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.
Why should intelligence be linked to not eating meat?
The fact that we still eat meat even though we have a higher intelligence shows you that it makes sense to do so, no?
And did you say healthy, cost effective alternatives with less work required and less environmental impact? Is that REALLY true? How many people have the health, the money and the time and work required to grow their own fruit and veg? Their own "variety" of veg to make up for the protein. I mean c'mon! Let's cut the crap here. If everybody had to grow or kill their own food how many people would be vegans exclusively? If you had to choose between digging the land, planting the seeds, watering it for months, using chemicals to make sure it's a successful batch, then harvesting it months later for you to have a plate of beans for dinner... How many would give up and just kill a chicken instead?
The vegans are as hypocritical about food as meat eaters, cause at the end of the day, its always somebody else that has to do the work and provide you with your "morally acceptable" alternatives. You have a problem with the "usage" of animals, but you don't have a problem with the "usage" of other humans to prepare your food. Talk about acceptable morals!
OK so let me get this clear in my head.
You would rather blind people not benefit from the help of a dog that is otherwise well fed, and loved, and trained to do something very useful...
Yeah... Fuck those blind people. Set the dogs free!
You would rather have no pre-testing of drugs on animals whatsoever, and instead inject them to human patients and pray that nothing goes wrong... All those doctors that have used mice to gather data on new drugs are basically idiots.
Yeah... Fuck those cancer patients. Set the mice free!
Also, all those poor third world country farmers should stop using horses and cows to help in agriculture. Their families should stop using the wool off the sheep to clothe themselves. They should also stop milking the cows for milk for their children. We can send them powdered milk and synthetic clothes right?
Yeah... fuck those farmers... and their children. Set the horses and the cows free!
At this point I think it has become evident that we have some HUGE differences in opinion, to the point that I don't think it serves anything to continue the debate. But I am more than thankful to have engaged in it because I truly needed some insight into the mindset behind this debate's slogan. Please don't take this post as an attack towards you. As a human being I love you as much as I love all my neighbors and having different opinions has never made me perceive people with an un-friendly eye. Some of your opinions on other debates have expressed my ideas as well.
LOL
Well what else do you think racism stands for, if not for the belief that one race carries with it an inherent superiority?
You really think that by saying that you are a "specie-ist" you are saying something other than that your species is superior to another species?
And also, having read your response about humans having abolished slavery and persecution of homosexuality etc.... can I just point out that all those issues pertain to how we conduct our affairs within our species, none of them have anything to do with other species, they were a "family" problem. It's not the same thing...
No, a retarded person will never be the same thing as an animal. The genetic standpoint will always be present, and a human is a human regardless.
You called it "speciesism", which is a pretty neat and diplomatic way of admitting that not all life is equal.
You doubt the abolition of the use of animals? Really? What about blind people's guide dogs? Should we abolish them? What about police dogs? Should we abolish them? What about the mice used for cancer research drugs?
C'mon, face it, animal life is NOT equal to human life. You would rather test a very dangerous drug on an animal first before you give it to a human and risk killing them instead.
And where do you stop with the "use" of animals? Is it acceptable to use cows for milk? Or sheep for wool?
Oh, and, veganism may have been with us for a "whopping" six decades (basically since supermarkets came around), but meat-eating has been with us for thousands of years. So you can't tell me that we know as much about being vegan as we do about meat eating.
Red meat is detrimental to your health (in large quantities), but white meat is actually very healthy. Anything in large quantities is detrimental to your health, even beans.
The reason the doctors are skeptical about a diet that completely excludes one group of foods is because we still don't know the full consequences of a vegan diet. What we DO know however, is that if you eat a bit of everything in moderation then that is a good thing. So, personally, I see a risk with vegan diets. Why would I want to impose that risk on everybody else?
I'm also interested in something else. How do you see the ideal world in your mind? Humans are not allowed to eat animals, but its OK for other animals to eat animals? Or should we go around taming every lion and every tiger in the wilderness to prevent and stop ALL killing for food?
Because that is not the normal state of affairs. From an evolutionary point, it makes sense to not eat from your own species because they carry the same genes as you. Also, a human being is more likely to contribute to your life than another animal (sheep, cows, chickens, etc). If it was between you and a chicken, I would always eat the chicken, because with you lies the hope that you might discover the cure to cancer for example. With you lies the hope that you will contribute to society (and by extension, contribute to MY life) by doing a job and by being productive. Now do you see why human life is not equal to any other animal life?
I have read you saying that all life is equal and that all sentient beings are equal. Now, let me ask you something. If you were to walk by a river and you saw a little boy and his dog drowning in the stream. Their distance from you is equal, but if you go for one, the other is likely to move down the stream and possibly drown and die. Which one do you go for? Is there any doubt in your mind that you would try to save the boy first??????
Please read my last post again.
No one "chooses" to eat from their own kind. Cannibalism, whether between humans or animals, is a rare occurrence and only happens under extreme circumstances. For humans, those circumstances are even more extreme, i.e. your life has to be at stake and the other person is probably already dead.
Those actions are only "evil" once they are processed through the human judging brain. Nothing else on this earth is known to make a similar judgment. For animals, death and suffering are as much part of life as anything else. But they never judge it or dwell on it. They kill to eat and that's it. "Evil" as we understand it, is a description that resides only in the virtual world of our brain.
As for building a society that allows us to transcend our primitive state of being, that is an illusion. We are part of nature and we will always be bound to the same observed behavioral patterns we see in nature. Whether we do it by putting our fists up or by suing each other in court rooms, we are still doing the same thing. "Brutal ancestry" has simply taken another shape.
No, taste is not the only reason people eat meat. There are a few sources of protein, such as Meat, Poultry, Fish, Eggs and Vegetable sources such as Nuts, Soya and Beans.
But it's only the protein from animal sources that contains the full range of essential amino acids needed from an adult's diet. The best one being Poultry and Fish because they contain less fat than red meat.
If you were to stick to vegetable sources, you would need to supplement your diet with a larger variety of foods and possibly some additional vitamin supplements.
So you see, it doesn't come without consequences.
Think about this for a second. We all know there are bad consequences if your diet excludes fruit and veg. What makes you think that there are no consequences at all if you completely exclude meat from your diet?
First of all, we HAVE eaten humans. Watch a movie called "Alive". It's a true story.
Secondly, eating from your own species is something that already happens in nature but for two significant reasons. One, is that when an animal is extremely hungry, it will eat the dead flesh of a same-species animal. The story above, proves that humans do the same thing.
Two, is when the eating of your own species is linked to social structure. For example, some lions, when they become leaders of the pack, they will eat the young baby-lions of other couples in the pack in order to prevent any future rivals and also in order to make it easier for the babies that they will produce to have less opposition as they grow. Humans have been known to do exactly the same thing, especially when they become kings.
There is also another reason why some animals will eat their own. It happens when the baby-animal is born with a disability. Some mothers will kill their own disabled or weak babies if they think that the chances of their survival in the environment are slim. Humans have been known to do exactly the same thing (Spartans).
So there you have it. These are the rare reasons why animals and people resort to eating each other.
But it is in no way the normal state of affairs. The normal state of affairs is that lions eat gazelles, giraffes, elephants, and every other animal apart from their own kind. Which is no different to the normal state of affairs for humans, i.e. we eat other animals instead of other humans.
The number one source for protein is Meat, Poultry, Fish and Eggs. You can also get protein from Vegetable protein foods such as Nuts and Seeds, Soya products, Beans, and some Dairy products.
From the above, protein from animal sources contains the full range of essential amino acids needed from an adult's diet. The best one being Poultry and Fish because they contain less fat than red meat.
Plant sources, however, don’t contain the full range of essential amino acids and so are not as high in nutritional value as animal protein. But it's still possible to consume the required amino acids, by eating a well-balanced diet that contains a variety of different foods. Which is why a lot of vegetarians complement their diets with powdered protein and vitamin pills. So, taste aside, you can be more certain that you have it all in your diet if you eat white meat than if you eat only the vegan alternatives.
That's from the BBC healthy living website, I didn't make it up.
There is consequences if you don't have any fruit and vegetables in your diet. What makes you think that there is no consequences if you exclude meat? We are not meant to eat from just one group of foods. Why do you think doctors are so skeptical about not eating meat at all?
You can make a case about the standards of animal welfare, and the living conditions in farms etc. I'm totally with you on that one. But that is entirely different to telling people to stop eating meat.
Preaching is to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action. Which is why I think this is nothing short of preaching.
Lions and sharks are incapable of moral reasoning.
Moral reasoning is nothing more than a by product of a comfortable society.
You take that comfort out and moral reasoning vanishes in thin air.
Have you seen the movie "Alive"? Those people possessed as much "moral reasoning" as you and me. But when it comes to your life being at stake you will eat the dead corpse of your own brother to survive. That's how set in stone your moral reasoning is... (I was gonna say something about "shoving it" but I'm more polite than that)
Humans can decide to renounce their brutal ancestry.
I would be careful before going around telling people to renounce their brutal ancestry altogether. Your "brutal ancestry" is what would keep you alive if you were to find yourself stranded somewhere with nothing by wilderness. Your "brutal ancestry" is what would make you put your fists up and defend yourself against the playground bully. And it's not all physical neither. Your "brutal ancestry" is what makes you apply for a job and not really care for all the other applicants, regardless of how much more than you they need the job.
If you think that this "brutal ancestry" is only part of our cave-living past, you are deluded!
I am in complete agreement with you that we need to improve the conditions in which these animals live and also find better ways to make the killing perhaps completely painless.
But that is not what you have been advocating at all. That is not what the people that carry this slogan in the streets are advocating neither. They want us to stop eating meat period (someone else here used that word actually). That's what I have a problem with.
On the face of it, killing is something that sounds fundamentally wrong. But by your admission, the killing of animals for food is not so fundamentally wrong. What is more morally acceptable? That the Eskimos respect the fish and allow themselves to die? Obviously not. Why? Because that would be MORE wrong than killing the fish to survive.
Now, just because I'm not an Eskimo doesn't mean that somehow all the reasons that justified me eating meat are gone. What comes to play is choice. I am luckier than the Eskimo because if I don't feel comfortable eating meat then I have other alternatives to choose from. I can choose to eat meat one day and beans on the next day. But arrogant people feel really compelled to want to impose only one choice to everybody. And that is nothing short of fascism.
The logic is still the same regardless of whether you agree with the content. Which is why telling people to not eat meat because they can live on other foods is as strong an argument as telling people to drop bombs because they can.
The fact is, we wouldn't be having this argument at all if we were Eskimos. Right?
Your opinions are only valid and honorable as long as there is a supermarket nearby for you to buy your vegan alternatives. Right?
If the food industry hadn't progressed to the point where you can get your protein from a powder and other vitamins from pills, then you wouldn't be so tough and preachy on people that eat meat.
So if you can do something, do it? That is the absolute worst argument for anything.
And yet, that is exactly what you are advocating...
What you are saying is: if you can live healthily on other foods other than meat, then you should do it.
I have read all your arguments with a lot of attention cause for a long time I have wanted to understand the mentality behind this slogan.
I would like to point out that first you stated that Killing an animal painlessly would be morally acceptable, but you then took that back and said that killing is wrong regardless. I would also like to point out that modern day slaughter houses have made the process extremely quick and as painless as it can get (after all we are killing them), in any case it's a lot more humane and a lot less torturous than it would have been in the wild.
My last point is this: Morality is a very fickle thing, it changes all the time. Your opinion and arguments about this is only valid for as long as you live near a super market where you can buy your variety of vegan alternatives. If you were to go visit an African village where you either eat the killed pray or you starve to death, you would be singing a different tune. Am I wrong? Or if you were to go live with the Eskimos, and fish is your primary food source. Somehow, killing that fish doesn't sound so wrong, does it?
So the killing of animals for food is not a fundamentally wrong thing to do, after all.
This "moral obligation" attitude only comes to play once we advance to a level where you can choose to not eat meat without any consequences. But just because you can choose, doesn't mean that you have the moral obligation to make the choice. And to take the moral high ground and preach onto others is extremely self righteous and arrogant, especially as you would be very willing to eat meat if you had to eat it in order to live.
Just be thankful that you have the choice.
I'm not pseudo arguing. Science is still divided on the matter of consciousness and there is no agreement on where in the brain it is found. Of course we can presume it's in the brain but no one knows which part of the brain. And given that the brain doesn't have to be entirely dead for it to be declared legally dead, you already have a serious flaw. That's all I'm saying.
There is some interesting information there, but when it comes to some of my serious concerns their answer is in the tune of "that's just not true".
I am aware that different doctors perform different tasks, especially in Western countries, but I also know for a fact that in some hospitals, especially in Balkan countries, the surgeon that is in charge of saving your life is the same person that would extract your organs if you were a donor and died.
How about they tells us what measures they go to to make sure the person has died, instead of saying "people don't start to wiggle a toe after they're declared dead". I just found that part a bit patronizing. No one said anything about moving toes. In my previous post I was more concerned about consciousness as it exists in extremely minimal levels.
I'm not "opposed" to your opinion per say but a few statements made here are questionable.
When I eventually die, that's it. I'll be dead.
When bodies are harvested for organs, they are not ENTIRELY dead. As I have mentioned on the other side, death is not clear cut. The harvesting happens so soon after you have been declared legally dead and the reason is you must not be DEAD dead. So I agree with you on a philosophical perspective, but that perspective does not take into account the blurry line of when you are fully dead.
The delusion of a requirement for any part of your body after death is extremely selfish and costs many lives that could otherwise be saved. 100,000 people currently require donated organs in order to live in the US alone.
Although it may be a delusion, you cannot hold people responsible for the death of those that need an organ. Just because modern science has enabled organ transplantation, you cannot call for a moral obligation to participate. It's great that the choice is there, but you can't make that choice a line for judgment (i.e. if you don't take it you are selfish). The high number of those in need of organs, in my opinion, is more a case for stem cell research.
Organ donation upon death should be mandatory.
Now this is were you lost me the most, because that statement is ludicrous. Mandatory? Surely you don't believe that.
My body is mine and no one should have authority over what happens to it when I die but me, and those closest to me. Science is there to enable and create possibilities and give you choices. It's not there to pass judgment and enforce morality.
In the same way that I find your will to give your organs upon death honorable, you also have to respect the people that choose not to take that option.
.
This is very similar to vegetarians protesting with banners of "meat is murder". Just because the modern food industry has made it possible for you to get all the nutrients you need without eating meat, does not mean that we should enforce that lifestyle upon everybody and ban the consumption of meat.
My problem is this:
Do I want my organs to be donated if I die? Maybe.
Do I want to be an organ donor? Definitely not.
I will explain why.
First, I find it incredibly hard to imagine myself dead and someone taking my organs. As a conscious being it's impossible to visualize being un-conscious. And I'd like to believe that there is ALWAYS a chance that I might SOMEHOW come back :o)
On top of that, I find the world of organ donation to have a few too many problems.
The first is the blurry line of death. No, death is NOT as clear cut as you think. The reason I say blurry is because for doctors there is two kinds of death: brain death, and cardiac death.
If you are brain dead, it means there is no blood flow to the brain but the rest of your organs work normally or can be kept alive under life support. According to doctors a dead brain is irreversible and there is no consciousness. However, although "brain death" is a legal term that describes brain inactivity, it does not equal brain inactivity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/
The problem is, if you do a search on consciousness, you'll see that no one really knows where consciousness exists. Some say it's the brain or perhaps an activity somewhere in the brain. So they conclude that if the brain is dead then the "person" is "gone". Legally however, the brain doesn't have to be dead in its entirety for it to be declared dead. On top of that, some brain activity is so dormant that even current equipment cannot detect it. So you can never be sure that the person's consciousness is gone. On top of that, you have so many miracle stories of people that have come back even after decades on life support.
http://www.geocities.com/
A cardiac death is when your heart beat and breathing has stopped (usually for 2-5 minutes). But a cardiac death does not mean that your brain activity has stopped as well. So for a few minutes after cardiac death has occurred, the brain is still active (albeit dieing).
A lot of questions have also been raised about the "eagerness" of certain doctors to pull the plug on someone because they are registered as donors. I don't even need to cite anything on this because I have first hand experience with a relative. The pressure put on relatives is sometimes unbelievable.
I also find the attitude of guilt tripping those that do not want to donate their organs to be unfair. You don't have to be a dick to everybody else that doesn't think like you. To say that I am condemning someone to die by not giving them my organs is outrageous. Death is not clear cut and no one guarantees how "dead" I am when they harvest my organs. It seems to me that for organs to be good for transplant, the body has to be "alive" even on a minimal level. This idea that consciousness only resides in the brain is too clinical for me.
Put it this way. If there was a way that science could make organs good for transplant after I've been dead (both brain and cardiac) for 3 days then I would be more willing to sign up. At the moment, I'm still not comfortable with the idea of "dieing" now, and 30 minutes later being cut up in the operating room.
Well we also give the most respect and admiration to people that excel in sports, sciences etc etc. This is not something exclusively granted to people that make money.
And it's not a modern phenomenon neither. It's happened since the beginning of civilization and it's part of our "evolution". It usually starts at childhood when your parents subtly infuse your brain with role models. It's not done to idolize these people, it's done in an effort to motivate you.
I'm standing on this side because I find the article a bit too gloomy. Most people posses healthy bugs of wanting to keep fit, do well at work, study more, make more money etc, precisely because of this attitude towards success.
Having said that, I am with you on the belief that soon there is going to be an "awakening" of some sort and people will examine what really matters.
Although many of those statements have been true for myself, like wanting to make money for the sake of having money, I find the whole thing a gross generalization.
None of my friends shares the same passion for money as I do. Most of them are happy with a wage and they are happy to use every penny on holidays, clothes, things they need and things that just make them happy. I on the other hand want to save it.
To say that we live in a society full of people that are power and money hungry would be a generalization of the bad kind.
The beauty of capitalism as that it allows people to do what they want and what makes them happy. It also allows the harmonic co-existence of driven money-hungry individuals and laid back people.
You mentioned Bill Gates, and I've heard many people slate the guy for making so much money. To me that is a travesty. I'm not saying that Bill Gates set out to do good or to help the public. I'm pretty sure that all he was interested in to begin with was the money. But in his quest to make that money, he has given the rest of us some of the most widely used technology, some very helpful applications that have enabled other businesses, and he has also employed thousands of people who are not interested in money but are happy with a wage that they can spend on enjoying life. So there you have it, Bill Gates got his money, and thousands of people got their pay checks.
Just because the media sometimes glorifies people that have made money, doesn't mean that everybody aspires to do the same.
A healthy level of the "wanting to make money" bug is not only helpful for the individual but for society as well. There would be less people on state benefits if they had that bug in them.
They both have their own flaws.
I'm judging this when it comes to issues about equality, civil rights and foreign policy, and I have to tell you, the Democrats have come forward with far better ideas so far.
Take abortion. The Republicans want it illegal, thus forcing all pregnant women to have babies they don't want. The Democrats say "hey, when you are pregnant yourself, then you make a decision for yourself".
Take gay marriage. The Republicans recognize that it is a right but have it for nothing to take that right away. The Democrats say "hey, why are you so bothered anyway, no one is forcing you to marry a guy! they want to get married not sell drugs and guns FFS!"
Take terrorism. The Republicans go and bomb anything and everything that moves regardless of evidence. The Democrats say "hey, why not get friends with their neighbors and their enemies, and altogether tie the noose on them, that way we don't spend billions and no one hates us".
Overall the Republicans have many times stepped too far because they think they have the moral authority.
I didn't know much about Prop 8 but now that I have looked at it, if I was an American living in America... I would get on my knees and pray to dear lord this isn't true.
Because according to this, the majority can take away people's freedom, their right to speech, their right on anything. How about the majority decides that blacks have a right to be free but they would rather take that right away from them?
This is so so backward.
You know what would be ironic justice?
If all those people that voted for it, at some point became the victims of it.
