Guilt free Sausages?
- Thread starter gailjon
- Start date
I know, that was exactly my point!
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
If we stop eating animals entirely and move to a plant based diet how would we deal with the loss of nutrients in the ground?
From my very basic, uneducated, point, growing food to eat takes the nutrients out of the soil, which are then replenished by fertiliser to be able to sustain the new crop and it would take something (anecdotal partial memory) like 500 years for the nutrient to be replenished naturally.
Could all of the current farmland in the world support the same number of calories? (like on a m2 basis?) I'm sure a lot of the uk farmland used for animals, is used as such due to soil conditions unable to provide suitable growing mediums... it's definitely an interesting debate, but I don't think the comparisons are as straight forward as some would like you to believe - if you take the ethical high road, then that's fine, but do you ensure that all the vegetables are grown without manure for fertiliser?
From my very basic, uneducated, point, growing food to eat takes the nutrients out of the soil, which are then replenished by fertiliser to be able to sustain the new crop and it would take something (anecdotal partial memory) like 500 years for the nutrient to be replenished naturally.
Could all of the current farmland in the world support the same number of calories? (like on a m2 basis?) I'm sure a lot of the uk farmland used for animals, is used as such due to soil conditions unable to provide suitable growing mediums... it's definitely an interesting debate, but I don't think the comparisons are as straight forward as some would like you to believe - if you take the ethical high road, then that's fine, but do you ensure that all the vegetables are grown without manure for fertiliser?
The amount of calories vs how much land is used is massively inefficient. Also an absolutely ridiculous amount of land is currently being used to grow crops to feed said animals, making the entire process hugely inefficient in terms of producing calories.
When it's done according to decent regulations, it doesn't involve suffering. The fact that some people do the wrong thing (typically in dodgy countries with poor regulation) does not change my position.
It's just the food chain. There's more suffering in nature on a daily basis than in modern agriculture.
I don't agree with beak trimming, which is thankfully banned in a few European countries and parts of Australia. I hope this becomes more widespread, but the fact that it happens doesn't add any guilt to my meat.
I don't like chick shredding because it's wasteful and inefficient, but it doesn't involve suffering. The machine operates at such a high speed, the chicks die instantly.
The issue is wide spread, countless times farms have been infiltrated to expose what happens here in the UK. Even those stamped by industry leading animal welfare standards.
Morally, do you think it's OK to take a sentient beings life when they want to live? Just look at this table, it's depressing.
https://www.farmtransparency.org/kb/48-age-animals-slaughtered
The entire idea of a humane slaughter is laughable. Humane meaning "having or showing compassion or benevolence.", nothing humane about ending a healthy animals life that wants to live, for a sandwich that will be forgotten about shortly after.
That's not really true.
Worldwide mammal population is estimated at 130 billion, and most don't experience a whole lot of 'cruelty'. We eat 2 billion mammals per year, just in pig, cow, sheep and goat numbers, and most face human cruelty in some form.
We also kill 50 billion chickens each year, for meat, which excludes male chicks in the egg industry.
By all means eat meat, I do, but don't pretend it's not an awful industry.
Honestly it is awful if you truly judge a farmed animals life to be worth something.
We(most of us) are humans. We are the ultimate predator and masters of earth and everything on it. That's how it is. No need for gods or divinity, we have won the evolutionary race on this planet.
Only now have we become so comfortable and surrounded by abundance that we even have time to consider the "feelings" of our livestock that helped get us to here.
Yes there is no denying that some practices are shocking and industrial and extremely wasteful.
The chicks one. It's really no worse than casting away a seed that didn't germinate properly or has a gnarly leaf.
It's a resource we have learned to exploit with hideous efficiency.
Maybe dial back the efficiency, increase the cost of the product.
It is what it is. Good for you if you opt out of the system. It's free choice.
We(most of us) are humans. We are the ultimate predator and masters of earth and everything on it. That's how it is. No need for gods or divinity, we have won the evolutionary race on this planet.
Only now have we become so comfortable and surrounded by abundance that we even have time to consider the "feelings" of our livestock that helped get us to here.
Yes there is no denying that some practices are shocking and industrial and extremely wasteful.
The chicks one. It's really no worse than casting away a seed that didn't germinate properly or has a gnarly leaf.
It's a resource we have learned to exploit with hideous efficiency.
Maybe dial back the efficiency, increase the cost of the product.
It is what it is. Good for you if you opt out of the system. It's free choice.
I mean kinda. If we can call going to the supermarket and picking up a packet of diced up animal, "hunting"
Yep and it's a poor trade in terms of the cost to our planet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
I didn't say it wasn't, but are we able to use the current amount of farmland to produce enough calories to feed everyone, with no animal products whatsoever? If you don't feed the animals you have to feed the people, and the two types of land required for each isn't the same.
So whilst you might say that it's inefficient or costing the planet, what would we do with the farmland which isn't suitable to produce food for humans (because we don't get the same food as animals?
What would be the situation with only plants to eat if there are a couple of bad growing seasons? Animals are pretty resilient to weather/insects etc - imo we should be balancing out consumption rather than completely disregarding food sources - humans have succeeded by taking advantage of resources, even growing plants requires a huge input from man to make successful forcing things to grow is unnatural, taking over 1000's of acres to grow a single crop is unnatural but we've figured out how to do these things...
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,670
This guy thinks he could beat an Elephant, Croc and Shark for sure from that yougov poll
Yes. Morally the basic idea of killing an animal for food is perfectly acceptable to me, indeed I have done it many times myself. No big game in the UK but plenty of small tasty animals and birds, not to mention good fishing.
In time farming animals for meat will be looked down upon like we look at slavery now.
This will take time. But you can already see vegetarianism and veganism popularity is booming.
A very good thing. Farming is barbaric
Lab grown meat, meat substitutes are the first important step.
This will reduce carbon emissions and eliminate horrific suffering.
This will take time. But you can already see vegetarianism and veganism popularity is booming.
A very good thing. Farming is barbaric
Lab grown meat, meat substitutes are the first important step.
This will reduce carbon emissions and eliminate horrific suffering.
Even when it's not out of necessity?
Would it be OK to kill a dog in the same way?