Quantcast
Half A Billion Fewer Animals Are Being Killed Every Year Since 2007 As People Eat Less Meat

Forums - General Discussion - Half A Billion Fewer Animals Are Being Killed Every Year Since 2007 As People Eat Less Meat

Eagle367 said:
Vegans and vegetarians seriously think it's unethical to kill animals for food? And killing [lants is a ok because vegans and vegetarians decided they are lesser beings. I am opposed to cruelty and senseless killing of any being whether plant animal insect or even bacteria. I hate when people kill spiders and Anta needlessly. But did not one ever teach them about the circle of life? They seriously need to watch lion king. Call it God's plan or evolution and selection but for better or worse we are omnivores. The truth of the matter is vegans don't get all the essential proteins in the right quantity unless they eat a lot of soy or something like that or take supplemens. They even have to supplement vitamin b12 because plants don't have bacteria that make them. And supplement fat soluble vitamins as well. There's nothing wrong with that but claiming moral high ground is wrong I think. The only valid point they have is helping the environment and frankly it's up in the air if that actually does help or not because it's not simple addition you have to account for a lot of factors and I have not read up on a lot studies that prove that it's better. If science shows that it is then at least they have something but otherwise this whole holier than thou attitude is throughly unwarranted and completely ridiculous

The circle of life?  A call to nature?  Lions also rape, should we aspire to that too?  Most of us can now go down to the grocery store and get whatever plant foods we want from around the world.  I think we can do better than we did when we were struggling to survive in prehistory, or what lions do today for that matter.

As others have said, eating animals means also killing more plants (since humans eat herbivorous animals) than just eating plants directly, so any pro-meat argument about plant welfare is self-defeating.

And your statements about biology are false.  Plant foods contain all the amino acids a body needs.  Animals can't create the amino acids in protein, only plants can do that.  Plants take nitrogen and synthesize amino acids and combine them into proteins.  Your statement is based on the false belief that we need to eat an idealized ratio of amino acids.  We now know that's not true, the body breaks apart proteins and stores the amino acids separately, combining them when necessary into whatever ratio the body needs.  In fact, there's growing evidence that always eating a "complete protein" is bad for the body, and that amino acid imbalances from one meal to the next may actually have a cleansing effect on the body.  Any anti-vegan argument that contains "because protein" is self-defeating.

As for the environment, the United Nations (hardly a vegan mouthpiece) looked at all the information and concluded animal agriculture is devastating for the environment.  Hell, the meat industry has started acknowledging it: arguments are now sometimes made that factory farms are better for the environment than small scale animal agriculture because factory farms consume less land, less water, and less feed.  So if you eat meat your choice is the animal agriculture that's worse for the animals, or the animal agriculture that's worse for the environment.  It's a game that you can only win by not playing.



Around the Network
scrapking said:
Azuren said:
Interesting fact, not super relevant:

There has never been a successful 3-generation-or-more society that had a primarily vegan diet. Ever.
                       

Your statement is false.  As just one example, the Tarahumara people of Central America have been largely plant-based for centuries, and that's just one example (and they're renowned for incredible feats of endurance too).

The Tarahumara subsist on a diet that is largely fruits and vegetables they do indeed eat meat; mostly small animals and fish, which makes up about 5% of their diet (which I've argued for years is the sweet spot that human digestive systems thrive at). Their renowned feats of endurance are also called "persistence hunting", which they use to hunt deer.

Last edited by Azuren - on 03 March 2018

Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

scrapking said:
NATO said:

Here's the thing, half a billion less animals killed to eat doesn't eqaute to half a billion animals frolicking free in the fields, it just means less animals are bred for the purpose of meat production.

That's pretty fucked up that you're comparing eating meat to one human raping another.

"Forced pollenation is rape, growing plants for the sole purpose of harvesting is murder, you should stop eating everything entirely."

See how stupid that sounds to you?, well to everyone that eats meat, that's how stupid your rape comparison is.

I'm aware that fewer animals killed means fewer animals bred into captivity.  Not sure what your point is.  Or do you think it's better for animals to be born into a system that (for example) puts them in a tiny cage and keeps them there their entire life at a huge cost to the planet's environment, and to the health of the humans who eat them?  Nearly 99% of the animals on the planet are now domesticated animals, with animal agriculture ironically doing more to cut into wild spaces for animals than any one other thing.  About a third of the planet's ice-free land is now devoted to animal agriculture, either directly or indirectly, and it's completely unsustainable.

Pointing out that animal agriculture involves rape and murder would have seemed an excessive comparison to me too, when I ate meat.  No one likes to hear bad things about our habits.  Things definitely change when you "take the red pill" and learn what really goes on behind closed doors in factory farms.  Murdering and raping animals is only not excessive to the degree that we accept it as necessary.  But it's 100% unnecessary since we have alternatives, and those alternatives are generally cheaper and healthier.

We humans engage in a curious form of racism, and that's thinking the human race is better than other kind of animals (speciesism, as it's sometimes called).  With how horrible humans are to each other, to the environment, etc., I don't think the evidence suggests that humans are deserving of special treatment.

I like how you completely ignored the comparison to your rape analogy of doing the same with crops on a mass scale, did that make you feel bad too?, aww, you ignore that whenever someone brings it up in the thread I've noticed, so clearly you don't want to discuss things like the mass forced production, forced breeding, forced growing and forced harvesting of all crops, worldwide, and the environmental impact that has on the world in running those agricultural machines, the long process of washing, drying, sorting and packaging, then the impact of trucks delivering said product around the world to stores, or the environmental impact of having animals habitats destroyed to make way for vast crop fields.... yet you act like this is an exclusive impact only done by animal agriculture, which is bullshit. 

All the environmental impacts, (to both forests, and animal habitats) occur whether it be a field for animals to graze in, or a field for crops to grow.

And the total land used worldwide used for grazing stands at 3 billion hectares, the total land used worldwide for crop production stands at 1.4 billion hectares, and while you might jump the gun and say "ha, see, it uses twice as much land as crop production!", you need to keep in mind that 1.2-1.4 billion hectares of that grazing land are in countries where mass crop production isn't possible (the largest of which being africa), and thus the animals are left to roam vast swathes of land in order to forrage for food themselves, with that in mind the land use globally for animal agriculture and crop production is very similar, and yet, if you got your wish and the whole world turned vegan, do you think the current land use for crop production would sustain the demand?, or would that land once used for animal agriculture end up used for crop fields too (yes, it would). in which case, even if every single person on this planet turned vegan, not only would it not effect how much land was used for agriculture in general, but the amount of land used for agriculture would actually increase to accomodate the demand, creating an even more detrimental impact on both the environment and wildlife.

I know what goes on in meat production, i've seen the battery hens, I've seen the abuse some facilities do (chainsaw to a pig, etc), and yet, I still eat meat, I still visit my local farm and buy freshly killed chickens, pluck them myself, cook them, eat them, still enjoy beef, lamb, chicken, fish, buffalo, the works, should I feel bad that some animals aren't treated humanely?, should I stop eating meat because bad things happen in the world?, no not at all, as you yourself pointed out in the last paragraph, humanity is guilty of at times doing equally messed up stuff to itself, and there is no end in sight to that either.

And no, I wasn't pointing out that animal agriculture rape and murder seems like an excessive comparison, you're straw-manning, I was pointing out that making the jump from that to comparing it to the actions of a rapist or serial murder, thus implying that meat eaters are comparable to said rapist and murderers, was fucked up.

So you can keep your "red pill" (ohh, you're SO WOKE!!), and all the other pills you guzzle down, and I'll keep eating meat.

Last edited by NATO - on 02 March 2018

NATO said: 

Soyou can keep your "red pill" (ohh, you're SO WOKE!!), and all the other pills you guzzle down, and I'll keep eating meat.

Just a quick side note: buying into vegan spins and propaganda isn't being "woke", because most people are well aware of the pros and cons of being a vegan (with the exception of extreme cases on both sides, though there seems to be more extreme cases in vegans).

 

Being "woke" is more like how feminism harassed the benefactor of a Men's Shelter until he closed it in bankruptcy (they ran a smear campaign that ruined his credibility and public image) and finally killed himself (another statistic feminists would rather sweep under the rug is actually male suicide, outnumbering female suicide 5 to 1).



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Good news. I do not eat meat or egg products. My consumption of milk based product is probably reduced considerably as well but it is little difficult to go vegan.



 

Around the Network
Azuren said:

Just a quick side note: buying into vegan spins and propaganda isn't being "woke", because most people are well aware of the pros and cons of being a vegan (with the exception of extreme cases on both sides, though there seems to be more extreme cases in vegans).

 

Being "woke" is more like how feminism harassed the benefactor of a Men's Shelter until he closed it in bankruptcy (they ran a smear campaign that ruined his credibility and public image) and finally killed himself (another statistic feminists would rather sweep under the rug is actually male suicide, outnumbering female suicide 5 to 1).

Indeed, was used jokingly/mockingly in response to the use of "red pill" to describe knowing about the negatives of meat production.



scrapking said:

Medisti said:

Just wanted you to know, man. I stopped and had a burger in your honor earlier. Tasty cow. It told me your are solely responsible, too. For murdering the cow. The tasty, dead cow.

Cool story, bro.

Defensive much?

More dismissive. I say "It's good that people have the option to be vegan more than they did years ago" and you basically said "enjoy your heart disease," lol. And the five posts in a row having to reply to every single person is getting old. Do you not know how to consolidate?



exclusive_console said:
Good news. I do not eat meat or egg products. My consumption of milk based product is probably reduced considerably as well but it is little difficult to go vegan.

This is why I argue vegans are healthier in most statistics. Not because they don't eat animal biproducts, but because they spend every waking moment analyzing their food. To be a vegan takes commitment- the same kind of commitment it takes to be an athlete. I would argue that anyone who watches what they eat as much as a vegan would be just as healthy, if not moreso thanks to all that delicious B12 that they don't have to eat actual dirt to get.

Last edited by Azuren - on 03 March 2018

Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Absolutely. Their fuel is basically veggies, oats, grains, fruits, dry fruits. I have huge respect for them and how they have developed just taste. They are basically some sort of nutritionist as well. Most if not all barely eat processed, fast food or any tastemaker that normal person like me love to eat lol.



 

scrapking said:
NATO said:

Here's the thing, half a billion less animals killed to eat doesn't eqaute to half a billion animals frolicking free in the fields, it just means less animals are bred for the purpose of meat production.

That's pretty fucked up that you're comparing eating meat to one human raping another.

"Forced pollenation is rape, growing plants for the sole purpose of harvesting is murder, you should stop eating everything entirely."

See how stupid that sounds to you?, well to everyone that eats meat, that's how stupid your rape comparison is.

I'm aware that fewer animals killed means fewer animals bred into captivity.  Not sure what your point is.  Or do you think it's better for animals to be born into a system that (for example) puts them in a tiny cage and keeps them there their entire life at a huge cost to the planet's environment, and to the health of the humans who eat them?  Nearly 99% of the animals on the planet are now domesticated animals, with animal agriculture ironically doing more to cut into wild spaces for animals than any one other thing.  About a third of the planet's ice-free land is now devoted to animal agriculture, either directly or indirectly, and it's completely unsustainable.

Pointing out that animal agriculture involves rape and murder would have seemed an excessive comparison to me too, when I ate meat.  No one likes to hear bad things about our habits.  Things definitely change when you "take the red pill" and learn what really goes on behind closed doors in factory farms.  Murdering and raping animals is only not excessive to the degree that we accept it as necessary.  But it's 100% unnecessary since we have alternatives, and those alternatives are generally cheaper and healthier.

We humans engage in a curious form of racism, and that's thinking the human race is better than other kind of animals (speciesism, as it's sometimes called).  With how horrible humans are to each other, to the environment, etc., I don't think the evidence suggests that humans are deserving of special treatment.

I haven't hear of we having domesticated over some trillions of animals or is there some major caveat to this?

Also it's funny that you say you aren't emotionally attached, isn't ranting and don't think you are superior because of your diet when we see your posts.

scrapking said:
method114 said:

This is my diet pretty much. I also try and eat very little carbs just enough for my BJJ and weight lifting and that's it. I'm not sure what to think of Vegan diets and eating less meat in general. The science on this stuff is all over the place and riddled with poorly done studies.

The science isn't really all over the place.  Vested interests are creating studies to attempt to sew doubt with the public, just like the tobacco industry did in the second half of the 20th century.  Here's an example: want to create a study that tries to debunk cholesterol being bad?  Create a study where everyone eats the same amount of cholesterol, measure their cholesterol, note that they all end up with different amounts of cholesterol, and declare that there's no correlation.  That's the kind of science that the dairy and egg industries are famous for.  But it's junk science: everyone has different starting levels of cholesterol because of genetic differences.  However, if you reduce cholesterol in people's diet, you get a drop in bad cholesterol.  If you increase the cholesterol in people's diet, you get a rise in bad cholesterol.  Open and shut.

Independent science, not funded by vested interests, shows a consistent narrative.  Cholesterol is bad, saturated fat is bad, excessive amounts of animal protein in the diet is an anti-nutrient due to it overwhelming the liver, etc.  Vested interests are becoming increasingly brazen in creating junk science to convince people to buy their products, so government health agencies have had to start ignoring all industry-funded science in coming up with health recommendations (as the Canadian government recently did when updating the Canada Food Guide, as one of several recent examples).

You really don't have to look any farther than this: the healthiest and longest-living populations are the most plant-based such as the traditional Okinawan diet (98% plant-based), the Adventist vegans (100% plant-based), etc.  The adventist vegans are the longest-living population ever studied by science.  And these populations not only live longer, they have a reputation for being vibrant in their old age (aging okinawans doing tai chi, aging adventists mowing their own lawns instead of being in nursing homes, etc.)  People can debate theories until you're blue in the face, but when you put it to the test the more plant-based a population is the more likely it is to thrive.

Curious how you think the only vested interests and biased studies are on the side of industries that use animal origin products... like if the organizations you like and follow, vegans and other parties doesn't do studies focused on making them look better.

scrapking said:

DonFerrari said:

Prehistorical also had a very long aged live.

There are examples of largely plant-based populations in pre-history where "old age" was living into your 70s so, yes, that was true for some of them.  Less plant-based typically meant shorter lives, and worse weather tended to mean shorter lives, so plant-based populations near the equator typically lived the longest, and the inuit typically lived the shortest lives in pre-history.

largely plant-based means not exclusively, so they weren't vegan.

And people living more near the tropics than on the artics I would bet have much more to do with the abundant and easy food than the healthy effects of eating fruits instead of meat... or how easy is for a pre-historic 70y denizen to hunt a seal?

Funny enough my great grandfather lived up to 111y and great grandmother to 109 eating pork every day, smoking cigar and drinking alcohol. And that is being poor and not visiting any physician before they had crossed the 90s... to the point my ggf when doing a lung exam was though to be with cancer and should die in 5 years (living another 15) so it was probably very old cells that the physician never saw before and mistook for cancer.

So these small tribes could just have better genetics and not diet.

scrapking said:

DonFerrari said:

The trends seem to always be changing and going back to the same place.

Perhaps you don't know that the population that is most lactose intolerant are the Asians (a lot among japanese) and the main explanation is that for the previous several gen they weren't drinking cow milk and dairies so their system got unused to it so nowadays they are the most part of the intolerant population.

What you are pointing at seems more like allergies, where some types the person will only trigger at a certain age or due to continuous exposition. Also everyone reacts different so it may not even be some type of abuse.

You say Asians got un-used to eating dairy.  It's that they rarely ate dairy in the first place, not that they at some point got used to not eating it.  Humans only started eating dairy about 8-10K years ago, a blink of an eye evolutionarily.

And your body can get used to almost anything.  Someone from a long line of heavy drinkers might have a higher tolerance towards alcohol.  But that doesn't mean being a heavy drinker is good for you.

You understood what I was putting, but felt the need to spin it... so ok... let's just not pretend that 10k years is just about the time of civilization themselves and the time humans have started being able to eat dairy. But yes asians not getting used in the past now shows then being more lactose intolerant.

And I haven't said eating dairy is good for anyone, just that eating dairy doesn't create the intolerance (unless when looking at it similar to some types of allergies).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994