I think you've missed my point. Removing what is one of the primary constraints on population growth is exactly what we don't want to be doing if we want to save the planet.10 billion...?
I think you've missed my point. Removing what is one of the primary constraints on population growth is exactly what we don't want to be doing if we want to save the planet.10 billion...?
Before spouting off so loudly, I think you need to read a little more widely. Why not read about the research of a scientist who says 25 times more animals are killed for the same amount of protein as raising beef, in Australia. http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659
You seem to claim that you know everything about raising animals and I don't. Clearly, you are deluding yourself and everyone else here.
Before spouting off so loudly, I think you need to read a little more widely. Why not read about the research of a scientist who says 25 times more animals are killed for the same amount of protein as raising beef, in Australia. http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659
You seem to claim that you know everything about raising animals and I don't. Clearly, you are deluding yourself and everyone else here.
if we had objections with killing animals for food then milk, eggs etc.. would also be problematic or much more expensive.... what to do with all the baby boy cows/chicks....
Chickens stop laying after 3 years but live for several years longer - do we keep spending on feed for a bunch of chickens the majority of whom are no longer laying eggs... and look after a whole bunch of cocks who will never lay eggs
Completely cutting out meat for ethical reasons but continuing with milk, eggs etc.. still ends up with buying products subsidised by the killing of animals.
Then again every time a tree is felled thousands of insects get killed, every time a road or house is built we end up killing a bunch of animals/destroying habitats... we can't avoid killing animals and farm animals mostly wouldn't even be here if we didn't require them for food.
I try not to eat meat for every meal and I do think it is unnecessary - it used to be a luxury. I do have an issue with mass production of chickens - even non-battery farmed chickens are often still produced in a cramped barn.... I try to eat free range - this rule gets broken when drunk and ordering a halal chicken kebab.
I'm happy to eat meat but I'd also be happy to see meat become more expensive and animal welfare rules be tightened.
I am merely stating that the OP is deluded by his belief. Australia may be different to the UK. But the USA is different to the UK too. We are not talking UK specific, we are talking about the concept of vegetarianism in general.
Show me some statistics that say more animals die in meat production? We can then argue it.
The report is valid wherever you read it. Its just it applies to Australia.
How about supplying the evidence that more animals die from eating meat than by vegetarianism? You say a lot and prove nothing. You say the scientists report is not valid, but your own delusions are.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to make an adult argument.
Do you really believe that you would see any lovely cows and pigs and sheep and chickens if we didn't eat them?
The problem's I have personal encountered with being vegetarian, is if you don't have a really well planned out diet, you tend to lack a lot of essential minerals and vitamins.
I would appear the human body isn't as good as animals are making them ourselves and missing out on them in our diet always, as my previous and current gf are proving. (I know I seem to attract them lol)
Both have been constantly tired on occasion and have had numerous visits to the doctors with both being put on Iron tablets.
I have seen doctors notes that didn't even bother to check for anything else, they just hear vegetarian and send them for blood tests instantly.
I don't think it's healthy if your lazy.
Yes, chickens deaths are high relative to the number of calories provided, or food value. We can always be selective in our stats. But then again, so are eggs. Since we are talking about vegetarians, they are generally egg eaters. So part of their diet involves eggs.
Furthermore, if you look at beef, you get far more calories per life than chickens.
Source: http://measureofdoubt.com/2011/06/22/why-a-vegetarian-might-kill-more-animals-than-an-omnivore/
The term 'gift of life' seems a little strange when you factor in the qualify of life that most animals used for meat or dairy endure.I think there are two important arguments to consider:
1. If we did not eat meat, the vast majority of these animals would never have experienced the gift of life in the first place. i.e. they would have been deprived of the opportunity. Are the vegetarians saying they would have preferred that the (eaten) animal would have been better off by having no life in the first place?.
Those animals are also killed to feed animals which later are killed.2. More animals are killed in the creation of many vegetables than in the creation of meat. For example, a combine harvester kills countless mice, snakes, insects and small mammals, as it hacks through acres of wheat.
Explain how. In any given field, there are far more small mammals like mice etc. than there are cows, for example.
Lol, and non off this agrees with your stance vegetarians kill more. It is plainly wrong for everyone to see.
Unless you have such a low farming intensity you need no feed. Which is barely doable in most countries.
And I don't really believe the report that no feed or grass is cut for Australian cattle.
Don't know what percentage it is, but 600,000 per quarter are grain fed in Australia. That kills the report to start with.
My issue however, and one I'd be interested to hear what other think about this would be what do you think would happen to all the lovely cows and pigs and sheep and chickens that you see all over the countryside. Do you really believe that you would see any lovely cows and pigs and sheep and chickens if we didn't eat them?
if we had objections with killing animals for food then milk, eggs etc.. would also be problematic or much more expensive.... what to do with all the baby boy cows/chicks....
Chickens stop laying after 3 years but live for several years longer - do we keep spending on feed for a bunch of chickens the majority of whom are no longer laying eggs... and look after a whole bunch of cocks who will never lay eggs
Completely cutting out meat for ethical reasons but continuing with milk, eggs etc.. still ends up with buying products subsidised by the killing of animals.
Then again every time a tree is felled thousands of insects get killed, every time a road or house is built we end up killing a bunch of animals/destroying habitats... we can't avoid killing animals and farm animals mostly wouldn't even be here if we didn't require them for food.
I try not to eat meat for every meal and I do think it is unnecessary - it used to be a luxury. I do have an issue with mass production of chickens - even non-battery farmed chickens are often still produced in a cramped barn.... I try to eat free range - this rule gets broken when drunk and ordering a halal chicken kebab.
I'm happy to eat meat but I'd also be happy to see meat become more expensive and animal welfare rules be tightened.
How about supplying the evidence that more animals die from eating meat than by vegetarianism? You say a lot and prove nothing. You say the scientists report is not valid, but your own delusions are.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to make an adult argument.
Have you conveniently forgotten about your chicken feed argument already? At least be truthful if you wish to be believed.
How is all of it wrong? Once again, no evidence from you.
You don't believe the report from the scientist because you are more interested in appearing right than accepting the truth.
The fact you don't know what the percentage is, but then state it kills the report, means you don't understand basic statistics. How else can you say it kills the report?
Please try harder next time.
A couple of counter arguments.
The term 'gift of life' seems a little strange when you factor in the qualify of life that most animals used for meat or dairy endure.
Those animals are also killed to feed animals which later are killed.
You are presenting a false dichotomy in that we either utterly ignore the ethical considerations or have to live on air causing no deaths at all. It's a matter of damage mitigation & reducing (as much as possible) the net suffering is the argument as I know it.
Additionally, you are comparing modern agricultural farming methods & applying that to all vegetable products - when in reality many small farms/home grown or even potentially hydroponics based farming methods could yield the food without any deaths. The consumption of animals (unless we move to artificially created meat) will always result in the deaths of animals so is therefore not really comparable.