Rollingstone Feature on Animal Cruelty in Meat Industry

Humans are part of the planet, bro!

Word! And there are way too many of us, and we're destroying our global habitat, in part by trying to feed ourselves in dramatically energy-inefficient ways.

  On 12/12/2013 at 5:09 AM, autopilot said:

@ luke viia - It's absolutely more efficient resource-wise to grow grain than raise meat. Those articles are correct. The problem is that grain really isn't good for you, it's just a dietary staple as a result of economic necessity for many.

 

grain is good in moderation as a source of fiber and protein. and we're not just growing grain here. but most of grain hate is trendy hype. bread was meant to happen. it just makes sense.

 

@ sheatheman - I'm all in favor of raising/hunting our own meat. I still feel like you think I'm arguing in favor of factory farming, which I'm not. Sorry if that's how I'm coming across. I agree that fruit is meant to be eaten, that's actually it's evolutionary model (seeds are distributed through feces). I have no problem with you abstaining from eating meat, and apologize for generalizing vegetarians earlier. I have a problem with vegetarians thinking they're better than people who eat meat, since they do equally destructive things on a daily basis just by virtue of being alive (like burn oil, use electronics made with conflict minerals & slave labor, exploit wage slaves for consumer goods, etc). Abstaining to 'send a message' implies, to me, that you consider yourselves moral arbiters that have to show everyone else the proper way to be, which is hubris masquerading as enlightened morality.

 

i do not think i am better than anyone. i never bring it up in fact, it is usually other people who assume i am an elitist or a friend who has teased me for years about it. why tease someone about being a vegetarian unless it gets at you in some way, bothers you some how? but i do think that by not eating meat, i am doing more than making myself feel better. I think I am doing 1 less destructive thing. i'm also wrestling with the prospect of neoluddism as I am acutely aware of the parallels the meat industry share with the tech industry.

 

@ delet - I think we can all agree that everything would be better if the planet had 4-6 billion less people on it. Who here is actually advocating intentionally being nasty to animals? Feeding a creature the food they instinctively like to eat their whole lives and giving them a swift instant death is hardly 'being nasty'.

 

population is trending downwards in many places.

@luke - I agree with all of this. If you have some changes you can make in your life that'll improve things then by all means implement them! If not, don't sweat it, the worst case scenario is we kill ourselves off and the rest of the planet continues on just fine without us.

@sheathe - That's good the pop is trending downwards. I'm assuming the 'bread was meant to happen' is based on an idea of predestination, in which case factory farming, oil, & the internet was meant to happen too. Like I said, my experiences with vegetarians up until the point of this thread has been one of misinformed people identifying with an ideology and lording it over other people. I apologized for the generalizations and explained myself. I got no beef with you.

regarding over population: adopt one child for every biological child you have. saying there are too many of us is a valid statement, but i can't help but feel it is hateful to human life. we are more than animals, we are above nature, and that is why we should cherish it.

we are totally not above nature

  On 12/12/2013 at 5:37 AM, autopilot said:

@luke - I agree with all of this. If you have some changes you can make in your life that'll improve things then by all means implement them! If not, don't sweat it, the worst case scenario is we kill ourselves off and the rest of the planet continues on just fine without us.

 

@sheathe - That's good the pop is trending downwards. I'm assuming the 'bread was meant to happen' is based on an idea of predestination, in which case factory farming, oil, & the internet was meant to happen too. Like I said, my experiences with vegetarians up until the point of this thread has been one of misinformed people identifying with an ideology and lording it over other people. I apologized for the generalizations and explained myself. I got no beef with you.

I'm not saying anything about predestination. but certain things were meant to work the way they do. it's not our ingenuity that invented a way to make bread, it's just that certain things go together in a way that is greater than any value-assigning society does.

what's wrong with oil?

It Powers Your Life.™

  On 12/12/2013 at 5:45 AM, zaphod said:

we are totally not above nature

I'm not saying that in a capitalist/conservative way. Of course we are animals and part of the ecosystem and all that, but humans are unquestionably different. I'm saying that we alone would ever think about how to preserve anything other than ourselves on a grand scheme (not discounting animals saving the lives of other animals/people). A dolphin has never thought about maybe cutting back on it's fish consumption.

Well I can't speak for things being 'meant to work the way they do'. I'll have to take your word on that one. Up until today I was operating on the assumption that humans invented bread. Now I don't know what to think. If you could enlighten me as to bread's true nature I would appreciate it.

Nothing's wrong with oil. Just like nothing's wrong with meat. They're both made from dead animals, one's just got a longer timeline.

  On 12/12/2013 at 5:45 AM, zaphod said:

we are totally not above nature

lol you know what he meant.

we aren't above nature since we are animals, but...

we should aspire to be above the instincts that ultimately conflict with the long-term survival of hugh manatee

The invention of bread was more like discovering a cheat code in a video game. Sort of like discovering a superjump in halo 2.

  On 12/12/2013 at 5:46 AM, sheatheman said:

what's wrong with oil?

 

It Powers Your Life.™

 

haha, that's exactly what's wrong with oil... Powering everyone's lives with a limited, privately owned resource, often to the point that they cannot get to their jobs and make money without more oil each day... wats wrong with that?

  On 12/12/2013 at 5:37 AM, autopilot said:

@luke - I agree with all of this. If you have some changes you can make in your life that'll improve things then by all means implement them! If not, don't sweat it, the worst case scenario is we kill ourselves off and the rest of the planet continues on just fine without us.

It's that very last part that I'm not sure about. And I'm not totally ready to let humanity die because cheeseburgers/cars. gnome sane.

  On 12/12/2013 at 6:03 AM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 12/12/2013 at 5:45 AM, zaphod said:

we are totally not above nature

lol you know what he meant.

 

we aren't above nature since we are animals, but...

 

we should aspire to be above the instincts that ultimately conflict with the long-term survival of hugh manatee

 

nah, i didn't, but he clarified. obviously you're correct. i have concerns beyond food though, as our human culture is one of consumption. it's actually completely out of control.

Should I start an oil thread? I work in the oil industry for a consulting firm, if anyone wants an unbiased explanation. Of course our heavy reliance on oil is a problem, but unfortunately things have been set into motion in such a way that we MUST keep obtaining it or suffer millions of deaths due to mass chaos/starvation/sanitation breakdown/shortages of everything. I'll keep getting it (you're welcome) while someone else figures out nano technology.

I'm studying nanotechnology, lol, just about to graduate actually. My lab alone sucks up huge amounts of power, and the building was designed in 2009. We will not solve the world's energy problems with nanotechnology. We may make progress, particularly with battery technology and organic photovoltaics, but that progress will be locked inside a data exclusivity patent and will fatten the pockets of a few - if resistance from the oil and coal industries subsides, or their interest is piqued by nice looking profit margins - while car culture rolls on. Everyone I know in this industry is here to make money - and it takes a decent amount of schooling to get to the point of doing research, so they need to sell those research patents to pay their loans. I literally discussed this with a grad student yesterday.

If you start a thread on oil, I'll see ya there.

  On 12/12/2013 at 6:22 AM, luke viia said:

I'm studying nanotechnology, lol, just about to graduate actually. My lab alone sucks up huge amounts of power, and the building was designed in 2009. We will not solve the world's energy problems with nanotechnology. We may make progress, particularly with battery technology and organic photovoltaics, but that progress will be locked inside a data exclusivity patent and will fatten the pockets of a few while car culture rolls on. Everyone I know in this industry is here to make money - and it takes a decent amount of schooling to get to the point of doing research, so they need to sell those research patents to pay their loans. I literally discussed this with a grad student yesterday.

 

If you start a thread on oil, I'll see ya there.

I'm just thinking molecular engineering = extremely efficient in a variety of ways (are we near 90% solar efficiency?) and makes super light/strong materials which require fewer replacements and far less energy to power.

start an oil/alternative energy thread, it's a good idea. japan wants to put a solar plant on the moon that beams microwave energy to earth.

Novel materials which have no natural analogue, and which break down to microplastics in our soil and water supply, so diffused through the environment that clean-up becomes next to impossible.

We are nowhere near 90% solar efficiency. The 2013 record is in the 40% range (research, not market); most common PVs are around 6-19% afaik.

I started the energy thread. http://forum.watmm.com/topic/81578-energy/

Back on topic: I'm reading the rolling stone article and it is turning into leftist propaganda, unfortunately. I don't think the Tea Party has any dealings with Ag lobbyists or that they have the Humane Society "in their cross-hairs."

I'm not a Tea Party sympathizer but it's ignorant to use the term how the article does. The way this article is subtly plugging for all the check boxes of your run of the mill progressive agenda makes me think they aren't too different from the lobbyists of Big Meat and the "cabal" they keep attacking.

Even if I absolutely agree with the message of the article, the koolaid I have to spit out after reading it leaves me with an unpleasant feeling.

All of you are acting like a bunch of fucking queerboats

  On 12/12/2013 at 5:09 AM, autopilot said:

@ delet - I think we can all agree that everything would be better if the planet had 4-6 billion less people on it. Who here is actually advocating intentionally being nasty to animals? Feeding a creature the food they instinctively like to eat their whole lives and giving them a swift instant death is hardly 'being nasty'.

umm wurt. People were saying that we shouldn't care the conditions that they are raised in cause fuckit, economics and such things. So yeah, this was obviously what i was annoyed about. Reread the thread from the first page and it might clear up your misunderstanding of what disappointed me.. ;-] cool tah.

  On 12/11/2013 at 10:44 PM, StephenG said:

where does the idea that we should be nice and compassionate to the animals we are about to eat even come from?

It comes from a very special place called Empathy.

edit: Oh shit four pages. I'm out.

meat is murder etc