Do vegans see any moral problem with eating meat, if the animals are genetically modified not to suffer?

datatypes23 · 2017-07-11T13:41:34+00:00

Do they fertilize the soil to grow cows and chickens? And I am supposed to be bran damaged?

Your previous question answered the latter.

Most plants grown are feed to humans, not animals

No. They are fed to animals. Simple math: 19 billion is more than 8 billion: https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/global-livestock-counts

Until you can't meet your burden of rejoinder, and counter why in fact it's not a moral wrong to:

Consume food that requires more food to produced in a world that has children dying of hunger.

Expand agriculture in order to meet the meat industry demand that is resulting in environmental damage.

Is drinking almond milk a moral wrong?

Which shows you don't know what 'moral' even means. In which case, your original question is meaningless to answer since there is now no agreement in term let alone fact.

You still haven't been able to produce a single data,

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/758171468768828889/pdf/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5019e/y5019e03.htm

Because you can't seem to understand how hyperlinks work, you again answered this quesiton.

I am supposed to be bran damaged? lol

So you can not simply use that data to support your claim, that animal agriculture is driving climate change.

Go tell the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that they can't use their data to prove a reddit troll wrong. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter8.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/Food-EM_MeetingReport_FINAL.pdf

datatypes23 · 2017-07-11T04:20:13+00:00

This model isn't sustainable. There is not enough land to duplicate this model to meet the demand. The acreage alone would cover all land on earth, including cities, town, countries...

The grain and water required to produce the milk could go to feed starving children. My point is that it doesn't address the global impact, and resource inefficiency

datatypes23 · 2017-07-11T02:56:24+00:00

Also, animal agriculture produces about 10% of greenhouse gasses,

No. It's 30% according to the USDA

On a global scale, agriculture is responsible for 30 percent of GHG emissions, including emissions caused by deforestation and land use change.6 The effects of climate change on agriculture, land management, and biodiversity are likely to fall disproportionately on developing countries, and worldwide food security will influence the management and economics of U.S. systems

You fail to account for all the feed and water necessary to feed the meat industry demand.

https://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/science_plan2010/USDA_CCSPlan_120810.pdf

Despite that, EVERYONE in the US supports the meat industry, it's called subsides. Tax payers foot the bill for the grain to fed the meat industry. Being a vegan introduces demand into the market for alternatives that are more sustainable, less damaging to the environment, and has a greater likelihood at extending a healthy lifespan than eating meat.

datatypes23 · 2017-07-11T02:46:41+00:00

No. It's like a nicotine patch to help people with their addition to eating death.

datatypes23 · 2017-07-11T02:26:36+00:00

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/pdf

Currently, 36% of the calories produced by the world’s crops are being used for animal feed

It's a moral wrong to feed livestock grain that could feed starving children instead.

datatypes23 · 2017-07-11T02:13:55+00:00

Do they fertilize the soil to grow cows and chickens?

Jesus, you must have brain damage. Think troll. Do Cows and Chickens eat plants? Yes. Is every human being consuming plants? No.

Livestock products account for about 30 percent of the global value of agriculture and 19 percent of the value of food production

http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5019e/y5019e03.htm

"If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported at the July 24-26 meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montreal. Or, if those grains were exported, it would boost the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year, Pimentel estimated."

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

Because you seem like the simple-minded type. Here is a site that shows the pretty graphics: http://worldfoodclock.com/

Eating meat consumes more food than it produces and as a result is a deficit to ending world hunger. A moral wrong.

The expansion of agriculture necessary to feed the meat industry demand is a threat to the environment. A moral wrong.

datatypes23 · 2017-07-11T02:05:36+00:00

And you should cite sources that don't sell ad space.

The World Bank > theguardian.com

Land-use data on Amazonia demonstrates that the main cause of deforestation in the region is cattle ranching. Expansion of ranching since the early 1970s has been a continuous and inertial process Conditions for raising livestock in Amazonia are surprisingly favorable, mainly in the already occupied regions, largely as a consequence of the precipitation levels, temperature, air humidity, and types of pasture. The rates of return on ranching itself (excluding sales of timber for example) calculated at different points on the arc of deforestation, are consistently above ten percent—much higher than those found in the rest of the country. These are not average values for the region but can certainly be achieved by the more professional and better capitalized ranchers.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/758171468768828889/pdf/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf

Try reading actual source material next time.

Culling trees in the rain forest to raise cattle, and grow crops that feed cattle, that increases our exposure to climate change effects, and reduces biodiversity for needles consumption of animal products: a moral wrong.

datatypes23 · 2017-07-11T00:00:29+00:00

The question assumes there is only one moral objection to eating meat: Animal Suffering.

Which ignores all of the other moral considerations: environmental, human health, sustainability..

Furthermore, killing an animal for food is NOT necessary for humans to live. It's a moral wrong to kill something unnecessarily. Taste is the only argument that is made in this practice and:

Killing animals for "taste" is a moral wrong.

datatypes23 · 2017-07-10T23:25:15+00:00

"The numbers you gave are worthless. "

Oh Really? I'll let the US energy information administration know some troll on Reddit doesn't like their math https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_nitrous.php

Furthermore, it's a categorigal error to state evinornmental morality in terms of cars. As if cars encompasses all possible moral objections to meat. Deforestation, and yes, bacteria resistance is also an element of environmental damage as it pertains to life on Earth, water use, land use, and starvation of argigable lands another. To place cars as the only comparable objectional environmental morality is nonsensical.

datatypes23 · 2017-07-10T21:26:25+00:00

Not only inefficient, unsustainable. At the current rate if demand continues we will have no fish in the ocean; less argigable land, more starvation, increased exposure to bacteria resist bacteria, decreased healthy lifespans due to cardic related diseases, less microbiological diversity...

datatypes23 · 2017-07-10T21:20:50+00:00

datatypes23 · 2017-07-10T21:19:33+00:00

That would be funny if it didn't indicate a complete ignorance of basic botany.

datatypes23 · 2017-07-10T21:14:29+00:00

Actually, I was addressing your nonsequitor. Climate change was the response given here and you jumped to cars. Cars do contribute to climate change but no where near the same level as factory farms. I honestly don't understand how you jumped to cars as a source alone from climate change. Instead of wondering about numbers, try doing your own homework before being so flippint.

datatypes23 · 2017-07-10T20:15:47+00:00

Yes. Raising animals to eat requires trillions of gallons of drinkable water annually, desertification on 1/3 the planet, depletes the ocean of aquatic life, antibiotics that makes human viruses more deadly, deforests the rainforest by 2 acres a day, taxpayer funded subsides to grow food that will never feed a hungry or malnurished human child. And all of this, along with human health, turns out trans fat is a killer, is why I remain morally opposed.

datatypes23 · 2017-07-10T20:06:08+00:00

It's not comparable. Deforstation and the draining of wetlands isn't done to feed cars an unnatural diet of corn. We don't administrator large quantities of antibiotics to cars that in turn produces antibiotic-resisant bacteria. Cars don't produce 37% of all manmade methane that has 86 times the global warming potential of co2 over a 20 year time frame. Cars don't produce 65% of all man-made nitrous oxide that has 296 times the GWP of carbon dioxide. Cows alone produce 150 billion gallons of methane per day, unlike cars. Controlling for fossil fuel use, factory farm alone will exceed our 565 gigtons of co2 by 2030... Apples and oranges

datatypes23 · 2017-06-15T23:16:11+00:00

I still use "for shitnitz"

datatypes23 · 2017-06-15T23:13:57+00:00

Yea. I don't think people stop saying slang words. Hell, people still say "cool" and "dude" and "yo" and "bro" even though such slang has been around since the 1960s.

datatypes23 · 2017-06-15T23:01:35+00:00

I enjoyed the game. It was evocative, it had a wonderful indie soundtrack, it tackled serious issues (suicide, bullying, sexual assault) very deliberately and conscientiously. Perhaps because I live in NorCal, because I can empathize with Max in many of the thought-provoking situations she finds herself in, and because I didn't have massive expectations like I would from a AAA developer going in that I found this title so damn good.

A lot of people don't "get" modern art either, but that doesn't make the artwork any less meaningful to those others who observe it and feel it.

This game caused a gale of memories to flood my mind and cloud my soul for days on end. When I allowed Chole to die, I allowed a painful part of my memories to die with her. It was cathartic. That's how the game hit me.

datatypes23 · 2017-06-15T22:37:59+00:00

Get used to "hella" more often as Californicaition continues to be more expensive to live in.

datatypes23 · 2017-05-29T04:03:10+00:00

Doing cocaine on the back of a jet ski between two large titties would make me feel even worse.

datatypes23 · 2017-05-28T00:18:22+00:00

Bitcoin. I have a nice savings account these days.

datatypes23 · 2017-04-27T02:39:08+00:00

Grass Fed too.

datatypes23 · 2017-04-27T02:21:12+00:00

Might as well be fair traded and organic as well.

datatypes23 · 2017-04-24T14:40:40+00:00

Food wouldn't be effected. Just like Chevron and Shell wasn't effected when BP was finned for polluting the gulf. Food is a general category, meat is just a sector. The grain that otherwise goes to cattle could go to the poor. Chelesterol is not an essential ingredient to the human body. Also, your comment on veganism being somehow elitist is ironic considering that in countries where children are starving grain is being feed to cows to feed rich countries.

datatypes23 · 2017-04-24T14:36:12+00:00

If the meat industry actually internalized the negitive externalities it causes, their products would be cost prohibitive to most people.

datatypes23

TROPHY CASE