Do you REALLY think it's okay to kill animals for food?

1 person requires 1 acre of veggies to live for one year.

400mil in the US, 400million to sustain current population level, add in acres for ethanol production, which the added amount in 1 acre of land for E10 puts 72,000miles on the road. Lower for E85 & E100 (obviously). Also, you want to make extra incase crops fail due to lack of water, pests, or any other unseen disaster.

For some crops, it takes hands on in order to pick them for consumption. So, we'll be needing a lot of people willing to pick food all over... lets say 750million acres between the ethanol, overage & initial crop to support 400mil. That's a lot of workers.

Now, how much land is available in the US's lower 48? 1.9billion. We're almost halfway there. Then take in account the land which is used for housing, businesses, manufacturing, industial areas, etc. Then, throw in land which needs to be either terraformed to support the goal of growing crops, as well as land which cannot be used because it's covered by water, rocks, or any other means which cannot be planted on. National Parks, federal land, private land, etc. It'd drive land prices way up.

A cow for 1 year costs around 300 to 400 bucks. Cow droppings are used as fertilizer and in growing veggies, especially with doing organic, they spread it. A heard can be monitored by a few ranchers at once on horses & graze their heards on land which is most of the time unsuitable for crops. When animals are slaughtered (unless in Halaa or Kosher ways) are stunned with high electricity so they are unaware of what happens. They aren't crammed in pens their whole life. A stressful animal doesnt yeild good taste so they're given good treatment. PETA videos usually show that one guy who is about to lose his job for being a degenerate doing something no one agrees with.

So, why eat meat? It's there as well. If you don't like meat, go eat veggies. It's really none of your business what anyone else chooses to eat.

what about fish, is it ok to eat fish? Can I eat road kill? What about the eskimos, what should they eat?

Morality is defined by the standards of HUMAN well-being. Humans benefit immensely, in terms of both health and enjoyment, from the ability to consume animal products, so it is moral even if the animals die.

Actually, my points were far more logical than your little attack of defensive rage. The main point is that the meat industry is the single greatest contributor to greenhouse emissions. Thus, ceasing to eat meat is the best thing a person can do to reduce their carbon footprint (more than recycling or not driving a car).Second, unlike mosquitoes (your little example), there is strong evidence that cows and pigs have a nervous system very similar to ours and suffer immensely in slaughterhouses. Thus, if you think concentration camps and slavery are inhuman, than by virtue of basic biology and logic, you also should acknowledge that the meat industry is inhumane.Finally, unlike for other animals that require meat to survive (e.g. cats), eating meat is a dispensable part of the human diet. In fact, vegetarian diets are associated with reduced morbidity from chronic diseases.There are at least three major reasons (see above) why the meat industry is harmful to the planet and zero reasons why it is beneficial.

Humans DO NOT benefit immensely. The meat industry essentially enables the enjoyment of an animal-based meal at the cost of greatly increased greenhouse emissions and the cruel treatment and slaughter of large mammals. It's really one of the sickest industries on the planet. Worse than big tobacco.

Do you honestly think 1 person in 100 gives a rat's ass about his "carbon footprint?" You might be the odd liberal ascetic, but the rest of us want to enjoy our lives and eat meat.

INCORRECT

Once again you have demonstrated a lack of logical thought processes and a complete disregard for truth.

1) There is zero "defensive rage" here. Thus, you have FAILED on this count.

2) Mine was not in any way an attack but rather a gift to you to try to help your small mind find its way through that obfuscating mass of emotion to the simple hard truth. Again, you have FAILED.

Hoping that this can open your horizons a little :

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/tolstoy01.htm

Nope, I don't read anti-human propaganda.

In Another Light wrote:

Why not feed the veterinarians to the wild beasts of the land?

What do you have against those in the medical field?

yes, I do. They don't have sentience and they can feed animals who do and keep us healthy. Now I don't think its ok to kill a threatened or endangered species for food.

Yes

/Thread

Edward Teach wrote:

yes, I do. They don't have sentience and they can feed animals who do and keep us healthy. Now I don't think its ok to kill a threatened or endangered species for food.

How is it that you know this?

trollpatroll wrote:

Prediction: in 50 years, meat eating will be a thing of the past. Much like slavery was once considered the norm, but is not largely viewed as morally corrupt.

In 50 years meat will be grown in vitro - animal muscle grown from stem cells in vats in factories, not on farms and ranches. Meat used for processed food like hamburger and sausage will no longer come from living animals.

I don't kill most animals when they annoy me either. Your analogy using a pest is a terrible one. Ya, sure I'll take my boot and smash a black widow thats made its web in my house, before it poisons me or a family member, but I don't go around just hurting animals out of minor inconvenience. Do you kill dogs and cats when they annoy you?

Meat may be murder but vegetarianism is genocide. The cows and chickens that we eat carry a variety of traits that make them unable to survive in the wild. Being farmed by humans is keeping these species a live. The same goes for a variety of animals that humans hunt and eat which are only kept in high numbers so we can continue to eat and hunt them.

Do you really want to genocide entire species for your own satisfaction you monster?

OK, so you have confirmed that you do not understand basic logic. This is quite common among those "with a cause".

Congratulations!

Well, there is always this wrote:

Every animal dies.

What makes you think that these animals would be better off dying of starvation, disease or being killed by non-human animals?

Not a bad point. I'm not acquainted with a ton of vegetarians, but the few I know take greater issue with the WAY animals are slaughtered for human consumption than the simple act of killing the animal. I think there'd be fewer vegetarians if killing animals for food could be done in a more humane manner.

trollpatroll wrote:

Ok, by the logic that a "every animal dies" would it be ok to raise and slaughter people for meat since they would die eventually anyway?

That was a poor argument

Secondly, the meat industry is the single greatest source of greenhouse emissions (more than all motor vehicles combined).

Third, humans do not require meat to survive- it's an inhumane, environmentally damaging AND unhealthy addition to humanity.

Prediction: in 50 years, meat eating will be a thing of the past. Much like slavery was once considered the norm, but is not largely viewed as morally corrupt.

I've tried to eat chickens & cows while they're alive, but have concluded that killing them for food is best.

Greenhouse emissions are good, right? We can grow more greens in the greenhouse & have salads with our steak, yes?