Plants

[PLAYER57832]

When you get into broader ethical or environmental issues, a lot of stuff put out is either flat wrong or misguided. For example, animals traditionally are slaughtered in human ways that minimize or almost eliminate pain, but so-called "modern", mass production results in failures. The problem is that failures ALSO happen in mass vegetarian production. For example, most protein comes from soy and the way soy is grown is not always great for the environment. Plus, a lot of commercial soy has residues of pesticides and such or has been modified in some way that may not be beneficial to humans. To those who argue, "but no pain to animals", I suggest viewing the results of heavy pesticide use and general poor management of crops on animal life. That the impact is more indirect does not mean it is less. Honestly, I think it is far more honest, shows more integrity to raise and slaughter the animals you eat, controlling the whole process -- or to obtain them from people who you trust to do that well, rather than just buying off the shelf vegetarian items. In many cases, the greater harm comes from the mass-produced vegetarian products.

It is completely disingenuous to describe plant production as "vegetarian production." We all eat plants. The onus of sustainable agriculture is on all of us. Even if you never touch a vegetable, the meat you eat comes from animals that were fed that commercial soy. Plus, the animals eat more than you would have, because we can't do a 100% efficient conversion from plant to meat (it's as low as 10% in the case of US beef).

I fully agree that plant growth should be sustainable. However, you lapse into one of the poor arguments when you talk about the conversion, because sustainable animal production would not use soy or other human consumables in any real quantities.

I have said this before, but humans societies evolved with ruminants because they eat the "chaff", the parts we cannot digest and convert it to things we can use. That is just one small piece. Growing the right crops and animals in the right land is very complicated. And, what works in one area might be very unsustainable in others. Generally (roughly) truly indienous socieities tended to have evolved ways to survive sustainably in their environment. They had to, after all. There was no other real choice.

[PLAYER57832]

It is completely disingenuous to describe plant production as "vegetarian production." We all eat plants. The onus of sustainable agriculture is on all of us. Even if you never touch a vegetable, the meat you eat comes from animals that were fed that commercial soy. Plus, the animals eat more than you would have, because we can't do a 100% efficient conversion from plant to meat (it's as low as 10% in the case of US beef).

Yeah but humans and animals can't and don't always eat the same stuff. I can't sustain off grass but a cow can and it's a hell of a lot easier to grow grass than it is vegetables that humans can eat.
Also, technically speaking you could eat only meat just as easily as you could eat only vegetables.

Right, but my point is, regardless of whether animals can be only grass-fed, the fact is that they aren't. This is a result of trying to produce meat for hundreds of millions of people -- people are always going to go with the system that scales the best, even if it's not the best for the environment. People who eat meat (especially if they only eat meat) are responsible for the consumption of more soy than people who are vegan as it currently stands. This doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.

The problem you put forward is a problem of allowing traditional standard market economics and profit to dictate our eating, land use and ecologic habits. It is not a problem of animal versus plant consumption, it is a problem with ALL unsustainable consumption. Nor is it an insurmountable problem, however solutions mean stepping outside of the standard "either we let he who makes the most money decide the world or we all go become communist and have no freedom" "argument".

[Metsfanmax]

When you get into broader ethical or environmental issues, a lot of stuff put out is either flat wrong or misguided. For example, animals traditionally are slaughtered in human ways that minimize or almost eliminate pain, but so-called "modern", mass production results in failures. The problem is that failures ALSO happen in mass vegetarian production. For example, most protein comes from soy and the way soy is grown is not always great for the environment. Plus, a lot of commercial soy has residues of pesticides and such or has been modified in some way that may not be beneficial to humans. To those who argue, "but no pain to animals", I suggest viewing the results of heavy pesticide use and general poor management of crops on animal life. That the impact is more indirect does not mean it is less. Honestly, I think it is far more honest, shows more integrity to raise and slaughter the animals you eat, controlling the whole process -- or to obtain them from people who you trust to do that well, rather than just buying off the shelf vegetarian items. In many cases, the greater harm comes from the mass-produced vegetarian products.

It is completely disingenuous to describe plant production as "vegetarian production." We all eat plants. The onus of sustainable agriculture is on all of us. Even if you never touch a vegetable, the meat you eat comes from animals that were fed that commercial soy. Plus, the animals eat more than you would have, because we can't do a 100% efficient conversion from plant to meat (it's as low as 10% in the case of US beef).

I fully agree that plant growth should be sustainable. However, you lapse into one of the poor arguments when you talk about the conversion, because sustainable animal production would not use soy or other human consumables in any real quantities.

You are assuming that there is some way to have sustainable animal production for 300 million people, and that the market just happened to miss the mark on how to do that. On the contrary, the market found the cheapest way to produce the largest number of things. It will always do this. And when you economize a life, and make it your goal to make it as cheap to create and end that life as possible, the quality of life is going to suffer. The way to counteract that is to stop putting animal life on the free market. We have to judge meat consumption in the manner it actually happens.

[john9blue]

we can't have all of these at the same time. i'm asking you to decide for yourself which is important, because that itself is an important decision.

Why can't we have all of those at the same time?

suppose the government has a billion dollars to spend on either scientific advancement or feeding the poor. suppose the scientific advancement could be either medical research or astronomical research. these are all goals of yours, but we as individuals and as a society have to decide what is more important. that's why you can't just say that something should be "good for society", because it might actually be bad for society compared to your other options. it would be bad for society to, for instance, give everyone in the US $3 instead of using the billion for something more useful.

[Woodruff]

we can't have all of these at the same time. i'm asking you to decide for yourself which is important, because that itself is an important decision.

Why can't we have all of those at the same time?

suppose the government has a billion dollars to spend on either scientific advancement or feeding the poor. suppose the scientific advancement could be either medical research or astronomical research. these are all goals of yours, but we as individuals and as a society have to decide what is more important. that's why you can't just say that something should be "good for society", because it might actually be bad for society compared to your other options. it would be bad for society to, for instance, give everyone in the US $3 instead of using the billion for something more useful.

But I can, when looking at an issue, determine what impact I believe it has on all of those things at the same time, which is my point.

[john9blue]

suppose the government has a billion dollars to spend on either scientific advancement or feeding the poor. suppose the scientific advancement could be either medical research or astronomical research. these are all goals of yours, but we as individuals and as a society have to decide what is more important. that's why you can't just say that something should be "good for society", because it might actually be bad for society compared to your other options. it would be bad for society to, for instance, give everyone in the US $3 instead of using the billion for something more useful.

But I can, when looking at an issue, determine what impact I believe it has on all of those things at the same time, which is my point.

but then we arrive at the question of why those things are good at all. maybe spending money on scientific advancement will bring us closer to a nuclear holocaust. maybe giving money to the poor will perpetuate their suffering and make them more likely to have kids who will spend their lives in poverty. at some point you have to determine what is the base goal that you are striving for. what has "intrinsic value" and how are you going to acquire that value?

here's some different schools of thought regarding this question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_ ... nsic_value

[PLAYER57832]

It is completely disingenuous to describe plant production as "vegetarian production." We all eat plants. The onus of sustainable agriculture is on all of us. Even if you never touch a vegetable, the meat you eat comes from animals that were fed that commercial soy. Plus, the animals eat more than you would have, because we can't do a 100% efficient conversion from plant to meat (it's as low as 10% in the case of US beef).

Yeah but humans and animals can't and don't always eat the same stuff. I can't sustain off grass but a cow can and it's a hell of a lot easier to grow grass than it is vegetables that humans can eat.

...except they are primarily fed corn

Not necessarily the type of corn humans eat.

[PLAYER57832]

It is completely disingenuous to describe plant production as "vegetarian production." We all eat plants. The onus of sustainable agriculture is on all of us. Even if you never touch a vegetable, the meat you eat comes from animals that were fed that commercial soy. Plus, the animals eat more than you would have, because we can't do a 100% efficient conversion from plant to meat (it's as low as 10% in the case of US beef).

Yeah but humans and animals can't and don't always eat the same stuff. I can't sustain off grass but a cow can and it's a hell of a lot easier to grow grass than it is vegetables that humans can eat.

...except they are primarily fed corn

Sure, they are fed some mix of corn and soy. The point I made in response to FT doesn't depend on what the particular crop is. The point is that we grow foods that humans can eat, and feed them to livestock instead.

And my point was that in producing human food, we also automatically produce food for cattle and other animals. Its just that the "human" foods tend to build bulk more quickly, take less storage space and so forth. Big commercial producers therefor find it more economical to just buy human food. This is where we get into the difference between "current" or "traditional" economics and "real, overall' economics. Farmers find it more cost effective to feed cows "corn" (to simplify, not getting into the whole litany ) because they have to pay for storage, don't have to pay for disposal /maybe don't even have to buy the "chaff" or waste, don't have to pay full prices for transport. In addition, if you get to corn specifically, there is no cost for using antibiotics (necessary because calves don't digest corn normally) and other additives, despite the huge negative consequences to the rest of us. (this is a big, BIG factor in antibiotics becoming in effective).

Also, while long-term solutions might require some kind of legislation or other requirement means, we can each make a big difference by paying attention to what we buy. Most of the arguments voiced here don't apply to me specifically because I do buy my meat and much of my produce locally. In fact, that brings up an irony -- for me, it is much easier to obtain local meat than local produce. I can buy 1/2 a cow and a pig, store it in my freezer and feed my family. Getting and storing enough local produce is harder. Also, while the meat I buy IS grass fed, etc... much of the produce is definitely not organic. Also, while local meat is cheap, even local organic produce is quite expensive. (the few who grow and sell it are targeting a specific high-end market). Then, too, never mind the "lost cause" of coffee... ; I am NOT giving that up!!!!!! (though I do buy "fair trade" when I can )

[Woodruff]

suppose the government has a billion dollars to spend on either scientific advancement or feeding the poor. suppose the scientific advancement could be either medical research or astronomical research. these are all goals of yours, but we as individuals and as a society have to decide what is more important. that's why you can't just say that something should be "good for society", because it might actually be bad for society compared to your other options. it would be bad for society to, for instance, give everyone in the US $3 instead of using the billion for something more useful.

But I can, when looking at an issue, determine what impact I believe it has on all of those things at the same time, which is my point.

but then we arrive at the question of why those things are good at all. maybe spending money on scientific advancement will bring us closer to a nuclear holocaust. maybe giving money to the poor will perpetuate their suffering and make them more likely to have kids who will spend their lives in poverty. at some point you have to determine what is the base goal that you are striving for. what has "intrinsic value" and how are you going to acquire that value?

You can choose to be a pessimist if you want, I suppose. I don't choose to be one. And I don't at all agree that there has to be one "base goal".

[Funkyterrance]

I don't know if it's so much being a pessimist as it is being a realist. The reality is we are near crisis in a lot of areas and the hierarchy of needs must be considered when deciding where our resources are to be allocated. Random scientific advancement is arguably too much of a crap-shoot to take precedence over the basic needs of the masses.

[Woodruff]

I don't know if it's so much being a pessimist as it is being a realist. The reality is we are near crisis in a lot of areas and the hierarchy of needs must be considered when deciding where our resources are to be allocated. Random scientific advancement is arguably too much of a crap-shoot to take precedence over the basic needs of the masses.

Well, I do tend toward idealism, that much is true, at least on most issues. But don't recall arguing for anything "random". I am simply of the opinion that it doesn't make sense to put all of one's efforts in one direction. There is a point of significantly diminishing returns in that regard.

[PLAYER57832]

(for example, animal testing for science has the potential to increase the happiness of millions of people, so it can be justified in many cases)

I'm not against animal testing in SOME instances. I do have a problem with using animals to test things like makeup and shit like that, though. For me, it's very dependent on the potential benefit, and I don't really weigh "happiness" in with that benefit.

then how do you measure that benefit?

Societal benefit. "Happiness" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with benefit to society.

"how do you measure what things are beneficial?"
"by whether they are beneficial to society, of course"
thanks for elaborating woody

I measure it by my determination of its potential societal value. I thought I made that fairly obvious.

Except, what is of value to society is a matter of heavy dispute.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't know if it's so much being a pessimist as it is being a realist. The reality is we are near crisis in a lot of areas and the hierarchy of needs must be considered when deciding where our resources are to be allocated. Random scientific advancement is arguably too much of a crap-shoot to take precedence over the basic needs of the masses.

That is a false choice.

It is only through research that we will find the solutions to our biggest problems. Historically, the biggest solutions have not come from directed and oriented research, because people's "guesses" about what will work or even what is needed are just too often wrong. I am not suggesting that "wild research" is better than or should exclude or even be the heaviest bulk of research, except in specific cases. However, to say it is unimportant is like saying that we cannot afford to invest in elementary schools because we need computer techs now.

Per the exceptions.. when we face a huge problem without any current realistic option, then the "let's try almost anything" approach can be beneficial. Some of the most earth-changing ideas have seemed utterly crazy, almost insane initially. It took folks of great vision to even try the ideas, never mind pushing them.

[PLAYER57832]

suppose the government has a billion dollars to spend on either scientific advancement or feeding the poor. suppose the scientific advancement could be either medical research or astronomical research. these are all goals of yours, but we as individuals and as a society have to decide what is more important. that's why you can't just say that something should be "good for society", because it might actually be bad for society compared to your other options. it would be bad for society to, for instance, give everyone in the US $3 instead of using the billion for something more useful.

But I can, when looking at an issue, determine what impact I believe it has on all of those things at the same time, which is my point.

but then we arrive at the question of why those things are good at all. maybe spending money on scientific advancement will bring us closer to a nuclear holocaust. maybe giving money to the poor will perpetuate their suffering and make them more likely to have kids who will spend their lives in poverty. at some point you have to determine what is the base goal that you are striving for. what has "intrinsic value" and how are you going to acquire that value?

here's some different schools of thought regarding this question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_ ... nsic_value

The real problem is that the people really driving our world, the financers and investors have little interest in the benefits to society. There have been inbuilt checks that essentially forced people in better directions, but we are again in a cycle where those forces are being pushed down in favor of the individual desires for "more" -- no matter the cost to everyone else. It happens when folks are more divided, as they are now.

[Woodruff]

I'm not against animal testing in SOME instances. I do have a problem with using animals to test things like makeup and shit like that, though. For me, it's very dependent on the potential benefit, and I don't really weigh "happiness" in with that benefit.

then how do you measure that benefit?

Societal benefit. "Happiness" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with benefit to society.

"how do you measure what things are beneficial?"
"by whether they are beneficial to society, of course"
thanks for elaborating woody

I measure it by my determination of its potential societal value. I thought I made that fairly obvious.

Except, what is of value to society is a matter of heavy dispute.

Not TO ME, it isn't. See, I can only make that determination FOR ME. Which is what I have been saying all along.