Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Killed and mostly put/left somewhere to rot (rabbits, pigeon and deer excepted).
Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?
- Thread starter MrCurry
- Start date
- Status
butcher
boner at the ready
You mean this sort of thing:200,000 native ducks shot as pests of rice crops
butcher
boner at the ready
Or:
At least 100 mice are killed per hectare per year (500/4 × 0.8) to grow grain. Average yields are about 1.4 tonnes of wheat/hectare; 13% of the wheat is useable protein. Therefore, at least 55 sentient animals die to produce 100kg of useable plant protein: 25 times more than for the same amount of rangelands beef.
The vegetarian dilemma.
At least 100 mice are killed per hectare per year (500/4 × 0.8) to grow grain. Average yields are about 1.4 tonnes of wheat/hectare; 13% of the wheat is useable protein. Therefore, at least 55 sentient animals die to produce 100kg of useable plant protein: 25 times more than for the same amount of rangelands beef.
The vegetarian dilemma.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Well yes, but less controversially thousands of woodpigeons are shot over crops and there is now no closed season for munjac because they are everywhere and expanding at an alarming rate. The guy I buy deer from can't shoot enough deer (in season - roe, sika and fallow too). I can buy an entire, decent sized sika off him for about £30 (head off, skin on) and butcher it myself. Feeds me and nipper for nearly a month.
To add - the guys growing maize in the forest of dean often now have to shoot an inordinate number of wild boar too. Although, to be clear these are not true "wild boar" they are across between a commercial pig and a wild boar that "escaped" when a big wild boar farm went bust and therefore can have multiple litters a year of up to 10 piglets wheras true wild boar breed once a year and have much smaller litters. I think George Monbiot got his knickers in a twist about it thinking they were killing some rare, native species, but he's a fucking idiot, as previously discussed.
Last edited:
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Lots of animals do. Even cute ones.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
He makes good points. I slightly disagree with the end point. Producing the least suffering is surely more to the point than minimising deaths. Not the same thing.
But none of these utilitarian accounting systems works. They are not a good guide to action.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Needless to say, I don’t think you’re representing the article accurately. They never say any particular norm change is inevitable and the focus isn’t really even to say that any given norm change is desirable now, but rather to draw attention to some of the cognitive biases that prevent people from being receptive and open to arguments for norm change. I'd hope that even if we disagree on the vegan issue we'd agree that broad mindedness and self-awareness is important for moral progress.
Killing somebody to make money from them shows disregard for their life. An industry built around killing large numbers of individuals to make money from them shows systemic disregard their lives. Can't speak to Grandin's motivations but her reform recommendations are concerned with improving animal welfare not showing any regard for animal life as such.
(1) How is that relevant to my point? Hay still has to be harvested and field animals will die as a result of the harvesting. Incidentally, a paper published just over two decades ago calculates that a diet (in the US) based on plant proteins would result in fewer wild animal deaths than even a omnivorous diet based only on consuming ruminants (and this calculation does not even factor in the issue of deaths for supplemental ruminant feed):
Another paper, published in 2007, shows that many of the field deaths that have been misattributed to harvesting equipment turn out to be caused by prey animals. Not denying that many animals die horribly in plant agriculture, but the number has been inflated by various pro-meat scholars and advocates as a stick to bash vegans with.
(2) Yes, there's deliberate killing in plant agriculture, I dealt with that in my point (3) - whilst I'd like to see it reduced and ideally one day eliminated I think its widely accepted in the human context that defensive killing is easier to justify than offensive killing. It's why some people are convicted for murder and others are acquitted for self-defence.
Again, this isn't to justify all forms of field animal killing - some of which is completely unjustified and unnecessary. But as a consumer, when you're making purchasing decisions, you are pretty in the dark about how many any particular plant product was procured (this recent paper suggests we lack even basic reliable data on field animal deaths in agriculture more broadly) . By contrast, you know with certainty that the meat involved killing. If you think killing animals for food is bad and you're confronted with two products - one you know involved killing and one that may have - then you are not a moral hypocrite for choosing the latter.
On your final point, I think it's strange to base human morality on what other animals do. Some animals eat other animals. So what? Dogs sniff each others' butts in the park, I don't think that's necessarily a good reason for humans to do it too.
butcher
boner at the ready
So killing animals to grow veg is defensive killing?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's an extremely weak argument.
Somehow there is a moral difference between killing an animal to stop it from eating something you want to eat and killing an animal in order to eat it.
I don't see it. And the comparison with a human context is also very weak. In a human context, intent is involved. In the animal context, it isn't. The animal eating crops doesn't intend to do something harmful to people. It doesn't care about people either way. It isn't attacking you in any way, and the idea that killing it is an act of defence is flimsy.
One is an animal that is eating something you want; the other is an animal that is something you want to eat.
In both cases, the animal ends up dead. In neither case was the animal in question harbouring any intentions towards people at all, malicious or otherwise.
Somehow there is a moral difference between killing an animal to stop it from eating something you want to eat and killing an animal in order to eat it.
I don't see it. And the comparison with a human context is also very weak. In a human context, intent is involved. In the animal context, it isn't. The animal eating crops doesn't intend to do something harmful to people. It doesn't care about people either way. It isn't attacking you in any way, and the idea that killing it is an act of defence is flimsy.
One is an animal that is eating something you want; the other is an animal that is something you want to eat.
In both cases, the animal ends up dead. In neither case was the animal in question harbouring any intentions towards people at all, malicious or otherwise.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
I'd say it was morally worse. At least the farmed animal when killed is useful whereas the animal killed to protect crops is a waste of life.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
This is the bit Jeff doesn't have an answer for, and probably why he refused comment on it when I said the same. He's cherry picking what he answers, because he's beginning to realise he's a hypocrite with a malfunctioning moral compass.I'd say it was morally worse. At least the farmed animal when killed is useful whereas the animal killed to protect crops is a waste of life.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Might be if it's a lion charging at you but not when it's a fluffy bunny nibbling your lettuce.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Certainly, morally, if you kill an animal, it's hard to make the case that it's wrong to eat it once you've killed it. So if we have to kill rabbits to protect crops, say, then why would we not eat them? Surely we should eat them, if we're trying to work out a morality for all this. (I don't think this is a good way of approaching the subject, btw. I don't think it addresses the question 'how should we farm?' in a useful way.)I'd say it was morally worse. At least the farmed animal when killed is useful whereas the animal killed to protect crops is a waste of life.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
No, it's only wrong to kill it if you intend to eat it, but it's perfectly OK to kill it if there's a chance it might eat your lettuce.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
You don't think human food supplies should be protected? I do...
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
So it's OK to kill animals, so long as you don't intend to eat them?
And don't give me that nonsense that vegans wish there was a way to grow food that didn't result in harming animals. I wish there was a way to eat steaks that didn't involve harming animals.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
I would say that I wouldn't eat the rabbits or rats that were killed in the process. You would.
I'm not seeing how this is problematic or inconsistent with anything the "less Meat" faction has posted here.
butcher
boner at the ready
Would you, personally, kill to protect vegetables you are growing to eat?
butcher
boner at the ready
The ironic thing is, the more common methods to kill "vermin" result in terrible suffering; ie gassing, poisoning etc
Perhaps Jeff and bcuster need to sit around a warren with a captive bolt and stunner so at least they can give the same level of treatment than animals in abattoirs receive...
Perhaps Jeff and bcuster need to sit around a warren with a captive bolt and stunner so at least they can give the same level of treatment than animals in abattoirs receive...
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
And people post pictures here of 'inhumane' treatment of animals, while rabbits and mice bleed from every orifice to protect their vegetables.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
yes, i would
bcuster
Well-Known Member
Not necessary. Human food supplies must be protected
butcher
boner at the ready
Would you prefer to let the corpse rot, or it to be utilised by another human
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Why not boycott vegetables until this can be achieved more humanely?
Let's face it, it can already be achieved more humanely. It'll just mean vegetables will cost more, but you're OK with this, right? And you're going to boycott vegetables until it's done, right?
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
You do seem somewhat confused. On the one hand you're admonishing those of us who eat meat, because of the cruelty involved, while on the other hand you espouse the cruelty involved in protecting your food from those pesky rabbits. Do you not see why someone might accuse you of hypocrisy?
- Status
