesis of a free market.

06-01-2005, 11:49 PM	#36
ThinkDifferent Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: India Posts: 193	Well. What about "killing" Plants to eat? They have life too. What about the millions of microorganisms that get killed during our daily chores? Looks like the only way to not kill/harm any living thing is to drop dead immediately. Is drinking milk immoral? Here neither an animal nor a plant is being harmed. Just assume that the milk is from a Hybrid cow that can produce more milk than it's calf can drink and it is this excess milk which is used for consumption.

06-02-2005, 02:31 AM	#38
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	People need to reproduce at at a lower rate, but for this they need to come to collective agreements perhaps.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.