Are ethical meat eaters possible? Do they cut back on poor animal treatment? - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 02-02-2013, 01:16 PM
Zelda Freak
 
Jennifer C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Rainy Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,761

Over on another thread, we got to talking about ethical meat eaters, but that wasn't the OP's intent, so I'm moving the discussion here because I feel like it's an AR issue. 

 

If you want to catch up we started talking about this on this post and a few others follow. Including one where I actually looked this up - yes they exist -  I'm responding to this post...

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewcollins View Post

 

Consider this - http://www.go-eo.org/GoEO/Vegan_Corner.html .

 

The writer says, "By spreading the word to meat-eaters that they have the power to go EO and change not only their lives, but the lives and suffering of so many billions of animals, I believe I am doing more for animal rights than if I continue to exclusively promote a vegan lifestyle."

 

 

I read that page actually, but I think it only applies if you really believe that harm doesn't include killing an animal and eating it. 

 

As I noted in the other thread, I can appreciate that the site or term advises people to eat less meat and dairy overall, and I'd much rather have someone hunt down animals to eat who are raised better than factory farm animals, but I just can't wrap my head around the idea of ethical meat.

 

I'm a little torn, because I kind of agree that encouraging people to only eat "ethical" meat will likely result in less meat consumption that simply telling people to go vegetarian, BUT I also think this term helps promote a sense of falseness, as in, "Oh, I only eat humanely raised animals, so I'm not really harming them."

 

It's a little like a little warm and fuzzy cocoon term that may allow people to feel happy and "ethical" about eating meat instead of facing up to the fact that if you eat meat, regardless of the source, you're still killing an animal to do so. 


~ Jennifer
 
* Find VeggieBoards:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 +
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

* Find me:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
+
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
+
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Jennifer C is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 02-02-2013, 01:25 PM
 
jpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 422

The ethical omni thing is akin to a slave owner advocating against the the extreme mistreatment of slaves and claiming they're helping slaves more than abolitionists.

jpaul is offline  
#3 Old 02-02-2013, 02:06 PM
Super Moderator
 
silva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 8,955

This article explains it very well:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/we-raise-all-our-beef-humanely-on-open-pasture-and,30983/

 

The idea behind "ethical" treatment of animals is like adding another illusion after people realize that eating animals is wrong.

It's like the ex-vegans who suddenly realize their bodies "needed" some animal protein, and they were slowly dying without it. If that were true, and they really wished they could be vegan, they would at least eat grubs, not bloody meat.

 

I used to eat lunch with a women who loved to talk about buying humanly raised meat. It really only happened like a couple times a year, but enough to convince her that she was ethical.


Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
silva is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 02-02-2013, 07:26 PM
Zelda Freak
 
Jennifer C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Rainy Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,761

Oh yeah, I really like that onion piece. It depressed me the first time I saw it, but I love that lots of meat eaters are likely seeing it. 


~ Jennifer
 
* Find VeggieBoards:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 +
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

* Find me:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
+
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
+
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Jennifer C is offline  
#5 Old 02-02-2013, 08:47 PM
 
ajswara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 207

I have numerous problems with this article...

 

Quote:
I can say that my message often falls on deaf ears. The gap between what I believe and what many meat-eaters believe is simply too wide.

My experience is the extreme opposite. The gap between what I believe and what many meat-eaters believe is paper thin if there even is a gap. Who really believes that exploiting animals for reasons of pleasure, habit, amusement, or convenience is morally justifiable?

 

Quote:
Not only was I not making a greater impact towards improving rights for animals, but I may even have been alienating people who – while not ready to commit to a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle – would be horrified to know the circumstances under which factory farmed animals lived their lives.

What? If they would be horrified to know the circumstances under which factory farmed animals lived their lives, how would vegan advocacy be alienating people? If people are not "ready" to be vegan, that is their choice, but I think it is important to make clear that the vegan lifestyle is the only one consistent with not exploiting animals. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I would say that the people who are not "ready" to go vegan will reduce demand for animal exploitation more if exposed to vegan advocacy over OE advocacy. In addition, a vegan seed has been planted rather than an OE one. Furthermore, I think most people agree with veganism as a moral belief whereas I think they will rightly be unsure of or even critical of OE for being inconsistent with their moral beliefs. Why kill or exploit an animal more "humanely" if you don't have to at all? In any case, I believe animal exploitation is immoral so I am not going to advocate for anything other than veganism.

Quote:
If I spread my vegan message, I only reach a tiny audience.

How is the 99% of people who are not vegan a "tiny audience?"

 

Quote:
studies show that many of those 95% meat eaters are dismayed, disgusted, and distraught when they learn the truth behind the meat that is on their plate – the problem is that the message simply isn’t getting out there.

True, same goes for dairy, eggs, fur, etc. All the more reason to advocate for veganism.

Move of Ten likes this.

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”
-Leo Tolstoy

ajswara is offline  
#6 Old 02-02-2013, 09:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
runnerveggie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,862
I think "ethical" meat is a small step up from other meat, but all meat is still unnecessary. No animals need to die for our food. Also, most "happy meat" eaters will still take a Big Mac over a veggie meal, at least in my experience, and how ethical is that meat?
runnerveggie is offline  
#7 Old 02-03-2013, 08:54 AM
Zelda Freak
 
Jennifer C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Rainy Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajswara View Post

I believe animal exploitation is immoral so I am not going to advocate for anything other than veganism.

How is the 99% of people who are not vegan a "tiny audience?"

I agree with both points.

 

I'm 100% a-okay with people taking small steps towards a vegetarian or vegan diet. Even if you know about poor animal living conditions, it can be hard to go veg or vegan, because it is a big change for a lot of people. So, small steps, to me, are understandable. What's less understandable to me is when you know that these sort of animal conditions exist, yet you're still committing yourself to eating meat. 

 

I don't like how the EO conversation candy coats humane meat as ethical. I also think it's weird to say "Studies show that many of those 95% meat eaters are dismayed, disgusted, and distraught when they learn the truth behind the meat that is on their plate – the problem is that the message simply isn’t getting out there." If this was true, it would seem logical to push the no meat is really humane conversation vs. the EO conversation. 

 

I think EO is mainly just people who want their meat no matter what so they've decided "ethically raised" meat gets them out of some sort of ethical dilemma. It's just not that hard to not eat meat - if you work at it. Especially nowadays. 


~ Jennifer
 
* Find VeggieBoards:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 +
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

* Find me:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
+
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
+
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Jennifer C is offline  
#8 Old 02-03-2013, 08:57 AM
Zelda Freak
 
Jennifer C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Rainy Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunnerVeggie View Post

Also, most "happy meat" eaters will still take a Big Mac over a veggie meal, at least in my experience, and how ethical is that meat?

I've seen this too. "Ethical meat" if easy, will be the first choice of humane meat advocates, but if they can't find it I've seen them move down the ladder to organic, and then when they can't find that they'll choose plain old conventional meat. The only way to really make an ethical choice all the time would be to quit meat. 


~ Jennifer
 
* Find VeggieBoards:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 +
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

* Find me:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
+
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
+
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Jennifer C is offline  
#9 Old 02-03-2013, 09:03 AM
Zelda Freak
 
Jennifer C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Rainy Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,761

Oh my gosh, side note - does anyone watch Portlandia? This list of EO questions totally reminds me of this Portlandia skit. SO many people in PDX are like this. Really, it's nuts. If you were going to spend this much time focused on how humane your meat was, it would be easier not to eat it. 


~ Jennifer
 
* Find VeggieBoards:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 +
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

* Find me:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
+
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
+
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Jennifer C is offline  
#10 Old 02-03-2013, 09:26 AM
Veggie Regular
 
runnerveggie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer C View Post

Oh my gosh, side note - does anyone watch Portlandia? This list of EO questions totally reminds me of this Portlandia skit. SO many people in PDX are like this. Really, it's nuts. If you were going to spend this much time focused on how humane your meat was, it would be easier not to eat it. 
LOL - yes! Love Portlandia!

On a more serious note, there is real potential for deception and fraud with "ethical meat" as there is no way to distinguish it from regular meat after slaughter.

My real problem with "happy meat" is the idea that animals need to die for out food. If you are convinced of animal sentience, you have to admit that something real is lost when an animal dies. It doesn't need to happen at all--it's not the "natural order" of things, and we don't need it for our survival.
Tom likes this.
runnerveggie is offline  
#11 Old 02-03-2013, 01:24 PM
 
ewcollins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 109
ewcollins is offline  
#12 Old 02-03-2013, 01:28 PM
 
jpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 422

I'm beginning to believe this isn't for real.

jpaul is offline  
#13 Old 02-03-2013, 03:15 PM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpaul View Post

I'm beginning to believe this isn't for real.

There were some pretty anti vegan comments, and this guy:
Kevin PatemanThe only "militant" vegan organisation I can think of here in the Uk is the British arm of PETA. We do of course have the Vegan Society, but I don't really put them into the same category at all. If you look at the Vegan Society's facebook page it's actually fairly boring...perhaps we should "troll" it!!
LedBoots is offline  
#14 Old 02-03-2013, 05:26 PM
 
ajswara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer C View Post

 

I'm 100% a-okay with people taking small steps towards a vegetarian or vegan diet. Even if you know about poor animal living conditions, it can be hard to go veg or vegan, because it is a big change for a lot of people. So, small steps, to me, are understandable. What's less understandable to me is when you know that these sort of animal conditions exist, yet you're still committing yourself to eating meat.

I'm also "okay" with people taking steps toward veganism because you're right, it is understandable and it is respectable that they are trying, as we all are. But I would never advocate OE or vegetarianism because these beliefs are not consistent with my moral values. Again, if someone wants to take "small steps," that is their choice, but I'm still going to advocate for veganism so that it is clear that all non-vegan industries are immoral and exploit animals. I also find it understandable that someone can know about these sort of animal conditions and still commit to eating meat simply because it is so convenient to do so since it is readily available and very few people are going to criticize them for it, it's a social norm and expected to be followed or you will be ridiculed and sanctioned and so on. I don't respect such commitment and apathy at all, but I find it understandable.

 

Quote:
I don't like how the EO conversation candy coats humane meat as ethical. I also think it's weird to say "Studies show that many of those 95% meat eaters are dismayed, disgusted, and distraught when they learn the truth behind the meat that is on their plate – the problem is that the message simply isn’t getting out there." If this was true, it would seem logical to push the no meat is really humane conversation vs. the EO conversation.

I agree, I think most meat-eaters would also be disgusted when they learn the truth behind "humane meat" as well. Same goes for dairy, eggs, products tested on animals, and various forms of "happy" exploitation.

 

This EOM is really seriously flawed. They talk about our "ancestral diet" as if we were in the same situation and as if it follows that it is ethical to consume non-vegan products just because our ancestors did. They encourage "local organic produce and ethical ranching facilities where free range animals are naturally fed and raised without cruelty, hormones nor antibiotics." I'd bet my life that the animal being exploited and killed wouldn't agree that such practices were "ethical" and "without cruelty." They say they "believe that when livestock is raised according to natural laws is not only necessary to our health ... but necessary for the planet." As far as I know, there is not a single credible health or medical organization that suggests that consuming livestock is necessary for our health. And livestock being raised according to natural laws is necessary for the planet?! Says who? Not the UNFAO or the Worldwatch Institute, maybe some unqualified broscience internet blogger. Last I checked grass-fed livestock was literally the worst thing for the planet, putting aside animal ethics, because of the immense amount of land required and the methane produced, thereby contributing greatly to deforestation and global warming.


“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”
-Leo Tolstoy

ajswara is offline  
#15 Old 02-03-2013, 05:27 PM
Veggie Regular
 
ElaineV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,026

Whenever someone suggests "humane" meat I tend to say one of these things in response:

 

"I challenge you to find meat that meets your own standards of "humane." Please investigate the sources of your "humane" meat. Please go visit the farms and slaughter houses yourself to verify they're telling you the truth." (I say it this way because that way I'm not challenging their entire belief system about whether or not it's ethical to eat animals, I'm only challenging the marketing labels on the food they buy.)

 

"Have you read Eating Animals? I suggest you give it a read." (This is only for people who seem seriously interested in the topic and are people who actually read. Eating Animals concludes by saying that "humane" meat isn't currently a reality.)

 

"So, you don't eat meat from fast food places? How about regular restaurants? Where do you buy your meat?" (Usually they realize that they eat a lot of factory farmed meat. Then I urge them to eat vegan all the times they're currently eating factory farmed meat.)

 

"But you eat vegan most of the time, right?" (Then this can evolve into a discussion about how if they're going to eat meat and call themselves "ethical" or "humane" about it then at the very least they cannot eat the quantities that most people eat. They need to eat vegan most of the time.)

 

"So you support vegan options in restaurants?" (Occasionally, I'll try to get them to change their focus from a debate about the ethics of eating animals to something we can agree on in order to build rapport. Then I'll encourage them to eat vegan more often.)

zirpkatze and Jennifer C like this.
ElaineV is offline  
#16 Old 02-03-2013, 06:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
zirpkatze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElaineV View Post

Whenever someone suggests "humane" meat I tend to say one of these things in response:

"I challenge you to find meat that meets your own standards of "humane." Please investigate the sources of your "humane" meat. Please go visit the farms and slaughter houses yourself to verify they're telling you the truth." (I say it this way because that way I'm not challenging their entire belief system about whether or not it's ethical to eat animals, I'm only challenging the marketing labels on the food they buy.)

"Have you read Eating Animals? I suggest you give it a read." (This is only for people who seem seriously interested in the topic and are people who actually read. Eating Animals concludes by saying that "humane" meat isn't currently a reality.)

"So, you don't eat meat from fast food places? How about regular restaurants? Where do you buy your meat?" (Usually they realize that they eat a lot of factory farmed meat. Then I urge them to eat vegan all the times they're currently eating factory farmed meat.)

"But you eat vegan most of the time, right?" (Then this can evolve into a discussion about how if they're going to eat meat and call themselves "ethical" or "humane" about it then at the very least they cannot eat the quantities that most people eat. They need to eat vegan most of the time.)

"So you support vegan options in restaurants?" (Occasionally, I'll try to get them to change their focus from a debate about the ethics of eating animals to something we can agree on in order to build rapport. Then I'll encourage them to eat vegan more often.)
i'll have to remember those things. all great replies
zirpkatze is offline  
#17 Old 02-03-2013, 06:41 PM
Zelda Freak
 
Jennifer C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Rainy Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,761

That EO Facebook page is making fun of vegans on their FB homepage too with stupid comics and stuff. How lame. I think they're really tainting their whole "ethical" image making fun of vegans, especially considering their whole vegan corner deal. 


~ Jennifer
 
* Find VeggieBoards:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 +
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

* Find me:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
+
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
+
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Jennifer C is offline  
#18 Old 02-03-2013, 07:30 PM
Beginner's Mind
 
Mike4891's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 645

From ethical omnivore to vegan hater really isn't that long of a journey.

Blobbenstein, silva and Jennifer C like this.

Jenner: I learned this much: take what you can, when you can.

Justin: Then you have learned nothing!

 

The Secret of NIMH

Mike4891 is offline  
#19 Old 02-03-2013, 08:38 PM
Veggie Regular
 
beanspud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: FL
Posts: 1,106
You can never have your cake and eat it too. On the Facebook page for the eo's you'll see their campaign about how much of a travesty shark finning is. Seems quite a safe topic considering the audience is English speaking westerners. I see a prevalence of cave man dieting within this eo group. Unfortunately for ethics of not eating animals, the diet is a fad.
beanspud is offline  
#20 Old 02-03-2013, 08:38 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Tiger Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajswara View Post

Last I checked grass-fed livestock was literally the worst thing for the planet, putting aside animal ethics, because of the immense amount of land required and the methane produced, thereby contributing greatly to deforestation and global warming.

 

Do you mean grain fed?

I'll just go on cows here because, well, I know cows. Not overly well, never did a degree in them. But just some farming 'facts' that I've picked up over the years....

Grass fed cattle are a better option welfare wise because that's what their stomachs are meant to be digesting.  Whereas, grains can cause problems for them because they can't digest it properly, I think it has something the do with the way they ruminate it.  Grass fed cattle can be fed on land that isn't completely cleared for them to exist on. Yes, the trees are grown at a lower rate, but you don't have to clear the land completely. Depending on the area of the world, of course depends on the kinds of animals you 'should' be farming on there anyway. Different animals are better, ecologically speaking, on different soil types.

Grain fed cattle not only mean that the land is cleared for the animals (they still need land for the feedlots, though admittedly not as little as the grass fed), but also for growing food for them to eat. Plus, as grain fed cattle are usually usually fed in feed lots, without much option to actually wander around, it's nowhere near as humane as a cow in a paddock.
 

 

Properly done, doing away with grain fed cattle would mean better thing for the environment and animal welfare. Grass fed cattle, in my experience, need to have their herd numbers kept reasonably low in order to prosper and they need to be 'rotated' throughout paddocks, so that they don't tax the soil in any one place for too long. If every cattle farmer employed those methods, there would be less cattle, less emissions and the possibility of those same farmers also producing a crop of vegetables at least once a year. If not once a season. Economically, ecologically and animal welfare wise, to me, grass fed animals make much more sense.

But I could be wrong. It happened once, it was terrible. People wailed in the streets.

 

 


On the whole 'humane meat' thing.... I'm torn.


I get that there's no such thing as 'humane' killing. But, there's degrees of inhumanity in both the farming and slaughter processes that need to be done away with. If EO's do nothing else, than help us put an end to factory farming, if their involvement in the animal welfare movement means the introduction of CCTV cameras in abattoirs and random spot checks to ensure animal well being. No, not ideal. Not a complete end to animal suffering. But, I really don't want to dismiss someone's help in the animal welfare movement because they eat meat and I don't.


I think the concept of Ethical Omnivores is a great starting point for getting people to think about vegetarianism and veganism. (As ElaineV's post shows with all of those great statements/questions for people to think about).

Tiger Lilly is offline  
#21 Old 02-03-2013, 08:52 PM
Beginner's Mind
 
Mike4891's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 645

As veg*ns, we can certainly support different efforts to curtail the worst abuses in the industry.  We might prefer the meat industry not exist at all, but that's no reason to neglect issues short of that.


Jenner: I learned this much: take what you can, when you can.

Justin: Then you have learned nothing!

 

The Secret of NIMH

Mike4891 is offline  
#22 Old 02-04-2013, 12:16 PM
 
ajswara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Lilly View Post

 

Do you mean grain fed?

No, I mean grass-fed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that, as far as the environment is concerned, grass-fed is even worse then grain-fed because it takes more land (factory farms confine animals so much to the extent that they take up less land even though they are fed grain) and contributes more to green-house gas emissions and global warming. The grass-fed livestock produce more methane since they must consume more grass since it is less calorie dense and therefore the livestock digest more food. In any case, they are both terrible for the environment, again putting aside animal ethics.

 

Quote:
Properly done, doing away with grain fed cattle would mean better thing for the environment and animal welfare. Grass fed cattle, in my experience, need to have their herd numbers kept reasonably low in order to prosper and they need to be 'rotated' throughout paddocks, so that they don't tax the soil in any one place for too long. If every cattle farmer employed those methods, there would be less cattle, less emissions and the possibility of those same farmers also producing a crop of vegetables at least once a year. If not once a season. Economically, ecologically and animal welfare wise, to me, grass fed animals make much more sense.

Firstly, I am not really concerned with what is "better" I am concerned with what is ethical. You say grass fed cattle "need to have their herd numbers kept reasonably low." Doesn't that mean that it would not be possible to sustain current meat consumption on a purely grass-fed system? If "there is less cattle, less emissions" then that would mean that meat-consumption would have to fall dramatically, would it not?. When I say grass-fed is worse for the environment than grain-fed, I am saying that it is worse assuming meat-consumption is the same. I question whether it is even possible to sustain current meat consumption on a grass-fed system.

 

Jennifer, to be fair, vegans do the same and probably do it even more. The recent onion article is a good case and point.


“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”
-Leo Tolstoy

ajswara is offline  
#23 Old 02-04-2013, 03:49 PM
nhn
Newbie
 
nhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 34

I don't think there is any "ethical meat" That said I also don't think challenging someone who believes that they are eating more ethically by eating pasture raised is effective. It simply turns people away.
 

nhn is offline  
#24 Old 02-04-2013, 07:07 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Tiger Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajswara View Post

No, I mean grass-fed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that, as far as the environment is concerned, grass-fed is even worse then grain-fed because it takes more land (factory farms confine animals so much to the extent that they take up less land even though they are fed grain) and contributes more to green-house gas emissions and global warming. The grass-fed livestock produce more methane since they must consume more grass since it is less calorie dense and therefore the livestock digest more food. In any case, they are both terrible for the environment, again putting aside animal ethics.

 

Firstly, I am not really concerned with what is "better" I am concerned with what is ethical. You say grass fed cattle "need to have their herd numbers kept reasonably low." Doesn't that mean that it would not be possible to sustain current meat consumption on a purely grass-fed system? If "there is less cattle, less emissions" then that would mean that meat-consumption would have to fall dramatically, would it not?. When I say grass-fed is worse for the environment than grain-fed, I am saying that it is worse assuming meat-consumption is the same. I question whether it is even possible to sustain current meat consumption on a grass-fed system.

 

Jennifer, to be fair, vegans do the same and probably do it even more. The recent onion article is a good case and point.

 

 

Okay, well, focussing on the environmental impacts and not animal ethics for a moment I would say that grain fed cattle may require less land, but their grain does not. Land is still cleared to grow grain for those animals to eat. They may produce less methane, but there are some that say their manure is much more acidic and contributes more harm than good to soil quality.  That's not even taking into consideration the pesticides and herbicides that would be used in growing the grain, that they then feed the cows, which I'm sure does wonders for those cows who then have to eat it.

 

Grass fed cows eat....grass. It doesn't require any specific land clearing and in fact, benefits from inhabitants ranging from trees to bugs that help the soil. Their manure is better for the soil, which fosters better growth of the grasses, plants and trees around it. 

And yes, I'm saying 'less cattle' that's why I said-

"If every cattle farmer employed those methods, there would be less cattle, less emissions and the possibility of those same farmers also producing a crop of vegetables at least once a year. If not once a season. Economically, ecologically and animal welfare wise, to me, grass fed animals make much more sense."

 

 

It's not possible to sustain current meat consumption, period. Grass fed cattle are a way though, to lessen the numbers and possibly even the demand for cattle, while ensuring a better way of life.

 

I'm going to assume (and may be wrong, there will be wailing in the street, ect) that you think all cattle are a bad thing for our environment. Which is fine. But they're here and we were the ones who created them through domestication. This falls on our shoulders now to properly tend to the situation. The solution to all of this will not be a sudden stop and therefore we have to deal with necessary evils before we can get to a solution that is a 'greater good'.  It has to be one that is carefully considerate of the animals and people alike.

 

Even if I don't like people very much, it turns out they're animals too and I have to consider them. Still don't have to like them.

Tiger Lilly is offline  
#25 Old 02-05-2013, 11:29 AM
 
ewcollins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Lilly View Post

 

But they're here and we were the ones who created them through domestication. This falls on our shoulders now to properly tend to the situation. The solution to all of this will not be a sudden stop and therefore we have to deal with necessary evils before we can get to a solution that is a 'greater good'.  It has to be one that is carefully considerate of the animals and people alike.

 

I once read that there was a single domesticated pig in Afghanistan (in the Kabul zoo). There may not be any pigs in Egypt at all.

If humans stopped eating pigs and raising them on factory farms (piglet mills), then there would be no need for the domestic pig to even exist, and it would soon become extinct. That the pig is enjoyed as food by many humans (not Jews, Muslims or veg*ns) is one of its strategies to guarantee the survival of the species. Some feel, however, that it would be better for pigs to become extinct than to be raised as food for humans.
 
I personally do not eat any pork products, or any fake bacon, sausage, etc., either.
ewcollins is offline  
#26 Old 02-05-2013, 02:25 PM
Veggie Regular
 
beanspud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: FL
Posts: 1,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewcollins View Post

If humans stopped eating pigs and raising them on factory farms (piglet mills), then there would be no need for the domestic pig to even exist, and it would soon become extinct. That the pig is enjoyed as food by many humans (not Jews, Muslims or veg*ns) is one of its strategies to guarantee the survival of the species. Some feel, however, that it would be better for pigs to become extinct than to be raised as food for humans.

The pig as we know it has come into existence through generations of selective breeding by humans. This is not the pigs strategy, but humans.

It is better for the pig to not exist than to exist just to be killed. Some people have pigs as pets. Wild pigs aka boars will exist as long as there exists undeveloped land in the Americas, and rednecks are preoccupied with something else.
nogardsram and ewcollins like this.
beanspud is offline  
#27 Old 02-06-2013, 12:22 PM
 
ewcollins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by beanspud View Post

Some people have pigs as pets.

 

Sometimes I have doubts about whether or not humans should be able to own animals at all. I am not sure.

 

Until 1865 it was legal to own a slave in the U.S.
 

Times have changed. It made no difference that some slaves were better off under slavery, or that some slave owners considered their slaves to be "family members".

ewcollins is offline  
#28 Old 02-06-2013, 12:53 PM
 
ajswara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Lilly View Post

 

 

Okay, well, focussing on the environmental impacts and not animal ethics for a moment I would say that grain fed cattle may require less land, but their grain does not. Land is still cleared to grow grain for those animals to eat. They may produce less methane, but there are some that say their manure is much more acidic and contributes more harm than good to soil quality.  That's not even taking into consideration the pesticides and herbicides that would be used in growing the grain, that they then feed the cows, which I'm sure does wonders for those cows who then have to eat it.

Honestly, I do not know which requires more land or which is overall worse for the environment and I don't really care. The point I was trying to make was that the livestock sector, both grain-fed and "raised according to the natural laws," is an environmental disaster, contrary to the claims of the EO page. Does it really matter which is worse when there is an environmentally sustainable and truly ethical vegan alternative?

 

Quote:

I'm going to assume (and may be wrong, there will be wailing in the street, ect) that you think all cattle are a bad thing for our environment. Which is fine. But they're here and we were the ones who created them through domestication. This falls on our shoulders now to properly tend to the situation. The solution to all of this will not be a sudden stop and therefore we have to deal with necessary evils before we can get to a solution that is a 'greater good'.  It has to be one that is carefully considerate of the animals and people alike.

 

Even if I don't like people very much, it turns out they're animals too and I have to consider them. Still don't have to like them.

You assume I think all cattle are a bad thing for the environment? I don't know where you got that impression. However, it is clear that the livestock industry today is an environmental disaster. If you are saying that I would advocate killing all cattle "for the environment," you are mistaken. I am, however, against breeding them. And I agree that the domesticated animals are our responsibility and we must tend to the situation.

 

I don't really understand what you are suggesting by saying "the solution to all of this will not be a sudden stop and therefore we have to deal with necessary evils before we can get to a solution that is a 'greater good'.  It has to be one that is carefully considerate of the animals and people alike"? nor do I understand the relevance of "even if I don't like people very much, it turns out they're animals too and I have to consider them. Still don't have to like them."


“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”
-Leo Tolstoy

ajswara is offline  
#29 Old 02-06-2013, 12:56 PM
Veggie Regular
 
beanspud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: FL
Posts: 1,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewcollins View Post

Sometimes I have doubts about whether or not humans should be able to own animals at all. I am not sure.

Humans and organizations with any record of animal abuse should be prohibited from owning them, IMO. Humans have selectively bred animals such as cats and dogs to exist in a symbiotic relationship with themselves, and I see no ethical quandaries with this relationship because we do not kill them unless it is to prevent their suffering aka euthanasia. The cats and dogs certainly get the raw end of the deal in most cases, however. There would be much less suffering if mandatory spay and neuter was in effect.

The only ethical meat eating I see is when the animal died of natural or accidental causes, or in bona fide survival situations where veg food is not present or enough.
beanspud is offline  
#30 Old 02-06-2013, 12:59 PM
Beginner's Mind
 
Mike4891's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 645

You're starting to sound pretty argumentative for a couple of folks who seem to be in practically total agreement.


Jenner: I learned this much: take what you can, when you can.

Justin: Then you have learned nothing!

 

The Secret of NIMH

Mike4891 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off