Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

[ddraig]

That's still not ok though is it? You appear not to be objecting just to factory farming, but to humans behaving as omnivores.

Lots of assumptions there!
It's the wriggling and justifications people use that are laughable/boring/typical, along with the constant whattaboutery and attempts at hypocrisy hunting

 

[Saul Goodman]

LOL @ that (mostly)... there are none so blind as those that will not see! The vast vast vast majority of the meat in countries like the UK comes from factory farms, which I classify as cruel.

There is nothing particularly "humble" about the cocoa bean compared to any other plant, but it is very telling how you choose to anthropomorphize a plant in order to strengthen your deflective whatabouttery ... yet will you anthropomorphize the animals we raise and kill in their billions and billions in horrendous conditions, for your indulgence? No, cos you like pork belly, or something.

Dick.

Why do certain types always resort to insults when they know they can't win the argument?

 

[platinumsage]

Lots of assumptions there!
It's the wriggling and justifications people use that are laughable/boring/typical, along with the constant whattaboutery and attempts at hypocrisy hunting

Same on both sides it seems to me. That's because the arguments against eating meat are not arguments against eating meat in all circumstances, and the arguments against being vegetarian are simply advancing personal preferences. It's just going round in circles.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Half the time, it's not wriggling. It's a genuine disagreement over whether or not raising animals in order to kill and eat them is in and of itself morally wrong. You think it is. And anybody who doesn't agree with you is either ignorant, in denial, or evil.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Same on both sides it seems to me. That's because the arguments against eating meat are not arguments against eating meat in all circumstances, and the arguments against being vegetarian are simply advancing personal preferences. It's just going round in circles.

Don't see anybody really making arguments against being vegetarian. Or being vegan for that matter. I've pointed out that a healthy vegan diet is only possible with the help of modern scientific industrial society to synthesise vitamins in a lab, but that wasn't intended as an argument against being vegan. More as an argument against the notion that somehow eating animal products is a frivolous choice.

 

[Flavour]

Why do certain types always resort to insults when they know they can't win the argument?

What argument? That cocoa farming is worse than the factory farming of animals? Cos that seems to be your argument. I've already said it before to NoXion: they're both bad. One doesn't excuse the other. End of. And for the nth time, I'm not a vegan.

 

[platinumsage]

All farming is bad to some extent. What should we eat then? Foxes caught by hounds? Dead seagulls? Soil?

 

[ddraig]

Don't see anybody really making arguments against being vegetarian. Or being vegan for that matter. I've pointed out that a healthy vegan diet is only possible with the help of modern scientific industrial society to synthesise vitamins in a lab, but that wasn't intended as an argument against being vegan. More as an argument against the notion that somehow eating animal products is a frivolous choice.

This bullshit again anything to back up your claim in bold?
As you ignored the question last time you were asked to back it up

 

[ddraig]

All farming is bad to some extent. What should we eat then? Foxes caught by hounds? Dead seagulls? Soil?

Plants

 

[platinumsage]

Plants

I thought we’d established that all farming was bad to some extent? Or is intensive agricultural acceptable in order to keep everyone fed?

 

[editor]

This bullshit again anything to back up your claim in bold?
As you ignored the question last time you were asked to back it up

You could say the same of factory farming, There's very little natural about it, or the weird shit and hormones fed to animals, or feeding vegetarian animals meat products. An awful lot of food is only possible with the help of modern scientific industrial society so it's a weird thing to start banging on about.

 

[Saul Goodman]

What argument? That cocoa farming is worse than the factory farming of animals? Cos that seems to be your argument.

I was merely answering a question but now you mention it, yes, I do believe the enslavement of humans is worse than rearing animals for food. Don't you?

 

[editor]

I thought we’d established that all farming was bad to some extent? Or is intensive agricultural acceptable in order to keep everyone fed?

I must have missed that consensus being established and agreed upon.

 

[ddraig]

I thought we’d established that all farming was bad to some extent? Or is intensive agricultural acceptable in order to keep everyone fed?

By your own words, what should we eat then? dirt?
You want me to quote my recent post about having to eat stuff?
It depends if you want to draw your line at plants or are happy to have animals throats slit for your food

 

[Pickman's model]

I thought we’d established that all farming was bad to some extent? Or is intensive agricultural acceptable in order to keep everyone fed?

it would be a fuck of a lot easier to feed everyone if less food was thrown away

 

[Flavour]

I was merely answering a question but now you mention it, yes, I do believe the enslavement of humans is worse than rearing animals for food. Don't you?

I said already they're both bad. I'm not getting into an argument about what's worse or not. It's besides the point. Slavery is abhorrent, this sort of ridiculous assertion that somehow I don't care about, or aim to lessen, the suffering of people in slavery is offensive. Why is it being made? Ah, that's right: because the pro-meat people in this thread wanted to bring it up to bash the anti-meat people with. Cos we don't care about slavery, apparently.

Look at the way you frame your language, Saul. This is why I don't like you. It's so deliberately disingenuous and self-satisfied. The thing you're using as a stick to beat anti-meat people with -- the enslavement of children in West Africa -- is not relevant to this thread about the unimaginable levels of cruelty and suffering perpetuated throughout the world on an industrial scale so that there is always meat available in shops for people to eat every day if they so choose (and can afford). But that's "the rearing of animals for food", you choose your words to create a juxtaposition that's intellectually dishonest. I've said what I have to say, you're not actually making any arguments against what I've said, just being your same old smarmy contrarian self... so... have fun with that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You could say the same of factory farming, There's very little natural about it, or the weird shit and hormones fed to animals, or feeding vegetarian animals meat products. An awful lot of food is only possible with the help of modern scientific industrial society so it's a weird thing to start banging on about.

You clearly have missed the undertone from certain vegan contributors that anything other than a vegan diet is inflicting suffering on animals for purely frivolous reasons. You've come out with a fair bit of that kind of thing yourself. But we're obligate omnivores. A healthy vegan diet has only been possible in recent decades. Eating some animal products to stay healthy is in no way frivolous.

And given that at no point have I defended factory farming, it's a bit weird to start banging on about it in response to that point.

 

[Artaxerxes]

UK Potatoes are 0.3, Broccoli is 0.7, I imagine carrots are going to be equally low.
Oatmeal milk has the lowest impact of everything listed at 0.2 (almond surprisingly only 0.6), while cows milks is much higher at 1.9.

Almonds main issue is the water it uses

Edit; ignore, the thread opened up replies from ages ago not recently

 

[lazythursday]

These back and forth arguments just miss the point. According to the (generally fairly cautious) Committee on Climate Change the average person needs to cut consumption of beef, lamb and dairy by at least 20% in order to meet net zero targets. Some of this is because of the carbon emissions associated with those products and some of it is because around 20-25% of agricultural land will have to be converted to trees and bioenergy crops. Do the meat eaters on this thread accept that they need to eat less meat, even if they are determined to defend the general principle of meat eating?

 

[8ball]

These back and forth arguments just miss the point. According to the (generally fairly cautious) Committee on Climate Change the average person needs to cut consumption of beef, lamb and dairy by at least 20% in order to meet net zero targets. Some of this is because of the carbon emissions associated with those products and some of it is because around 20-25% of agricultural land will have to be converted to trees and bioenergy crops. Do the meat eaters on this thread accept that they need to eat less meat, even if they are determined to defend the general principle of meat eating?

This would be a better basis for a thread, but when it is actually a poorly-veiled religious screed then it's going to go off track pretty quickly.
But, assuming some honesty in your post, "cut consumption of beef, lamb and dairy by at least 20%" isn't really coherent given the big differences in impact between different products, and says nothing about the relative volumes of those products. Cheese comes out pretty heavy, but overall, beef is the clear big one. Cutting beef by less than 20% would have a proportionately greater effect than cutting out some dairy products by a lot more, and you have the big problems caused by a lot of very valuable (especially in terms of biodiversity, but in terms of other uses too).

And there are big issues in terms of parts of the world where meat demand (especially for beef) is currently growing. We could all go vegan in the UK and it wouldn't come close to offsetting that.

I'd really like to see some better labelling on products of all sorts relating to their carbon footprint (and animal welfare matters, where relevant). And some decent labelling in terms of the conditions of workers in the chain of production. It doesn't feel like things are moving in the right direction at the moment.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

These back and forth arguments just miss the point. According to the (generally fairly cautious) Committee on Climate Change the average person needs to cut consumption of beef, lamb and dairy by at least 20% in order to meet net zero targets. Some of this is because of the carbon emissions associated with those products and some of it is because around 20-25% of agricultural land will have to be converted to trees and bioenergy crops. Do the meat eaters on this thread accept that they need to eat less meat, even if they are determined to defend the general principle of meat eating?

You cannot have social justice without sorting out the environment. And you can't sort out the environment without social justice.

I was hugely enthused by the way the Labour party last year finally started to grapple with this fact. I wish they had pushed the Green New Deal idea much harder. It's massively depressing that they weren't elected on that platform, but that kind of thing is what I want to see and a lot more of it. If we are to reform farming and if that reform results in reduced meat production, we need to have those changes brought in in a way that doesn't must make certain things only for the rich.

So yeah, I'd love to have big nationwide, continent-wide, worldwide discussions about these things. Sadly in the UK atm that's a very hard thing to do. Megafarms, feedlot farms are continuing to encroach. We're going in the wrong direction over so many things.

 

[NoXion]

Define "less". You might say "20% less", but that's talking about "the average person" who doesn't actually exist and is a statistical chimera.

Also the idea of devoting actual arable land towards growing biofuels is the most fucking idiotic idea I've ever fucking heard. That's literally taking food away from peoples' mouths so cars can go vroom. Monumentally stupid.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Define "less". You might say "20% less", but that's talking about "the average person" who doesn't actually exist and is a statistical chimera.

Also the idea of devoting actual arable land towards growing biofuels is the most fucking idiotic idea I've ever fucking heard. That's literally taking food away from peoples' mouths so cars can go vroom. Monumentally stupid.

Yeah, biofuels are massively problematic. I thought the economics of renewable energy was moving away from biofuels anyway, as solar and wind become so much cheaper.

 

[8ball]

Define "less". You might say "20% less", but that's talking about "the average person" who doesn't actually exist and is a statistical chimera.

Also the idea of devoting actual arable land towards growing biofuels is the most fucking idiotic idea I've ever fucking heard. That's literally taking food away from peoples' mouths so cars can go vroom. Monumentally stupid.

I think mostly trucks for transporting goods rather than cars (and, I'd hope, trains)*. There are few diesel cars about and I can't see them coming back. I guess it also depends on what kind of land you need for the biofuels (if it is generally the kind of land used to grow animal feed for factory farms, for example, then combined with a reduction in meat consumption it could make sense).

* - I think there is a way of making a biofuel that could run petrol cars, but to my understanding it is a lot less efficient and more intensive in terms of harsh chemicals used in production

 

[ddraig]

These back and forth arguments just miss the point. According to the (generally fairly cautious) Committee on Climate Change the average person needs to cut consumption of beef, lamb and dairy by at least 20% in order to meet net zero targets. Some of this is because of the carbon emissions associated with those products and some of it is because around 20-25% of agricultural land will have to be converted to trees and bioenergy crops. Do the meat eaters on this thread accept that they need to eat less meat, even if they are determined to defend the general principle of meat eating?

Nice try
Whatever you say, however you say it, the wriggling/nit picking/hypocrisy hunting will continue

 

[ddraig]

Don't see anybody really making arguments against being vegetarian. Or being vegan for that matter. I've pointed out that a healthy vegan diet is only possible with the help of modern scientific industrial society to synthesise vitamins in a lab, but that wasn't intended as an argument against being vegan. More as an argument against the notion that somehow eating animal products is a frivolous choice.

Do you have anything to back up your assertion in bold, other than your opinion, please?

e2a - because I know plenty of vegans that don't, including my parents, are you saying they're lying?

 

[NoXion]

Yeah, biofuels are massively problematic. I thought the economics of renewable energy was moving away from biofuels anyway, as solar and wind become so much cheaper.

It's not something I've seen pushed much recently, but there still seems to be momentum towards pushing gas+renewables instead of completely decarbonising our energy grids with nuclear+renewables. I suspect Russia and Qatar to be behind this, they've already convinced Germany to shut down their nuclear plants and burn more gas to make up for the inevitable shortfall. It's fucking brain-dead.

 

[8ball]

Do you have anything to back up your assertion in bold, other than your opinion, please?

e2a - because I know plenty of vegans that don't, including my parents, are you saying they're lying?

Did you have a lot of laverbread growing up?

 

[8ball]

Did you have a lot of laverbread growing up?

I was just asking because laverbread has some nutrients in it that are hard to get via other plant sources (love a bit of laverbread with the FWB, me).
Though in terms of what LBJ said, I think ddraig's parents would have been vegan during the time of many foods being fortified in this country. I think he possibly meant further back.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Food fortification has been around for a while. Certainly since the 1950s at least.

No more Vitamin Donuts, though, sadly.