We’re omnivores. We were meant to eat meat and vegetables. We just happened to pick stuff like chicken and beef.
Excellent protein sources.
Fuck agriculture.
Let’s just become nomadic hunter/gatherers again.
[quote]Kalle wrote:
We are at the top of the food chain.
[/quote]
No, I am fairly certain Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever is.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
What in the Sam fucking Hill does population have to do with being nicer to the animals?
The more mouths we have to feed, the crappier the conditions under which animals are kept.
Common sense, use it![/quote]
Common sense says that if you want to eat, you will do what you have to to have food - so idiots ike you should just shut the fuck up, and color.
Common sense does not include raising a bunch of fucking pets.
Now as far as this “overpopulation” thing, bullshit.
Using slightly more then lixy’s numbers, and giving each person a comfortable 10 sq ft each, the entire population of earth could fit into an area of less then 26,472 sq miles.
The city I live in is over 76,000.
yeah yeah
eating meat is a sin
a tasty tasty sin…mmmmm hamburgers
in the natural world - where animals and plants live - there is no morality. only us humans at/near the top of the food chain assign a morality to things.
i now make a distinction between those that become vegetarian out of guilt vs. those that do it out of their faith & beliefs, with the latter being among the kindest folks i’ve ever met and the former among the most belligerent & judgemental.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Now as far as this “overpopulation” thing, bullshit.
Using slightly more then lixy’s numbers, and giving each person a comfortable 10 sq ft each, the entire population of earth could fit into an area of less then 26,472 sq miles.
The city I live in is over 76,000.
[/quote]
A similar computation I saw elsewhere had everyone living on a half-acre in a land area the size of texas. So it’s a matter of economic delivery of nutrients, essential services and waste disposal, and the economics of the secondary systems that support those systems - not one of population, per se.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Now as far as this “overpopulation” thing, bullshit. [/quote]
You don’t think the strain humans are exerting on Earth’s ecosystem (yes, that includes cows!) is directly proportional to the number of people?
Don’t get me wrong, the planet could sustain a lot more, but it doesn’t necessarily make it a good thing to pursue. Just imagine if the whole world reaches a standard of living comparable to that of the US. We’ll waste every single resource in a couple of centuries.
Most people do not realize this, but the primary problem is water. And seeing how we’re polluting and all, it’s going to be the source of major conflicts in the near-future. You watch!
And I don’t expect people who think with their religion rather their brains to understand any of that.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, the planet could sustain a lot more… [/quote]
Then shut the the hell up. The US is not to blame for the world population explosion.
We are not overcrowded. And in case you are truly as stupid as you have shown yourself in this thread - the world is 70% water.
Water problem? Hardly.
Do the math.
Now please go back to the political forum if you want to spread your bullshit.
[quote]abcd1234 wrote:
Pigs, on the other hand, are more intelligent than dogs and pot-bellied pigs can be raised as pets.
My original post has to do with the inconsistency many have when they condemn dog fighting and the like while taking an “anything goes” mentality when it comes to how the meat they eat was killed.
[/quote]
If I had a pet pig, I probably wouldn’t eat pork. My Grandfather, who lived next door did raise hogs for a while when I was a kid, and I have no problem eating bacon.
As far as your inconsistency argument, you’re still comparing apples to acorns, and your argument that animals are killed in a deliberately cruel way has been debunked by people who know better than you. The people who eat meat and condemn dog fighting don’t have an “anything goes” mentality, so much as they are comfortable knowing that the animals they eat were slaughtered in a manner that was quick, and humane, and caused them no distress until the final moments.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Now as far as this “overpopulation” thing, bullshit.
Using slightly more then lixy’s numbers, and giving each person a comfortable 10 sq ft each, the entire population of earth could fit into an area of less then 26,472 sq miles.
The city I live in is over 76,000.
[/quote]
Just because no one wants to live in Nebraska doesn’t mean that ‘empty space’ isn’t being used to feed the people who are already living like sardines right now.
Think about it.
Regarding the original question, eating meat and killing animals is an amoral issue. Most domesticated animals can’t survive without us anyway. What more do we owe them?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, the planet could sustain a lot more…
Then shut the the hell up. The US is not to blame for the world population explosion.
We are not overcrowded. And in case you are truly as stupid as you have shown yourself in this thread - [b]the world is 70% water.
Water problem? Hardly.[/b]
Do the math.
Now please go back to the political forum if you want to spread your bullshit.
[/quote]
Just to head off lixy before he starts whining about how “only a fraction of that is fresh water!”, we also have the ability to desalinate water.
It’s a similar analogy to many of our energy issues. While we can do it, it’s not currently economically feasible to produce wide-scale desalination plants. At some point in the future when nations might consider going to war over water sources, I suspect the costs of desalination plants might be a lot more palatable.
[quote]Dirty_Bulk wrote:
Just because no one wants to live in Nebraska doesn’t mean that ‘empty space’ isn’t being used to feed the people who are already living like sardines right now. [/quote]
There is no such thing as an “empty space”. With rare exceptions, every ounce of the planet is used by organisms to get food, shelter and the like.
Some people seem determined to do away with every other species as long as their habitat accommodates them and their greedy lifestyles.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
The people who eat meat and condemn dog fighting don’t have an “anything goes” mentality, so much as they are comfortable knowing that the animals they eat were slaughtered in a manner that was quick, and humane, and caused them no distress until the final moments. [/quote]
How would they know that’s the case(that they were slaughtered in such a way)? Blind faith? While the PETA videos may be taken out of context and claim to portray the meat packing industry as a whole, there’s no denying that slaughterhouses like that do exist. In what numbers, I don’t know.
This raises more questions than how they are killed. How do they live before being killed? What is their level of space relative to what they naturally prefer? How healthy are they? Are they given antibiotics? How is their diet and living condition?(all of this impacts their taste in a positive way, but that’s off topic)
[quote]Dirty_Bulk wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Now as far as this “overpopulation” thing, bullshit.
Using slightly more then lixy’s numbers, and giving each person a comfortable 10 sq ft each, the entire population of earth could fit into an area of less then 26,472 sq miles.
The city I live in is over 76,000.
Just because no one wants to live in Nebraska doesn’t mean that ‘empty space’ isn’t being used to feed the people who are already living like sardines right now.
Think about it.
Regarding the original question, eating meat and killing animals is an amoral issue. Most domesticated animals can’t survive without us anyway. What more do we owe them?[/quote]
I actually take this position as well. I believe morality only exists in the context of humanity. Since animals cannot give the same consideration to their actions as humans do, they do not possess any concept of “morality” or ethical behavior. Despite this, I’m inclined to think that we should treat animals with some dignity(why exactly, I am not sure of just yet).
I admit, I empathize with animals in pain even though they cannot for us. This is likely a cultural thing that I’ve been conditioned into. If I were in the woods, starving after chasing game all day with no guarantee of a meal in the future, I would definitely care a lot less about the screams and shrieks of an animal. In fact, my mouth would probably salivate whilst gutting and skinning.
I EAT VEGETARIANS!!!
Lixy you squat when you pee. GirlyMan.
Looks like I’ll have to be the one to post this…
That Koala Bear looks fucking tasty. The bird just makes me want some fruit loops.
[quote]abcd1234 wrote:
Dirty_Bulk wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Now as far as this “overpopulation” thing, bullshit.
Using slightly more then lixy’s numbers, and giving each person a comfortable 10 sq ft each, the entire population of earth could fit into an area of less then 26,472 sq miles.
The city I live in is over 76,000.
Just because no one wants to live in Nebraska doesn’t mean that ‘empty space’ isn’t being used to feed the people who are already living like sardines right now.
Think about it.
Regarding the original question, eating meat and killing animals is an amoral issue. Most domesticated animals can’t survive without us anyway. What more do we owe them?
I actually take this position as well. I believe morality only exists in the context of humanity. Since animals cannot give the same consideration to their actions as humans do, they do not possess any concept of “morality” or ethical behavior. Despite this, I’m inclined to think that we should treat animals with some dignity(why exactly, I am not sure of just yet).
I admit, I empathize with animals in pain even though they cannot for us. This is likely a cultural thing that I’ve been conditioned into. If I were in the woods, starving after chasing game all day with no guarantee of a meal in the future, I would definitely care a lot less about the screams and shrieks of an animal. In fact, my mouth would probably salivate whilst gutting and skinning.
[/quote]
Actually - in “primitive” cultures, there is an inherent respect for the animal being killed for food more often than not. The pain and toil and challenge of obtaining sustenance did not incorporate cruelty per se, but the struggle between man and animal was recognized as part of ritual wherein the hunter struggled with the animal to feed his family and the animal struggled with the hunter not to become prey. IT was seen as a battle of wits and strength to a degree and the hunter honored his opponent at victory.
I think that as feeling human beings, we can recognize fear and pain in other species and the inherent guilt (for humans) that goes along with inspiring those emotions in another entity. One can’t help but see oneself in the ‘victim.’ As such, I think we would wish to minimize any unnecessary suffering in the raising and slaughter of our food.
It may that it is only since we began raising animals in large quantities that we have come to see them as commodities or resources only and have debased them thereby.
However - I may be overly romanticizing the whole thing. I have not been a farmer or rancher, but it seems to me that one should have some gratitude for one’s allotted portion of meat.