In this forum in disscussion about veganism,some claimed that even though they have watched the movie "earthlings"  the meat that they buy comes from "humane" farmers and that it spedifcly is ok to eat

Even if we ignore the issue of killing an animal and we ignore the enviormental damage of growing farm animals (as explained in the movie "cowspiracy")   still this new investigation should make people wonder how "humane" is the meat that they buy really is “treated humanely” "humanely raised" "enriched enviroment" 


Link to the new investigation : 

http://investigations.peta.org/whole-foods-humane-meat-exposed/

http://investigations.peta.org/whole-foods-humane-meat-exposed/

Water Drop:

      Being one of those who asserted that humanely meat farmed is ethically okay, I find this charge a little disingenuos. It's true that their is meat labelled humane that is not raised humanely. It's also true that there are vegans who beat their children. It does not make all vegans abusive. I beleive those of us who asserted humane farming spoke about getting meat locally from farmers we know, so the argument is valid only to the extent anyone said "anything labelled humane is humane". But they did not. Also you eat animals, specifically nematodes every time you eat fruit or veggies so you can not claim you do not eat animals, even if it is your intention to eat the fruit or veggie. They still die, they are sentient (reproduce sexually, make choices, avoid pain), and they do count. But that doesn't matter to me. I don't think it's wrong to eat animals.
What did you find compelling about Cowspiracy's facts? I'm happy to discuss having read the facts and the actual studies themselves which I'm happy to provide citation on. Let's look at some of the extraordinary numbers for water listed on the Cowspiracy Facts page, and how they got there:

Cowspiracy "Facts" page asserts that 2,500 galls on water are needed to produce one pound of beef. Really? I've read the studies. Let's look at how they got the numbers, numbers that have been passed from vegan to vegan with no need for critical thought to counter what seems an amazing claim. 

Here's the problem with the numbers used: The authors are over estimating the amount of food needed to feed a cow by a minimum of two, then counting the rain that falls over the course of the year over all the land a cow could possibly graze on as water used by the cattle, and ignoring that this rainfall is not imported from other sources but presenting it as though it is. This rain fall is then assumed to be going directly into the cows body and implicitly the cow is neither urinating or defecating either for the rest of their life, processes which give the water back to the land. Nor does a drop of the rain fall anywhere on the land go anywhere besides directly into the body of the cow, who at this point is powerless to give it back to the earth or atmosphere but must retain it in its body, sequestered from potential use. Using the numbers given a cow raised to be a year and a half on grass and then slaughtered would have to drink 25,000 liters of water a day! If it sounds unbelievable it's because it is. And all of this water would have to be water pumped into the pasture from secondary sources, not a necessity in areas where rain is plentiful. It's absurd. And much of the "facts" on the fact page follow a similar logic taking one small area (for ex. cows raised in tremendously wasteful areas and situations like California deserts where irrigation is heavy and water does have to bs pumped in) and then multiplying that small area by the total amount of land of earth that could potentially be used for farming to give the impression that one isolated area of wastefulness is representative of all animal farming everywhere. And it does this over and over again, in each area, knowing that its audience by and large (your endorsement proves this) won't check the facts or stuides out. Cowspiracy indeed.

Give me another one of their facts you find interesting if you want. I've researched the studies.

In this forum, during discussions about veganism, some believe that, by being vegan, they do not cause animal suffering. They ignore the issue of killing animals to farm vegetables either directly

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/mice-the-biggest-losers-w-vegetarianism/4660498

or through competition for the same habitat or resources — for example because, where once was a forest full of rodents, birds, wolves, weasels, snakes, now is a barren field of wheat.

Or the erosion of topsoil. Or the fossil fules used to grow said vegan products.

Every vegan is suddenly an environmentalists when it comes to factory farming and the wastefulness of animal farming. When it comes to using electricity, the number one contributor of greenhouse gasses in the world (http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html) vegans behind their computer screens neither care to speak on the subject or decline their electricity.

You are very right about topsoil erosion, use of fossil fuels and, more in general, environmental sustainability of vegan farming. There isn't a single ecosystem that is stable on an ecological time scale without a continuous input of shit and corpses - certainly none in which humans could thrive. A field of cereals is an ecological wasteland grown out of fossil fuels. If omnivores are "carnists", one might as well call vegans "dinosaurists"

However, I wouldn't say that all vegans are like that. Only a few righteous, obnoxious and delusional ones who happen to be very vocal.

This specific brand of ecologically delusional veganism will naturally end with the end of fossil fuels. In a few decades, the truth about life and death in real world ecosystems will become inescapable again.

Yes, you are right. I should not have generalized all vegans in that way. Just a repeated issue I've seen. I'm reading The Sixth Extinction right now by Elizabath Kolbert. It' quite interesting. I guess you've given some thought to the subject. Let me ask you this: Do you think it's more ethical to buy local, humanely raised meat, or to hunt the animal in the wild? I live in the North East United States where over population of deer is a real problem.

Hi Bill, 

Nice to hear from you again, By the way.

I know you did not ask me, but, if a person is going to eat meat, just eat meat.  Is not ethics just rationalization?  Does it really matter where it came from?  Except that maybe one does not want to ingest high levels of pollutants, hormones, fecal bacteria, etc.  And there is the dollar as a vote mechanism, you know spend locally, buy organic, all that.

 On second thought maybe it does matter, maybe we should all be more aware and attentive of our individual actions on this planet.

But, really , on a Universal scale, does it really, really matter?  Isn't it all DNA in different combinations, meat and vegetables that is. And deeper yet, meat , vegetables, etc, different combinations of matter and energy?

 Life feeds on Life.

It seems the main separation is the Killing Precept.  To not kill.  Killing requires a different mindset, working in a slaughterhouse requires a different mindset.  Now, I have not worked in a slaughterhouse, so I do not know first hand.  But I have Uncles and Cousins who have, it was just the job that provided them a paycheck for a time, a local big business slaughterhouse, a place to make money.  But, they also all hunt, and seem to enjoy hunting.  Maybe people in slaughterhouse just get accustomed to it, and slaughtering becomes not much different to the mind than working in a car wash.

Maybe it is not even the killing aspect to all this, maybe it is just the indiscriminate gorging of the gut, the constant stuffing of flesh and vegetables down the open hole in the front of the body, mindlessly consuming all that is around us.  Like Land Sharks, moving left, the moving right, then chomp, down go the peanuts, chomp, down goes the ground turkey, chomp, mindlessly grinning and wiping juice from the jowls, chomp.  

I am saying this as I have had a ravenous appetite for the last week or so, putting on several pounds,  Dealing with that though, kinda funny how the unconscious can just rise up and wreak havoc upon our behaviour patterns, in a riding the elephant metaphorical kind of way..

Chomp, chomp,....... chomp, chomp........

I sing chomp chomp to this tune while I roam around the kitchen at 2 a.m.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCfWHqrYUqo

But, disclosure, I am like 90 percent Vegan... with B12 supplements, like anyone really gives a crap, lol  

Oops, Caught myself rationalizing, again...

Psi

Hi bruh bruh,

      Hope you are well. I would say ethics is a way of addressing complexity to find a situation that is least harmful. For me, I get caught up in the issue of domestication (it seems to me the only argument for veganism) so I wonder if I'm going to eat dead animals, how is the best way to do that. Overpopulation of deer causes problems to many other species so it may be argued that it is ethical to hunt deer for the benefit of biodiversity and sustainability.
       I think it also matters where it comes from. There is actually no such thing as a vegan. Self professed vegans eat live animals in the form of nematodes in fruits and veggies so the first precept does not hold up to what we know about the microspecies who inhabit this shared planet. So you have chosen to not eat certain forms of meat, but you do eat animals, live ones actually, so you yourself must feel there is a difference.
      Peace unto you and your house.

Bill

Yes, from what I see, eating fruits, nuts, vegetables, legumes, grains, all that stuff seems to be easier on the body.  That being said, meat in moderation does not seem to cause any great harm, meat in moderation that is, Sausege Biscuits for breakfast,   Bacon cheesburgers for lunch, and a Pork Chop with mash potatoes for supper, is probably gonna have some consequences on the body.

And, yes the body is a microbiome, made up of many different living organisms, even what we normally call our own cells can thrive and behave independently from the Originating Body, like donating blood.  Not to mention other organisms live within the body, some we can not live without.

So yeah , we can not avoid, nor separate from the rest of the universe, it lives within us as we live within it, inseperable.

But, I was rhetorically asking, because I have been investigating the food thingy for a while.  

To all, 

In all seriousness, does it really, really matter in the big scheme?  Eating meat, in moderation, or better yet eating meat in minimalization.

Like if I make and eat a deli sliced turkey sandwich every once in a while? Does that make a difference in the big scheme of universal phenomenon?

Well?

I have to contemplate on this, 

For instance the Turkey does not mind, and I am playing by the turkey rules here:

Wild Turkeys eat a great variety of foods, including: insects, spiders, snails, slugs, salamanders, small lizards, small frogs, millipedes, grasshoppers, very small snakes,worms,

So, fair is fair , right?

Psi

first would like to say to neko to keep this talk respectful

*** second the majority of agriculture is grwon only to feed livestock !  the "making" of animal food products are extremely wasteful as far as vegetable comsumption is 

(even most "free range" livestook  ( which most of them arent that)  are fed grain wheter its in stacks laid in feeding areas in the field   - or  in the winter   -  or a few months before killing them  - but this is relevant only to those who but free range )  


so eating a vegan diet will reduce the amount of land needed for agriculture and when people move to veganism it will reduce drastically the amount of agriculture land and save many animals in addition to the farmed animals themselvs  (they also kill many forest animals to clear grazing areas to farm animals and for feilds to feed those farm animals)   and it will also save lots of "plant lives" for those who concern about plants

so by going vegan you help reduce the killings of animals in general and not only farm animals ( not to talk about many ways to reduce the killings in agriculture and even avoiding it completly - unlike when consuming meat where the killing is a must)

(also bill just want to make sure that i talk about the type of veganism which is avoiding eating animals and their products which include insects -   which is what the vast majoirty of vegans are following )

 the reason i commented was to answer psi (which im pretty sure you are know the anser you just want people to open their minds)  :

does commenting in an internet forum make a difference in the big scheme of things ?

we are not turkeys and we do have a choice  not to eat meat - you have a choice not to kill - a choice not to steal - a chooice to meditate ect   

its like saying its ok to kill a murderer cause he killed someone - the claim that it isnt ok to kill him is one of the main core teachings in buddhism  - yes to kill a murderer is less bad than killing an arahant and also the reasons behind the killing matter to the level of unwholsomeness of the killing (intetion to kill - the knowing that this action might cause seath - self defence - greed - anger   ect )  and killing ants by mistake is less bad than killing a murdrer  - killing a musqito to prevent a family member to get bit is less worse than killing one so you wont get bit -  killing a worm is less bad than killing a cow .... BUT !!!!

all !! intentional !! killings are unwholsome (some are worse than others)  and everyone should make a strong effort to avoid them 

about eating meat if its considered a killing -  im sure its not as bad (and whenever i say bad you can switch it to unwhoslome cause thats what i really mean)  killing a living being and wont lead you to worse mental place as much as killing an animal yourself with intention - but its still not a whoslome action

bad actions - leads to more bad actions  -  stronger bad action have stronger affect - so killing is a very strong kamma and its stronger than causing someone to kill


Lots of people use the excuse of no-choice - and there is no self - and love to go "zenish"  when it comes to justicfiation of  doing unwholesome acts  

a good read about no self : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html)


more about buddhism and meat :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlLUPzMi0Rw
 

Still and silent mindful dropping of water,

It does not matter what the "majority" is. The majority of eaters are not vegans. It does not mean an eater shouldn't make choices in line with their ethics. No one is reccomending that system so you are creating a straw man. Can you source the point about most agriculture going to feed livestock?

Can you source your information about free range as well including the quote where someone on this site suggested to buy whatever is labelled free range? If not, straw man.

A vegan diet does not reduce the land needed for agriculture if that animal is part of a perennial polyculture. A vegan diet consisting of annual monocrops is part of the process that has destroyed 98% of animal habitats. But you would suggest this is a diet kind to animals?

You do have a choice not to kill. Everytime you eat vegetables and fruit you choose to kill the nematodes living in the tissue of vegetables and fruit. If you didn't know they existed before, you do now. So will you stop eating? If not you are choosing to take a life through your eating, and this time directly.

I am unsure what your comment to me means. Care to rephrase?

I get that even if you are vegan, you are killing countless beings in the drinking water, in the fruit, in the grains that you purchase. I get that there are farms in which the animals are allowed to roam freely, eat naturally, and are killed quickly. I get that modern agricultural methods are changing the environment in ways that make life more difficult for many of Earth's inhabitants, bringing many to extinction. I get that some studies show that meat consumption is an absolute necessity for a "healthy lifestyle". I get that just by being alive, we are all killing many others - directly or indirectly. Vegan choices are not right. Animal product consumption is not wrong.

None of this changes the fact that there are billions of sentient beings literally and purposefully tortured for the majority of their lives. Maybe for our survival - as in the case of the couple of mice per acre of grain or the countless microbes and insects destoyed in the food production process - but most certainly for our entertainment - "Goddamn these ribs is tasty!" And there is nothing wrong with that. But there are consequences for that shit.

I get to be "healthy". I get convenient, fast, cheap, tasty food. I get to conform. I get to be "right". I get to "do what's natural because my ancestors were omnivores". I also get a world where people don't give a shit that billions of beings with a sizable capacity for suffering are being systematically tortured. I pay the price for my actions - whether I know it or not. What exactly are the real benefits and costs of those reprecussions? Don't know - not that smart. What I am confident about is that compassionate action and intent for others seems to have a very high benefit to cost ratio. Cruelty - causing unnecessary harm - seems to have a poor one.

Please notice I do not claim compassion to be right and cruelty to be wrong. I do cruel ignorant shit all the time. This computer was made from components mined by child slaves. I live in an apartment full of shit I don't need. I'm going to bring another resource-draining 1st world child into an already over-populated planet. My heart goes out to sex slaves, but I'd rather check out DhO and "contemplate" than do anything about it. Point is - I pay the price for my behavior - every time. I now get a world where "kind" people like me value entertainment, convenience, and cheap products over actually doing something to alleviate the suffering of others.

So, for me, vegan choices don't come from a place of right/wrong. I just think it'd be a more pleasant world for all if people put the welfare of others a bit more front-and-center. If people were able to show enough compassion to billions of "dumb fucking food animals" and stop their systematic torture, maybe we'd consider the welfare of the entire ecosystem a little more. Maybe we'd kill, rape, and war against our own kind a little less. Or maybe not.

Questions - 

• (3) 4oz servings of meat per day ~ 275 lbs/meat per person/per year. That's .5 cows, 5 deer, or 100 chickens/year/person. 3.5 billion cows, 35 billion deer, 710 billion chickens or some combination thereof to feed every human alive today. Is there enough grazing land to raise this much meat in a cruelty free way? Are there enough wild animals to hunt to maintain this level of demand? We've hunted things to extinction before, at a time when there was a much smaller human population. What's the kindest option? To maintain the status quo? Some sort of human population control? Or do we revise our assumptions about how much meat we need?
• Truly pastured, humanely raised and slaughtered animals seem to be much more the exception than the norm. Same with hunted meats. Seeing as the vast majority of food animals are raised on the same biodiversity-killing grains as vegans, why not do the same level of damage to the enviroment - maybe less considering much of our grains are produced to feed said animals - but with less systematic torture?
• I was scolded by a rural vegan - "Have you ever walked a field after harvest? It isn't exactly a rodent and snake graveyard. I want to shove my head in a fucking toilet everytime I hear this. Fucking city kids..." There was some study where scientists tracked the mice in a field before/after harvest. Only 3% of radio collars ended up in the tractor. The rest ended up in owl shit or were still scampering around. Apparently monocultures have a surprising low capacity to carry small mammals and their predators. None were systematically confined and tortured.
• Many maintain that animal products are absolutely necessary for "optimal health". Are we sure about this? What is "optimal health"? Studies may be cited, but nutritional research doesn't seem to have it's shit together as much as say... physics. If the price for "optimal health" is a society that is A-OK with mass institutionalized torture - is "optimal health" worth it? 

I'm not saying I'm right. There doesn't seem to be meaning in anything we think, say, or do. All of this seems to be insignificant in the grand cosmic sense. Taking life and harming others is unavoidable. But to throw up our hands and do nothing to minimize the harm that we cause, to condone a system that tortures other beings from birth to death, to say "they wouldn't think twice about killing and torturing to satisfy their needs" so I don't need to check myself either because it's just a part of life - I think it's indicative of a certain pattern of thought and behavior. This pattern isn't right or wrong, but how likely is it that pleasant conditions can arise from this pattern of behavior? How likely is it for unpleasant conditions to arise from this pattern of thought?

I know we're all going for happiness independent of conditions, but I'll take pleasant ones over unpleasant ones.

Best wishes to all.


PS - Waterdrop. I appreciate the passion and compassion oozing through your posts.

Most agriculture are grown to feed only livestock .... i encountered this fact in many articles i dont know which source is reliable to you  ?

do you think its not true ? do you have a source claiming differently than this - i can give you links but you never trust what i give you so i think its best you just give a link that says differently

when people will stop eating animal products - the amount of fields needed will be cut down drasticly 

when you eat cows meat - that cow ate much more plants than you have much more nematodes - if you care so much avout them you should go vegan to reduce their killing

 yes this is what i wrote before - but still this answers what you say - if you care about the bad side of agriculture than you should be the first to go vegan !   every argument about  plants suffering or forest animals ect is an argument for people to go vegan   ...   

... but because people only use this as an excuse to justify their lust for the taste of meat  - they wont go vegan even when they realise that veganism is helpful in the cases they seemed to care so much about (but are actually cause by greed and aversion)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/

Bio-fuels (40%), animal feed (36%). This is still too much but it demonstrates that your facts are not correct. It's also sort of irrelevant since I don't think ruminants should eat grain.

I already stated I don't think it's wrong to eat nematodes. But you stated that you don't eat anything living. Now that you know you eat living beings, what will you do? Do the nematodes count? And grass is native to the land in many areas and doesn't require the destruction of crops like wheat and corn, which is why veganism can be more harmful than an omnivorous diet on environmental grounds.

Please point out the environmental deficits that come with a perenniall polyculture (that is the sytem I am advocating) and how that is worse than annual monocrops that literally involve killing the soil and everything on it?

I think one difficulty in these conversations is that you employ blanket statements representative of a small portion of animal farming and insist that it is like this for all processes. You also routinely fail to provide sources, or at least sources that can't be easily shown to be propaganda. It is unlikely that those given to thinking critically about these things will be swayed by these tactics, but still useful to get the accurate information out.

So now your thesis is not that vegans do not cause animal suffering. 

Rather, now you are stating that vegans cause animal suffering just like omnivores do, only more indirect in nature, and a bit less.

That is not even entirely true, as Bill had argued. But even it were, is it something to get so heated about?

Also, are you sure that eating is the most important human cause of animal suffering? What about building cities and roads? Using computers? 

Even if it were, what about having children? Is it ethical to create humans who will cause more animal suffering?

And, if you do not have children, and make room for a hundred wolves on the planet, do rodents care if they are killed in the process of farming wheat or eaten by wolves? 

So if you do not want to cause animal suffering, there is no way to do it. Even if you starved yourself to death, you would be making room for another human.

Even if you chose not to have chileren, you will be making room for five wolves, or a hundred mice, who will all kill and starve and die of diseases and eat and be eaten and cause suffering and suffer.

All you can ethically do is choose the kind of animal suffering that you like more. So someone might say "oh, today I will buy a computer and participate in the poisoning of fishes in some river in China".

Or "today I will cut down those trees and farm the land I make, excluding wildlife from this piece of land, causing them to starve to death instead of being eaten by predators or dying from disease."

Ultimately, you choose how animals should die. Ultimately, all vegans are carnists too.

When you put choices in this terms, the animal suffering thing become much more complicated.

What you can say is:
- I do it because the Buddha told me to do it.
- I don't like it that cows are domesticated for milk, they should go out in the wild and be eaten by a pack of wolves instead. 
- Ingesting animal products is disgusting and it makes me feel dirty inside.
and a thousand other things. 

But don't play the "animal suffering" card. It really does not hold up to scrutiny, my dear vegan fellow carnist! 

Metta to you. A metta of life and death and mating and killing and starving and eating and offering your body up for more life and death and suffering and fucking and shitting and being hunted down and torn apart by predators and caged to happen, over and over again, until this star we call Sol dies, and the Universe freezes to death, ending animal suffering for good - but will it be better then, than it is today?

 neko please check yourself you use inapropriate language and the texts you write lack right speach  and you are causing yourself some really bad kamma  -

and please dont say stuff i didnt say here - if you want to refer to stuff i said elswhere than bring in everything that i said about this subject in all threads including the important : we should do what is under our control to reduce suffering in all beings - and if you want to get philosophical about what is control- what we control ect  you can check the link i gave about annatta before to get an answer for that 

to answer your claims (wolves ect) :   i try not to kill people on purpse  - going with your logic :    it means that i make more people get to live and by that they will reproduce and by that more kids will get born to die and that means that by your logic more people will die because of my actions  - so by your logic i should kill people to save lives  (which is what i heared meat eaters say about them eating meat and animal lives)

but this is just mental proliferation - and excuses to keep doing wrong action


bill you talk about one spesific crop - corn   --- and even in corn and based on your source the maximum amount of corn going to feed humans is a maximum of 24% and a lot of this goes create corn syrup that i hope its use will decrease due to increased awerness to it vs "roughly 36 percent of U.S. corn, plus distillers grains left over from ethanol production, is fed to cattle, pigs and chickens" : 

but again even by your quote the majority of corn is going to feed farm animal  the majority of corn goes to feed livestock   its a maximum of 24% vs 36%  ...  thats a 50% difference !

and in other types of crops this can be higher number (like i said in soy which 80% goes to feed livestock - but you can check that as well if you want) 

so again  this spesific example you gave proves what i said (that the majority of crops in the world are used to feed farm animals - and those every negative aspect of farming will be reduced if people move to veganism) 



the source you quoted :


 (roughly 40 percent of U.S. corn is used for ethanol) and as animal feed (roughly 36 percent of U.S. corn, plus distillers grains left over from ethanol production, is fed to cattle, pigs and chickens). Much of the rest is exported.  Only a tiny fraction of the national corn crop is directly used for food for Americans, much of that for high-fructose corn syrup.


im out for now - i want to take a break from the internet 

Slow and still dropping of water,

      What karma does one incur for lying and accusing others on the Internet. What karma incurred for hypocrisy, for judgment. 
       Notice you have not answered my questions. Nor Neko's. Anyone asking you for a deeper accounting of your complicity in harm is engaged in "mental proliferation". I know because you've accused me of the same. What karma for avoidance of uncomfortable truths? What karma for choosing to remain uneducated while espousing a doctrine that supposes you know what is truly going on? What karma for keeping oneself shielded from that which is non biased? But here I go proliferating. 
       Regarding the article, you said most agricultural monocrops go to feed animals and that article demonstrates you were wrong. King corn in the U.S. goes primarily 

to ethanol, used for fuel for humans. You did not say "most agricultural does not go to feed people". You said most of it is used for animals. So you were passing untruths to many people there. What karma for that? What does right speech say about the truth, from the Buddha who ate meat? Also as is your style the soy comment is given with no source.

Vithy,

       It's best if we don't employ hyperbole and quotes that suggest thoughts the other is having they aren't, like your "stupid fucking food animal" comment. Do you see how that's just your perception? Unless someone said that and I missed that. What's the karma for that? Why does an argument rest on projection and not facts? What's the cost of that.
           Why are monocrops necessary for your survival? Why is the harm from a vegan diet "necessary" since there are clearly less harmful alternatives? I don't know for sure if meat is essential for health reasons but I think the meat I eat is some of the most ethical food around. But when I buy veggies from a supermarket I feel guilty. Being educated about food production I know the process that brought them to be. Your heart may be in the right place but you're not educated about agriculture (I've seen your comments before) so you go off feeling, and your arguments are not convincing.
          Anyways your misinforming others about the mice whether you know it. I can provide a source later today but it's 300-1000 acre and not the couple you wrote. I've actually read the study you're paraphrasing. It does well to read the source and not just repeat what we're told. What's the karma for that? What the study makes clear but you left out is that the mice were killed in such small numbers because they all already been eaten by farm animals who could eat them so easily because their cover was removed to harvest grains. Please source the study and let's look at what it actually says. I'm on my iPhone right now.
        Also the animals I eat are not tortured. I can see them year round if I want to. Nor do I think they are objects. Life depends on life. There is no escaping this, and so make choices I feel are least harmful to the whole system of life. Categorizing it as apathy is a straw man. What's the consequence for that? Should you return with more facts please provide a source others can read. What's the karma for encouraging others, in this case dropping water, for actions that spread misinformation and mis characterization? 

Woah dude. Not trying to attack you on this - you actually strike me as a very well read, smart guy and it's admirable that you're sourcing your meat as kindly as can be done. You're doing what is best, in your view, of minimizing the amount of harm that you do. Bravo. I really mean it.

The comment posted was more to express my own reasoning behind my choices. I didn't mean to suggest you were viewing animals as dumb fucking food and apathetic to their suffering - but that is the view that many people have where I come from, maybe I should have made that more clear.

As for the mouse thing, you got me. I only glossed over the study. However, I'm not so much against the killing of an animal. I do it all the time just by being alive. I am against the apathy of the general population towards the systematic confining and torturing of said animals. Especially since I see a parallel between the ability to inflict this kind of harm on animals with little thought or remorse and the ability to do the same to other human beings. My family is comprised of refugees that come from a place where people did harm to others with little thought - so I am biased against that. Also, I question whether or not we need meat at all - in the amount that we consume it anyway.

My other question for your method of harm reduction still stands. Okay for you and me to source food from humane farms with plenty of grazing area. Is this also feasible for 7.125 billion people? If not, what's the next best option? Vegan food production is certainly not harm-free, but what is the best option to feed all these people while being as kind as we can be? Is there a way to make vegan food production more kind and sustainable? Should be be investigating that avenue instead of just going with the statis quo?

Again, not an attack on you personally. You appear to be very well informed and if you really do have a kinder, scalable, sustainable solution, I'd love to hear it. 

Please, bear with me. Most anti-veganism arguments and sentiment do not revolve around compassion as yours seem to. Normally, it's a shrug and "that's just how shit is", "bacon is just so tasty", or something about protein.

As for the karmic implications of all of this, not sure - not that smart. But I think it's safe to try and act out of kindness as often as possible.


Best wishes.

Also, what is this dropping water thing? Don't get it.

If I may intrude in your sub-conversation: from the sustainability point of view, there are many regions of the planet that are able to sustain grazing animals (and hence hunting) but would collapse if they were farmed. Such are, for example, many regions in Australia. Ever heard of kangatarianism?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/7222088/Kangatarians-emerge-in-Australia.html

It's hard to type on an iPhone, but here is what I would suggest: what is grown where you live without destroying topsoil? What builds topsoil? We are all dependent on topsoil. If we destroy it entirely there will no longer be food choices, just survival based food. Certainly any animal that is fed grain is outside of this loop, as is any monocrop. Regarding cruelty I have found many an angry vegan, and many an uneducated one. And many who simply don't want to hear anything that refutes their belief system. Lierre Keith had a cayenne pepper pie thrown in her face by three vegan males and other vegan's cheered them on. There seems to be much hostility and cruelty in the vegan community, though certainly it is not all. As general health principles I think it's good to use the whole animal, especially the organ meats, which are incredibly nutritious. Check out the stats on beef liver's nutrient capabilities. It's amazing. I do not know if everyone should meat. I certainly think people should eat less of it, along with everything else. I feel better eating meat but when I was avoiding meat, which was an extended period of time, I was also not eating healthy so I won't go there and suggest that a vegetarian diet is unhealthy because I wasn't balanced with it. 

Harder on the cheapest Android phone you can buy. :-)

Will look into this. Regarding vegan cruelty - I feel sorry for all parties involved. Please recognize any anger that you see coming from vegans is - in part - caused by the knowledge of the pain that these animals go through. Shame, guilt, demand for justice, righteousness. When you see cayenne pepper being rubbed into the eyes of leather animals to keep them from resting on their death march and then you see that nobody seems to care - anger is a common (however unskillful) response. There's also something there about wanting to punish others for their "free choice" to be complicit in this kind of system, but that's a whole other topic. I really am sorry for any offense you may have taken from people just acting like people.

That said, waterdrop and I are just coming from a place of "My god, I'm sorry for all this suffering caused by industrial-scale animal product production and I am moved to do something to bring awareness to the cruelty inherent in this system. It'd be really nice if more people were compassionate."

It sounds like you and neko are saying something along the lines of "My god, you may be causing more harm than you realize. It'd be really nice if people were aware of the entire situation before destroying the environment with industrial agriculture and throwing cayenne pies."

Within this shouting match nobody seems to be saying - "The current system of food production is just fine and animal suffering at this scale is just going to be there because there's no good reason to change the status quo, it's some beings lot in life to suffer for my non-essential desires, and I also really like fried chicken." 

I take this to be a pleasant sign. 

Still, what can be done? If we stop mono-cropping, and start free-ranging - 7.125 billion people - all who like meat with every meal. We gotta replace the grain with something as calorically dense. More meat consumption? Are there enough wild animals to sustain this? Enough grazable land to sustain this? Is there some other crop besides grain with the nutritional density to support such a large and growing population long term without causing more destruction? Lab-grown meats? Indoor hydroponics?

Thank you for your kind words. I wouldn't say that veganism causes any more harm than most of its alternatives, though.

I just believe that it is a false solution to a much bigger, complex and probably unsolvable problem - based on my current understanding of ecology, biology, population dynamics, physics, climatology, industrialisation and nonrenewable resources. I see it as a well-meaning behaviour. All of my vegan and vegetarian friends are really nice people who only want to do something good. On the one hand, if the only reason to be a vegan is an ecological one, I think that it is a waste of energy. On the other hand, having no solution of my own whatsover to The World Problems, I think it is a waste of energy that causes no real harm, because there isn't a better use of one's energy. So yes, I am a huge pessimist from this point of view!

Hey Vuthy,

I agree with your arguments on this thread.  The reason factory farming is the way it is, is because it's the only way to meet the demand while making a profit - and the demand is only growing as more and more countries become wealthy.  Humainly raised meat just isn't a society-level solution.

Yes, it's a prob, we have wedged ourselves into a corner with a very high population such that options are limited.  The world could not support a wholly vegetarian society any more than it could support a wholly meat eating one.  Many grazing animals are grazed on land that is unsuitable for crops, bad soil, low water, etc.  The only way to make food in such environs is with grazing animals.  You could not feasably convert those environs for crops.  On the flip side, in areas with good soil and water, crops are more economical.  In between the lands are used according current food preferences of the various nations.  And much cropland is used for biofuels. 

If we improved cold fusion (Lockheed says maybe antoher 10 years or so and they will have viable cold fusion reactors suitable for commercial use) and battery efficiency, we could cut out most of that huge percentage going to biofuels giving more leeway.  Plus recent history has shown that populations cease to expand at a certain level of industrialization so we could probably stabilize population.   THis woudl leave room for more appropriate use of monocrops as actual food instead of fuel, and also I think leave room for more humane methods of animal husbandry.  Much of the prob is also that current systems are designed wholly for profit margins with little concern for health and wellbeing of individual animals OR humans.  For instance, the corn growing regions are very supportive of corn as a biofuel because that gives that region more stable income, they are not so much concerned about environmental damage of having extra crops as they are of bringing in the dollar.  I also suspect that we could do well with eating much less but much more nutritious food but right now the emphasis is on volume over quality (both in crops and animal food sources).  

For sure, realistic solutions will require realistic and balanced understandings of the current situation, not knee jerk emotional responses and biased refusals to understand the real situation in favor of self righteous indignation and hatred and physical assaults on others (or making excuses for any kind of such unskillful behavior)  Those vegans that are being militant jerks are giving their movement a bad name and are doing harm to their cause.  Regular people seeing that kind of behavior are unlikely to want to listen to any message coming from a person acting in such a way, having little knowledge of the actual facts but attacking others belligerantly, that is not going help anything.  Those coming on here telling so called 'facts' that are lies also does the cause harm in the long run.  Once you realize someone is deliberately telling falsehoods repeatedly, you will not trust their word in the future.    

You could take any organization or group or activity and find all the worst things about it and publicize those to exclusion of all else and make that thing look terrible and horrible. You could do that with the IRS, police, soccer players or anything, but that does not mean the best solution for everyone is to totally abolish that thing completely.  To solve problems effectively, you need to study hard all aspects and the big picture.  For instance, there have been many problems with police abuse but I still do not want to see the state my town would be in with no police at all.  Similarly, the world could not currently have enough food if meat production were halted because many areas that can sustain grazing cannot sustain crops, hence you would be taking food off the table and replacing it with nothing.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhS-i-c1XxI