Well, first, soy is not a good example, because soy is a complete protein. Indeed you could replace the crop entirely with soy to yield a greater amount of protein. The only problem with soy is that it may have health complications, the research isn't clear.
Second, you're assuming the two crops would contain no amino acid overlap. This is most likely not the case. A more real world example would look something like this:
Crop A:
100% Amino Acid 1
30% Amino Acid 2
Crop B:
30% Amino Acid 1
100% Amino Acid 2
So you could end up with a greater than 50% protein yield by combining crops. You'd have to know the exact amino acid quantities of each possible crop to come up with an optimal combination.
Third, the crops would have additional health benefits aside from just the protein: high fiber, low fat, vitamins, etc.
Fourth... ok, I'll stop now.
/facepalm
No, it's not remotely that simple.
If you look at the full report there is a clusterfuck of pluses and minuses relating to the raising and consumption of meat. It's not at all clear what the best answer is.
Among the issues: ruminants like cows are less widely used than chickens because chickens are much more economically efficient.
Also, land used for feed could be used for crops better suited to humans. The protein yield would be higher and amino acids more diverse.
I'm still waiting for that citation about grass and cows, btw.
I would like to see a citation to verify that. How much grass does a cow require? How much free grass do we currently have? Are grass fed cows as economically viable as grain fed cows? Are they as nutritionally adequate?
Here's the most comprehensive report on the issue of livestock that I know of:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/
There is way more information in there than I'm capable of digesting in one sitting, probably even in ten sittings, but I did find this snippet:
"In fact, livestock consume 77 million tonnes of protein contained in feedstuff that could potentially be used for human nutrition, whereas only 58 million tonnes of proten are contained in food products that livestock supply. This is a result of the recent trend towards more concentrate-based diets for pigs and poultry, with nutritional requirements more similar to humans than ruminants."
You do realize that animals use up more resources than plants, right? Your first two paragraphs make an excellent argument against eating meat because "having a bunch of cows on a farm" is much less resource efficient than growing soy or what have you on that same farm. Cows don't live on air, you know.
As for getting milk from cows on a farm, I disagree with you that they would need to be "trapped in a box." Providing humane conditions may raise the price of milk a bit, but not prohibitively so. Also, because they aren't "cycled" nearly as quickly as animals which are bred to be used as meat, much less suffering occurs, and it is thus a big step up from killing them for meat.
Animals kill each other because they lack the mental capacity to do anything else. We as humans are capable of choosing not to cause pain.
Animals could never compete with us for resources. We've got guns. If a vegetarian had to make a choice between a human dying and an animal dying they would kill the animal. (Well, maybe some fringe lunatics wouldn't, but the vast majority would...)
Practically all of the meat that we eat comes from animals that we breed. Hunting is something done mainly for recreation and is outside the scope of vegetarianism.
1) Combining multiple plant foods gives you the full range of amino acids. You should be eating a variety of plant foods anyway.
2) Dairy products contain complete proteins.
3) Protein powder works too.
There are no negative consequences at all to excluding meat from your diet. In fact, studies have shown forgoing meat makes you less likely to die from a heart attack:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/
"We... compare the death rates from common diseases of vegetarians with those of nonvegetarians with similar lifestyles... In conclusion, vegetarians had a 24% lower mortality from ischemic heart disease than nonvegetarians, but no associations of a vegetarian diet with other major causes of death were established."
http://www.eatright.
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."
Yeah, I think this is definitely true.
There are still some problems though -- it's too easy to manipulate the system. If you could somehow ensure that one person could only have one account, that would be a big step forward. Maybe tying an account to a social security number would work...
I think it's only a matter of time until we get the kinks worked out. In fifty years we'll be passing legislation through some much improved, open source version of CreateDebate.
Actually they're not banning anything religious. They're just not allowing any new purely evangelical shows to be added. It's obviously the right thing to do. Tax dollars going toward the promotion of a religion violates the separation of church and state. I don't see why you would be supporting such a thing.
Your money is going to them because they are a public good and thus suffer from market failure due to the free-rider problem. In other words, supply isn't keeping up with demand because donations are insufficient.
On a side note, PBS is consistently rated the most unbiased news on U.S. television.
Also, when you divide the amount of government funding by the number of taxpayers, you're only paying one or two dollars a year.
The FCC is important for national security. For example, the government can take over the airwaves in the event of an emergency. Also, somebody has to coordinate frequency allocations so broadcasters aren't stepping on each other. Both of these create the possibility for government meddling in the media, yet both serve as good examples for why the benefits can outweigh the risks.
1. There's absolutely no reason why we can't put in some instant cut off clause if you're worried about that. You should think more productively, asking "How can we make it work?" rather than just saying, "It'll never work."
2. So you're acknowledging that for-profit news has problems, but at the same time saying they do good as a side effect. Looking at their regular news, they seem to be heavily biased toward "Threat! Danger! Fear!", but the same gos for all for-profit news. Fear = ratings. I will admit that some bits of real news do make it through though.
Still, there's no reason why public broadcasting can't operate alongside them. Where on Fox News (or all of cable news for that matter), can you find as in depth coverage as PBS' Frontline? You can't, because that's not where the easy money is. On PBS you get it for free, online, with no commercials.
1. What's your point? People can become apathetic to anything. People can become apathetic to corrupt for-profit news. The bottom line is if people decide the news agency is bogus, they can vote to cut funding.
2. Let's look at the top video on foxnews.com right now. It's got Bill O'Reilly and Barney Frank arguing about... some nonsense. Some sound bites about terrorist photos, some sound bites about gay marriage, and a bunch of he said, she said bla bla bla. There's no serious attempt to inform anybody about anything going on here. It's just verbal fighting, the modern day version of the Roman Colosseum. It's no wonder people watch it; people have always been attracted to that sort of thing.
By saying "MSNBC bashes conservatives" and "CNN has reporters give opinions" then you agree with me that there is a problem with the idea of news for profit. They're trying to cater to a specific audience in order to make money. They're sacrificing integrity for ratings.
Well, the bastard inside me wants to argue that factory farming is inextricably bound to the modern concept of meat, so it is impossible to discuss one without the other.
But instead, I'll take a more conciliatory approach and acknowledge that yes, I have nudged this debate along a slightly different trajectory than the one you originally intended. But the issue of factory farming is very closely related, and at the same time much more important. I'm taking a pragmatic approach to improving the lives of animals. "Are hardcore vegans right" wouldn't have made for a very interesting debate anyway, as you can tell by the fact that this debate had fallen off the charts before I kicked the hornet's nest with my initial argument.
I clearly stated my position in the first argument I posted to this debate, which you can currently read there in the top-left. It can be succinctly stated as, "Meat, as we currently obtain it, is morally unacceptable." I have never wavered in this position, and I don't understand why you think I have. I can only guess you're imposing invalid assumptions on my arguments.
No, I don't fully agree with believe, but our views have a lot of overlap. You could say we've formed a coalition for the better treatment of animals.
I could say the same sort of thing about you. There are many people on your side of the debate saying, "Who gives a shit? It doesn't matter what we do to animals, they're just animals. Nature should go unquestioned. Vegetarians are stupid and unhealthy." If you really want to improve the conditions in which animals are treated, why are you on the side of these people? Or does it frustrate you that I'm lumping you in with the extremists?
You'd have to grow fruits and vegetables one way or another, because man cannot live on meat alone.
Are you seriously comparing buying from a farmer to exploiting animals in factory farms? We humans have this concept known as an "economy", in which "money" is exchanged for "goods and services". Frankly, I'm surprised you've never heard of it.
I could see something like that working...
Pick 100 random people, with basic filtering (people must have graduated high school, no serious criminal record, etc.). Give them all the same campaign funds; disallow fund-raising of any kind. They campaign for a while and then we vote for one of them, possibly via a tournament style voting scheme.
...Actually that sounds like a pretty good idea.
Your argument doesn't make sense because the vast majority of the animals we kill are bred in factory farms. Understand? We're not talking nature here. We're creating them, subjecting them to a life of suffering, and then killing them. Can't you see that this is wrong?
"how do we know that there is no possible bias?"
Independent watchdogs. Voting to cancel funding. There is still potential for bias, but there is much less than in for-profit news.
"Greed takes away the want for ideological bias."
Buuuullshit. Greed creates an incentive to tell people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. Soundbites and vitriol = high ratings = advertising $$$ = misled public = failure of Democracy.
The free press has worked pretty well, but only because they have resisted greed, not because of it. Fox is showing news agencies that ideological shilling is the way to profit.
You're an idiot.
Stop spewing bullshit. It's bad for America and it's bad for the world.
Well we can set it up in a way that recognizes the threats of government influence and works to minimize them.
The BBC is essentially an independent, non-profit corporation. There are only three connections to the government: 1) The appointment of the BBCs governors, 2) The law which directs a certain amount of tax revenue be sent to the company, and 3) The government can prohibit a program from being aired. They have no power to alter stories.
These powers are all ultimately checked by the voters. If they see that power is being abused they will become unhappy and will vote against the abuser.
And if you think this is not good enough, we could further limit government influence. Our version of the BBC could strip powers 1 and 3, so that the only connection to the government is the funding. I think we can agree this would keep government influence down to nearly zero.
I have been thinking about this, because it's clearly important. Obviously a totalatarian government is a horrible thing that we must constantly stand vigilant against.
But your argument is like saying we shouldn't use chainsaws because they make it easier to cut off your arm. Say we have a tree that needs to get cut down. As long as we use it like responsible adults, taking proper measures to ensure safety, there is no reason not to use a chainsaw.
The fact is that government is a powerful tool that can be used to greatly enhance the quality of life for all of us. Yes, it can be dangerous, but so long as we have checks and balances, and fair elections, we should use it to improve our lives.
Also, on a side note, the British have been running the BBC for almost a hundred years now without turning into a fascist dictatorship. People seem pretty pleased with it actually.
I ran across this article which explains the economic concept of public goods. The second half of the article is a very interesting case study focusing on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).
My understanding is that everybody pays a small licensing fee through taxes and in return gets radio, television, and online news completely free of advertisements. Public funding also frees the company from having to turn a profit which in turn allows them to be more impartial.
This sounds like a very good idea to me. With American media becoming more and more about high ratings, often at the expense of journalistic integrity, I think this is going to become a more and more attractive option.
True, only humans are capable of recognizing evil. But that doesn't make it less real.
True, our primitive impulses push us to behave in a brutish manner. But we can also choose to overcome our base urges; see Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jesus Christ, etc.
First, combining multiple non-meat products gives you the full range of amino acids. You should be eating a range of foods anyway.
Second, dairy products contain complete proteins.
Third, protein powder, which I have mentioned a couple of times already, is another attractive option.
Your point about only eating vegetables is irrelevant because vegetables are not the only non-meat product that exists.
There are bad consequences to excluding fruits and vegetables from your diet because they contain vitamins and fiber. There are no negative consequences at all from excluding meat. In fact, studies have shown forgoing meat makes you less likely to die from a heart attack:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/
"We... compare the death rates from common diseases of vegetarians with those of nonvegetarians with similar lifestyles... In conclusion, vegetarians had a 24% lower mortality from ischemic heart disease than nonvegetarians, but no associations of a vegetarian diet with other major causes of death were established."
http://www.eatright.
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."
Indeed. Outside the sanctuary of society human life is nasty, brutish, and short. Though in some circumstances evil may be justified, those actions are still evil. I suppose you could say we have a moral obligation to build a society which allows us to transcend our primitive state of being.
I will ignore your tangent about playgrounds and job applications because it is irrelevant to this debate.
Actually, the humane treatment of animals is exactly what I've been advocating. It seems you have been reading into my arguments something that isn't there. I also think this position is the one endorsed by the majority of animal rights activists. Perhaps you're looking at the extreme fringe and assuming it represents the majority.
Survival is by far the most important justification for eating meat. Take that away and what do you have left? It tastes good? Is that really enough of a reason?
And, no, taking away a choice is not fascism. We have many laws which inhibit choice. Murder, for example, is illegal. The question is simply whether those laws are justified.
Actually, rape occurs among animals as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
But that's not the point. The point is that just because we have evolved the capability to do something doesn't mean it's morally acceptable.
Sorry for the rudeness. It just gets frustrating hearing the same lame arguments over and over.
I agree with you. If we treated animals humanely, eating meat would be fine. However, we do not treat animals well, and we do not kill them humanely. See: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
Well, technically, you Californians do (or at least you will in 2015), but the rest of us are not so enlightened.
I think you have misunderstood me. I think killing animals is wrong because it causes pain. I think killing humans is wrong regardless.
And modern day slaughterhouses are a grotesque abomination. See: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
Some aspects of morality are fickle, others are strongly grounded in fundamental principles. If I had to kill to eat, I would. I would be committing evil, but that evil would be justified.
Just because we've been doing it for a long time doesn't make it right. This is basically just saying, "it's natural," like everybody else on this side of the debate.
Protein powder is better than meat. It's cheaper, has no fat, and is designed to be more easily absorbed by your body. And it doesn't require the killing of animals.
Ah, but medical equipment costs money, there are more sick people than there are doctors, and there are only so many hours in the day. Saving a life uses resources that could go toward other causes such as medical research -- research that could end up saving many lives. This is why we need to draw a line at some point and say saving this particular life is not worth the cost.
Protein powder is better than meat. It's cheaper, has no fat, and is designed to be more easily absorbed by your body. And it doesn't require the killing of animals.
Killing an animal destroys just as much life as killing a plant? By that logic killing a human destroys just as much life as killing a plant. Again you're failing to distinguish between biological life and sentient life.
So you don't care if an organism can think? Why is killing wrong again?
In the abortion debate you said, "We do the right thing because we don't want to cause pain."
Well, plants can't feel pain. Animals can.
So computing his total life income would indicate how much his life is worth? That sounds kind of reasonable, actually.
As for Oprah, that's a funny answer, but you know what I'm trying to get at: How do we decide when the cost of saving a life is too great?
Tagging an elephant would be slightly wrong. But the badness of the pain would likely be outweighed by the goodness of the resultant scientific progress.
If we all believed that murder of humans was ok, we would have people killing each other left and right. The moment any authority figure tries to force someone to do something they don't want to do, there would be blood.
Pain is bad because we experience it that way (for the most part). We experience it as a bad thing because evolution has made us that way. Removing the pain takes the badness out of killing an animal because the animal experiences no negative emotions. It wouldn't make the act of killing good, it would make it neutral.
When I said predators, I was referring to your example of cheetahs killing their prey. If a cheetah kills a gazelle it is not behaving immorally because a cheetah is incapable of moral reasoning.
However if an animal with sufficient intelligence, such as a human, kills another animal knowing that it's wrong, then yes they are committing evil. If we can't kill animals painlessly, and can easily make do without killing them, then yes we have a moral obligation not to kill animals.
