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

[ska invita]

The local food thing is really interesting I think...transition towns and all that...it can feel a bit middle class food snobby, but it neednt be - I know people who have started big food growing projects on their estate, and they're taking over more and more land between the blocks each season...connecting directly with food is the thing, and even though id rather that didnt include animals, id rather it was happening in that direct way. food can be a good way of community building.

My family kept a few pigs to eat scraps and the memory of a skin hide hanging on the washing line one day stays with me (i wasnt shocked by it, just a strong memory). Now i come to think of it those pigs didnt have much room and wouldve had a pretty shit life. Not quite as shit as those battery pigs that are out there though poor fuckers

 

[Spymaster]

False. Ice cubes/slush is the only thing that does that - takes calories to heat up .....

So just eat frozen curries?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So just eat frozen curries?

Or celery from the fridge.

 

[ska invita]

... you dont need scientists when you've got rappers

 

[Brechin Sprout]

Often the only way to effect real change is to change the patterns of ownership and control of the supply chains.

Sure. But the only way to change the patterns of ownership and control of the supply chain is if enough individuals collectively desire it. What are you, some kind of vanguardist? There is NO external authority which can impose socialism upon us.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In the first case, probably yes, as long as you're not rearing cattle to get the manure.

Silk, except for matka silk (which is only ever taken from empty cocoons) is probably one of the least okay of animal byproducts because you have to boil the pupae alive to produce it. OTOH it's more ecologically sustainable than using petrochemicals to make a substitute which isn't even as thermally efficient, light, or durable.

A lot of the time, the choice is between resources from plants and animals which are alive now (and still just about replaceable) and those which died and rotted centuries ago and which take a lot longer to replace than the rate at which they're used.

Silk larvae:

Housefly larvae:

What is it that I'm missing here?

 

[Greebo]

<snip> What is it that I'm missing here?

How should I know? Bear with me, it's been a really long week. I was neither having a go at people for using silk, nor for choosing not to, I was just explaining why vegans certainly wouldn't use it and some vegetarians might prefer not to use it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How should I know? Bear with me, it's been a really long week. I was neither having a go at people for using silk, nor for choosing not to, I was just explaining why vegans certainly wouldn't use it and some vegetarians might prefer not to use it.

My question is, people get upset because someone is boiling the next phase of the first; but we buy pesticide by the drumfull in order to wipe out the second.

 

[Greebo]

My question is, people get upset because someone is boiling the next phase of the first; but we buy pesticide by the drumfull in order to wipe out the second.

Okay, it might be because silk is perceived as being a luxury, while disease prevention is perceived as a necessity. Anyway, caterpillars are cuter than maggots.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm thinking of it in terms of the right to life of other organisms, that some posters have been talking about. The right to life that another organism possesses is dependent upon whether or not the death of that organism promotes human well-being: is that it?

So, fly larvae are ok to kill because it means less disease for humans; but not silkworms, because getting material for clothing isn't good enough?

 

[Greebo]

Yes, unless you're a Jain, in which case it's not even okay to kill fly larvae.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sure. But the only way to change the patterns of ownership and control of the supply chain is if enough individuals collectively desire it. What are you, some kind of vanguardist? There is NO external authority which can impose socialism upon us.

I think I must have been expressing it badly. My fault. But individual choices within a market are not going to be enough. Structurally, they can never be enough.

'ethical meat' will have the premium for its enhanced ethicality. 'unethical meat' will be priced at a level that those at the bottom end of the wage scale can afford. Such people will not be able to afford to be ethical. And the market will be structured such that both exist - wherever the cheapest meat is unethical, wages will be set at a level such that those at the bottom will (on average) only be able to afford unethical meat.

Individual choices by consumers can never eliminate cheap, unethical protein until such a point is reached that the poorest can demand better wages. In fact, the existence of cheap protein is a contributory factor towards those low wages.

You cannot address issues such as animal rights without addressing the issue of human rights and the exploitation of humans.

This is not about an external authority. It is about the fact that certain social conditions can only be changed by collective effort. Individual consumer choices cannot effect such changes.

I am talking here about cumulative, aggregate behaviour. At the individual level, there will be those who do not buy unethical meat even though they are poor. But asking poor people as an aggregate to sacrifice for the sake of ethicality far more than richer people have to is not realistic. As an aggregate, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to buy unethical meat - because it's cheaper. You cannot solve the problem of unethical meat without first solving the problem of human poverty.

imho animals rights people who do not understand this are lacking in their political outlook. You need to empower people to make better choices. A dose of socialism would do that. And yes, socialism can only come from us, from below. But it comes from collective action, not from an aggregate of individual choices. That's why unions exist.

 

[ddraig]

Okay, it might be because silk is perceived as being a luxury, while disease prevention is perceived as a necessity. Anyway, caterpillars are cuter than maggots.

this
and is it not because it is an animal byproduct and they are sometimes farmed for it?
so that is where the objection comes from iirc

 

[littlebabyjesus]

silk worms are always farmed. They are a domesticated species that does not exist in the wild.

 

[ddraig]

I think I must have been expressing it badly. My fault. But individual choices within a market are not going to be enough. Structurally, they can never be enough.

'ethical meat' will have the premium for its enhanced ethicality. 'unethical meat' will be priced at a level that those at the bottom end of the wage scale can afford. Such people will not be able to afford to be ethical. And the market will be structured such that both exist - wherever the cheapest meat is unethical, wages will be set at a level such that those at the bottom will (on average) only be able to afford unethical meat.

Individual choices by consumers can never eliminate cheap, unethical protein until such a point is reached that the poorest can demand better wages. In fact, the existence of cheap protein is a contributory factor towards those low wages.

You cannot address issues such as animal rights without addressing the issue of human rights and the exploitation of humans.

This is not about an external authority. It is about the fact that certain social conditions can only be changed by collective effort. Individual consumer choices cannot effect such changes.

I am talking here about cumulative, aggregate behaviour. At the individual level, there will be those who do not buy unethical meat even though they are poor. But asking poor people as an aggregate to sacrifice for the sake of ethicality far more than richer people have to is not realistic. As an aggregate, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to buy unethical meat - because it's cheaper. You cannot solve the problem of unethical meat without first solving the problem of human poverty.

imho animals rights people who do not understand this are lacking in their political outlook. You need to empower people to make better choices. A dose of socialism would do that. And yes, socialism can only come from us, from below. But it comes from collective action, not from an aggregate of individual choices. That's why unions exist.

again the caveats of who is able to access and afford choices
also do you not agree that 'AR people' won't also give a massive shit about and be active in human rights issues too?
if someone preaches to the less well off about what they should and shouldn't eat they can and should fuck the right off!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

again the caveats of who is able to access and afford choices
also do you not agree that 'AR people' won't also give a massive shit about and be active in human rights issues too?
if someone preaches to the less well off about what they should and shouldn't eat the can and should fuck the right off!

Fair play, ddraig. My post wasn't aimed at you at all. However, I have known ar people who didn't give too much of a shit about human affairs.

 

[ddraig]

i know it wasn't aimed at me and didn;t think so
not long got in from north Wales after a few strong ciders on journey back! hic

 

[Greebo]

<snip> not long got in from north Wales after a few strong ciders on journey back! hic

Fair dos - that area could drive anyone to drink at times.

 

[Greebo]

silk worms are always farmed. They are a domesticated species that does not exist in the wild.

The silk worm, and the moth, existed in the wild before humans had anything to do with it.The reason for farming them is that unless you did, you'd need to live near a very heavily infested mulberry tree to get enough silk for more than a small hanky.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The silk worm, and the moth, existed in the wild before humans had anything to do with it.The reason for farming them is that unless you did, you'd need to live near a very heavily infested mulberry tree to get enough silk for more than a small hanky.

Their ancestors existed in the wild. but like sheep and cattle, they are a domesticated species.

Regardless of what you think of the ethics, the 5,000-year history of silk production is, imo, a remarkable example of human ability to bend nature to their needs.

I'm pretty sanguine about boiling insects alive, tbh. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't bring myself to have concern for the insects' wellbeing.

 

[fishfinger]

Some silkworm cocoons earlier:

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes, unless you're a Jain, in which case it's not even okay to kill fly larvae.

I don't think any Jains have been contributing to this thread so far.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

if someone preaches to the less well off about what they should and shouldn't eat they can and should fuck the right off!

The rights of animals are therefore contingent upon the relative social/economic status of the humans who might or might not kill them; not on some inherent right to life that pertains to animals.

 

[andysays]

The rights of animals are therefore contingent upon the relative social/economic status of the humans who might or might not kill them; not on some inherent right to life that pertains to animals.

No, I think it's more that the troll's arguments are contingent on how much of the byproduct of Saccharomyces cerevisiae he has consumed

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, I think it's more that the troll's arguments are contingent on how much of the byproduct of Saccharomyces cerevisiae he has consumed

'It's a troll!.'

Fallback position for the weak-minded.

 

[andysays]

'It's a troll!.'

Fallback position for the weak-minded.

Or perhaps a considered opinion after reading his "contributions", engaging with him and deciding that he's not actually interested, even if he were capable, of coming up with anything coherent.

(the latest example, in case you need me to spell it out, is that he throws his hands up in horror at the idea of silk worms being exploited by being farmed and their byproducts used, but is more than happy to endulge in alcohol, the byproduct of fermentation using, and then killing, yeast)

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Or perhaps a considered opinion after reading his "contributions", engaging with him and deciding that he's not actually interested, even if he were capable, of coming up with anything coherent.

"It's a troll!"

 

[andysays]

"It's a troll!"

So, would you like to engage with the substance of what I've actually said, either just now or previously, or are you too reduced to spouting content-free nonsense?

 

[5t3IIa]

So, would you like to engage with the substance of what I've actually said, either just now or previously, or are you too reduced to spouting content-free nonsense?

The latter! It's his schtick. Johnny Tangent

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So, would you like to engage with the substance of what I've actually said, either just now or previously, or are you too reduced to spouting content-free nonsense?

The substance of what you said is, I'm a troll.

Now you want reflection on.... what?

You want a discussion, grow up first.