No it's not clear what the best answer is which is why the report does not call for and end to meat consumption, it actually does not make any recommendations. You said it yourself, there are pluses and minuses. Which basically indicates that the answer is somewhere in the middle.
But in this one issue we have been debating, the report makes it very clear that although the tonnes of protein the animals consumed was 77 million, the 58 million tonnes of proteins contained in the animal products had higher nutritive values than those in the feed provided to animals.
Now let's do some maths...
If the 77 million tonnes consumed by the animals were of the same food group (i.e. corn) and that group contained half the amino acids needed for humans, then you would need another 77 million tonnes of a different feed that would make up for the other half of amino acids needed. That is 154 tonnes of various feed in total, in order to produce 77 million tones of full-amino protein for humans. That's double the feed, for effectively only 32% more complete protein than what the animals produced on half the amount of vegan protein. But if you gave that 154 tonnes of feed to the animals, you would have 116 tonnes of fully nutritional protein instead of just 77 tonnes. And that's being generous, cause if the second food group does not make up for the entire second half of amino acids needed, then you would need a third...
But let's look at the other option.
If the 77 million tonnes of protein given to the animals were a composition of, lets say, soya and corn, then by the fact that one has to be complemented by the other, humans would only make up 38.5 tonnes of full-amino protein out of it. Which is 20 tonnes less than what the animals produced.
And the number gets a lot lower if the feed was made up of three different vegan proteins. Cause we would have to consume from all three in order to make up for all the amino acids.
So, effectively, if we all turned vegan, because of the fact that vegan protein has to be combined in different sources to make up for the full amino acids, we would need far larger quantities of vegan alternatives to be produced and transported etc etc. According to the maths, in the best case scenario, we would need double the amount of the feed we give to animals in order to get the high quality protein we are currently getting from them. And that's only if corn and soya can provide us with all the amino acids, which I doubt they do...
There is your answer.
I read that document with a lot of interest :o)
The quote that you provided here, actually continues to say the following:
"This simple comparison obscures the fact that proteins contained in animal products have higher nutritive values than those in the feed provided to animals. Moreover, it does not capture the fact that livestock and their feed also make a contribution to food security objectives by providing a buffer in national and international food supplies that can be drawn upon in case of food shortages."
So there you have it. The amount of protein we feed them might be 77 million tonnes, but that 77 million is only complementary protein. In other words you have to combine it with other proteins to make up the full amino acids. Whereas the 58 million tonnes of protein that those animals produce, is full of amino acids and does not require further proteins to complement...
You've just proved my point, thank you :o)
That's not true. You can feed a bunch of cows with grass alone. You don't need to give them the same wide range of foods that humans require. Some farmers have fields with trees on them and grass underneath. The cows can live on the grass, which is essentially free to the farmer who is more interested in what the trees produce.
If you piled up the grass the cows need to live on, it wouldn't be any near the size of the field we would need for the amount of beans that would equal the amount of protein the cow would give us. So there you have it.
"1) Combining multiple plant foods gives you the full range of amino acids. You should be eating a variety of plant foods anyway."
If we had to produce enough vegan protein alternatives for all people to be able to combine sources in order to get the full range of amino acids every day, the environment would come to a stand still. How environmentally friendly do you think it will be if we had to produce entire crops of beans, and entire crops of nuts, transport all these things with trucks that produce CO2, process them in bigger factories that would yield higher pollution levels, use stronger pesticides to ensure the success of the crop, which in turn will damage the environment and other animals heavily. The mistake you are making is that you are assuming that producing these vegan alternatives (to multiple quantities in order to make up the full amino acids) is less harmful than having a bunch of cows in a farm.
100 grams of lean beef or chicken gives me approximately 30 grams of protein and all the amino acids I need. In order to get that from beans (5g per 100g), I would have to eat 600 grams of beans. On top of that, I would need to eat another complimentary protein to make up for the amino acids. So in terms of quantity, we would need to produce 6 times (in this example) the amount of beans. That is 6 times the size of the land used. 6 times the amount of pesticides. 6 times the amount of petrol needed for transport. 6 times the amount of tins needed to package the beans. 6 times the amount of rubbish in my bin going to wastelands. 6 times the amount of pollution and toxics in the rivers. And that's just for the beans! Think about the multiples of the other protein source as well...
"2) Dairy products contain complete proteins."
Sure they do. But with our large populations you would still need animal factories that produce milk. The quantities we need make it almost impossible to be entirely "free range". You would still have animals trapped in a box and made to produce more milk than they normally would.
Either way, you cannot avoid using animals. Because going all vegan and combining protein sources would be financially impossible and environmentally disastrous.
"And yes, he had enough money to get away with molesting children quite a few times. He had enough money to lure them there, to abuse them and their families. To cover it up. And to get away with it."
Since when does having enough money to do something prove that you have done it?
"He molested children."
Seeing as the jury found him innocent, it turns out he did not. And seeing as the jury had better access to all the evidence against him than you, then it is you who is choosing to ignore the reality.
"You have your opinion, and I have mine. There really isn't anything I can do to change yours, because obviously his music was so great it forgives pedophilia."
Wait, did you just put words in my mouth? Did I EVER say that his music forgives pedophilia? Was that EVER what I was trying to say with my arguments?
"My opinions are based on what he has said, and what vibes he gave off. He fit the profile of a serial molester. He was creepy, and had the opportunities."
Well thank God you admitted what your opinion is based on! But none of that is proof that the guy was a child molester.
"I know he did it."
Many people know that Elvis is still alive, too. Many people know that there are aliens, too. After all, there is so much "evidence" to prove it, right!?
"My opinion is based on his actions, and on the weird creepy things he has said about sleeping with children."
That's not proof or evidence. It is you who chooses to interpret it as an admission to child molestation.
"Do you always trust a courts findings? Are juries and judges always right? In my opinion, they make mistakes."
Unless I have evidence to suggest that the jury was bribed, or that the case was rigged, then yes, I trust the finding of that court and so should you. Even Tom Sneddon accepted the finding of the court. If you are doubting the court then you are doing so by choice.
"It's intuition. [...] There is enough evidence out there for me to know that he did it."
Well thank God we don't judge people based on our "intuition" of them. I assure you, if someone judged you on intuition, you would be seriously pissed off.
"Well the "Speculation" I go off is the nasty stuff that he has said, and the creepy things he does. You can convict others with less than we had on him."
The stuff that he said is not "nasty" by default, it is YOU who has judged it to be nasty because you are filtering it through your preconceived idea that he is a creepy child molester. What kind of society would we live in if we convicted people cause they were "creepy"?
"And no, you could convince me he didn't do it. If you had proof. But no one has proof either way. Most of the evidence was testimony."
Of all the things you said, this was the most ludicrous. Let me remind you that people are innocent until proven guilty. It is the accuser that has to prove something, not the accused. The accusers in this case clearly didn't have enough proof to convict him. HE doesn't have to prove nothing, because THEY haven't proved anything to begin with. If he had been found guilty, then and only then, would your ridiculous argument make sense. Then and only then would he be required to prove his innocence. But that never happened! He was never found guilty!
"I believe that juries have far less evidence than is actually available. They are bound to make decisions only on evidence brought to them in the trial. If I had been a jury member I might of had to find him innocent based on that evidence alone."
I didn't hear Tom Sneddon complain that some of his good evidence was not accepted by the court... And if there was any, then the court must have had some very good reason for not accepting it. You see the courts don't entertain tabloid rumors...
"I can base my opinion on the things I know to be true. That includes things not presented in court."
If there is any place in the world where evidence is scrutinized to pieces then that is the court room. If the court room decided that certain things were not "evidence" then those things are clearly not "evidence".
"I believe them. I feel for them. And now I'm glad for them that he is dead."
The members of the jury have repeatedly told the media later on, how the mother was an over dramatic LIAR. This is the same mother that earlier on defended Michael by saying:
"The relationship that Michael has with my children is beautiful, loving, father-son and daughter one. To my children and me Michael is part of the family."
Then all of a sudden, she pays a visit to Larry Feldman, the same attorney that represented Chandler and got $20 million from Jackson. Note that she didn't go to the authorities first. She went to the attorney that could get her $20 million dollars...
"You just don't have all that stuff, and the accusations, without something nasty going on. No sane person does that! It's wrong and sick. That's how I know he did it."
Every single paragraph of that website you provided can be disputed and nothing in there is really evidence of anything. But if you lump it all in one sentence then you have a very deceiving and dirty context.
"He had books of photographs of nude young boys. Art or not. You seemed to miss that scrap of information."
I also have books of photographs of nude young boys.... Some of those boys are under 10 and they wear nothing but a garment that covers their genitals...
Does that sound sinister? Of course it does. But the reality is that those "books" are my holiday photo albums, and those "nude young boys" are my little cousins playing in the beach. But if I was accused of child molestation, the media wouldn't tell you that they were holiday photos, would they? In the court room they would be dismissed cause they are not evidence of any wrong doing. And yet people like you would be convinced that I am a child molester.
.
I will repeat what Nichole said to you so eloquently:
"your belief that he's guilty despite the fact he was cleared on TWELVE counts, makes you a pretty blind person, by choice."
That's it, I'm done.
With the information I have at my disposal, yes, I am certain.
How on earth can you be certain about it? The man was never found to be guilty.
You say that courts make mistakes. Couldn't you say the same thing about the media? How many times has the media been known to have exaggerated or even lied about things? Countless.
I find it absurd that you show more trust towards what you got fed by the media than by the findings of a court room.
If someone wanted to get Michael Jackson in jail for pedophilia that was definitely Tom Sneddon. I think you will agree that Tom Sneddon presented every shred of evidence he had against the man in the court room. The court heard it. But they found the man innocent. Which indirectly proves that what the media was talking about was a lot of bull, published to sell copies.
Think about it. It's not hard to make up stuff. When the media say "They found a secret room, porn magazines and pictures of young children" who is to say that all these things were actually related? The secret room could have been in one part of the house. The porn magazines could have been in his office. And the pictures of young children could have been in his lounge room along with all his holiday pictures, and they may have been completely innocent pictures of him and some children, completely decent and innocent. Maybe the children were his nephews and they were pictures of them wearing swim suits on a beach. But the press comes out and says "they found pictures of semi nude children". Which is true, but not in the context that the media allow it to imply. The point I'm making is that the press is more likely to not explain all that because by implying the worst they sell more copies and they have a heavier story.
Our governments made up stuff about weapons of mass destruction to get us into war, what makes you think that the tabloids have it for anything to make up stuff against a celebrity.
Listen, I understand that you believe the man got away with it. But for me there is enough reason to be doubtful. Or at least not certain. And if I can't be certain, then I think it is unfair to be celebrating his death, or say that it was a good thing for his "victims".
How am I putting the word "certainty" in your mouth, when you came up and said "I know he did it"?
What else does that phrase imply but certainty?
But if you are going to be so anal about it, then let me ask you officially..
Are you absolutely certain that he is a child molester?
Of course we're done.
The only point I was trying to make to you is that you don't really know whether he was a pedophile or not. It was your "certainty" that triggered this whole thing. I don't know if he is really innocent. But I won't condemn him to hell for being a pedophile, when it is uncertain if he was or not.
You didn't provide a shred of evidence to justify this certainty of yours, and on top of that you had the cheek to downvote my argument for putting words in your mouth. I didn't have to put no words in your mouth, you exposed your weak arguments yourself perfectly.
OK, first of all, I'm not really that bothered what people think of this guy, you can have your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Have courts made mistakes in the past? Of course they have. Could it be that the court and the jury made a mistake in not convicting Jackson? Maybe.
But a court judgment is legaly binding, and whether you like it or not, this guy was found innocent by the law.
It's very easy to justify an opinion based on your disbelief in the court system.
But stop trying to justify your "wanting" for this guy to be guilty with evidence that just isn't there. All you have is the tabloids and your dislike for his "creepiness".
If you have any concrete evidence to support your opinion that he is a paedophile please go ahaid and present it. I don't have to do any of that because the court has already done it for me.
I didn't say charity forgives anything. You brought up charity and I said he did some.
According to your own words your opinion is based on the "vibes" he gave off and on the "profile" of a serial molester, on his "creepiness" and on the fact that he had the opportunities. I'm pretty sure I haven't paraphrased nothing here. Now tell me, how is that not blatant speculation? None of that is real evidence.
And then you go on to say "I know he did it" which is precisely my point. When people "know" something happened, it doesn't matter WHAT evidence you provide them with, it doesn't matter WHAT the courts find, you will still "know" that he did it...
The "victims" spoke out and the case was taken to court. The jury decided that they were not "victims" of molestation at all. Why would the jury clear a child molester on 12 accounts?
That's pretty selfish. You could do a lot of good with that money, too.
Who said I wouldn't do any good with it? But I would still have a castle to myself :o)
He didn't get that money from winning the lottery you know. He earned it. And he DID do a LOT of charity work with that money.
And yes, he had enough money to get away with molesting children quite a few times. He had enough money to lure them there, to abuse them and their families. To cover it up. And to get away with it.
He molested children.
Please feel free to provide some proof to substantiate your claim. All you have is the accusations and the tabloids. For you, the fact that he had enough money to get away with it, is enough proof. That's ludicrous. According to that thought, anytime a very rich person is accused and cleared of something, they have definitely bought themselves out of jail. That's ludicrous. You have no facts on the matter WHATSOEVER. The people that DID see the facts were the jury and they found him innocent? So basically, whatever the facts, you WANT him to be guilty regardless.
You have your opinion, and I have mine. There really isn't anything I can do to change yours, because obviously his music was so great it forgives pedophilia.
At least my opinion is substantiated by the court that judged him. What is your's based on? Rumor. Rumor and SPECULATION.
But, all in all, yesterday was a good day for his victims, and society.
Unless he really WAS innocent, as found by the court. In which case, society lost a great musician who defined almost 99% of today's pop music.
If I had his money? Let me tell you something, if I had his money, not only would my castle have secret rooms, but I would build a second castle so deep in the ground I would feel the heat from the center of the earth... And that would be just for my home cinema...
Quite the contrary. I have made my position very clear and separated myself from the "don't give a shit" extreme camp.
I just wanted to point out that you seem to have lumped YOURSELF in the other side of the extreme represented by believeyoume, when in fact, your view is probably 99% similar to mine.
We both agree that meat eating is OK but only as long as the animals live and die in a very humane way.
But the debate is asking whether meat eating is generally immoral now that we can live as vegans. That's why I'm saying "No, I disagree".
You started it by saying "i don't believe in using animals". That statement, whether you see it or not, is very broad and it implies that you disagree with the use of animals period. Regardless of whether there are options or not. That statement implies that if you lived back in that time, you would be campaigning for the using of horses for transport, which is silly. That's why I called it an ignorant statement, it was too bold and too broad.
I really don't understand why you are on this side of the debate.
The debate is asking "is it our moral obligation to stop eating meat now that we can have vegan alternatives".
It's not asking "do you agree with factory farm living conditions".
By your admission, if the meat comes from your local farmer where the animals are treated well and killed humanely then that is acceptable. So your answer to the question of the debate should be NO.
Those principles are there for you to use when dealing with your fellow human beings, because they are the only living things that recognize them and use them just like you.
Animals don't understand morality. But if you want to use that morality to make their lives a little better then by all means, treat them well, and find painless ways to kill them for food. That way, they are still being treated just like they would be treated in the wild (eaten for food) but in a non-torturous way.
You still don't understand the difference between campaigning for better conditions for animals, and campaigning to stop people from eating meat altogether.
You've made this conclusion in your head that just because some places don't treat animals very well then we should all stop eating meet. Is that cause you think the protest is going to trigger new measures in animal welfare? Or do you have a problem with people eating animals regardless of the animals' living conditions?
That's the difference between you and the user "believeyoume". She has a problem with the killing of animals period. For her it doesn't matter how well we treat them, cause she has a fundamental belief that we shouldn't use animals at all, period. You however, seem to be jumping from camp to camp. Every now and again you make a claim as to why we shouldn't kill sentient life for whatever reason. And then you change it by saying "killing them humanely would be fine, but we don't kill them humanely" which is a VERY DIFFERENT approach...
So where exactly is it that you stand on this?
"Because I don't believe in using animals."
Wow that's a very general dismissal of a practice. Are you sure about that? We wouldn't have come so far as a society if we hadn't used anything and everything at our disposal.
If people hadn't used horses and made carriages, we would have never communicated with people that lived far away. If we hadn't used pigeons to deliver mail, you would have to walk for a year to deliver your news to your relatives. If we hadn't used sheep wool to protect ourselves from cold winters, we might not be here today. Your dismissal of those practices is so so ignorant.
"Hens do not lay eggs for human consumption. They lay them to create offspring.
Bees do not produce honey for human consumption. They produce it for food. And they sometimes die (via stinging) to protect it."
Why do hens produce so many eggs, if not for the fact that nature has already taken into account that a lot of them will be eaten or not survive. Why do fish produce millions of eggs when they lay them in rivers? Cause they know that 90% of them will not survive the environment, which includes them being eaten by other animals.
Oh and, should we stop bears from eating honey? After all, the bees don't produce it for consumption, right?
And what makes you think that apples are there for your consumption? As far as we KNOW, the apple is created to protect the seeds inside.
You seem to be so touchy about using animals and yet happily oblivious as to how many humans YOU are using RIGHT NOW. Do you know how many people are "used" everyday to make sure you have electricity, to make sure you have a good show on TV, to make sure you have streets to drive on, to make sure YOUR RUBBISH is collected, to make sure your vegan food is within easy reach for you so you can be all smug and profess to be a "better person"?
Have you any idea how spoiled you sound when you say things like "Animals, human and non-human, do not exist to serve others." We are all "used" in some way or another. Being a postman and delivering letters might be something that the person aspired to do, but they are still paid and "used" to deliver the service even on the days they don't feel like being a postman. Which is why I think your being so young and having no great experience as a working person has a lot to do with your "opinions". When your turn comes to be "used", then come and talk to me again.
Let me remind you that someone else is putting the labor, blood, sweat and tears, in order to produce the products of your vegan diet. YOU are USING those people to produce your food. But you are happily ignoring that, because it's not IN YOUR INTEREST to acknowledge it and PUT AN END TO IT. Right? Instead, you are trying to fulfill your smug desire to be a person of higher morals by concentrating on animal rights. Because, THAT you can live with.
Have no predators to fear? Check.
Who said we don't have predators? We have predators. A human's predator is another human. They may not haunt you for food but loads of them will be more than happy to kill you for many other reasons.
In the wild you can also be eaten by all sorts of other predators.
You see, when you look at it from the other side, our animal predators have no problem at all eating us...
Your response to this so far has been "yes but animals don't understand that it is wrong". In other words, animals don't have the mental capacity to see death from the same "morally unacceptable" perspective you see it from. And yet you are still trying to project your hung ups about death onto them.
You don't think we are part of the food chain?
May I remind you that in the last few weeks, Australia has been preparing the ground to allow crocodile hunting again because the crocodiles, having no predators to fear, have grown in high numbers and have become a danger to all other animals and humans alike.
Well it's a good thing that animals don't have the mental capacity to understand that then. Cause if you take out the "life of suffering", and instead, you create them, subject them to a happy life, then kill them humanely, then there should be no problem.
Your problem is that you are projecting your human cognitive abilities onto an animal that simply doesn't have those abilities. It's like feeling sorry for bears who live in caves.
