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

[Spymaster]

... that act of deference of the killing does have a moral or at least ethical dimension.

Which is what?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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

Have a look at what price sheep farmers are given for their meat and what price it is sold for. Last time I looked into this, the figure was that doubling the price paid to the farmer would add about 5 per cent to the price of the meat in the shop. This isn't done, and the farmer is underpaid, due to his/her position in the chain and lack of leverage. In a similar way, adding a penny to the price of a chocolate bar would double the income of a cocoa farmer. Farmers are ripped off for marginal profits to the supermarkets.

Those taxes do not subsidise farmers. They subsidise supermarkets. In a similar way, housing benefit subsidises landlords, not tenants.

 

[ska invita]

Which is what?

You think about it and decide - ive made my decision. I gave a parallel with politicians getting others to do their killing.

 

[ddraig]

farmers get subsidised left right and centre and still moan
too few crops too many crops too dry too wet moan moan oh yeah i'll take the subsidy and keep on producing stuff that's not needed, kerching, moan moan moan

 

[ska invita]

Have a look at what price sheep farmers are given for their meat and what price it is sold for. Last time I looked into this, the figure was that doubling the price paid to the farmer would add about 10 per cent to the price of the meat in the shop. This isn't done, and the farmer is underpaid, due to his/her position in the chain and lack of leverage. In a similar way, adding a penny to the price of a chocolate bar would double the income of a cocoa farmer. Farmers are ripped off for marginal profits to the supermarkets.

Those taxes do not subsidise farmers. They subsidise supermarkets. In a similar way, housing benefit subsidises landlords, not tenants.

Im confused - what are we arguing about it? My position is I hate all the fucking sheep everywhere, and I hate paying for them to be there, and I hate people slaughtering and eating them - whats yours again?

 

[ska invita]

farmers get subsidised left right and centre and still moan
too few crops too many crops too dry too wet moan moan oh yeah i'll take the subsidy and keep on producing stuff that's not needed, kerching, moan moan moan

i sympathise with farmers to a certain extent - we need farmers and they take their cue from government and are often paying out shit loads to aristocrat land owners. Kick out the aristos, bring in small scale farming, cut back on all the animals

 

[andysays]

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.

I appreciate the fact that you're engaging in the argument and not simply saying "meat is murder", but I'm afraid you're wrong on this.

Sheep are generally good for biodiversity - many areas only contain wildflowers including various rare species because they are grazed or mown for fodder. If such areas which are currently grazed or mown cease to be managed in this way then the wildflowers will be choked out by higher growing grasses, and in many cases eventually the area will be replaced by scrub, resulting in a loss of biodiversity. To some extent the subsidies for sheep are to encourage bioversity, because it would otherwise not be economically viable to continue.

 

[ddraig]

e2a to ska
i used to symapthise with them and agree that small scale farming better

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Im confused - what are we arguing about it? My position is I hate all the fucking sheep everywhere, and I hate paying for them to be there, and I hate people slaughtering and eating them - whats yours again?

I hate the exploitative practices of capitalism that lead to farmers being ripped off. I like all the fucking sheep everywhere and think farmers should be paid a fair price for farming them. I eat meat, and enjoy it. I have killed and eaten animals before, and have no problem with it. I don't do so regularly because I live in a city. I do a different job, and pay others to do the farming bit for me.

 

[Spymaster]

You think about it and decide - ive made my decision. I gave a parallel with politicians getting others to do their killing.

That parallel is a nonsense on several levels. You'd seriously compare the personal abrogation of the preparation of meat to the killing of humans????

We contract other people to do all sorts of things that we are unable or unwilling to do ourselves. Where is this "moral or ethical dimension" that is particular to meat production?

 

[andysays]

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

We're getting further and further away from the original theme of this thread, but WTF, it's still interesting...

We have, unfortunately, lost all our wilderness in this country, and now it's gone, it's gone for good.

The next best thing are the semi-natural habitats created by traditional management techniques including grazing and mowing. If we get rid of sheep and other livestock we will inevitably lose them as well, either because the land will be deliberately used for something else, or if that's not viable because of the succession of new habitats.

Would you prefer that all the sheep were gone and you had areas of rank grass or scrub (which are not particularly biodiverse and which we already have plenty of)?

 

[ska invita]

We have, unfortunately, lost all our wilderness in this country, and now it's gone, it's gone for good.

it'll grow back in a minute if we let it. Likewise we can reintroduce all kinds of species. We can also stop sheep eating up all the wild flowers at a snip too.

"Would you prefer that all the sheep were gone and you had areas of rank grass or scrub (which are not particularly biodiverse and which we already have plenty of)?"

Not sure what you mean by rank grass or scrub, but yes, hills have their own biodiversity which invludes many wild flowers and teh like and leave the sheep off the hills and they'll come right back, and they are necessary for insect in tern provide food for birds etc...

 

[ska invita]

That parallel is a nonsense on several levels. You'd seriously compare the personal abrogation of the preparation of meat to the of killing humans????

We contract other people to do all sorts of things that we are unable or unwilling to do ourselves. Where is this "moral or ethical dimension" that is particular to meat production?

we're talking about killing living mammals here, and an individuals personal relation to it - so yes there is a parrallel - not the exact same thing, but a close parallel.

 

[ska invita]

I like all the fucking sheep everywhere and think farmers should be paid a fair price for farming them.

rather than a countryside full of fenced off fields and sheep we could have an island of fantastic biodiversity and wild spaces and still be self-sufficient in food

lunch break is over - back to work

 

[andysays]

rather than a countryside fully of fenced off fields and sheep we could have an island of fantastic biodiversity and wild spaces and still be self-sufficient in food

lunch break is over - back to work

Unfortunately "wild" (and I put it in quotes because nowhere in Britain is wild anymore and genuine wildness cannot be restored) or unmanaged does not necessarily equate to more biodiverse.

Getting rid of traditionally managed habitats which have developed over centuries will result in a loss of biodiversity, though it might give the superficial appearance of more "wildness".

 

[Spymaster]

we're talking about killing here living mammals here, and an individuals personal relation to it - so yes there is a parrallel - not the exact same thing, but a very close parallel.

It's not at all close. Nothing like it.

If a meat eater thought that killing animals was immoral or unethical but still paid someone else to do the killing then you may have a point.

I could change the oil in my car but I don't because it's fucking messy, inconvenient, someone else is better equipped and trained to do it than me, and I'd rather be doing something else.

I contend that the majority of meat eaters have little or no issue with the animals being killed, they'd just rather not do it themselves. For many people, killing and prepping an animal would be a deeply unpleasant task but there's no moral or ethical issue unless the act that they endorse, itself, is immoral or unethical in their view.

 

[8ball]

Unfortunately "wild" (and I put it in quotes because nowhere in Britain is wild anymore and genuine wildness cannot be restored) or unmanaged does not necessarily equate to more biodiverse.

Getting rid of traditionally managed habitats which have developed over centuries will result in a loss of biodiversity, though it might give the superficial appearance of more "wildness".

Largely true, though I'm not sure what you mean when you say wilderness 'cannot be restored'. Do you just mean it would be different to what came before?

 

[ska invita]

really should be working...

If a meat eater thought that killing animals was immoral or unethical but still paid someone else to do the killing then you may have a point.

by removing themselves entirely from the act their/your thoughts on the morals and ethics of the killing are greatly affected - it becomes a theoretical exercise removed from experience. Experience is a huge component of creating moral and ethical opinions. Just like someone traumatised by the experience of war might not be so keen go and start one

 

[ska invita]

Unfortunately "wild" (and I put it in quotes because nowhere in Britain is wild anymore and genuine wildness cannot be restored) or unmanaged does not necessarily equate to more biodiverse.

Getting rid of traditionally managed habitats which have developed over centuries will result in a loss of biodiversity, though it might give the superficial appearance of more "wildness".

okay, i think i see where youre coming from - im talking about a more biodiverse but managed natural environment

 

[littlebabyjesus]

by removing themselves entirely from the act their/your thoughts on the morals and ethics of the killing are greatly affected - it becomes a theoretical exercise removed from experience. Experience is a huge component of creating moral and ethical opinions.

You're making a series of massive assumptions here, though. In cultures where the majority of people are still actively involved in raising animals for meat, there is no massive outbreak of vegetarianism in reaction to it. Most people get on with the killing and cooking and eating.

 

[ska invita]

You're making a series of massive assumptions here, though. In cultures where the majority of people are still actively involved in raising animals for meat, there is no massive outbreak of vegetarianism in reaction to it. Most people get on with the killing and cooking and eating.

...i'll be back this evening! have to do some work... Anthropological examples including attitudes to killing of animals isnt really something i can be bothered to get into here tbh.

 

[andysays]

Largely true, though I'm not sure what you mean when you say wilderness 'cannot be restored'. Do you just mean it would be different to what came before?

Yes, that's what I mean.

We can (and should where appropriate) do things to improve biodiversity and recreate approximations of traditional or even "wild" landscapes, but that's not the same, IMO, in restoring wilderness, and we should be skeptical of anyone who claims it is.

Such improvements and recreations are no substitute for conserving that which is still valuable, so for instance we should not allow traditional grassland to be ploughed over on the false basis that substitute habitats can be recreated elsewhere.

 

[8ball]

really should be working...

by removing themselves entirely from the act their/your thoughts on the morals and ethics of the killing are greatly affected - it becomes a theoretical exercise removed from experience. Experience is a huge component of creating moral and ethical opinions. Just like someone traumatised by the experience of war might not be so keen go and start one

<strokes beard>

Fair point, though just having insight into that part would be insufficient without similarly intimate knowledge of the processes involved in other food options. Just as someone traumatised by the experience of WWII might be bringing different insights to someone traumatised by the Holocaust.

<edit - that's a truly shit analogy which deserves ignoring at best>

 

[andysays]

okay, i think i see where youre coming from - im talking about a more biodiverse but managed natural environment

OK, that's fair enough.

I would suggest that the word wild is inappropriate there, but also that livestock can (in some situations) have a part to play in that management.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

There's nothing worse for the land than modern, intense farming methods and overproduction of meat.

Cattle are kept in slatted sheds during the winter months and their shit and piss drops through to a massive underground tank. The slurry from these tanks is then spread onto the land, and it kills just about everything in the soil, including the worms and microbes necessary to keep land healthy. Then there's the problem of fecal E.coli and other goodies entering the water table, which is really good for our health.

Another side of aggressively farming animals that people choose to ignore.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Human interventions have also created rich environments. Hedgerows in Britain are a good example.

tbh I'm far more sanguine about this. I support a Severn barrage to generate electricity because I think such things are necessary. It would destroy a large area that is important for many species of birds. Many birds would die. But it would also create a new environment in which other species would thrive. Entirely human-created, but not ecologically useless necessarily.

 

[Frances Lengel]

The biggest problem with sheep is that they are bad news for bio diversity<snip>

Great news for my sex life though.

 

[andysays]

Great news for my sex life though.

There you go, sheep are good for biodiversity (when used appropriately and not allowed to overgraze) and good for Frances' sex life. It's win-win.

(although I'm sure someone will come back with complaints about subjecting animals to inhumane and distressing conditions...)

 

[Spymaster]

by removing themselves entirely from the act their/your thoughts on the morals and ethics of the killing are greatly affected - it becomes a theoretical exercise removed from experience. Experience is a huge component of creating moral and ethical opinions. Just like someone traumatised by the experience of war might not be so keen go and start one

Well you're barking up the wrong tree a bit with me personally as I've killed hundreds of animals, and whilst I'd agree that experiences can inform personal ethics I don't believe that they're crucial to general morality. By and large, people know that the meat on their plate came from an animal, and that the animal was killed to put the meat there. Sure there'd be some who would quit meat after witnessing a slaughter, but most carnivores have at least seen the imagery and chosen to continue eating meat and using animal products.

 

[andysays]

There's nothing worse for the land than modern, intense farming methods and overproduction of meat.

Cattle are kept in slatted sheds during the winter months and their shit and piss drops through to a massive underground tank. The slurry from these tanks is then spread onto the land, and it kills just about everything in the soil, including the worms and microbes necessary to keep land healthy. Then there's the problem of fecal E.coli and other goodies entering the water table, which is really good for our health.

Another side of aggressively farming animals that people choose to ignore.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that modern industrialised farming is perfect, but there are ways of producing meat which are better for animal welfare, biodiversity and human health (which where we came in).

The good news is that the same changes can have benefits in all these areas.