Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Milk's impact on the planet dairy, soya, rice, oat and almond compared

Someone who cares about the abuse of animals has to automatically be a Saint and source everything ethically? It's a shit argument that's rolled out by plonkers like yourself and carries no weight.
So it's OK to buy goods manufactured by unethically treated humans but you draw the line at unethically treated animals?
What's that phrase... virtue signalling.
 
So it's OK to buy goods manufactured by unethically treated humans but you draw the line at unethically treated animals?
What's that phrase... virtue signalling.
Did I say it was okay? I do my bit when making purchases (not shopping at certain establishments). You on the other hand have admitted you don't shop ethically.
You're absolutely hilarious. :D
 
Did I say it was okay? I do my bit when making purchases (not shopping at certain establishments). You on the other hand have admitted you don't shop ethically.
You're absolutely hilarious. :D
I wasn't talking about you, but if the cap fits.
Not that my shopping choices are any of your business, but where did I say I don't shop for anything ethically? I answered your question.
Is everything you own ethically sourced or not?
No, not everything is, but I'll repeat it for you, because you seem to be a little hard of thinking. I'm not the one trying to shame people into buying ethically produced things.
 
I wasn't talking about you, but if the cap fits.
Not that my shopping choices are any of your business, but where did I say I don't shop for anything ethically? I answered your question.

No, not everything is, but I'll repeat it for you, because you seem to be a little hard of thinking. I'm not the one trying to shame people into buying ethically produced things.
This thread appears to be now you attacking everyone else.
 
1) directly
2) well the two may well be linked - not surprising. Communism is certainly predicated on ideas of fairness and ethical values based on a fair share.

Well, it looks like drivel, but I'll reserve judgment in case you feel like explaining further at any point..
 
So it's OK to buy goods manufactured by unethically treated humans but you draw the line at unethically treated animals?
What's that phrase... virtue signalling.


Questioning ethical purity. It was a shit argument when Editor tried it it’s a shit one now you are.
 
Questioning ethical purity. It was a shit argument when Editor tried it it’s a shit one now you are.
I didn't question 'ethical purity' whatever that means, but given the inherent mistreatment and cruelty in the dairy/meat industry, it's certainly something to consider and discuss.
 
Well, it looks like drivel, but I'll reserve judgment in case you feel like explaining further at any point..
Not really interested in taking it further tbh. My initial response was to Wookey because I was puzzled by his formulation of something he considers to be a human ethic. I'm still puzzled by it, and I would still maintain that something close to the reverse of what he posited is much nearer the mark. It is odd that a social species with a strong sense of fairness can produce such an unfair society, but without getting too evo psych about this, I think one key to that is the scaling up of things away from a size we can easily deal with cognitively. Another key might be in the way in-group/out-group works. We have a sense of the universality of humanity nowadays, rather a good think I think. One day our practical ethics might catch up with that sense. All a bit Star Trek, I know, but I'm an optimist deep down, despite everything.
 
Either a region has enough precipitation for its needs or it does not. If it does not then water intensive activities are probably out of its possibilities.

That's not how the world works though. As has been pointed out, 80 per cent of the world's almonds come from California. This is done not to satisfy the needs of 20-odd million Californians. 'its needs' is not an easy thing to measure. It is in fact a nonsense when land is owned by a tiny group whose interests are often opposed to those of their non-land-owning neighbours.

If there was not enough water in California for growing Almonds, the farmers would have to do something else, sheep farming for wool perhaps, as they do in Australia.
 
If there was not enough water in California for growing Almonds, the farmers would have to do something else, sheep farming for wool perhaps, as they do in Australia.
How do you define 'enough'? Who is defining 'enough'? To make the point clearer, Ireland was still exporting food to Britain during the potato famine of the 1840s, Bengal was still exporting food to Britain during the Bengal famine of the 1940s.
 
How do you define 'enough'? Who is defining 'enough'? To make the point clearer, Ireland was still exporting food to Britain during the potato famine of the 1840s, Bengal was still exporting food to Britain during the Bengal famine of the 1940s.
Sounds like poor decision making by Ireland and Bengal in those situations then.

I don't worry about my fresh water use in the UK, I don't have a meter but it falls out of the sky in some abundance, summer months notwithstanding.
 
...a bit Star Trek, I know, but I'm an optimist deep down, despite everything.

Ok, so you’re a bit of a hippy, I get it.
I wasn’t sure which particular ethical principle Wookey was referring to either, but it makes more sense than the opposite, especially once you expand the principle beyond simple allocation of resources.

Maybe one to revisit on another thread...
 
weltweit
You do know that the Irish were left to starve after their source of food (potato) died? That this happened under British rule? That produce was sent by British landowners to feed Britain?
That the British government turned a blind eye and twiddled their thumbs allowing deaths to happen? That there was a view taken that land would be cleared of Irish peasants as a result?
 
weltweit
You do know that the Irish were left to starve after their source of food (potato) died? That this happened under British rule? That produce was sent by British landowners to feed Britain?
That the British government turned a blind eye and twiddled their thumbs allowing deaths to happen? That there was a view taken that land would be cleared of Irish peasants as a result?
I don't know much about either situation no, LBJs point presented at first sight a rather simpler issue, i.e. starving countries exporting food, which I assume you would agree, seems stupid.
 
As a small island on the edge of europe, Ireland needs to be able to support itself with a stable source of food. The unpredictability of weather is such that growing enough food to feed the entire country (if everyone became vegan) is a risky option. (We know well here what happens when you rely on one food source and it fails repeatedly.)
Meat and dairy are very stable sources of food....especially on an island that is soon to become even more isolated because of Brexit.

In a crisis where there may be problems with imports of produce and a food shortage develops then a small place like Ireland needs to be able to support itself. It won't do that if it relies on imports of vegan milk and has eliminated dairy...Ireland cannot ever become a place where meat and dairy products are not fully available and there probably will always need to be enough produced to feed the population.
 
Ahh that was lovely. Made me feel emotional. I hope they’re both making a success of the new farm.

I do wish something could or would be done about it. That there was just a big button that would be pushed and the only farms left were decent small ones where any animals were treated well and they didn’t use chemicals and that.

I completely agree with your first paragraph.

With regard to the second, I used to think that way, but I no longer think it’s the whole story, for some of the reasons revealed in 73 Cows.

The documentary highlights some of the contradictions and paradoxes around the idea of humane farming. It's undeniable that they were conscientious farmers, but that just made it all the more difficult for them to send their animals to slaughter. Why? For one, if an individual is given a good life then it makes it all the more tragic for it to be snatched away from them. And further, if you truly care about another, you look after them, form a relationship with them, understand their unique characteristics and so forth, then there's something downright sinister about betraying them by sticking them on a truck to what is, in all likelihood - as they say on the documentary - ‘a terrifying and painful death’. To see the force of this point, imagine if somebody sent their dog to a slaughterhouse to be turned into a fur coat or mincemeat. The fact that the dog had a good life before slaughter does not address the ethical question about whether it is acceptable to exploit and betray vulnerable, dependent individuals in this way.

This is the dilemma of animal agriculture: it either involves giving animals tragic lives or tragically depriving animals of their lives. Jay and Katja realised this, and moved away from it as farmers. I think we should do the same as consumers. And that’s a lot less of a hard, life-changing decision for us than it must have been for them.
 
I completely agree with your first paragraph.

With regard to the second, I used to think that way, but I no longer think it’s the whole story, for some of the reasons revealed in 73 Cows.

The documentary highlights some of the contradictions and paradoxes around the idea of humane farming. It's undeniable that they were conscientious farmers, but that just made it all the more difficult for them to send their animals to slaughter. Why? For one, if an individual is given a good life then it makes it all the more tragic for it to be snatched away from them. And further, if you truly care about another, you look after them, form a relationship with them, understand their unique characteristics and so forth, then there's something downright sinister about betraying them by sticking them on a truck to what is, in all likelihood - as they say on the documentary - ‘a terrifying and painful death’. To see the force of this point, imagine if somebody sent their dog to a slaughterhouse to be turned into a fur coat or mincemeat. The fact that the dog had a good life before slaughter does not address the ethical question about whether it is acceptable to exploit and betray vulnerable, dependent individuals in this way.

This is the dilemma of animal agriculture: it either involves giving animals tragic lives or tragically depriving animals of their lives. Jay and Katja realised this, and moved away from it as farmers. I think we should do the same as consumers. And that’s a lot less of a hard, life-changing decision for us than it must have been for them.
Yeah I see what you mean, about getting emotionally attached then sending them to slaughter. I wonder what other farmers think?
 
If we are all only animals, as many believe, and if it is wrong for us to eat meat why do we feed the same meat to our pets without batting an eye? Extreme thought? Just putting it out there...there are vegan food options for pets. But people recognise that for some animals meat is the better option. Cats don't do well on a vegan diet
They need meat.

There is a sort of "I'm superior" thing going on to an extent with the whole vegan pushing ...
"I am quietly superior because I dont eat meat and my reasons are to do with the cruelty of the meat industry."... And there is an inferred/implied sort of judgement made on those who do eat meat as a result...we are heartless cruel people because we eat meat twice a week. I know this sentiment does exist.

I for one I cannot do veganism. I am allergic to many foods. (Mostly fruit veg grain)
But I am able to eat basic foods such as meat and some dairy. I can't eat certain ordinary fruits, vegetables and certain nuts. I can't eat soya. I am allergic to uncooked tomatoes and grapefruit and kelp and cabbage...The only vegs I can digest without a painful reaction are potatoes, onions, carrots and parsnips and turnip. Even certain types of lettuce is a problem. Coleslaw is ok though...strangely.
Quorn and funghus based and soya based protein makes me violently ill. Quorn in particilar caused a relapse in my autoimmune condition.
I tried vegetarian and vegan and muscle wasting increased. (Autoimmune muscle disease)
I'll eat meat and dairy because I pretty much need to. I need protein that my body can handle. I have to eat protein to just maintain muscle strength. The most accessible and least problematic of all for me is meat and the best meat for me is beef. I know I don't have any problems from it.

To be honest I think it's up to individuals to decide what they eat. Humans have eaten meat for 2.5 million years. I don't think we should feel shamed into stopping.
 
Back
Top Bottom