Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

How reluctant are you to give up your meat habit?

  • I’m already veggie or vegan as any right thinking person should be!

    Votes: 49 25.0%

  • I can take it or leave it, I won’t miss meat

    Votes: 31 15.8%

  • I’d give up meat if I could think what else to cook, but I can’t

    Votes: 7 3.6%

  • I’m reluctant to change, but I accept the need

    Votes: 34 17.3%

  • It’s unimaginable that I won’t have meat in most / all meals - I’ll probably starve

    Votes: 8 4.1%

  • Fuck the planet, I’ll be eating meat till I die or the planet explodes

    Votes: 6 3.1%

  • Poll fail, answer below

    Votes: 15 7.7%

  • Don’t believe the hype - meat will be available forever, nothing much will change

    Votes: 46 23.5%
  • Total voters
    196
Status
Not open for further replies.
Funky_monks said:
It isn't.

Its point is that if you agree that the mirror test does indicate self awareness (and not cognisance), which many scientists don't, then some great apes have it, whereas monkeys do not and that it may be that dolphins do, but its not well supported.
Click to expand...
I think the mirror test is somewhat overrated as a test. However, even if an animal fails it, that can be down to lots of reasons and you can't draw conclusions about their minds from that failure. Asking a dog to pass the mirror test when most of its cerebral sensory processing power is dedicated to smell rather than vision isn't very reasonable.
 
If the forums thinks the below is too far off the topic of the thread, i'll withdraw it; however i think the intent of the legislation is in keeping with one of the thread's themes; ie the avoidance of cruelty to animals. in that spirit, i fully agree with the legislation :

nypost.com

NY Gov. Kathy Hochul signs law banning ‘puppy mill’ sales at pet stores

Pet stores will be barred from selling dogs, cats and other animals supplied by breeders under a controversial law approved Thursday by Gov. Kath Hochul.
nypost.com nypost.com
 
tbh I think this discussion of animal minds is a little beside the point when it comes to animal cruelty. Jeremy Bentham had this bit right when he said 'The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?' The answer to that question for any animal with even a rudimentary consciousness is yes they can.

Some people do seem to have weird ideas about fish in this regard. There is neurological evidence that fish probably don't experience chronic pain - it wouldn't do them any good as they don't have the option of hiding themselves away to get better, so they have evolved appropriately. But they do experience sharp pain. And certainly they can suffer.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
I think the mirror test is somewhat overrated as a test. However, even if an animal fails it, that can be down to lots of reasons and you can't draw conclusions about their minds from that failure. Asking a dog to pass the mirror test when most of its cerebral sensory processing power is dedicated to smell rather than vision isn't very reasonable.
Click to expand...
didn't know you were an expert in the industry as well!!
 
kabbes said:
In order to have self-awareness, you need to have semiotic mediation between experience and the environment, to be able to recognise the self as an object and be able to mirror that object in the reflected world. You also need to have some kind of dialogic cognition, so that you can understand that there are alternative perspectives that do not centre you in experience. You need to be able to construct an identity in order to provide that self with continuity over time. I am extremely unconvinced that almost any animal has these abilities, and would not be at all surprised to discover humans are unique in having them all (or, indeed, any of them).

Certainly, the most likely contenders (like chimpanzees and apes) do not have these abilities. For example, a chimp can pick up and move a chair and then pick up a stick in order to get down some bananas. However, if either chair or stick is outside their visual field, they are unable to do this task, even if they have previously done it. This is because they have no internalised representation of their visual field. Without the ability to semiotically mediate the world, it is ephemeral. Without the ability to hold a narrative, there is no self-continuity and so no self.

None of which is to say that animals can’t suffer. The complement of an objective self is subjective experience. If animals cannot self-reflect then all they have is subjectivity. Suffering is the subjective experience of not having your needs met, which is fundamental to being an animal. And without self-continuity, there is no future or past, only the now. As such, suffering is absolute, because there is no conception of experience without suffering.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you have to interpret these things through the physiology Of the individual species of animals concerned.
Fish perceive the world entirely differently than humans - we lack a lateral line (or ampullae of Lorenzini in the case of elasmobranchs). They often eat food with exoskeletons (crustaceans etc) and thefore have very bony mouths which lack much in the way of nerves, for example.
 
ampullae of Lorenzini in the case of elasmobranchs

Do you think these may make fish more sensitive to pain, rather than less?
 
Encouraging piece here

A wealth of research points to the need to cut meat consumption. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, global food systems accounted for over a third of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2021, around half attributed to livestock alone. At the same time, a 2021 study published in the scientific journal Nature Sustainability found that a global shift toward plant-based diets could sequester 332 to 547 gigatons of carbon by 2050 -- compared to total global emissions of around 35 gigatons a year -- and would likely keep warming to 1.5 Celsius, the threshold seen as crucial to avoiding the worst of climate change. According to a 2016 study conducted by Oxford University, a surcharge of 40 percent on beef and 20 percent on milk would be needed to account for the damage made by producing these foods -- incentivizing the consumption of more climate-friendly foods and raising tax revenue to repair damage.
Click to expand...

Beyond the Plant Based Treaty, a plethora of policies have been tried and tested across the globe. European program Greener By Default, which makes plant-based foods the default option on menus, has more than doubled consumption of vegan meals, reducing the carbon footprint of caterers in the program by 40 percent and water footprint by 24 percent. California’s Oakland Unified School District, meanwhile, has reduced its carbon footprint from food purchases by 14 percent while saving over 42 million gallons of water and $42,000 by reducing animal products on its menu.

Some are taking a more radical approach: in September, the Dutch city of Haarlem announced it would become the first place in the world to ban meat advertisements from public spaces. But many others are implementing straightforward policies: several county councils in the UK have passed motions to serve only vegan food at events; Helsinki no longer serves meat or dairy at council events; Montreal serves at least 75 percent vegetarian food at city events; Berkeley will switch to 50 percent plant based by 2024 and Vancouver passed a motion to swap 20 percent animal-based foods for plant-based, which it expects to save up to $99,000 and cut emissions by more than 500 metric tons.
Click to expand...

Researchers at University of Bonn, who reviewed the current state of research on the environmental as well as health and economic effects of eating meat, concluded that rich countries must cut meat consumption by at least 75 percent. They found Americans, the world’s top meat eaters, consume around 124 kilograms of meat per person per year and Europeans around 80 kilograms – several times higher than dietary needs. By comparison, in some African countries, people consume less than 20 kilograms a year.
Click to expand...

reasonstobecheerful.world

Cities Take on a New Front in the Climate Battle: Meat Eating

From Buenos Aires to L.A., there's a growing consensus that serious climate action means getting citizens to change one very popular habit.
reasonstobecheerful.world reasonstobecheerful.world
 
And here's the flaws with the EU subsidy system

E.U. Ag Subsidies Prop Up Beef Industry​


Another new report reveals another flaw in E.U.’s climate action, as it continues to use billions of euros to subsidize livestock farmers, especially cattle producers. An investigation by Follow the Money found that Dutch farmers who keep cows received 3.4 billion euros between 2014 and 2022 — by far the biggest amount of agricultural subsidies granted during that time period.

The E.U.’s basic payment scheme and the payment for climate and environmentally-friendly farming practices are calculated according to the size of a farm, the report explains. This results in farmers who own large areas of land, like cattle farmers, receiving more subsidies than farmers who raise pigs and chickens or grow grain, fruits and vegetables. During the same period, the E.U. gave less than half this amount — 1.6 billion euros — in subsidies to farmers growing grain, vegetables and potatoes — and only 80 million euros to farmers growing fruit.

Pig and chicken farmers who receive fewer subsidies have shifted to intensive farming, the report notes, in order to stay profitable. The shift has further increased the number of animals raised for food in the country. Over the past years, the number of pigs increased from 2,400 to 3,400 pigs per pig farm and from 34,000 to 43,000 chickens per chicken farm in the Netherlands.
Click to expand...

sentientmedia.org

New Research Finds E.U. Policies Fund Beef and Bioenergy Over Nature

Two new reports find E.U. policies are failing to protect climate and biodiversity.
sentientmedia.org sentientmedia.org
 
Ffs.
BPS is a decoupled subsidy based on land area farmed. The biggest recipients would be farming that takes up the most land area. Combinable crops, extensive grazing.
If beef is gaining the most sub, it means that beef takes up the largest land area. You wouldn't graze beef cattle on land suitable for cropping. It'd be grade 3 or less.
 
Jeff Robinson said:
On the other hand, no non-slaughter meats are known to increase your risk of cancer, so swings and roundabouts.
Click to expand...
It's processed meat that has been linked to cancer, specifically. The link of unprocessed red meat to cancer is weak, or as FM says, unproven, so you should stop repeating that idea until more evidence comes to light, particularly as there are health benefits to unprocessed red meats that need to be balanced in the evidence. As posted before, even the authors of various reports on red meat and cancer admit this.

And the evidence that there is comes from long-term studies, the likes of which have not been done for 'non-slaughter meats'. It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that various non-animal proteins have a cancer link. Truth is that we don't know either way as the studies have not been done. But given the link between processed meat and cancer that has been found, we should be cautious about advocating processed non-meat. What kinds of processes are done to this non-meat, and what harms could they be introducing?
 
littlebabyjesus said:
It's processed meat that has been linked to cancer, specifically. The link of unprocessed red meat to cancer is weak, or as FM says, unproven, so you should stop repeating that idea until more evidence comes to light, particularly as there are health benefits to unprocessed red meats that need to be balanced in the evidence. As posted before, even the authors of various reports on red meat and cancer admit this.

And the evidence that there is comes from long-term studies, the likes of which have not been done for 'non-slaughter meats'. It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that various non-animal proteins have a cancer link. Truth is that we don't know either way as the studies have not been done. But given the link between processed meat and cancer that has been found, we should be cautious about advocating processed non-meat. What kinds of processes are done to this non-meat, and what harms could they be introducing?
Click to expand...
You are an expert on everything
 
Humberto said:
Some people pretend to
Click to expand...
Be specific when you're cunting someone off. What specifically am I pretending to know? Bear in mind before replying that I'm referencing here links that I and others have already posted.

If you can't be fucked to read the thread, that's fine. But if that is the case, then fuck the fuck off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

danny la rouge
  • Poll
Is there the political will to do anything on climate change?
2 3 4
Replies
112
Views
5K
RubyToogood
RubyToogood
A
  • Poll
How can you stay warm when...
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
4K
Aladdin
A
ska invita
Air pollution level by UK postcode
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
geminisnake
geminisnake
Back
Top Bottom