Quote
You see, you are speculating big time there, we DID evolve to eat meat, at some point we didn't, also you are been quite an idiot by ignoring all the data that i dropped in this thread earlier, eating a veg diet is, BY NO MEANS, eco friendly, and that is not an opinion, its a fact, again please ask someone that knows about this (not your hippie friends but someone who actually knows) and he will give the reason to me
i apologize in advance for not reading your previous posts as i was replying to the other person instead of you, but i will comply and give some facts
in the situation of a healthy vegan diet vs a healthy meat diet, veganism still wins. it prevents many types of cancers compared to the latter, including but not limited to prostate and breast cancer. vegan diets have absolutely no cholesterol, and therefore can actually reverse and prevent heart disease. vegans have a 4% chance of contracting such diseases, whereas meat eaters have a 50% chance. lastly, meat and dairy cause your blood to become acidic. the acid can only be purged in your pee. to do this, your body takes calcium from your bones for the process, eventually causing osteoporosis. this is why countries that focus on dairy (the west moreso than the east) have a lot more instances of osteoporosis. veganism leads to longer lives.
some of the most available and easy to access sources on the aforementioned facts are forks over knives and the china study
okay, so
now i have read all your points and will refute them
1) all life is equal, we will all be eaten
yes i entirely agree life is equal, but the conscious lives take priority over beings like plants
the keyword here is sentience, as in having the central nervous system to feel physical sensations such as pain, as well as emotional sensations such as fear and happiness
humans acknowledge that we shouldnt harm each other because of this sentience, yet we still kill animals even though scientists have proved that non-human animals are indeed sentient as well
in eating meat that isnt human, we are making the moral judgment that animals are lesser than humans despite them being equal, therefore violating the equality principal
when humans are cannibals, people are horrified, yet it is only "normal" to eat animals
you will be mourned once you are dead and being eaten as maggots; your corpse wont be violated
animals' deaths are laughed at and considered "yummy" and those who protest against this inequality are labeled idiotic "hippies"
fun fact: pigs are as smart as 3 year old children and smarter than all dogs
lastly, if youre talking about the "natural circle of life," why are you online? thats not natural. computers, cars, all of this isn’t in the “circle.” neither is anything in our society. carnivores do not buy meat from stores. carnivores in the wild do not herd animals together and raise them for food. they do not make a moral judgement (uniquely human) when eating, they are merely surviving
2) something about cannibalism i think
first of all, the name of the disease youre looking for is "kuru"
humans only get this from eating the
brains of primates, whether human or monkey (some people who ate monkey brains in korea contracted it)
so yes, we
could eat human flesh, but our ego makes us eat others because we are apparently "superior"
3) we are helping the animals by eating them, otherwise theyd starve and calves would die from pus in their mothers milk
okay, this is where youre
severely uneducated
these industries are absolute hell on earth for the animals, especially dairy industries
like all other mammals, cows need to be pregnant to lactate
workers forcibly impregnate the cows on, what the industry calls, "the rape rack"
these cows all resist and
cry out against the artificial insemination being violently shoved into them, much like in human rape
to get the semen, they use male bulls for other male bulls to mount, because the female cow's skeleton would snap if being mounted so much
and once again, these male bulls being mounted are tied down and resisting, so they too experience the rape, and yes, they do eventually also get broken bones
now, cows are kept pregnant CONSTANTLY for milk, so what happens to the calves? they are ripped from their mothers upon birth (to which the mother protests in extreme agony, cows are very maternal beings), and killed for veal, THEY DO NOT GET A DROP OF MILK
even local farmers that try to have "natural breeding" methods, cannot sustain that many cattle, and also kill the babies for veal
in the end, humans kill babies and steal the milk their mothers made for them; every sip you drink is a sip that was denied from a baby
also, in the dairy industry the mothers are milked relentlessly by machines that leave their udders bloody, infected, and diseased- and this-thepus- is in the milk humans drink
"one liter (a little over a quart) of Californian milk contained 298 million pus cells in 2003, 11 million more pus cells than it contained in 2002."
and because they spend their lives are spent diseased, abused, impregnated (constantly having labor cramps), in extreme grief for their babies, and in one cubicle for the entirety, dairy cows collapse from exhaustion and are physically unable to produce more by age 4, when they are taken for slaughter for meat (whereas they naturally live to be 20-25 years)
as for the animals starving to death, that is simply untrue, as proven by the economic theory of demand and supply and by past happenings
animal agriculture only continues when people contribute by eating the products- as long as people consume they will continue to mass breed animals for them
if people stopped, the businesses would no longer birth new animals, so we wouldnt have to worry about that
one warrant for that is the tyson meat business, which lost $1 billion because people eat less meat now- and therefore they raised less animals to make profit off of
moreover, if we were all to suddenly stop eating animals, not only will their numbers stop growing without reproduction, but we already have the infrastructure to support them
those large areas for slaughterhouses could be turned into sanctuaries,
also, if we can hire millions of people to kill animals, why cant we hire people to take care of animals? that seems infinitely less demanding. they could charge for visits to help keep funds for them, like a petting zoo. domestication has made it nearly impossible for these animals to return to the wild, therefore since we have doomed these animals, the least we can do is care for them
and you made some assertions about fantasy "mathematical figures" yet you havent provided any and labeled your assumptions as facts to give them validity, which they do not have
to really understand the hell they go through, a good documentary to watch is earthlings. google it and you can watch it for free on their site
4) whales and seagulls and balancing the environment
okay, first of all that was the failure of ecologists not vegans, but i understand your point of balancing the ecosystem, which is EXACTLY why veganism is imperative. meat and dairy cause more deforestation, greenhouse emissions (3 times more than the automobile industry), and demand for more soy than humans do. not to mention how their excretements contaminate water and the food supply
by not multiplying animals for consumptions and maintaining them at a lower level, we could help solve this
some facts/sources:
"Each second, an area of tropical rain forest the size of a football field is destroyed to produce 257 hamburgers.
In the next 24 hours, deforestation releases as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York.
The average car produces 3 kg/day of CO2.
Clearing rain forest to produce beef for one hamburger produces 75 kg of CO2.
Livestock production (including more than just cattle) is responsible for 90% of the Amazon deforestation since 1970 to clear land for pasture and feed crops."
"The concentration of livestock increases the environmental burden, Falcon added. "Issues, like runoff and odor, that were present in rather small and diverse quantities 40 years ago have now become concentrated and significant," he said.
The meat industry also has a significant impact on global warming. Livestock production accounts for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, including 9 percent of carbon dioxide and 37 percent of methane gas emissions worldwide, according to the Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative, an international consortium of government and private agencies based at FAO headquarters in Rome.
More than two-thirds of all agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for livestock, while only 8 percent is used to grow food for direct human consumption, LEAD reported. If the entire world population were to consume as much meat as the Western world does-176 pounds of meat per capita per year- the global land required would be two-thirds more than what is presently used, according to Vaclav Smil, professor of environment and geography at the University of Manitoba and participant in the EVP study.
LEAD researchers also found that the global livestock industry uses dwindling supplies of freshwater, destroys forests and grasslands, and causes soil erosion, while pollution and the runoff of fertilizer and animal waste create dead zones in coastal areas and smother coral reefs. There also is concern over increased antibiotic resistance, since livestock accounts for 50 percent of antibiotic use globally, according to LEAD."
"In the Amazon the cattle sector is the largest driver of rainforest destruction, accounting for 60 to 70 percent of deforestation," writes Nikolas Kozloff, author of the forthcoming No Rain in the Amazon: How South America's Climate Change Affects the Entire Planet. "To put it in concrete terms: every eighteen seconds on average one hectare of Amazon rainforest is being lost to cattle ranchers. As if the carbon emissions resulting from cattle deforestation were not enough, consider bovine methane emissions."
Author and radio talk show host Thom Hartmann adds: "The United States imports two hundred million pounds of beef every year from El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Panama--while the average citizen in those countries eats less meat each year than the average American house cat. This deforestation of Latin America for burgers is particularly distressing when you consider that this very fragile area contains 58% of the entire planet's rainforests. (19% are in Africa and 23% in Oceania and Southeast Asia)."
"Only 3 percent of US soybeans (by weight) go directly to human food; about 99 percent of soy meal is fed to poultry, pigs, and cattle"
i dont need "hippie friends", ive got international studies and science on my side
5) this whole evolution schtick
look, neither of us can prove if it was evolution or if humans just always ate meat. i can guess that every being is capable of it regardless of evolution because even strict herbivores eat meat in extreme situations and they don’t die (cows and pigs in slaughterhouses sometimes resort to cannibalism). either way, like i already said,
can and
should are two entirely different concepts
you also have a new point about balance, and to not eat only one food
do you have any idea how many different plants there are
there are only 10 or so main meats in the US
but there are literally thousands upon thousands of plants
we dont just sit around eating soy all day, yaknow
