Nation of meat eating animal lovers?

[elmarko]

If you use any animal product or any product related to or which uses animal products unit manufacture or production then you are responsible for the deaths of animals. Whether you eat meat or not, plastics, paints, clothing, medicines and I'm sure you don't need me to go on. But in essence food or no food, each and everyone of us contributes to the use of animal products in in way or another, even if we do not realise or even know about it. I'm not sure that not eating meat really contributes to the non-expansion of animal death exactly, as if we didn't eat them, most of the other uses would still be necessary and even if they were not, we would still need to control animal numbers, especially in herd animals which would mean culling. I'm not convinced that culling is any better than farming in this respect..

For a vast majority of the secondary uses for animal products synthetic alternatives exist, while I agree it's not possible to have a zero 'animal death footprint' (as some are killed in modern agriculture) - it is possible to attempt to minimise this footprint & personally I believe we have an ethical duty to do this.

I'm not actually trying to proselytise anybody regarding this, but I believe it's faulty logic to assert that by refraining from a key activity which fundamentally requires the deaths of animals (eating meat) has no impact on net animal deaths doesn't really fit that well with the behavioural laws of supply & demand.

If the (apr) 10% of the UK population who currently refrain from eating meat starting purchasing meat from the local shops - would the increase in demand not filter through into the global farmers market & result in either increased herd sizes, expansion or provide demand for additional foreign start-ups?.

Would these start-ups not increase the global net animals killed for the meat production?.

I know you well enough I think to realise you are not being judgemental (I assume you are a vegetarian or vegan?) but the way you expressed this argument does come across that way.

Vegan, but I used to eat meat myself for years & know how awkward & difficult the diet can be.

I'm not actually judging people for eating meat, just rejecting the assertion that not eating meat has no impact - as clearly in large enough numbers it does.

To give an example, beef production has been on the decline in the US for the last 10 years - production, because people can't afford to purchase red meat as often due to the recession.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/statistics-information.aspx
http://www.packagedfacts.com/about/release.asp?id=3166

So if beef production has dropped from 27.9 to 25.5 Billion lb over a 10/11 year period with a notable population increase over the same tenure for economic reasons (people buying less meat), why would people not buying meat for ethical reasons have no impact?.

To use a more obvious example, India - with an estimated 20-40% vegetarian population - this clearly has an impact on the global meat demand & influences net production. The fact a few additional hundred million people abstain from this product quite clearly will have an impact.

 

[RoboCod]

Elmarko, beef production might have reduced in the US, that isn't to say that people didn't just buy a cheaper alternative meat (chicken) instead.

 

[Castiel]

For a vast majority of the secondary uses for animal products synthetic alternatives exist, while I agree it's not possible to have a zero 'animal death footprint' (as some are killed in modern agriculture) - it is possible to attempt to minimise this footprint & personally I believe we have an ethical duty to do this.

I'm not actually trying to proselytise anybody regarding this, but I believe it's faulty logic to assert that by refraining from a key activity which fundamentally requires the deaths of animals (eating meat) has no impact on net animal deaths doesn't really fit that well with the behavioural laws of supply & demand.

If the (apr) 10% of the UK population who currently refrain from eating meat starting purchasing meat from the local shops - would the increase in demand not filter through into the global farmers market & result in either increased herd sizes, expansion or provide demand for additional foreign start-ups?.

Would these start-ups not increase the global net animals killed for the meat production?.

Vegan, but I used to eat meat myself for years & know how awkward & difficult the diet can be.

I'm not actually judging people for eating meat, just rejecting the assertion that not eating meat has no impact - as clearly in large enough numbers it does.

To give an example, beef production has been on the decline in the US for the last 10 years - production, because people can't afford to purchase red meat as often due to the recession.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/statistics-information.aspx
http://www.packagedfacts.com/about/release.asp?id=3166

So if beef production has dropped from 27.9 to 25.5 Billion lb over a 10/11 year period with a notable population increase over the same tenure for economic reasons (people buying less meat), why would people not buying meat for ethical reasons have no impact?.

To use a more obvious example, India - with an estimated 20-40% vegetarian population - this clearly has an impact on the global meat demand & influences net production. The fact a few additional hundred million people abstain from this product quite clearly will have an impact.

That is well and good, but it predisposes one glaring error...that non-meat food production doesn't have any impact on animal death, you are not considering the in-direct impact intensive crop farming has on the environment and the animal population around it. Of course lower beef demand, lowers beef production...but that doesn't necessarily mean net animal death is actually lower. It simply meant beef production is lower. In much the same way that not farming for meat doesn't necessarily mean the same animals would not be farmed for the other uses, the figures you give refer to Beef Production only, which is a product of cattle farming. It doesn't mean they wouldn't be farmed for other reasons...in fact it doesn't mean that they wouldn't be culled instead either if breeding was abandoned.

I think it is a bit of a leap to address meat production (overall) as an ethical issue. Animal welfare in farming (including slaughter) is a area we should look at the ethics surrounding animal welfare but farming livestock for food itself, I don't the feel that is inherently unethical or that we have an inherent duty to consider it such.

 

[elmarko]

Elmarko, beef production might have reduced in the US, that isn't to say that people didn't just bought a cheaper alternative meat (chicken) instead.

Well, it's a very good question yes but two points regarding this.

1. Even if chicken production increased, beef production decreased due to a reduction in demand - this was the actual argument I presented which people seem to be getting worked up about.

Following the logic that if meat eaters switch from one type to another reduces demand, there is no reason to believe that by switching to a meat alternative it wouldn't reduce production overall.

2. From the data I've read, there has been a notable increase in the number of meat free meals - up-to 20% of the US population in one study are now having them on a semi-regular basis (for economic reasons, not ethical) - so beans, rice, pasta with vegetables kind of thing.

Part of the problem is that the second you mention vegan people assume you are extreme & trying to convert, I don't care what people eat - it's a person choice for me based on my own ethics & I have no interest attempting to persuade people (mostly because it's pointless).

I'm just rejecting what I believe to be a faulty assertion.

That is well and good, but it predisposes one glaring error...that non-meat food production doesn't have any impact on animal death, you are not considering the in-direct such intensive crop farming has on the environment and the animal population around it. Of course lower beef demand, lowers beef production...but that doesn't necessarily mean net animal death is actually lower. It simply meant beef production is lower.

This doesn't really make a huge difference - as clearing land for animal use causes the same, then feeding a large portion of animals requires copious amounts of grain (which leads back to the same problem).

There is also a difference that fundamentally killing animals is a core requirement of meat production, it is possible given our technology to product food crops without killing animals (using vertical farming, hydroponics) which I also advocate.

It simply meant beef production is lower. In much the same way that not farming for meat doesn't necessarily mean the same animals would not be farmed for the other uses, the figures you give refer to Beef Production only, which is a product of cattle farming. It doesn't mean they wouldn't be farmed for other reasons...in fact it doesn't mean that they wouldn't be culled instead either if breeding was abandoned..

You are correct, for a singular one off event it would do little.

But over an extended period of time, farmers would not be raising beef cattle to cull repeatedly without selling the meat, or continue to breed at the same rate for by-product sales alone (it would not be economically viable).

A one off cull & the preventing of further breeding would still be a net reduction in total animal deaths (as in the long term less would be bred & killed).

I think it is a bit of a leap to address meat production (overall) as an ethical issue. Animal welfare in farming (including slaughter) is a area we should look at the ethics surrounding animal welfare but farming livestock for food itself, I don't the feel that is inherently unethical or that we have an inherent duty to consider it such.

This is why for that section I added the qualifier in my view.

Clearly this aspect is subjective, but a huge portion of the population (meat eaters or those who abstain from it) would disagree with you on it being an ethical issue.

(Btw, if I don't respond it's more likely to be that I've run out of things to say - I've presented my argument in about 24 different ways & don't want to fill this thread with repetition - it's a case of agree or disagree).

 

[Castiel]

This doesn't really make a huge difference - as clearing land for animal use causes the same, then feeding a large portion of animals requires copious amounts of grain (which leads back to the same problem).

Except there are animals living on the land in one scenario and animals killed because of the land being used for non animal purposes in the second. Also grain production for livestock is inherently a byproduct of grain production for human consumption. The reduction of biodiversity, destruction of the rainforest and other unique and irreplaceable biospheres due to food production is a huge issue, and this is not simply down to livestock farming. Look at the issues regarding biofuels, it is not as simple as saying "reduce livestock farming for meat reduces animal death from farming" simply because farming has an impact no matter what it's producing. You might as well say we should return to hunter/gatherer techniques as anything else is essentially unethical. This is why I think it is difficult to objectively state that livestock farming is inherently unethical, rather than looking at the techniques themselves.

A one off cull & the preventing of further breeding would still be a net reduction in total animal deaths (as in the long term less would be bred & killed).

This is why for that section I added the qualifier in my view.

I wasn't on about the cull in a one off situation, but the idea that no longer raising cattle would mean cattle no longer exist. Or are you advocating the extinction or control of cattle?

 

[TaKeN]

Out of a field of dairy cows how many don't get forced milked until
Their udders are oozing puss and sores?
.

Excuse me, but please explain this further.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Given the sheer destruction caused by a harvester and adding the chemicals used to treat the crops? I'm going to guess many many more field mice, shrews, snakes, birds, rabbits, etc, etc, than any badgers or cows. But the cows and badgers are cuddly, so they're more important.

I'd say mice, shrews and rabbits probably hit the cuddly criteria as well, certainly for some people...

However that's rather skirting the point - eating meat might be a more efficient way for you to get protein or nutrients at point of consumption but when you think about it it's less efficient than it may first appear. This is because you're relying on the animal to have turned whatever it has eaten into that tasty, tasty* meat - effectively you're adding a further layer into the system by not eating the food produced yourself in the first place (assuming it is something that humans can eat) which is always likely to add inefficiency to the system.

Frankly though my interest in your diet or that of anyone else starts and ends at the polite interest I'd express if we were sitting down to a meal together. You eat what you want to and I'll respect that, let me eat what I want and that would be all I ask of you. I'd like to see the standards of farming raised and for both livestock and vegetables to be raised in the best way achievable with minimums of distress and harm to everything in the ecosystem (cute, cuddly or otherwise and directly or indirectly involved) but I can't imagine many people want to see unnecessary cruelty involved in their food - if they do that probably raises some other more pertinent questions about their psyche anyway.

I would say though that as someone who is a vegetarian and has been for well over 3/4 of my life I try to avoid telling people what they should or shouldn't be eating because I'm happy to accept that it's their choice to eat what they want just as it should be mine to eat what I want. It's odd though the number of times I've been quite aggressively questioned by dinner companions about my choice to forgo meat, it seems as if by saying no thank you to meat I'm somehow attacked them for eating meat and they feel the need to defend themselves. I'm sure there are obnoxious vegetarians and vegans (no doubt there's some in this thread) but perhaps if people don't start from the basis of the stereotype (on both sides) then they'd find a better response. It sometimes feels as if there's militant omnivores out there just to counteract the militant vegetarians/vegans and I find myself slightly despairing of both sides. There's many ways to have a healthy diet and they all involve variety - it's just a question of where you draw your own moral line about what to eat and how you get that variety.

I'll have a conversation with you about vegetarianism if you really want but it gets a bit boring after several hundred previous conversations which mostly follow a similar pattern - being vegetarian doesn't define me any more than eating meat defines someone else. There are billions of other topics of conversation so if what discussing what you eat is your main focus then perhaps broadening your horizons wouldn't be a bad thing.

*I've been assured by a number of people that this is the correct description but I haven't tested this myself for so long I can't really remember what it tastes like.

 

[Glaucus]

I bet the op doesn't think twice about where he sources his veg from, and insured it's a low impact, sustainable and machine light farm, where as plenty of us source meat from small properly reared low density farms.

 

[elmarko]

I'd say mice, shrews and rabbits probably hit the cuddly criteria as well, certainly for some people...

However that's rather skirting the point - eating meat might be a more efficient way for you to get protein or nutrients at point of consumption but when you think about it it's less efficient than it may first appear. This is because you're relying on the animal to have turned whatever it has eaten into that tasty, tasty* meat - effectively you're adding a further layer into the system by not eating the food produced yourself in the first place (assuming it is something that humans can eat) which is always likely to add inefficiency to the system.

Frankly though my interest in your diet or that of anyone else starts and ends at the polite interest I'd express if we were sitting down to a meal together. You eat what you want to and I'll respect that, let me eat what I want and that would be all I ask of you. I'd like to see the standards of farming raised and for both livestock and vegetables to be raised in the best way achievable with minimums of distress and harm to everything in the ecosystem (cute, cuddly or otherwise and directly or indirectly involved) but I can't imagine many people want to see unnecessary cruelty involved in their food - if they do that probably raises some other more pertinent questions about their psyche anyway.

I would say though that as someone who is a vegetarian and has been for well over 3/4 of my life I try to avoid telling people what they should or shouldn't be eating because I'm happy to accept that it's their choice to eat what they want just as it should be mine to eat what I want. It's odd though the number of times I've been quite aggressively questioned by dinner companions about my choice to forgo meat, it seems as if by saying no thank you to meat I'm somehow attacked them for eating meat and they feel the need to defend themselves. I'm sure there are obnoxious vegetarians and vegans (no doubt there's some in this thread) but perhaps if people don't start from the basis of the stereotype (on both sides) then they'd find a better response. It sometimes feels as if there's militant omnivores out there just to counteract the militant vegetarians/vegans and I find myself slightly despairing of both sides. There's many ways to have a healthy diet and they all involve variety - it's just a question of where you draw your own moral line about what to eat and how you get that variety.

I'll have a conversation with you about vegetarianism if you really want but it gets a bit boring after several hundred previous conversations which mostly follow a similar pattern - being vegetarian doesn't define me any more than eating meat defines someone else. There are billions of other topics of conversation so if what discussing what you eat is your main focus then perhaps broadening your horizons wouldn't be a bad thing.

*I've been assured by a number of people that this is the correct description but I haven't tested this myself for so long I can't really remember what it tastes like.

Very well worded, perhaps more diplomatically that I have so far.

I can also attest to the frankly absurd amount of almost hostile questioning you get the second you mention you forgo meat (along with dairy in my case) & perhaps this more than anything (not to mention having to explain the same things hundreds of times, along with the stupid questions) which has tried my patience a little on this subject.

I wasn't on about the cull in a one off situation, but the idea that no longer raising cattle would mean cattle no longer exist. Or are you advocating the extinction or control of cattle?

Letting a species go gracefully into the history books which is only there to service man isn't a huge loss. Most domesticated modern animals only reproduce out of a result of artificial insemination anyway.

To keep a species in existence to live a life of death & servitude isn't really something to aspire to in my view.

 

[Nate75]

has anyone tried a badger?

 

[Nevakonaza]

We should all try to eat less meat for the good of the planet.

I tried those Quorn hot and spicy chicken nuggets the other day,Not bad actually they were quite nice..got me another pack..still though,I do like my meat...

 

[Castiel]

To keep a species in existence to live a life of death & servitude isn't really something to aspire to in my view.

That's not what I asked, not in the slightest.

My issue is with the implied universal view that being a vegan is ethical and being an omnivore is not.

An ethical choice for the individual (on something as subjective as diet anyway) should not be deemed as universally ethically superior to other choices which may not share the same viewpoint.

 

[G-MAN2004]

Is it true that humans would not be around today if they had not hunted and killed animals during the stone ages (or earlier, I have no idea)?

 

[TaKeN]

Elmarko, you're getting hostile responses as you don't understand what Dairy Farming consists of. Along with Skodamark you push incorrect horror stories of abuse and neglect which simply aren't in line with UK dairy farming practices. I strongly advise you to visit a local Dairy or Beef farm where you'll gain a true picture.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

These statistics are scary.
Every year throughout the world these many animals are slaughtered for our bellies and they reckon it's about to double in some cases -

60 billion Chickens
3.5 billion ducks & turkeys
1.4 billion pigs
1 billion sheep & goats
300 million cattle
5 million horses
2 million camels

This is a really good watch - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search?q=Should I Eat Meat

 

[Amp34]

The paper is very relevant as not only does it point out previous trials in this country and the positives and negatives of those trails it also goes into depth of how m bovine is transferred and how it effects badgers differently to livestock

all very relevant information.

laughable about the reduced population of badgers in this country and basing your argument on it.

You are completely out of your mind, they have been increasing year on year the population is estimated at the low end of the scale of over half a million.

Which is fine, however it does not have any information about the latest cull and the effectiveness of the methods they used vs the use of vaccinations, which is the question I initially asked...

Laughable about you trying to suggest you know what's best for the environment (presumably being a farmer?) yet believe destroying the majority of a native species is the best way to go. That sums up the farming attitude though (of many farmers, not all). I had one of each in my family tbh.

Believing that the planet is not ours to own and do whatever we like to should not be out of my mind. We share this planet with other species. As humans, who are apparently different because we have compassion and greater intelligence (both highly debateable), we should remember that...

That's before we get to the point of destroying the prospect of future people by living for the now, not sustainably. A perfect example being the EU neonicotinoid pesticide ban, which the UK government oppose (obviously), even though the scientific evidence points to it being a primary factor in honey bee collapse syndrome...

Again, cutting your nose off to spite your face...

Farming sustainably is a perfectly reasonable possibility, unfortunately it will cost a little bit more, which people don't want.

 

[Freefaller]

These statistics are scary.
Every year throughout the world these many animals are slaughtered for our bellies and they reckon it's about to double in some cases -

60 billion Chickens
3.5 billion ducks & turkeys
1.4 billion pigs
1 billion sheep & goats
300 million cattle
5 million horses
2 million camels

This is a really good watch - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search?q=Should I Eat Meat

Seen it and it's not going to change my stance on my lifestyle. However it reinforces the fact that I am happy with where I buy my meat from and am responsible with my lifestyle choice.

 

[Nate75]

Seen it and it's not going to change my stance on my lifestyle. However it reinforces the fact that I am happy with where I buy my meat from and am responsible with my lifestyle choice.

100% agree with this.

 

[Amp34]

no were not we're following the same pattern as all predator prey relationships just we manage to stretch out the dips by varying food sources and artificially increasing prey numbers.

you should have been taught that in gcse.

predators eat and breed till prey drops, then they die off the next year as there's not enough food, then the prey recover so on and so on.

I hope you'll be happy watching your standard of living dropping significantly (let alone any children's) as the 5 billion people in Asia and Africa aspire to life like us in the west. It's not sustainable and not possible. Something is going to give, either our standard of living drops considerably, we keep theirs as low as possible (unlikely to be possible against China and India) or we ravage the earth trying, before we fail.

Alternatively we could reduce our population by having less children, dropping to a more sustainable number. Or another alternative that is popular in this thread, we could just cull 70% of the population, it's apparently a humane option and the best way to do it...

 

[Amp34]

Watched a documentary about the re-introduction of wolves to Yellowstone. Mostly done because the bison, elk and deer populations were out of control and destroying all the flora. The impact the re-introduction of wolves has had is huge, with lots of flora now able to recover when it would barely have any time during migration periods.

Of course, it's ****ed off the farmers who own cattle and sheep. And there's the whole "der gubbermunt aint tellin' us wut ter do" lot getting in on the argument too.

Can't remember the name of the documentary, but this fella (Doug Smith) was in it.

You can't let science get in the way of a good rant/political opinion!

How dare you!

This is a prime example of how ecosystems work and how human influence on those ecosystems has severely damaged the natural flux and repair mechanisms. When you bring back the missing links nature can repair itself, for the benefit of all.