Veganism: Is it morally wrong to eat/kill animals?

[rwh11385]

Your grand contribution to this thread is to lay a major league smackdown on a casually made comment about a subject you get to use your trusty graphs for. That's fine, but you're making this much more serious bizness than it needs to be.

Don't feel the need to keep harping on the fact that what I said may be wrong; I've already admitted as much. But you stupidly compared an intuitive comment I made in a post containing several other, more important arguments to the counter-intuitive, blatantly ridiculous and reality-denying shit squid has said in the same thread.

So can our dumb argument be over now? I'd show you some graphs to try and put you to sleep but I figure that'd just energize the hell out of you instead.

So it is stupid for me to point out that you are mad at someone for making dumb arguments while you have dumb and incorrect arguments of your own? Okay. Well. Get back to fighting fire with fire I guess and return the thread to a cesspool of bias and fallacy.

[streetwaves]

So basically you are defending your ignorance by saying you don't care to be right about the subjects you are making claims about.

Regardless of how logical your assumption may seem to you it doesn't change the fact that it is the same shit Malthus said ages ago and not based on reality. What seems intuitive but is wrong or doesn't match with the data or trends is still wrong regardless of what you think it should be.

I don't study population projections. I just generally am informed and educated about the subjects I wish to discuss. Maybe try it sometime. That's the real irony of you starting threads to open a discussion - they should be based on facts and reason not ignorant assumptions. If you want to foster intelligent conversation, set a good example - act intelligently.

Your grand contribution to this thread is to lay a major league smackdown on a casually made comment about a subject you get to use your trusty graphs for. That's fine, but you're making this much more serious bizness than it needs to be.

Don't feel the need to keep harping on the fact that what I said may be wrong; I've already admitted as much. But you stupidly compared an intuitive comment I made in a post containing several other, more important arguments to the counter-intuitive, blatantly ridiculous and reality-denying shit squid has said in the same thread.

As for setting a good example, lol, give me a fucking break. Small comment is small comment. This thread is 14 pages long, guy. I'm allowed one dumb comment if I'm surrounded by a sea of vegan bullshit. So can our dumb argument be over now? I'd show you some graphs to try and put you to sleep but I figure that'd just energize the hell out of you instead.

[rwh11385]

Fine, I've already said I don't study population. Frankly, I don't give a shit 99.9% of the time about it.


No, the fact you are so incredibly surprised that a person who doesn't spend time looking at graphs about population would agree with a highly intuitive idea that less starving may mean more people is what makes me think you're not thinking straight.


The difference is an intuitive idea (less starving = more population growth) versus a completely ridiculous idea (man is not supposed to eat an ounce of meat despite having eaten meat since the birth of the species and is evolved to do so). Don't try to equivocate that bullshit with such a casual comment. I know you must light up when your little niche argument opportunity pops up - and congratulations - but if I'm supposed to feel bad about one dumb comment I made versus one million dumb comments made by our resident vegan, I must be dreaming.

So basically you are defending your ignorance by saying you don't care to be right about the subjects you are making claims about.

Regardless of how logical your assumption may seem to you it doesn't change the fact that it is the same shit Malthus said ages ago and not based on reality. What seems intuitive but is wrong or doesn't match with the data or trends is still wrong regardless of what you think it should be.

I don't study population projections. I just generally am informed and educated about the subjects I wish to discuss. Maybe try it sometime. That's the real irony of you starting threads to open a discussion - they should be based on facts and reason not ignorant assumptions. If you want to foster intelligent conversation, set a good example - not the opposite.

[streetwaves]

Do you have ANY support to show that less people starving will INCREASE birth rate or population growth rates? The general trend is that as people grow richer and their children have better health, they have less of them. This is contrary to your assumption. If people are better fed, they don't have to have as many children to farm which means less children born in that case, instead of magically more because they have more food to feed them.

I'm claiming that your assumption with no research, data, or facts to back up your notion being repeated shows that you are uninformed about the subject.

Fine, I've already said I don't study population. Frankly, I don't give a shit 99.9% of the time about it.

The fact that you want to defend your lack of knowledge and assumptions by trying to say that because I don't follow your poor reasoning that I must be on drugs does not help your case.

No, the fact you are so incredibly surprised that a person who doesn't spend time looking at graphs about population would agree with a highly intuitive idea that less starving may mean more people is what makes me think you're not thinking straight.

Your point underlines what will help cure much of the world's problems - education and the reference to facts instead of some weak claims. If squid understood how to make good arguments, your beef (pun intended) with him would be much less as well. Don't villianize another for something you are currently doing.

The absurdity of your line of thinking bothers me, if it help makes you feel better about your issue with squid's arguments.


You said something ignorantly about overpopulation. How is that better than saying stupid shit about how awful eating meat is? Pot, meet kettle.

The difference is an intuitive idea (less starving = more population growth) versus a completely ridiculous idea (man is not supposed to eat an ounce of meat despite having eaten meat since the birth of the species and is evolved to do so). Don't try to equivocate that bullshit with such a casual comment. I know you must light up when your little niche argument opportunity pops up - and congratulations - but if I'm supposed to feel bad about one dumb comment I made versus one million dumb comments made by our resident vegan, I must be dreaming.

[rwh11385]

Um, yes. We're not living in an entirely vegan world. Current projections have nothing to do with what I'm saying: that if vegan propaganda were to prove true, and if the world were to adopt an entirely vegan diet and allow for exponentially more efficient usage of the world's resources, we could likely see an increase in population growth with the potential of causing problems.

What is the carrying capacity of Earth? Surely you know that while these estimates vary wildly, some estimates believe it's already been exceeded.

What is the basis of your claim that we would likely see an increase in population growth???

And what is the magnitude of this potential that you are claiming?

The carrying capacity of Earth depends on many factors, but increased with technology and innovation. Your buddy Malthus would be in disbelief where we are today.

http://blogs.reuters.com/edward-hadas/2011/11/02/7-billion-reasons-why-malthus-was-wrong/

When economists talk about demographics, Thomas Malthus usually comes up. The early 19th century British thinker decided (without providing any reasons) that people would always have more children than the physical world could possibly support. Population growth would always be restrained by death from want. At the time he wrote, the world’s population was about 1 billion. By the 1960s, the population had increased to about 3 billion people, and Malthus’s gloom was often cited. Some ecologists then claimed that the combination of industrial production and overpopulation would inevitably lead to environmental catastrophes – and many deaths from want.

And yet up to now, Malthus has been wrong, in two basic ways. First, human resourcefulness has proved much greater than he imagined. The economic story of the last two centuries has been one of increase – of people and production. The most recent years have been particularly impressive. The 135 million births this year will be almost 30 percent more than 50 years ago, according to UN data. Those lives will be longer; this year’s children can look forward to an average 68 years of life, 18 more than newborns a half-century ago. And the current crop will receive much more of the goods of industrial prosperity, from clean water and adequate food to free education and mobile phones.

Second, Malthus was wrong to assume that women would always bear just about as many children as physically possible. In the last 40 years, the total fertility rate, the number of children the average woman could be expected to bear, has declined from five to 2.5. The fertility reversal has reduced the annual rate of global population increase from 2 to 1.3 per cent since 1980. The UN expects that to fall to 0.1 per cent by 2085. An absolute population decline is quite possible. It is happening already in Japan and Russia.

So are you just ignorantly repeating the concerns of a man shown to be greatly underestimating of man's ability to innovate? Or did you read about Malthus and support his carrying capacity theory?

Okay, we made improvements in technology and that spurred the above population growth. Vegans claim that their diet would allow for another huge improvement in the efficiency of the use of Earth's resources. You're saying that this would have no effect on population? I'm not claiming to know the exact effect this would have on population, but if you're actually trying to claim me thinking that everyone having food and generally the world being a better place = more people is somehow crazy, I'd have to ask what you're smoking.

Do you have ANY support to show that less people starving will INCREASE birth rate or population growth rates? The general trend is that as people grow richer and their children have better health, they have less of them. This is contrary to your assumption. If people are better fed, they don't have to have as many children to farm which means less children born in that case, instead of magically more because they have more food to feed them.

I'm claiming that your assumption with no research, data, or facts to back up your notion being repeated shows that you are uninformed about the subject.

The fact that you want to defend your lack of knowledge and assumptions by trying to say that because I don't follow your poor reasoning that I must be on drugs does not help your case.

My point was made semi-casually, but it remains: veganism isn't some world-curing idea. That's the point. Many vegans - like this guy - are idealists who want to believe that the solutions to the world's problems are simple: we can feed everyone, our diseases will go away on a natural diet, we'll live longer, and because of all these things there will be no more war. It's the absurdity of this way of thinking that bothers me, whether overpopulation is the problem I think it could be or not.

Your point underlines what will help cure much of the world's problems - education and the reference to facts instead of some weak claims. If squid understood how to make good arguments, your beef (pun intended) with him would be much less as well. Don't villianize another for something you are currently doing.

The absurdity of your line of thinking bothers me, if it help makes you feel better about your issue with squid's arguments.

EDIT: Cool it mang, I said something semi-casually about overpopulation. I don't study population trends, but more power to you for doing so.

You said something ignorantly about overpopulation. How is that better than saying stupid shit about how awful eating meat is? Pot, meet kettle.

[streetwaves]

I think you are being hypocritical here. You want me to think more simply / less in depth while claiming that the vegans are too simplistic in thinking the world would be fixed if animal protein wasn't eaten. Trying to say that everyone being able to feed themselves would make the Earth full and it would be a problem sounds an awful like Malthus.



Have you looked at the population projections or trends, or just shooting from the hip? Population may still have growth for the next century, but it sure is projected to slow and stagnate.

Um, yes. We're not living in an entirely vegan world. Current projections have nothing to do with what I'm saying: that if vegan propaganda were to prove true, and if the world were to adopt an entirely vegan diet and allow for exponentially more efficient usage of the world's resources, we could see an increase in population growth with the potential of causing problems.

What is the carrying capacity of Earth? Surely you know that while these estimates vary wildly, some estimates believe it's already been exceeded.

Basing your argument on an assumption that "population generally grows" or that 'more food = less starving = more crowing' is as weak as squid's poor arguments.

Actually, as much as you want to claim it isn't unreasonable, it is and based on assumptions and a lack of information gathered to base your claim upon.

There's a lot more people who are entering the middle class globally who can afford animal protein. They are generally going for chicken or pork because of its higher feed efficiency, which can also allude to how we can reduce our impact if it is a concern. Switching from red meat to pork or chicken or fish reduces the demand for feed protein as these livestock take less food to convert to the same amount of meat compared to a cattle. However, the access to food for poor nations isn't necessarily directly dependent on the grains used to feed livestock as compared to say, wheat or rice. If we develop better practices abroad or improved crops for them, we can help the situation without trying to force veganism on everyone. But trying to say that more food will cause overpopulation is a bit of a stretch.

Yes, we would have been surely screwed if we were still relying on the Nile's flood to bring us fertile fields for our grain and had no improvements in any technology since then. . . but that's not the case.

Okay, we made improvements in technology and that spurred the above population growth. Vegans claim that their diet would allow for another huge improvement in the efficiency of the use of Earth's resources. You're saying that this would have no effect on population? I'm not claiming to know the exact effect this would have on population, but if you're actually trying to claim me thinking that everyone having food and generally the world being a better place = more people is somehow crazy, I'd have to ask what you're smoking.

My point was made semi-casually, but it remains: veganism isn't some world-curing idea. That's the point. Many vegans - like this guy - are idealists who want to believe that the solutions to the world's problems are simple: we can feed everyone, our diseases will go away on a natural diet, we'll live longer, and because of all these things there will be no more war. It's the absurdity of this way of thinking that bothers me, whether overpopulation is the problem I think it could be or not.

EDIT: Cool it mang, I said something semi-casually about overpopulation. I don't study population trends, but more power to you for doing so.

[rwh11385]

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/population-growth-explained-with-ikea-boxes/

Explaining population growth requires simplification, but not oversimplification.
In this TED video, Hans Rosling explains why ending poverty – over the coming decades – is crucial to stop population growth. Only by raising the living standards of the poorest, in an environmentally-friendly way, will population growth stop at 9 billion people in 2050.

Here's an animation that shows that as the world developed and as average income per capita increased, birth rates have dropped: www.bit.ly/UurIRJ

[rwh11385]

You're getting a little more in depth than you need to. Population generally grows with time. Developing nations have slow birth rates, but the vegan dogma goes that veganism essentially solves most of the world's problems eventually. Take a look at vegan websites and what they say it would do for society if everyone went vegan - the promises are literally never-ending. With fewer "problems" in the world affecting birth and death rates, it's not unreasonable to suggest this may increase the risk of overpopulation. It's already a risk.

I think you are being hypocritical here. You want me to think more simply / less in depth while claiming that the vegans are too simplistic in thinking the world would be fixed if animal protein wasn't eaten. Trying to say that everyone being able to feed themselves would make the Earth full and it would be a problem sounds an awful like Malthus.



Have you looked at the population projections or trends, or just shooting from the hip? Population may still have growth for the next century, but it sure is projected to slow and stagnate. Basing your argument on an assumption that "population generally grows" or that 'more food = less starving = more crowding' is as weak as squid's poor arguments.

Actually, as much as you want to claim it isn't unreasonable, it is and based on assumptions and a lack of information gathered to base your claim upon.

There's a lot more people who are entering the middle class globally who can afford animal protein. They are generally going for chicken or pork because of its higher feed efficiency, which can also allude to how we can reduce our impact if it is a concern. Switching from red meat to pork or chicken or fish reduces the demand for feed protein as these livestock take less food to convert to the same amount of meat compared to a cattle. However, the access to food for poor nations isn't necessarily directly dependent on the grains used to feed livestock as compared to say, wheat or rice. If we develop better practices abroad or improved crops for them, we can help the situation without trying to force veganism on everyone. But trying to say that more food will cause overpopulation is a bit of a stretch.


EDIT: WOW, REALLY?

Yes, we would have been surely screwed if we were still relying on the Nile's flood to bring us fertile fields for our grain and had no improvements in any technology since then. . . but that's not the case. Maybe you should read Malthus, he was looking for population growth to be limited by food shortage too.

[streetwaves]

Squid's logic is silly, but so is this. Regardless of how much meat we eat or don't eat, developed nations have a greatly slowing birth rate. SE Asia is so small the government has to encourage couples to make babies. The fact that people won't starve won't magically make the Earth full. And you assume that lifestyle and family planning is constant, instead of evolving within cultures over time. Much of the cultures that have high birth rates have high child mortality or shorter lifespans. Once nations "age", their rates are no longer exponential.

You're getting a little more in depth than you need to. Population generally grows with time. Developing nations have slow birth rates, but the vegan dogma goes that veganism essentially solves most of the world's problems eventually. Take a look at vegan websites and what they say it would do for society if everyone went vegan - the promises are literally never-ending. With fewer "problems" in the world affecting birth and death rates, it's not unreasonable to suggest this may increase the risk of overpopulation. It's already a risk.

[rwh11385]

A big argument for vegans is that we would eliminate world food shortage by going vegan. It's not like this solves all of our problems or doesn't present problems of its own: if everyone has shitloads of food and everything's great, we'd just end up overpopulating at an even faster rate. I'm not saying food shortages are cool, but a complication of our exponential growth in production methods/modern medicine/etc is exponential growth in population. Having a planet totally packed full of people - and the problems that come along with that - likely isn't going to do any favors for animals either, even if we aren't eating them.

Squid's logic is silly, but so is this. Regardless of how much meat we eat or don't eat, developed nations have a greatly slowing birth rate. SE Asia is so small the government has to encourage couples to make babies. The fact that people won't starve won't magically make the Earth full. And you assume that lifestyle and family planning is constant, instead of evolving within cultures over time. Much of the cultures that have high birth rates have high child mortality or shorter lifespans. Once nations "age", their rates are no longer exponential.

Old image, but the idea that developing nations mature and stop popping out so many babies when move from rural poverty to more urban middle class, etc.

[streetwaves]

What?


It's not necessary to have electricity or zippers either.


But even the Amish like dairy, churn butter, and raise pigs for their delicious meat.

A big argument for vegans is that we would eliminate world food shortage by going vegan. It's not like this solves all of our problems or doesn't present problems of its own: if everyone has shitloads of food and everything's great, we'd just end up overpopulating at an even faster rate. I'm not saying food shortages are cool, but a complication of our exponential growth in production methods/modern medicine/etc is exponential growth in population. Having a planet totally packed full of people - and the problems that come along with that - likely isn't going to do any favors for animals either, even if we aren't eating them.

[rwh11385]

Factory farming grosses me out too, but what happens if we all go vegan? You guys act like the whole world's problems are gone, and ignore that a population with no shortage of food will overpopulate. Is that good for the animals? I'm not saying that food shortages are "good" or that we shouldn't address them, of course. But the point is this: our problems don't go away, they are simply replaced by new ones.

What?

It's not necessary to drive cars, quick, let's all get bicycles.

It's not necessary to have electricity or zippers either.


But even the Amish like dairy, churn butter, and raise pigs for their delicious meat.

[dirtysix]

I'd rather die by the steak than the, ummm carrot...

[streetwaves]

what I' saying is that your magical end-all test lasted over a period of only 10 years. if that's enough to settle your mind about everything, then why wasn't the 20 year report enough for you?

There's also the fact that the longest living people on Earth are not vegans, and yet we're supposed to believe meat has a significant and unavoidable negative impact on health.

Would you like me to post other disease studies where vegans are lower than semi-vegetarians and such? There are unhealthy aspects of being a pesc, though:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/39...cetarian-diet/

http://www.healthytheory.com/the-dan...ercury-in-fish

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/20...ury/index.html
but really it comes down to: you're still being a dick to these animals for no reason. is killing all of those animals worth your extra 8% extra chance to not get ischemic heart disease?
http://www.fishwelfare.net/articles/...fish-feel-pain

Sure, go ahead.

Without looking I can guess: mercury? Mercury isn't nearly as big a problem as people say it is, and as long as you know what fish and sources are safest, you're fine. It doesn't require 10% of the diligence required for highly restrictive diets.

to be honest, there aren't a whole lot of studies I could find comparing vegan and pescetarian habits, do you have any others?

There aren't many, but I'll do my best to find some soon. We would agree that there's a limited amount of studies on this stuff, but that's sort of my point. There is actually no reason to believe you'll live longer or be healthier if you abstain from a small amount of meat. I eat a small amount of fish, every other day or so. I'll be fine, and in fact I'll possibly do better than 90% of vegans because I won't be struggling with my diet like crazy.

Dicks to animals? This goes back to my question about your moral philosophy. Sorry, but I think I kind of see things how they are: we're animals. We happen to be able to think pretty good, but all "morals" are are rules we've decided suit us best for our continued survival. There are no "objective morals". They're not cosmic. There is no "meaning of life", or purpose. These questions don't really make sense, but we ask them of reality anyway and reality does all it can do: ignores our stupid questions. And it just so happens that morals really don't make much sense outside of human beings, or at the very least comparably self-aware beings/animals.

Animals can't enter a social contract. And before you compare them to infants, we actually will stop infants from doing "wrong things" despite them not knowing better. Should we do that with animals? Should we stop them from killing their prey? Surely, they do not need to do it. Humans are perfectly capable of providing for them rather than letting them commit murder every single day.

Factory farming grosses me out too, but what happens if we all go vegan? You guys act like the whole world's problems are gone, and ignore that a population with no shortage of food will overpopulate even faster. Is that good for the animals? I'm not saying that food shortages are "good" or that we shouldn't address them, of course. But the point is this: our problems don't go away, they are simply replaced by new ones.

Try replacing the word 'animals' in your arguments with 'insects', which vegans are also against killing. See if anyone takes you seriously. Shit, see if you really take yourself seriously.

If you want to pretend you've got the moral answers, go ahead and make yourself feel good. You may even be physically healthy as a vegan, but your mental health is another story.

Oh, no, I don't need any fish for omega 3; I'm vegan.
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...trient&dbid=84

Plant sources contain a different form of Omega 3 that is converted at a terribly inefficient rate in the body to the forms that are most usable.

[iamsam]

oh, and can you completely cut out all conflict items? what about transportation? do you use anything that has metal or rock in it? what about paper, wood, or rubber? all of these items have associations with conflict, and yet you're sitting here on your computer or phone that was probably at least half made by someone living on $1 a day and trying to tell me that you can completely abstain from conflict items?


Do you have a leather wallet? Where's it from?

you are asking us these questions as if we were trying to convince you that we don't use these products.

The answers to your above questions are, respectively,

no
certainly not transportation
yes
yes, yes, and yes
yes probably and no one told you we are trying to abstain from anything at all
yes, and Nordstrom's.

and IDGAF. It's you we are pinning down with your abstinence ideals, not us. you are the one abstaining from all sorts of things in the name of animal happiness, and looking down on everyone else because of it, and because of that, we are just bringing into question why you pick and choose what you abstain from, i.e. animal stuff vs human stuff.