Scoffing too much meat and eggs is ‘just as bad as smoking’, claim scientists

[littlebabyjesus]

No it isn't... but it's morally better to kill wheat than it is to kill sheep.

You have to kill the sheep to produce the income. No income, no sheep.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Sure. And more than growing soya, too.

The majority of which is used for animal feed.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The majority of which is used for animal feed.

Yes, it is.

I'm not defending the global meat industry here. However, there are situations where it is economically (and ecologically, in terms of energy use) sensible use of land to keep animals on it. The Welsh hills being a case in point.

 

[andysays]

The rain forest and vast areas of Brazil are (were) good for a lot more than feeding cows

This is true in terms of biodiversity, but not in terms of food production. We can't simply ignore the fact that the existing world population (that's the human population) needs to be fed, and simplistic ideas like "veg good, meat bad" don't help that.

Also, it's worth remembering that in certain areas, eg chalk grasslands, traditional grazing is better for biodiversity than simply allowing it all to turn to scrub.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

You have to kill the sheep to produce the income. No income, no sheep.

Scum have to rob pensioners to feed themselves.

 

[girasol]

This is a really pointless argument: ie. what is morally better to kill? Some religions never seemed too bothered about this, and they are quite 'moralistic'. Others see it as a terrible thing, they also adhere to a set of 'morals'.

Killing an animal is really neither moral nor immoral, it's down to personal choice as to how immoral it is. You can't scientifically measure its morality.

We have eaten meat (or not) for as long as we have been around. The real moral, but also practical, issue is how we produce the meat and the negative impact the industry is having in the environment.

If we had to raise and kill our own meat this wouldn't be an issue, as we wouldn't impact much. We would only kill a mammal once a month to feed our relatives - as it used to be. The mass production of meat is the real issue IMO.

 

[andysays]

Scum have to rob pensioners to feed themselves.

Only because you've decided they're not allowed to be sheep farmers any more

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If we had to raise and kill our own meat this wouldn't be an issue, as we wouldn't impact much. We would only kill a mammal once a month to feed our relatives - as it used to be. The mass production of meat is the real issue IMO.

Yes. The amount of meat produced and the way it is produced need to change. And this isn't even a problem of growing human population - in the parts of the world where the population is growing, people don't eat much meat. It's the rich world's consumption habits that are the problem.

 

[girasol]

Yes. The amount of meat produced and the way it is produced need to change. And this isn't even a problem of growing human population - in the parts of the world where the population is growing, people don't eat much meat. It's the rich world's consumption habits that are the problem.

And so we are back to my point, and why I started eating less meat. People in rich countries can make a difference, just by eating red meat less often.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Only because you've decided they're not allowed to be sheep farmers any more

And freespirit's point is worth bearing in mind too, imo. After foot and mouth, the fields of South East Wales were empty. No livestock. Speaking selfishly, I far prefer it now that the sheep are all back. But they are only back because of the meat industry.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Non-instrumentalisation. Respect for autonomy. Intrinsic value.

Who judges intrinsic value, though? Who ascribes it?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Yes, it is.

I'm not defending the global meat industry here. However, there are situations where it is economically (and ecologically, in terms of energy use) sensible use of land to keep animals on it. The Welsh hills being a case in point.

That might well be the case, but for me its precisely the view of animals as an economic resource that's the problem here.

 

[sleaterkinney]

cats express preferences.

How?, through the medium of interpretive dance?

 

[andysays]

That might well be the case, but for me its precisely the view of animals as an economic resource that's the problem here.

It's certainly true that animals are currently treated primarily as an economic resource (and this means that some areas which would once have been grazed are no longer because it's not considered economically viable).

But they're also potentially a human resouce for us to use, and providing we do it humanely, I don't see that that's inherently problematic.

If we imagine a post-capitalist society where the profit motive is no longer the main driving force, would you then be happy with animals being used as a resource for human use, or does your objection go further than merely the economic instrumentalism?

And if you object more generally to the use of animals for food, what alternative use can you suggest for those areas which are not suitable for productive human uses other than grazing, and what way of life do you have to offer those currently living in those areas and engaged in that activity?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How?, through the medium of interpretive dance?

Somehow, by magic, I've worked out that my cat loves tuna, chicken, ham and quorn. He prefers all of these to whiskas supermeat, which lies there going smelly before I throw it out. He also doesn't like sausages, oddly.

 

[girasol]

How?, through the medium of interpretive dance?

Simples: by not eating what they don't like? My cat doesn't like lamb! Or raw meat. What a freak She spent her first few months fending for herself which makes it even more puzzling.

She loves ham, but won't eat sausages either...

 

[andysays]

Somehow, by magic, I've worked out that my cat loves tuna, chicken, ham and quorn. He prefers all of these to whiskas supermeat, which lies there going smelly before I throw it out. He also doesn't like sausages, oddly.

Maybe you just need to try a different brand

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Maybe you just need to try a different brand

It's alright, I have done. He's an old fella now - 17 - and has become a much fussier eater over the years. As a youngster, he ate almost everything.

 

[Spymaster]

But they're also potentially a human resouce for us to use, and providing we do it humanely, I don't see that that's inherently problematic.

I'd go further than that. I believe that humans are vastly more important than animals and that if humans can use animals to clothe and feed themselves, they should. The caveats being that the animals should not be needlessly mistreated or endangered as a species.

 

[xenon]

How?, through the medium of interpretive dance?

Cmon you don't have to be a weird people hating cat fanatic to notice they have preferences for some foods over others. Our family pet cat would much prefer tinned food to dry and pieces of boneless chicken or fish to tinned.

 

[ddraig]

I'd go further than that. I believe that humans are vastly more important than animals and that if humans can use animals to clothe and feed themselves, they should. The caveats being that the animals should not be needlessly mistreated or endangered as a species.

but they are by definition mistreated and killed, it can't be avoided

 

[andysays]

I'd go further than that. I believe that humans are vastly more important than animals and that if humans can use animals to clothe and feed themselves, they should. The caveats being that the animals should not be needlessly mistreated or endangered as a species.

Yeah, I agree, though I recognise that not everyone shares that view.

I'm trying to point out to them that the idea of all humans ceasing to eat meat has various negative consequences - it's not as simple as it's often presented by those who say "we don't need to eat meat, so we should just stop"

 

[littlebabyjesus]

but they are by definition mistreated and killed, it can't be avoided

How so by definition? I guess you're counting the killing as mistreating - but how are they mistreated beside that?

ETA: and there are no moral absolutes here. There are 7 billion of us. It is fantasy to imagine that we can exist on the planet without killing other animals or otherwise reducing the resources available to other animals (which in my book is every bit as bad as killing them) along the way, regardless of whether or not we eat them.

 

[Spymaster]

but they are by definition mistreated and killed, it can't be avoided

Well that's why I put in "needlessly", as the act of killing an animal itself is arguably mistreatment.

I don't agree that mistreatment can't be avoided though. It would just be very expensive.

 

[andysays]

Is it worth pointing out that trolls are omnivorous, that they will eat whatever you feed them and shit it all out everywhere?

We maybe not be able to kill them, but we really don't need to encourage them.

Just sayin'

 

[ska invita]

Is it morally better to grow wheat than to keep sheep? If so, why? On what basis?

The biggest problem with sheep is that they are bad news for bio diversity, eating up everything in their wake and stopping the growth of wild flowers and other plants - a crucial plank in biodiversity.

the second fuck up is the massive subsidy for keeping sheep. A sheep farmer only has them because of the subsidy. I havent thought this through but I think the subsidy should be scrapped and if people want to eat meat they should pay the insanely high full market price for it.

 

[ska invita]

Yes, it is.

I'm not defending the global meat industry here. However, there are situations where it is economically (and ecologically, in terms of energy use) sensible use of land to keep animals on it. The Welsh hills being a case in point.

To the tune of millions in subsidy. cant we just have some wilderness in this country?
The amazon forest was just mentioned - we have 1% of our native forests left in this country... the great british countryside is just endless fenced off fields and heavily subsidised sheep <its a load of shite

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The biggest problem with sheep is that they are bad news for bio diversity, eating up everything in their wake and stopping the growth of wild flowers and other plants - a crucial plank in biodiversity.

the second fuck up is the massive subsidy for keeping sheep. A sheep farmer only has them because of the subsidy. I havent thought this through but I think the subsidy should be scrapped and if people want to eat meat they should pay the insanely high full market price for it.

This is total bollocks. Sheep farmers get screwed by the supermarket supply chains that have nearly all their market tied up, and are massively underpaid for their meat. They are ripped off as part of an exploitative system, as surely as cocoa farmers in West Africa or coffee growers in Kenya.

 

[ska invita]

Is there a moral difference between killing an animal you've bred and one you've hunted?

Interesting question - I think yes. Paying somebody (including the government through subsidy) to kill and animal for you behind closed doors, then skin it, gut it, debone it, etc, and make it look as presentable for you as possible is a moral issue... what's a parrallel???.... career politicians sending soldiers to kill and not fighting themselves, nor their own children taking part... that act of deference of the killing does have a moral or at least ethical dimension.

 

[ska invita]

This is total bollocks. Sheep farmers get screwed by the supermarket supply chains that have nearly all their market tied up, and are massively underpaid for their meat. They are ripped off as part of an exploitative system, as surely as cocoa farmers in West Africa or coffee growers in Kenya.

and? I should subsidise it through my taxes should I?