Thinking of going veggie, need some advice??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 10 2007, 11:35 PM) [snapback]421354[/snapback]</div>

Well at least we know how deep your anthropocentrism runs. LOL

I would gladly give up a human life to save the lives of endangered keystone species. That includes my own. That being said I do not look down upon you for your views.

Humans are not the pinacle of evolution and just as important as any other species IMO.

Overall your arguement is flawed. You are lumping ALL meat into one category and it is not that simple. There is a hell of a difference between the life of a poly culture fram raised cow and that of a CAFO cow.

At this point should we go into arguments from marginal cases?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 11 2007, 12:23 AM) [snapback]421364[/snapback]</div>

And I don't look down on you for your views. I think it admirable to be willing to give up one's own comfort or even life for something one believes is right.

Personally, I believe that our ethics and morals come from within ourselves, not that they're somehow built into the universe or decreed by a deity. My personal system is more anthropocentric than yours, and we'll likely never have the same views on that. That's just the way it goes. But I think it is still interesting to see what different views people have and why, and where the core values differ.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 11 2007, 12:23 AM) [snapback]421364[/snapback]</div>

What yardstick should we use to judge the life of a poly culture farm cow versus a CAFO cow? Perhaps we could measure dopamine levels or stress chemical levels in the brain? Perhaps the poly culture cows really are much happier and the CAFO cows are miserable. Or perhaps we assume so because we are anthropomorphizing. I'd be interested in seeing the results of a study.

If the poly culture farm cows really are happier, I'd be willing to take that into consideration in my own personal decision making. I do put some weight on animal happiness. But I put a lot more weight on other factors. For me to make an informed choice, I'd want to have some reasonable quantification of the cow happiness increase and weigh that against the dollar costs of poly culture farm raising of cows versus CAFO. And I'd want to compare what else those dollars could do instead of making cows happier.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 11 2007, 12:52 AM) [snapback]421371[/snapback]</div>

Great reply

The only part that I could argue that can be backed up with data is the difference in cost between running a CAFO and a Poly Culture farm. Without lavish subsidies there would be no real difference between the two monetarily but health wise there is a VERY large difference. The long term effects on health and ecosystems make CAFOs even more costly than a wisely run poly culture farm. Take away the subsidies and the monetary differences become even larger with the CAFO on the losing end. If we are going to include total costs then we have to take ALL inputs into account. CAFOs are efficient but at what costs to health, environment, taxes, and morality?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 11 2007, 01:14 AM) [snapback]421377[/snapback]</div>

I agree that costs to health and the environment should be taken into account, though from a practical point of view it can be hard to quantify them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make our best guess, though.

I also agree that subsidies should be abolished. I really don't know much about the details of farm subsidies, but I do know that they involve a lot of money and distort the market, causing investments to go to the wrong places.

Factoring morality to the equation is not as straightforward because it's even harder to quantify than health and environment costs. And of course the moral cost is different for each person, while the environmental and health costs could at least in principal be calculate in economic terms, though there's a moral judgment component there too.

So we probably agree in principal: get rid of subsidies, implement taxes on the environmental impact, and quantify the ethical issues as well as possible, then let consumers look at the final prices and weigh the ethical factors when making a choice about what to buy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 11 2007, 02:52 AM) [snapback]421371[/snapback]</div>

Another factor in cost: Happy cows make tastier and more nutritious beef.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 11 2007, 01:40 AM) [snapback]421381[/snapback]</div>

Yup!

I just met someone at the MBARI (Monterey Bay Aquarium Institute) who specializes in placing a value system on environmental factors and resources. I'll see if I can find her card and website.

As for the moral part. I didn't mean directly as in supporting the rights of animals. I meant what effects CAFOs and other similar opperations have on our society. Most people realize that CAFOs or industrial farming is bad yet they turn a blind eye to it and cover their ears. Does this make it easier for us as a people to turn away and cover our ears to other atrocities or those dealing with human welfare? I would argue it does judging by how many people still shop at Walmart or buy conflict diamonds because it's all so cheap. How about all the slaughterhouse workers who become so desensitized to death and mutilation that they can suffer psychological problems? The morality/ethical problem can have a great many effects overall but like you stated it is hard to quantify in economic terms but should it have to be? Music and Art cannot be valued as such, it has intrinsic value. I think ethics and some apsects of nature are the same.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jesart @ Apr 8 2007, 02:06 PM) [snapback]419865[/snapback]</div>

Could JESART now answer a few questions? Viz.:

1. Are you reading all the posts resulting from your questions?

2. Have you been surprised at the large number of comments and the raised emotions?

3. Do you feel you now have a good amount of information on the subject or have the comments left you confused and more undecided than you were?

4. Have you yet come to a decision about whether to adopt a vegetarian diet and if so what is it?

 

Sunnyvale Prius --

I personally am about equally likely to eat cow meat, as I am human meat.

I take it you respect my ethics, and on principle would do nothing to interefere with my diet ?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 11 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]421489[/snapback]</div>

PETA propaganda to the bone.. equating humans with cattle and other farm animals.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 11 2007, 11:43 AM) [snapback]421549[/snapback]</div>

No, that is basic biology. Religion tries to teach us otherwise but we are all biological organisms and no one is better or more important than another. We all serve a purpose.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 11 2007, 01:55 PM) [snapback]421554[/snapback]</div>

You're absolutely right. Basic biology is all very similar.. and we all serve a purpose.



... on the flip side, are you saying that since we're all the same, cannabalism is OK? If not, why?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 11 2007, 11:59 AM) [snapback]421556[/snapback]</div>

LMAO! Great pic man.

I do not promote canabalism. There are some species that do it but it is usually for different reasons like to kill the offspring of another male. If it is not happening much in nature there is likely a reason for it which is most likely to be the continuation of a species. Remember that I am not against eating meat, I just disagree with the view that humans are superior beings and the end all pinnacle of evolution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 10 2007, 03:45 PM) [snapback]421133[/snapback]</div>

My guess is, he didn't want to eat the soup because it had BEEF broth in it and he was a VEGETARIAN.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 11 2007, 04:02 PM) [snapback]421596[/snapback]</div>

I think most people would agree with your position on the "superior being" side of the debate but wouldn't know it until they were the subject of abuse, neglect and infringement of another superior being. If aliens one day appeared on this planet and saw fit to produce humans for their consumption, I'm quite sure this debate point would become moot for them. How many of you would volunteer to become a veal cutlet?

And, why are so many people bringing up PETA on this thread? The OP never mentioned this organization (at least not to my recollection) and the only people that seem to do so are the pro meat camp accusing us of succumbing to spin. We may lack muscle tone, but we still have a working brain!

Cannibalism does appear quite readily in nature. It may even be a tool to propagate survival of the fittest. I would say that the only reason we don't engage in it is because we evolved into a civilized society where it's now deemed inappropriate. Also, there's no need to cannibalize or we probably still would. Not me though, I would just hunt down some lovely berries and some grass.

 

What's wrong with corn as feed for cattle?
(serious question)
I don't like the use of growth hormones and excessive antibiotics, but if a cow likes corn why shouldn't they eat it? As far as I've understood, cattle farmers feed a mixture of hays and different feeds, and they like to "finish up" or fatten for slaughter by upping the grain/corn content in the final months. I don't see a problem with that. As a deer hunter, there is a slight difference in venison from deer depending on the deer's diet. In farm country, the deer eat a LOT of corn, esp. in the fall right before deer season. The meat is a little more tender and has a slightly higher fat content. I hunt in the north woods, with less corn crops around. So the deer feed more on grasses and wild foraging. The meat's still good, but is a little tougher and practically fat free, which is good and bad. We bring in our scrap pieces to the butcher and he makes summer sausage out of it. But it's so lean, that fat and pork have to be added to it. It tastes fantastic on some crackers!

I don't mind the preference vegetarians. It takes a lot of willpower to do it. More power to them.
I don't mind people who choose only grass fed or organic beef. If factory farmed meat bothers you, that's OK with me too, there are other options. My wife likes to buy from the expensive "guilt free" organic section and I'm OK with that, though the grass fed beef is a little lifeless in taste to me.

But the PETA vegetarians can kiss my a**. People eat meat and always will, get used to it. I will admit though, that environmentally speaking, white meat is far better than red meat. I eat mainly chicken, but a good steak once in a while is essential.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Apr 11 2007, 05:09 PM) [snapback]421646[/snapback]</div>

It's not their typical diet. Their digestive system isn't constructed for it. That's why corn fed cow isn't as nutritious as grass fed cow. The manner in which they rectify the gassy build up in a corn fed cow, isn't pleasant either.

Hunting is a solution that no one's brought up. Everyone go and kill their own game once in a while. It'll cull deer population and cut down on factory farming demand. I like it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 11 2007, 04:02 PM) [snapback]421596[/snapback]</div>

I don't promote cannabalism either, but I think that we are here on this earth to serve our fellow man.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Apr 11 2007, 03:29 PM) [snapback]421607[/snapback]</div>

Check again.

Although the original poster didn't mention PETA in his original post, he was quickly asked about where he was getting his information by at least 2 other posters and was appropriately cautioned about PETA's grotesque bias and utter lack of credibility. The original poster did reply and confirmed that he had been checking out the PETA website and viewing their online videos.

Therefore, PETA is very much a valid component of this discussion.

 

ssimon- Please correct your end quote to notate your own words. Thanks.

So why are corn and grains OK for deer and not cows. Have cows been selected to be only grass feeders?
Don't they mix the corn in with other feed anyways? I know if I ate a meal of corn instead of corn as the side dish, I'd have some digestive difficulty.
I have a hard time believing that cattle farmers don't care for their cattle and know more about what's best for them than you and I. Obviously some are better than others at animal husbandry, but a successful farmer has to know a thing or two about raising healthy meat.

A lot of things farmers do "isn't pleasant". Heck gutting a fish, duck, or deer is unpleasant. It's not immoral though. Shooting an animal without the intent of eating said animal is immoral.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Apr 11 2007, 04:49 PM) [snapback]421672[/snapback]</div>

Just as in the human diet, there is "optimal and natural" which is of course, omnivorous and contains a significant amount of proteins and fats from animal sources and "doable" such as vegetarianism, for reasons other than optimal nutrition, such as protesting animal cruelty or cultural or religious pressures.

The reason factory feed-lot farming is done with corn is because corn is cheap. It is cheap mostly because it is heavily subsidised. Grass isn't subsidized. Corn-fed cattle must have antibiotics fed regularly in order for them to tolerate the unnatural diet. Factory farming was designed to raise meat cheaply as its primary goal, not necessarily healthfully.

I don't believe that 'corn and grains' (corn IS a grain) is the natural diet of deer, either, at least not when they can get to my rhododendrons. Of course, like almost any creature, it will eat what is available, even if it isn't their optimal diet. If corn is the only thing that's available to them in farm country, then that's what they're gonna eat.

Just because something like corn-feeding is 'doable', just like vegetarianism, doesn't at all equate with its being any way natural or nutritionally optimal.