NationStates Jolt Archive

It's probably more correct to call me a sustainable-only meat eater, as opposed to a vegetarian. In practice, I'll still eat organic, free-range meat, or sustainably farmed fish (which is limited as hell) when it's an option in the future, but I haven't had meat of any kind for the last week and a half, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Here's what finally sent me over the edge (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters/1). I've known about the problems with factory farming for a while now, but this article just seemed to distill it for me.
A lot of pig shit is one thing; a lot of highly toxic pig shit is another. The excrement of Smithfield hogs is hardly even pig shit: On a continuum of pollutants, it is probably closer to radioactive waste than to organic manure. The reason it is so toxic is Smithfield's efficiency. The company produces 6 billion pounds of packaged pork each year. That's a remarkable achievement, a prolificacy unimagined only two decades ago, and the only way to do it is to raise pigs in astonishing, unprecedented concentrations.

Smithfield's pigs live by the hundreds or thousands in warehouse-like barns, in rows of wall-to-wall pens. Sows are artificially inseminated and fed and delivered of their piglets in cages so small they cannot turn around. Forty fully grown 250-pound male hogs often occupy a pen the size of a tiny apartment. They trample each other to death. There is no sunlight, straw, fresh air or earth. The floors are slatted to allow excrement to fall into a catchment pit under the pens, but many things besides excrement can wind up in the pits: afterbirths, piglets accidentally crushed by their mothers, old batteries, broken bottles of insecticide, antibiotic syringes, stillborn pigs -- anything small enough to fit through the foot-wide pipes that drain the pits. The pipes remain closed until enough sewage accumulates in the pits to create good expulsion pressure; then the pipes are opened and everything bursts out into a large holding pond.

The temperature inside hog houses is often hotter than ninety degrees. The air, saturated almost to the point of precipitation with gases from shit and chemicals, can be lethal to the pigs. Enormous exhaust fans run twenty-four hours a day. The ventilation systems function like the ventilators of terminal patients: If they break down for any length of time, pigs start dying.

From Smithfield's point of view, the problem with this lifestyle is immunological. Taken together, the immobility, poisonous air and terror of confinement badly damage the pigs' immune systems. They become susceptible to infection, and in such dense quarters microbes or parasites or fungi, once established in one pig, will rush spritelike through the whole population. Accordingly, factory pigs are infused with a huge range of antibiotics and vaccines, and are doused with insecticides. Without these compounds -- oxytetracycline, draxxin, ceftiofur, tiamulin -- diseases would likely kill them. Thus factory-farm pigs remain in a state of dying until they're slaughtered. When a pig nearly ready to be slaughtered grows ill, workers sometimes shoot it up with as many drugs as necessary to get it to the slaughterhouse under its own power. As long as the pig remains ambulatory, it can be legally killed and sold as meat.

The drugs Smithfield administers to its pigs, of course, exit its hog houses in pig shit. Industrial pig waste also contains a host of other toxic substances: ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, cyanide, phosphorous, nitrates and heavy metals. In addition, the waste nurses more than 100 microbial pathogens that can cause illness in humans, including salmonella, cryptosporidium, streptocolli and girardia. Each gram of hog shit can contain as much as 100 million fecal coliform bacteria.

Smithfield's holding ponds -- the company calls them lagoons -- cover as much as 120,000 square feet. The area around a single slaughterhouse can contain hundreds of lagoons, some of which run thirty feet deep. The liquid in them is not brown. The interactions between the bacteria and blood and afterbirths and stillborn piglets and urine and excrement and chemicals and drugs turn the lagoons pink.
I just can't eat that anymore. I'm not opposed to eating meat, and I'm certainly not one of those "meat is murder" types--I just can't eat that anymore.

"Why I am now a vegetarian"

Why must you lie?

You still want animals to suffer and die when it suits your gullet. Heaven forbid that the rotting flesh in your stomach be contaminated - now that would be gross... :rolleyes:

What a bad month to decide this. Think of the turkey and ham Christmas dinner!

Hmm, here was me thinking I was marginally safer in the EU. But it appears that Smithfield have bought up operations in Poland and Romania. I think need to bring this up with my MEP.

You still want animals to suffer and die when it suits your gullet.

Works for me.

Normally I'd support anyone who cut back on their meat consumption, but in this case I'll agree with Fass. You're now no better than those 'vegetarians' who eat fish and/or chicken.

Normally I'd support anyone who cut back on their meat consumption, but in this case I'll agree with Fass. You're now no better than those 'vegetarians' who eat fish and/or chicken.

I wouldn't go so far as to say this, you've just your label wrong. Your not a veg, your an ethical meat eater. Is that a fair point?

It's probably more correct to call me a sustainable-only meat eater, as opposed to a vegetarian. In practice, I'll still eat organic, free-range meat, or sustainably farmed fish (which is limited as hell) when it's an option in the future, but I haven't had meat of any kind for the last week and a half, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Here's what finally sent me over the edge (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters/1). I've known about the problems with factory farming for a while now, but this article just seemed to distill it for me.

I just can't eat that anymore. I'm not opposed to eating meat, and I'm certainly not one of those "meat is murder" types--I just can't eat that anymore.

There are things that it doesn't do a city fella any good to know about. I don't especially like the conditions in which factory farms raise their animals, but it's what it is. Even without the lousy conditions, the slaughterhouses aren't anything you want to see, either.

Personally, I don't find it a problem to treat cows and chickens in the manner that you describe, but after owning a couple of Berkshires for a while, I think pigs are too intelligent to be treated this away.

Tell me that y'all are going to start hunting now. The rapidly increasing deer population needs you and they taste good.

I agree. Animal agriculture is probably the most damaging environmental catastrophy that has resulted from our over population. Luckily for me, being in California, there is plenty of organic/free range options here.

There are things that it doesn't do a city fella any good to know about. I don't especially like the conditions in which factory farms raise their animals, but it's what it is. Even without the lousy conditions, the slaughterhouses aren't anything you want to see, either.

Personally, I don't find it a problem to treat cows and chickens in the manner that you describe, but after owning a couple of Berkshires for a while, I think pigs are too intelligent to be treated this away.

Tell me that y'all are going to start hunting now. The rapidly increasing deer population needs you and they taste good.

No, what they need is for hunters to stop hunting wolves.

No, what they need is for hunters to stop hunting wolves.

We did that. Did nothing.

No, what they need is for hunters to stop hunting wolves.

Wolves and suburbs don't mix. Neither do bears and suburbs, but you can't convince the State of New Jersey to allow bear hunting to cut down the population.

"Why I am now a vegetarian"

Why must you lie?

You still want animals to suffer and die when it suits your gullet. Heaven forbid that the rotting flesh in your stomach be contaminated - now that would be gross... :rolleyes:

Why should I care about food? Seriously. Your rabid vegetarianism disgusts me.

Wolves and suburbs don't mix. Neither do bears and suburbs, but you can't convince the State of New Jersey to allow bear hunting to cut down the population.

Funny, we've got hills full of mountain lions and coyotes out here and they don't seem to be a problem unless the population of their food is depleted.

Wolves and suburbs don't mix. Neither do bears and suburbs, but you can't convince the State of New Jersey to allow bear hunting to cut down the population.

We've done it in other years, but this year it's been a big issue. Don't ask me why. Hell, we actually had a bear wander into Trenton this year. If you're not familiar with Trenton, it's not exactly surrounded by forrest primeval. That bear had to hike through miles and miles of suburbs to get there.

http://www.polyfacefarms.com/

This is how farming should be.

I am opposed to industrial production, but unfortunately all the laws and regulations meant to keep everyone safe and sanitary has forced the smaller producers out of the market as compliance costs skyrocketed.

In particular read http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Salatin_Sept03.pdf

You will survive as a vegetarian. I am a vegetarian myself, and I have been one for over six years.

I will never - repeat, never *tears into shank of beef* - be a vegetarian, not in a million *noisily slurps blood* years!

Funny, we've got hills full of mountain lions and coyotes out here and they don't seem to be a problem unless the population of their food is depleted.

Well, it just goes to show you that generalizations are usually bad. We don't have any wolves in Georgia and the deer population is terrible. Man is pretty much their only predator, either by hunting or by running over them on the road.

I will never - repeat, never *tears into shank of beef* - be a vegetarian, not in a million *noisily slurps blood* years!

I see that you, too, understand that God has a place for animals... Right next to the mashed potatoes.

It's probably more correct to call me a sustainable-only meat eater, as opposed to a vegetarian. In practice, I'll still eat organic, free-range meat, or sustainably farmed fish (which is limited as hell) when it's an option in the future, but I haven't had meat of any kind for the last week and a half, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I've known about the problems with factory farming for a while now, but this article just seemed to distill it for me.

I just can't eat that anymore. I'm not opposed to eating meat, and I'm certainly not one of those "meat is murder" types--I just can't eat that anymore.
Well, just to play Devil's Advocate...would you rather people starve? As the article points out, this kind of efficiency was impossible to have back in the day of free range meat. Would you have us cut down the amount of meat produced (and note, before you say it takes more food to feed those animals then they produce, actually check into what they eat. The standard argument against cows or pigs is that most of what they eat is edible for humans, which is incorrect. The grains and other things typically fed to cows or pigs is below the digestable level for humans (especially in the case of cows, where their grain could sicken a human while they digest it without any problem)) and thereby raise meat prices for everyone (with the people the most damaged being the poor, as the cheapest food, fast food, relies on cheap meat being available), possibly leading to hunger issues in America, and even greater food shortages round the world? Furthermore, are you willing to sacrifice the tens, or hundreds, of thousands of acres necessary to range feed these animals? That would mean sacrificing a large percentage of the remaining wilderness in the U.S., and quite possibly cutting into farmlands as well.

There are over 6 billion people in the world. You can't feed them, protect the environment, and protect animals all at once. Unfortunately, life for animals in the wild is pretty shitty as it is, so if you want to do the first two, you've got to sacrifice some pigs, cows, and chickens.

http://www.polyfacefarms.com/

This is how farming should be.

I am opposed to industrial production, but unfortunately all the laws and regulations meant to keep everyone safe and sanitary has forced the smaller producers out of the market as compliance costs skyrocketed.

In particular read http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Salatin_Sept03.pdf
Yeah...if there were millions of acres of rangeland available, that would be nice. Unfortunately, that type of land isn't exactly free anymore. Unless you want to simply destroy what remains of the Midwestern environment and ecosystems, you simply cannot afford to create that much range land.

You still want animals to suffer and die when it suits your gullet. Heaven forbid that the rotting flesh in your stomach be contaminated - now that would be gross... :rolleyes:

Fass, you're a vegetarian? My respect for you has increased further.

Anyway, The Nazz, good first step. Keep going. Goes to show that when people realise what's going on in the meat industry, they react. I suspect that many of those who, in this thread, rant against vegetarianism have not actually read the full article you posted. Because of the risk that, if they read it, it might actually give them something to think about...

Well, it just goes to show you that generalizations are usually bad. We don't have any wolves in Georgia and the deer population is terrible. Man is pretty much their only predator, either by hunting or by running over them on the road.

That's 'cause they were all killed. I'd suggest repopulating them and you shouldn't have that kind of problem anymore. We've got deer here, but we don't see them running through neighborhoods because we've also got mountain lions and coyotes.

I see that you, too, understand that God has a place for animals... Right next to the mashed potatoes.

I don't eat mashed potatoes.

Fass, you're a vegetarian? My respect for you has increased further.

Anyway, The Nazz, good first step. Keep going. Goes to show that when people realise what's going on in the meat industry, they react. I suspect that many of those who, in this thread, rant against vegetarianism have not actually read the full article you posted. Because of the risk that, if they read it, it might actually give them something to think about...
No, I think its more to the point that we frankly don't give a shit about animals when there are tens of millions of suffering humans, and collapsing ecosystems that we should be far more concerned with. How farm animals are treated is very low on the list of my priorities when there are millions of starving people in the world. How farm animals would have a better life in the range isn't exactly a poignant argument for me when those ranges would mean destroying hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness, and potentially destroying the remaining ecosystems of the Midwest (something that nearly happened during the great cattle drives of the past).

Yeah...if there were millions of acres of rangeland available, that would be nice. Unfortunately, that type of land isn't exactly free anymore. Unless you want to simply destroy what remains of the Midwestern environment and ecosystems, you simply cannot afford to create that much range land.

There'd be a lot more food available if we didn't have as much animal agriculture. Trophic structure for most animals we choose to eat are abot 10 to 1. Takes about 10 pounds of feed to produce one pound of meat. The land you say is lacking is only lacking because we use it to grow food for cows and pigs rather than for people.

Fass, you're a vegetarian? My respect for you has increased further.

Anyway, The Nazz, good first step. Keep going. Goes to show that when people realise what's going on in the meat industry, they react. I suspect that many of those who, in this thread, rant against vegetarianism have not actually read the full article you posted. Because of the risk that, if they read it, it might actually give them something to think about...

Of course I've read it. I don't give two shits about beings without sapience who I've not formed emotional bonds with. It's food, no matter what noises, squeals of pain or suffering it endures. It's going to die and become a steak. Don't want to eat shitty factory farmed stuff? Kill your own, or buy organic. Don't moan to me about animal rights or I'll consider you unworthy of the sapience you possess.

Well, just to play Devil's Advocate...would you rather people starve? As the article points out, this kind of efficiency was impossible to have back in the day of free range meat. Would you have us cut down the amount of meat produced (and note, before you say it takes more food to feed those animals then they produce, actually check into what they eat. The standard argument against cows or pigs is that most of what they eat is edible for humans, which is incorrect.

No, the main argument is that we could stop wasting ressources producing food for animals destined for the slaughter, and produce agricultural food for humans in its place. Far more efficient, far less wasteful: enables you to feed more people. If no meat were produced, it would be a huge step towards decreasing hunger in the world. Not to mention that it would put an end to environmental problems created by mass meat production. And, of course, it would end the extreme cruelty inflicted on animals.

There'd be a lot more food available if we didn't have as much animal agriculture. Trophic structure for most animals we choose to eat are abot 10 to 1. Takes about 10 pounds of feed to produce one pound of meat. The land you say is lacking is only lacking because we use it to grow food for cows and pigs rather than for people.

So much competition for those crops. We'll have to start growing a much better grade of grain, if we expect to feed people with it.

And those pigs will still live and be killed in appalling conditions regardless. The marginal impact of your decision is negligible.

Of course I've read it. I don't give two shits about beings without sapience who I've not formed emotional bonds with. It's food, no matter what noises, squeals of pain or suffering it endures. It's going to die and become a steak. Don't want to eat shitty factory farmed stuff? Kill your own, or buy organic. Don't moan to me about animal rights or I'll consider you unworthy of the sapience you possess.

Hear, hear!

No, I think its more to the point that we frankly don't give a shit about animals when there are tens of millions of suffering humans, and collapsing ecosystems that we should be far more concerned with. How farm animals are treated is very low on the list of my priorities when there are millions of starving people in the world. How farm animals would have a better life in the range isn't exactly a poignant argument for me when those ranges would mean destroying hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness, and potentially destroying the remaining ecosystems of the Midwest (something that nearly happened during the great cattle drives of the past).

Oh, the irony... See my post after that one.

There'd be a lot more food available if we didn't have as much animal agriculture. Trophic structure for most animals we choose to eat are abot 10 to 1. Takes about 10 pounds of feed to produce one pound of meat. The land you say is lacking is only lacking because we use it to grow food for cows and pigs rather than for people.

The land can't grow food fit for human consumption. Not all soil is equal.

Keep in mind as well that it is not an issue of availability, but rather distribution. Enough food is produced for every human on earth to get over four pounds of food per day. Increasing the amount of available food would do nothing.

Of course, you'd get a similar amount of energy from eating one pound of meat as from eating ten pounds of feed, as humans can utilize almost all energy found in meat, but only a miniscule fraction of that found in plant matter.

A short article on caring for one's future food. http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2118967.html?menu=

http://i10.tinypic.com/2d1vcq8.jpg

And, of course, it would end the extreme cruelty inflicted on animals.
Except those little furry animals that die horribly by the thousands whenever crops are harvested. But they don't count, do they?

A short article on caring for one's future food. http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2118967.html?menu=

http://i10.tinypic.com/2d1vcq8.jpg

LOL

So much competition for those crops. We'll have to start growing a much better grade of grain, if we expect to feed people with it.

Probably be better off growing fruits and vegetables rather than more corn and wheat. Broccoli, turnips, onions, apples, that sort of thing. Don't get me wrong, I eat meat. I just don't eat a lot of beef and pork because of the environmental effects and because I don't want to die of heaert disease. I love a good filet, had one last night. Today I'll eat some salmon and the rest mostly vegetables and fruit. Had some eggs this morning.

Probably be better off growing fruits and vegetables rather than more corn and wheat. Broccoli, turnips, onions, apples, that sort of thing.
All of which require more energy to grow than grains, and also are a hell of a lot worse for the soil.

There are things that it doesn't do a city fella any good to know about.
What, so now farmers and companies can't sell him their shit anymore?

I don't especially like the conditions in which factory farms raise their animals, but it's what it is.

Accepting something simply because it is the status quo is the silliest reasoning ever, and it really makes people who use it look stupid.

It's probably more correct to call me a sustainable-only meat eater, as opposed to a vegetarian. In practice, I'll still eat organic, free-range meat, or sustainably farmed fish (which is limited as hell) when it's an option in the future, but I haven't had meat of any kind for the last week and a half, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
There's a vast difference between being a "sustainable-only meat eater" and being a vegetarian. They have nothing in common.

Heaven forbid that the rotting flesh in your stomach be contaminated - now that would be gross... :rolleyes:
Wouldn't it?

This is how farming should be.

I am opposed to industrial production
It's necessary for such a large population.

Of course I've read it. I don't give two shits about beings without sapience who I've not formed emotional bonds with. It's food, no matter what noises, squeals of pain or suffering it endures. It's going to die and become a steak. Don't want to eat shitty factory farmed stuff? Kill your own, or buy organic. Don't moan to me about animal rights or I'll consider you unworthy of the sapience you possess.

I don't "moan" about them. You're the one ranting. Guilty conscience, perhaps? Don't want to face facts? I don't "kill my own": I'm a vegetarian.

I already consider you unworthy of your sapience, because you're an incomplete human being. You lack not only compassion but reason. And with limited compassion and limited reason, there's not much left that's worthy of being called human.

I'm not going to get into another debate on this topic. I've been in enough of them already, and it's pointless. People like you are immune to reason; you have a knee-jerk rejection of it because actually thinking would make you question something you are far too selfish to want to question. Leaving aside the issue of animal suffering (in which sentience is immaterial, although many animals, pigs included, are very intelligent by any standard; animals suffer, physically and mentally, in the exact same way as you would), the truth is that you are willing to actively encourage and support environmentally destructive practices, which contribute to maintaining hunger and human suffering in the world, because you are too selfish and too limited to do otherwise.

There are things that it doesn't do a city fella any good to know about. I don't especially like the conditions in which factory farms raise their animals, but it's what it is. Even without the lousy conditions, the slaughterhouses aren't anything you want to see, either.

Personally, I don't find it a problem to treat cows and chickens in the manner that you describe, but after owning a couple of Berkshires for a while, I think pigs are too intelligent to be treated this away.

Tell me that y'all are going to start hunting now. The rapidly increasing deer population needs you and they taste good.

I live in the city now, but I was raised in the country--raised cows and chickens as a child--so it's not like I don't know my way around that life. There aren't too many options for hunting where I live these days, and it's never been my thing, but I've never been opposed to it.

The land can't grow food fit for human consumption. Not all soil is equal.

Keep in mind as well that it is not an issue of availability, but rather distribution. Enough food is produced for every human on earth to get over four pounds of food per day. Increasing the amount of available food would do nothing.

Of course, you'd get a similar amount of energy from eating one pound of meat as from eating ten pounds of feed, as humans can utilize almost all energy found in meat, but only a miniscule fraction of that found in plant matter.

Sure, that's true. But here in the US, the beef capital of the world, we don't eat grass fed cattle. We like our corn fed cattle and our grain fed cattle. Also, most places that do grow grass but can't sustain corn agriculture can support fruit tree plantations. We're also over farming the shit out of our soil. Grain and corn agriculture as practiced today is brutal on top soil and a huge chunk of it goes to feeding cows and pigs. If we all cut down on at least our beef and pork consumption and freed up that land to grow more food for people it would be better for us and better for the environment. I do understand that land grazed cattle generally don't graze areas that are good for growing onions, but most of the cattle we eat here aren't grass fed.

I like pork. Pork is tasty.

All of which require more energy to grow than grains, and also are a hell of a lot worse for the soil.

That's not true. Grain and corn agriculture are among the most damaging kinds of agriculture.

That's not true. Grain and corn agriculture are among the most damaging kinds of agriculture.

The problem lies in the methods.

I don't "moan" about them. You're the one ranting. Guilty conscience, perhaps? Don't want to face facts? I don't "kill my own": I'm a vegetarian.

I already consider you unworthy of your sapience, because you're an incomplete human being. You lack not only compassion but reason. And with limited compassion and limited reason, there's not much left that's worthy of being called human.

I'm not going to get into another debate on this topic. I've been in enough of them already, and it's pointless. People like you are immune to reason; you have a knee-jerk rejection of it because actually thinking would make you question something you are far too selfish to want to question. Leaving aside the issue of animal suffering (in which sentience is immaterial, although many animals, pigs included, are very intelligent by any standard; animals suffer, physically and mentally, in the exact same way as you would), the truth is that you are willing to actively encourage and support environmentally destructive practices, which contribute to maintaining hunger and human suffering in the world, because you are too selfish and too limited to do otherwise.

Hear, hear!

I don't "moan" about them. You're the one ranting. Guilty conscience, perhaps? Don't want to face facts? I don't "kill my own": I'm a vegetarian.

I already consider you unworthy of your sapience, because you're an incomplete human being. You lack not only compassion but reason. And with limited compassion and limited reason, there's not much left that's worthy of being called human.

I'm not going to get into another debate on this topic. I've been in enough of them already, and it's pointless. People like you are immune to reason; you have a knee-jerk rejection of it because actually thinking would make you question something you are far too selfish to want to question. Leaving aside the issue of animal suffering (in which sentience is immaterial, although many animals, pigs included, are very intelligent by any standard; animals suffer, physically and mentally, in the exact same way as you would), the truth is that you are willing to actively encourage and support environmentally destructive practices, which contribute to maintaining hunger and human suffering in the world, because you are too selfish and too limited to do otherwise.

Guilty conscience? Highly unlikely. Why would I feel guilt over killing food? I do not feel guilt over eating a plant, why should I feel guilt over eating an animal? They're both food. Neither have rights. I don't care if they suffer, because ultimately, they're nothing but food. Though I no longer do so due to my living location, I've killed my own in the past. There's nothing more satisfying than knowing exactly where your food came from - the flesh of an animal you've fed from birth.

I feel no compassion for food because it is not deserving of it.

I say again: your rabid vegetarianism disgusts me. Go eat a steak.

No, the main argument is that we could stop wasting ressources producing food for animals destined for the slaughter, and produce agricultural food for humans in its place. Far more efficient, far less wasteful: enables you to feed more people. If no meat were produced, it would be a huge step towards decreasing hunger in the world. Not to mention that it would put an end to environmental problems created by mass meat production. And, of course, it would end the extreme cruelty inflicted on animals.
And you'd be wrong. The majority of food that is fed to animals (I believe the figure is somewhere in the vicinity of 78%) is undigestable for humans, and is simply the poor yield (in terms of quality) from most farms. Literally hundreds of millions of pounds of grains are farmed that simply cannot be digested by humans for a variety of reasons (typically due to coarseness and or impurities) that can be digested by animals (usually pigs and cows). Without the animal population that eats these poor yields, farmers would have to simply destroy millions of pounds of inedible grains each year, grains that could simply be fed to animals instead. The same is true in many other industries besides the grain industry, as poor quality fruits, squashes, etc are all often sold to factory farms as they could not be commercially sold to humans due to their quality. Would your rather that those thousands of tons of food were simply thrown out instead (this actually still happens with a great deal of this type of commercially inviable products).

There is a second major issue with your claim: When you consider that animals are eating the poor quality products humans cannot eat (either due to quality or the fact that the food is often quite literally rotting), you'd need to convert tens of thousands of acres of wilderness into farmland to get the same production of food. Unfortunately, this would mean either cutting into the few remaining prairie and grassland ecosystems of the Midwest, or deforesting huge regions in either the East or West coast (neither of which are regions where soil is particularly conducive to farming, so we are dealing with a major marginal decline in production). The effects on the environment would be enormous, as either way you are going to destroy a huge amount of native vegetation, and destroy the habitat for a huge number of species, qutie possibly leading to extinction in the case of species living in the Midwest.

So in reality, you're basically wrong on all counts. You would not decrease hunger without destroying tens of thousands of acres of wilderness, you would be far less efficient in the output from farms (both because poor quality products would have to be destroyed and you'd be using land less suited for farming, decreasing output), and you'd have a simply monumental toll on the environment, as wilderness was changed to farmland. In fact, you'd probably recreate the conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl, even further decreasing the output of farm land across the Midwest.

The problem lies in the methods.

That's true also, but the methods are what make it possible for us to grow tthe surplus food you're talking about. This is qll academic anyway. The real probalem is there are too many of us and it is probably not possible to sustain this many people in an environmentally friendly way. Cutting down on meat consumption would go a long way, though.

That's true also, but the methods are what make it possible for us to grow tthe surplus food you're talking about. This is qll academic anyway. The real probalem is there are too many of us and it is probably not possible to sustain this many people in an environmentally friendly way. Cutting down on meat consumption would go a long way, though.

Since animals are fed on the food we can't eat, cutting down on meat consumption would make it even worse, since we'd have to use even more land to grow the increased amount of usable food we would need.

And once again, currently, there is enough food. The problem lies solely in distribution.

I don't "moan" about them. You're the one ranting. Guilty conscience, perhaps? Don't want to face facts? I don't "kill my own": I'm a vegetarian.
Why a guilty conscience? We're doing what nature has evolved us to do, eat both meat and vegetables. Humans evolved to be hunter-gatherers, not to sit around eating lettuce.


I already consider you unworthy of your sapience, because you're an incomplete human being. You lack not only compassion but reason. And with limited compassion and limited reason, there's not much left that's worthy of being called human.
Actually, it is quite arguable that you are the incomplete human being. Nature has endowed you with the capacity to eat meat, and a digestive system and metabolism that requires a large quantity of products found primarily in meat. One could argue that your knee jerk arguments are truly the one without reason here. As for compassion, again, hard to be compassionate for animals when that means sacrificing humans and the environment.


Leaving aside the issue of animal suffering (in which sentience is immaterial, although many animals, pigs included, are very intelligent by any standard; animals suffer, physically and mentally, in the exact same way as you would)
This is simply not true, and has been proven as such. The old lobster experiment (boil a lobster slowly and it never reacts, never tries to escape, and never shows any sign of experiencing pain) has shown that pain is a lot more tied to instinctual response than anything else. There is nothing mental, a pig wouldn't be upset mentally that it cannot move around, it would simply have whatever its instictual response to crowding would be (which is probably not much a response in any case). Animals do not suffer in the way that we do, or at least have never shown that they do. Animal pain seems to be much more directly tied to simple instictual reaction (which humans share) than any kind of mental pain.


the truth is that you are willing to actively encourage and support environmentally destructive practices, which contribute to maintaining hunger and human suffering in the world, because you are too selfish and too limited to do otherwise.
This is also extremely untrue. Read my earlier post about what it would take to increase farmland to feed the people fed by animals, and the thousands of tons of farm products that would simply be destroyed each year because they are indigestable by humans.

Sounds like a PETA wanna be. Animal rights people make me sick. As Ron White said, "...cow farming ruins the environment. What are you doing to fix it?...I'm eating the cow's. But I'm only one man!!"

Since animals are fed on the food we can't eat, cutting down on meat consumption would make it even worse, since we'd have to use even more land to grow the increased amount of usable food we would need.

That's true in much of the world, but not here. Most of our cattle, in particular, that is grown for cunsumption is grain or corn fed. We eat grain and corn - too much of it. Fruit trees can grow on the same kind of land and are nowhere near as bad on soil as grain or corn.

That's true in much of the world, but not here. Most of our cattle, in particular, that is grown for cunsumption is grain or corn fed. We eat grain and corn - too much of it. Fruit trees can grow on the same kind of land and are nowhere near as bad on soil as grain or corn.
However, fruit trees produce only a fraction of the total output that grain and corn does. If you get two hundred tons of grain from a farm, fruit trees would probably produce something like 20-40 tons. They simply aren't as productive in terms of output, and that is what is most important.

I live in the city now, but I was raised in the country--raised cows and chickens as a child--so it's not like I don't know my way around that life. There aren't too many options for hunting where I live these days, and it's never been my thing, but I've never been opposed to it.
I guess if you've had to wring a chicken's neck so you could have dinner, you have enough standing to make an intelligent comment. Seriously, factory farming sucks, but I don't know how else to feed 300 million people that don't want to live on a subsistence diet of oatmeal. That's the alternative being proposed, anyway. Live on grains and legumes? I just don't think that's going to go over with a large segment of the population.

Oh c'mon. The pigs are shitting toxic waste and they can breed six billion pounds of pork?

However, fruit trees produce only a fraction of the total output that grain and corn does. If you get two hundred tons of grain from a farm, fruit trees would probably produce something like 20-40 tons. They simply aren't as productive in terms of output, and that is what is most important.

Well, as I said earlier. The problem is that in order to produce food in the quantities we do today we have to use methods that are unsustainable. The truth of the matter is that there are too many of us. If the US continues to be the bread box of the world we will continue to deplete our resources and destroy our farm land. It's a very hard place to be because we basically have to decide whether we cut down on our meat consumption and grow better, more nutritionally dense foods that are easier on the land, like fruits and vegetables grown organically, or to continue to feed the world. You're right. If we start to traet our farmland in a sustainable fashion we will not be able to produce food in anywhere near the quantities we do now. I think we could produce enough for North America, but we woudl probably not be exporting much which would undoubtedly lead to starvation in many places in the world.

I guess if you've had to wring a chicken's neck so you could have dinner, you have enough standing to make an intelligent comment. Seriously, factory farming sucks, but I don't know how else to feed 300 million people that don't want to live on a subsistence diet of oatmeal. That's the alternative being proposed, anyway. Live on grains and legumes? I just don't think that's going to go over with a large segment of the population.

I thin we could feed 300 million without factory farming. The problem is we are feeding many more people than that.

I thin we could feed 300 million without factory farming. The problem is we are feeding many more people than that.

It's all the illigal immigrants, taking our jobs and using the money to take our chickens!

What are the Chickens excreting, polluted lake scum? Oh, and the cow shit is syphilis-laden hemoroids, isn't it?

Oh c'mon. The pigs are shitting toxic waste and they can breed six billion pounds of pork?
It's called hyperbole. It's a technique that people use from time to time to get attention or mostly, to emphasize a particular point.

Neither have rights. I don't care if they suffer, because ultimately, they're nothing but food.

I say again: your rabid vegetarianism disgusts me. Go eat a steak.

Thats the most retarded thing I've read in a while. "They're nothing but food"

It's called hyperbole. It's a technique that people use from time to time to get attention or mostly, to emphasize a particular point.

Yeah, now if only that hyperbole wasn't the entire point they made. The only thing that sounds reasonable are the cages and the drop pits. They'd have you think the pigs are living in a bath of their own fetii and diarrohea.

Thats the most retarded thing I've read in a while. "They're nothing but food"

"(literal; uncountable) Any substance which can be consumed by living organisms in order to sustain life, especially that which can be eaten."

In practice, I'll still eat organic, free-range meat,
Hypocritical shit that isn't good for you?

or sustainably farmed fish
You mean the majority of the shit they sell anyway?

But pork is shit anyway.

It's called hyperbole. It's a technique that people use from time to time to get attention or mostly, to emphasize a particular point.
There is also this thing called lying.

There is also this thing called lying.

I think its called not reading the whole article. They spray stuff all over the pens to kill bacteria and the pesticides or whatever chemicals get washed down the same place as the excriment.

I think its called not reading the whole article. They spray stuff all over the pens to kill bacteria and the pesticides or whatever chemicals get washed down the same place as the excriment.

It said their shit was like toxic waste. Does something later in the article retract that statment?

I guess if you've had to wring a chicken's neck so you could have dinner, you have enough standing to make an intelligent comment. Seriously, factory farming sucks, but I don't know how else to feed 300 million people that don't want to live on a subsistence diet of oatmeal. That's the alternative being proposed, anyway. Live on grains and legumes? I just don't think that's going to go over with a large segment of the population.

I don't imagine it will either, and I'm certainly not suggesting that my point of view on this is going to change the factory farm system one iota. I'm just not going to take part in it anymore. That's my choice, and I'm glad I have the option--not everyone does. There are lots of people who would starve without factory farming, plain and simple.

Yeah, now if only that hyperbole wasn't the entire point they made. The only thing that sounds reasonable are the cages and the drop pits. They'd have you think the pigs are living in a bath of their own fetii and diarrohea.
I've not a doubt in the world that the pig shit is toxic. Read a little farther into the article, where it starts to list the contents of the factory-farm pig shit.

Hypocritical shit that isn't good for you?
Please tell me, o great moralist, what's s hypocritical about organic, free range meat?

I've not a doubt in the world that the pig shit is toxic. Read a little farther into the article, where it starts to list the contents of the factory-farm pig shit.

Yeah but isn't shit pretty much by definition toxic?

I just can't eat that anymore. I'm not opposed to eating meat, and I'm certainly not one of those "meat is murder" types--I just can't eat that anymore.

Anyways, the point was this anyways. You aren't eating shit. I mean that literally, you aren't eating the shit, you aren't eating any of the things they mentioned, real or imaginary they may be (mostly imaginary). You don't drink from the lagoons, you drink from a water treatment plant.

I've not a doubt in the world that the pig shit is toxic. Read a little farther into the article, where it starts to list the contents of the factory-farm pig shit.

Or the stories about the people who suffocated from the fumes, or the fact that if the ventilation breaks down, pigs start dying by the hundreds within hours. Toxic is a kind descriptor.

I've not a doubt in the world that the pig shit is toxic. Read a little farther into the article, where it starts to list the contents of the factory-farm pig shit.

It's a good thing we don't eat pig shit then.

It said their shit was like toxic waste. Does something later in the article retract that statment?

When it comes out of the sewage pipes and is mixed with chemicals that they spray on the pigs it is like toxic wate. It doesn't come out of them that way.

When it comes out of the sewage pipes and is mixed with chemicals it is like toxic wate. It doesn't come out of them that way.

Ah so it's "The pig shit is toxic. NO, not the shit from the pigs, but all the chemicals that happen to include pig shit, that you never come close to consuming. But the pig shit is toxic, don't eat pigs."

Anyways, the point was this anyways. You aren't eating shit. I mean that literally, you aren't eating the shit, you aren't eating any of the things they mentioned, real or imaginary they may be (mostly imaginary). You don't drink from the lagoons, you drink from a water treatment plant.

That's another discussion entirely--the meat packing industry, where shit literally does get into the meat because the processing plants are pushing the machines and the workers too hard.

Yeah but isn't shit pretty much by definition toxic?
You can use pig manure as a fertilizer. I wouldn't use the stuff that comes out of the Smithfield farm, though.

It's all the illigal immigrants, taking our jobs and using the money to take our chickens!

What are the Chickens excreting, polluted lake scum? Oh, and the cow shit is syphilis-laden hemoroids, isn't it?

I was referring to the amount of food we export.

It's a good thing we don't eat pig shit then.

In places, though, it filters into the groundwater--it could get into your diet if you live near a pig farm.

You can use pig manure as a fertilizer. I wouldn't use the stuff that comes out of the Smithfield farm, though.

Yeah, but I wouldn't want to eat fertilizer either. Doing so would probably make me sick. Toxic, I say!

Ah so it's "The pig shit is toxic. NO, not the shit from the pigs, but all the chemicals that happen to include pig shit, that you never come close to consuming. But the pig shit is toxic, don't eat pigs."

But there wouldn't be 30foot deep lakes of toxic pig shit if farms didn't have to create them in order to keep up with demands of meat eaters.

That's another discussion entirely--the meat packing industry, where shit literally does get into the meat because the processing plants are pushing the machines and the workers too hard.

And that's why we cook thoroughly and wash our hands many times a day. :D

It's a good thing we don't eat pig shit then.
But most farmers are pretty thrifty people. It's nice to be able to use a free source of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium that isn't contaminated with all sorts of other crap. That clean pig shit can help grow better broccoli.

In places, though, it filters into the groundwater--it could get into your diet if you live near a pig farm.

I repeat, water treatment plants. Yeah, sure, if you live near a pig farm and decide to dig a well. You never know what you get from wells.

I was referring to the amount of food we export.

I knew what you were refering to.

But there wouldn't be 30foot deep lakes of toxic pig shit if farms didn't have to create them in order to keep up with demands of meat eaters.
How about putting this spin on it? The factory-farms only exist to put cheap pork on the table. If we weren't mass-producing pork, the price would be higher, but the demand would taper. Same thing happens with any other commodity.

Why should I care about food? Seriously. Your rabid vegetarianism disgusts me.


Yes, but remember if Civilization collapses we can eat them too in the short term. Grain and veggie fed, they'll taste an awful lot like pork probably.

I repeat, water treatment plants. Yeah, sure, if you live near a pig farm and decide to dig a well. You never know what you get from wells.
Dammit, I hate ignorant city people. We all have a right to unpolluted ground water. To suggest that it is permissible to pollute with substances that can cause grave illness, is inexcusable.

Yes, but remember if Civilization collapses we can eat them too in the short term. Grain and veggie fed, they'll taste an awful lot like pork probably.
I'm going to be "chicken". It seems like most unfamiliar things taste like chicken.

How about putting this spin on it? The factory-farms only exist to put cheap pork on the table. If we weren't mass-producing pork, the price would be higher, but the demand would taper. Same thing happens with any other commodity.

Yeah that too.

I don't imagine it will either, and I'm certainly not suggesting that my point of view on this is going to change the factory farm system one iota. I'm just not going to take part in it anymore. That's my choice, and I'm glad I have the option--not everyone does. There are lots of people who would starve without factory farming, plain and simple.
I would be in favor of some good legislation that would regulate the conditions in which animals could be raised. I haven't heard much about any, though.

Dammit, I hate ignorant city people. We all have a right to unpolluted ground water. To suggest that it is permissible to pollute with substances that can cause grave illness, is inexcusable.

*shrug* Fair enough, go get rid off the stuff leaking into the ground then. Dump it into the ocean or put it on a rocket to the sun?

I repeat, water treatment plants. Yeah, sure, if you live near a pig farm and decide to dig a well. You never know what you get from wells.
Do you have any idea how few water treatment plants there are in large swathes of the US? There's a significant portion of the population that depends on wells and groundwater for their everyday drinking and cooking. Doesn't the factory farm have a responsibility to that population?

I would be in favor of some good legislation that would regulate the conditions in which animals could be raised. I haven't heard much about any, though.
And you won't. Big Agra's lobbyists earn their millions, that's for certain.

Do you have any idea how few water treatment plants there are in large swathes of the US? There's a significant portion of the population that depends on wells and groundwater for their everyday drinking and cooking. Doesn't the factory farm have a responsibility to that population?

Perhaps. How does that make you 'vegetarian', and when are you going to do something useful about it?

Perhaps. How does that make you 'vegetarian', and when are you going to do something useful about it?

Why must you be in a position to "do something useful about it" to decide not to partake? If you saw a group of 20 Nazis kicking the shit out of a Jew would you join them just because you couldn't stop them? All you can do is change your personal habits and talk about it. Unfortunately, that's the limit of most people's power.

Why must you be in a position to "do something useful about it" to decide not to partake? If you saw a group of 20 Nazis kicking the shit out of a Jew would you join them just because you couldn't stop them? All you can do is change your personal habits and talk about it. Unfortunately, that's the limit of most people's power.

That's a lot clearer than I'd have put it. Mine would have probably included some swearing. ;)

It's probably more correct to call me a sustainable-only meat eater, as opposed to a vegetarian. In practice, I'll still eat organic, free-range meat, or sustainably farmed fish (which is limited as hell) when it's an option in the future, but I haven't had meat of any kind for the last week and a half, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Here's what finally sent me over the edge (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters/1). I've known about the problems with factory farming for a while now, but this article just seemed to distill it for me.

I just can't eat that anymore. I'm not opposed to eating meat, and I'm certainly not one of those "meat is murder" types--I just can't eat that anymore.

What about venison which, in the absense of wolves, is so sustainable that some areas consider them vermin?

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

Why must you be in a position to "do something useful about it" to decide not to partake? If you saw a group of 20 Nazis kicking the shit out of a Jew would you join them just because you couldn't stop them?

Well, there's calling the police, for one.

That's a lot clearer than I'd have put it. Mine would have probably included some swearing. ;)

Aww, I would have liked to see that.

What about venison which, in the absense of wolves, is so sustainable that some areas consider them vermin?

I actually have a nuisance permit to kill as many deer on my parent's farm as I want year-round. No waiting for the season for me… though realistically… every other farmer in the area would keep their mouths shut if you shot one even if you didn’t have a permit. And would probably swear on their mother’s graves to any Dep of NR that they saw you shoot that deer back when it was in season and just threw it in the freezer and only just now getting around to taking it to the butcher... even if it was still bleeding.

Well, there's calling the police, for one.

And in this case there's voting with your dollars and talking about the problems with people - that's about it. Again, just because you can't stop it doesn't mean you should partake. As I said, I eat meat. I just don't eat much red meat and I do't eat it three meals a day. I believe that man is a meat eating animal and I don't follow some militaristic, vegetarian philosophy. I do believe, however, they we can all benefit by making better choices about the meat that we do eat and how much of it we eat and 4 out of 5 doctor's agree - Tylenol is a better pain reliever. :confused: WTF?!?

And in this case there's voting with your dollars and talking about the problems with people - that's about it. Again, just because you can't stop it doesn't mean you should partake. As I said, I eat meat. I just don't eat much red meat and I do't eat it three meals a day. I believe that man is a meat eating animal and I don't follow some militaristic, vegetarian philosophy. I do believe, however, they we can all benefit by making better choices about the meat that we do eat and how much of it we eat and 4 out of 5 doctor's agree - Tylenol is a better pain reliever. :confused: WTF?!?

Teehee. Tylenol hijacked your post.

What about venison which, in the absense of wolves, is so sustainable that some areas consider them vermin?

I don't hunt, and I don't live in those areas, so it really doesn't matter to me. Like I said, I'm not a "meat is murder" believer.

Well... I just can't help myself, I love the pig. If you gave me a maple-smoked ham shank this Christmas I couldn't put it down - I'd be taking it to bed with me if it wouldn't smear my sheets with... uhh, wait a moment - I really need to think things through before I post sometimes...

I don't hunt, and I don't live in those areas, so it really doesn't matter to me. Like I said, I'm not a "meat is murder" believer.

I'm just asking philosophically. If you lived in such an area, and perhaps your hunting neighbor has some surplus, would you be averse to eating it?

I just heard a story on NPR the other day about a woman in California whose friend was a hunter in Montanna. He sent her 4 pheasants, on ice, that he shot, and she couldn't say enough good things about it.

Just out of curiosity, is your concern the unhealthiness of the meat itself, the conditions the animals are kept in or both?

I'm just asking philosophically. If you lived in such an area, and perhaps your hunting neighbor has some surplus, would you be averse to eating it?

I just heard a story on NPR the other day about a woman in California whose friend was a hunter in Montanna. He sent her 4 pheasants, on ice, that he shot, and she couldn't say enough good things about it.In theory, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but right now I'm so soured on meat in general that I probably wouldn't eat it right now. But I wouldn't have a problem keeping it in the freezer and eating it one day.


Just out of curiosity, is your concern the unhealthiness of the meat itself, the conditions the animals are kept in or both?A combination of the two, with a bit more of a tendency toward the unhealthiness of the meat. I believe we should make meat processing as humane as possible, but if we do that, it'll become healthier as well, so the two are inextricably intertwined.