Can someone be pro environment and eat meat?

[Raelbo]

I understand the principle just fine.

No you don't. This conversation stopped being productive pages ago because, as others have pointed out, you are rude and unwilling to actually engage in dialogue. Instead I have patiently had to read you continually evading me on my actual point and deflecting onto many other issues where you do have some knowledge (and in which I actually mostly agree with you).

So stop trying to argue with me on the things we actually agree upon, accept where I have affirmed that agreement, and pay attention to the actual thing I am telling you I disagree with you on instead of trying to deflect from your lack scientific accumen by means of levelling ad hominem at me.

[Forogil]

Arbitrary is the reason why you think killing cows is bad and killing plants is ok... DUH. Killing a cow is killing a cow it's cow's purpose to be killed for our needs. Why do you think we have cows (pigs, chickens, etc) in the first place? Where do you think they are coming from? The wilderness? No, we grow them specifically to be used for animal products. If vegans win - all the livestock will be killed and some of the specimens - put in a zoo.

Actually it is even more inconsistent: vegans normally don't eat eggs and milk, but trees feel more pain than eggs and milk.

And animals used for meat are often killed in a pain-free way; why does it matter if a pig could feel pain more acutely than a tree - if it doesn't feel pain? If the goal is to avoid pain one could even argue that farms can be less painful than nature (since all animals die - and the deaths in nature are usually painful).

Actually that animals feel pain wasn't clear a few decades ago, whether fish and invertebrates feel pain is still being researched.

[morpen]

Can someone be Pro environment and eat avocado?

[Wildtree]

can someone be pro environment and live on this planet? FFS...
Stupid questions are that.. stupid.

We all leave a carbon footprint behind, every single day, every single minute of our lives.
The summary of that carbon collection varies. It's different for everyone.

[Coulrophobia1989]

Can someone be pro-environment and drink water? When the environment needs water to survive and thrive? I'm pretty sure the answer is self-explanatory.

[Fencers]

Yes, of course. What you are suggesting is a kind of extremism, OP. One which may not be supported by all views inclusive in their concern of the environment.

I know, human society is complicated.

[Orwell7]

Absolutely arrogant if you, me, or the whole humanity THINKS we can drastically alter the Earth.
A few thousand years and it's back to "normal" - and what is normal? The Earth changed so much over it's existence we couldn't even live on it most of the time. Not to mention the animals you are so scared to lose.
We are nothing but a blink of an eye in the grand scheme.

[Rojaha]

Everything doesn't have to be one extreme or another with no in-between.

[Bodakane]

It is. You arbitrary decide what you can kill and what you can't based on some arbitrary quality. "Oooh plants have no animal nervous system, kill them." I can as easily go "oooh, these animals have no chlorophyll, kill them". Your suffering argument is just plain silly. Just because something can suffer doesn't mean you shouldn't kill it for food. Your reasoning is ARBITRARY. It's just what you BELIEVE.

I don't remember saying that it would happen overnight.
You seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter how fast it would happen - all those species (cows, pigs, chickens) would go extinct and end up in a zoo. You basically want to get rid of them.

Jesus. Plants can't suffer. That is not an arbitrary line. Saying it is easily the STUPIDEST thing ever said on these boards.

Yes, I know that the animals will slowly go away to the point there's a few handful left. What don't you understand?

Actually it is even more inconsistent: vegans normally don't eat eggs and milk, but trees feel more pain than eggs and milk.

And animals used for meat are often killed in a pain-free way; why does it matter if a pig could feel pain more acutely than a tree - if it doesn't feel pain? If the goal is to avoid pain one could even argue that farms can be less painful than nature (since all animals die - and the deaths in nature are usually painful).

Actually that animals feel pain wasn't clear a few decades ago, whether fish and invertebrates feel pain is still being researched.

If you actually knew anything about the dairy and egg industries you'd know they are more cruel than the meat industry.

Then on top of that, you don't really know how animals are treated or even killed int he meat industry either. It's not painless. it's not always quick either.

[satimy]

Overpopulation doesn't work with meat eating

[Kelathos]

Yes. Native Americans ate meat; they simply respected the animal and did not waste it. If you can do the same (IE not waste food), you can eat meat and respect the environment.

Why does this feel like a loaded question?

Natives? Their numbers were so few...
I'd compare it to littering. If I throw my trash out in the forest it wouldn't make much of a dent.
But if everyone did that? There would be no more forest.

The question of meat comes down to the scale of production. Maybe the topic is better phrased as... we've gone above and beyond the number of humans that should inhabit the planet.

[Bodakane]

No you don't. This conversation stopped being productive pages ago because, as others have pointed out, you are rude and unwilling to actually engage in dialogue. Instead I have patiently had to read you continually evading me on my actual point and deflecting onto many other issues where you do have some knowledge (and in which I actually mostly agree with you).

So stop trying to argue with me on the things we actually agree upon, accept where I have affirmed that agreement, and pay attention to the actual thing I am telling you I disagree with you on instead of trying to deflect from your lack scientific accumen by means of levelling ad hominem at me.

WTF? I haven't evaded a single fucking point you've made. I've taken the time to address each one. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but ignore virtually everything I've said outside of your semantics bs.

What do we agree upon exactly? You say it's possible to have sustainable cattle farming with a zero carbon footprint. I say it isn't. Everything else is based on that disagreement. You think it's possible because you think this magic box is real and I'm trying to tell you, you're not accounting for climate, water, terrain, etc. You aren't accounting for food that needs to be brought in and the processes involved with that.

You ignoring all that doesn't make me the problem, it makes you the problem. The arrogance that you display on top of that by acting like I'm the one that needs an education when you can't even understand the carbon footprint of a fucking truck also doesn't make me the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, of course. What you are suggesting is a kind of extremism, OP. One which may not be supported by all views inclusive in their concern of the environment.

I know, human society is complicated.

The issue is that there's evidence to support that there's no single bigger thing you can persoanlly do for the environment than go vegan.

[Elim Garak]

Jesus. Plants can't suffer. That is not an arbitrary line. Saying it is easily the STUPIDEST thing ever said on these boards.

Holy Athe...
The stupidest think ever said on these boards is everything you reply to me with. You have a sever lack of reading comprehension. How many times do I have to point out that it's not the suffering that is arbitrary, but your decision to make it the breaking point. THAT is arbitrary, because you just CHOSE to. Arbitrarily.

Suffering of a food item has no relevance to it being a valid food item. You just arbitrarily made it relevant.

Will you get it this time?

Yes, I know that the animals will slowly go away to the point there's a few handful left. What don't you understand?

Why do you want it, obviously. You claimed to want to do a minimal harm. Getting rid of entire species of animals who otherwise would've existed and enjoyed life (in the capacity that we allow them but still). All that just to stop eating their corpses and replace that with supplement pills.

I can understand if someone doesn't like meat - fine don't eat it
I can understand if someone cannot eat meat due to medical condition - sucks to be that guy, but hey life's tough - suck it up.
I cannot understand why would someone choose pills over meat for any other reason than those I can understand.
And I of course cannot understand how one can think that it is a good thing to eradicate entire species of animals to achieve their irrational goal.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue is that there's evidence to support that there's no single bigger thing you can persoanlly do for the environment than go vegan.

Delete this idiotic info-graphic and never download it again.

It says livestock poop is waste... NATURAL ORGANIC GREEN FERTILIZER MOTHER FUCKER.

[Forogil]

Jesus. Plants can't suffer. That is not an arbitrary line. Saying it is easily the STUPIDEST thing ever said on these boards.

I assume you didn't read the references that supported plants communicating - and haven't just searched 'plants pain' to find: http://science.howstuffworks.com/lif...-feel-pain.htm

Then on top of that, you don't really know how animals are treated or even killed int he meat industry either. It's not painless. it's not always quick either.

I do know about them, and I also know about nature. You haven't proven in any way that you have any knowledge.

Basically it all depends on how the industry is run - it doesn't follow that dairy and egg industries must be painful.
Similarly pesticides and harvesting machines can be painful for birds and rodents (not to speak about insects) - or not.

The idea to not buy any egg or milk because some farmers use bad practices simply makes no sense. If you want to minimize pain - select the right farmers using the right methods; not products based on what could happen.

[Bodakane]

Holy Athe...
The stupidest think ever said on these boards is everything you reply to me with. You have a sever lack of reading comprehension. How many times do I have to point out that it's not the suffering that is arbitrary, but your decision to make it the breaking point. THAT is arbitrary, because you just CHOSE to. Arbitrarily.

Suffering of a food item has no relevance to it being a valid food item. You just arbitrarily made it relevant.

Will you get it this time?

Why do you want it, obviously. You claimed to want to do a minimal harm. Getting rid of entire species of animals who otherwise would've existed and enjoyed life (in the capacity that we allow them but still). All that just to stop eating their corpses and replace that with supplement pills.

I can understand if someone doesn't like meat - fine don't eat it
I can understand if someone cannot eat meat due to medical condition - sucks to be that guy, but hey life's tough - suck it up.
I cannot understand why would someone choose pills over meat for any other reason than those I can understand.
And I of course cannot understand how one can think that it is a good thing to eradicate entire species of animals to achieve their irrational goal.

Goddammit, you're the worst.

Who said anything about meat being valid or not? I mean what the fuck are you even talking about?

I'm saying animals suffer so don't kill them or cause them to suffer. That is not arbitrary. You're literally spiraling out of control. First, you act like there's no difference between a plant and an animal. Now you make up some ridiculous notion that I said or implied meat isn; 't a valid food source. Let's not forget you tried, and failed miserably to say a forest was one organism that could feel pain through its nerves which are roots.

This all smacks of a person trying to stir shit or is off their meds.

[zenkai]

There is no reason to go vegan, eating animals is healthy and tasty.

[Bodakane]

I assume you didn't read the references that supported plants communicating - and haven't just searched 'plants pain' to find: http://science.howstuffworks.com/lif...-feel-pain.htm


I do about them, and I also know about nature. You haven't proven in any way that you have any knowledge.

Basically it all depends on how the industry is run - it doesn't follow that dairy and egg industries must be painful.
Similarly pesticides and harvesting machines can be painful for birds and rodents (not to speak about insects) - or not.

The idea to not buy any egg or milk because some farmers use bad practices simply makes no sense. If you want to minimize pain - select the right farmers using the right methods; not products based on what could happen.

Communication as they've chosen to classify it, does not equal the ability to feel pain. Sending out a chemical distress isn't the same thing as feeling pain. They have no nervous sytem to turn that distress into pain. You can't suffer or feel pain without a brain.

You don't know anything, I'm sorry you don't.

I challenge you to look into what happens in egg farming. Are you one of the people that think cows always have milk? What exactly do you know ab out the dairy industry?

[mittacc]

"Can someone really be pro-environment and still buy clothes?"

That's basically as solid as your question.

[Bodakane]

Delete this idiotic info-graphic and never download it again.

It says livestock poop is waste... NATURAL ORGANIC GREEN FERTILIZER MOTHER FUCKER.

[PosPosPos]

The issue is that there's evidence to support that there's no single bigger thing you can persoanlly do for the environment than go vegan.

I wouldn't mind going vegan if the taste profile is comparable or better than eating a mixed diet. I like the taste of meat too much to give up on it.

Unfortunately, of all the vegan fare I have tasted, nothing ever comes close to just eating a mixed diet. I like my salads just well, but I can't imagine eating one without a good portion of fresh chicken breast or smoked salmon.