Welcome back to the land of Whole Foods, lol.

Do you really think a day will come where there's an end to systematic animal abuse like factory farms? Or where speciesism doesn't exist?

I was watching the movie Amazing Grace, which is about William Wilberforce's activism to abolish slavery in England, and it made me think about the animal rights movement. There's a scene where he unrolls a petition in front of the parliament, with countless thousands of signatures, to show the public support to abolish slavery, and absolutely no politicians care. Too many members of parliament benefited from the slave trade to pass any legislation to hurt it. Money was the only thing that mattered. For years he tried to educate the public, and gain support, but it made zero difference. The only thing that worked was attacking the slave trade financially, by cleverly passing a measure about flags that led to slave ships being captured by privateers and made the slave trade less profitable.

I've noticed a lot of animal rights activism focuses on informing the public to get them to boycott animal products. But even if you change someone's mind, it doesn't change their actions. During the movement to abolish slavery, lots of people boycotted products made by slaves, but it was too few to damage the industry. It's the same thing for the animal rights movement. Tons of vegetarians and vegans might boycott the products, but when 2% of the US population is vegan, and less than 10% vegetarian, it's just not enough people to make a difference right now. Dairy companies have 98% of the population buying their products, so there is no pressure for them to treat cows better.

I hate to say it, but the majority of people don't care if animals, or other humans suffer to create their products as long as the product is cheap and accessible. If only a small minority was willing to boycott products that resulted in the death and suffering of slave children, what hope is there for a majority boycotting animal products?

No social movement has ever been resolved by people simply boycotting cruelty (not saying we shouldn't, though! Even if it won't solve the problem completely, every single person makes a huge difference. A single person boycotting meat saves the lives of dozens of mammals every year from suffering, that's tremendous!) There has to be direct action through legislation. Illegalizing factory farm practices as animal cruelty is the only way I see them ending. And maybe hundreds of years, little by little, banning the sale and production of meat. The big problem is that animals can't vote, so politicians don't care about helping them, lol.

Yeah, many people who call themselves vegetarian aren't that strict about it, and end up going back to their old ways since it's so much more convenient to be an omnivore in America. Most people prefer to lounge on the boat rather than rock it, no surprise there.

But it's still a huge market, and one that has been exploding the past 5 years. Milk alternatives alone are worth 1.5 billion, now (more than the WHOLE vegetarian market was worth 9 years ago) and when you combine it with meat-free products you have a multi-billion dollar market. It's no surprise that even dairy and meat corporations are jumping on the train, since per capita egg, milk, and meat consumption in the US are on the decline while the meat-free market has been rising nonstop.

Hyperborea Wrote:Man and his ancestors[/url] has been eating meat for millennia. The discovery of fire and the spear by our ancestors millions of years ago led to the subsequent increase in the consumption of meat which gave rise to our intellect.

It's 2013, not the Stone Age. No one here is denying that meat played an important role in human evolution, and development of ancient societies, but we live in a world of grocery stores now, not hunting for food with spears and praying to the rain gods that we don't die of starvation in the meanwhile We modern humans can absolutely thrive without meat, it's no longer necessary in our lives.

Hyperborea Wrote:Factory farms can be pretty nasty places but conflating those with meat eating is faulty generalization. Getting your meat from good local sources where possible is a good choice. The number of places to get grass fed beef, free range chicken, etc has increased greatly in the last decade.

I'm all for good local sources rather than concentration camp meat, but I can't imagine many people actually go to the farms and look at the conditions the animals live in, or at the slaughtering practices. So many people just assume "small farm = humane farm" even though this is not always the case.

However, labels like "free range" and "cage free" are pretty much just marketing scams by the industries, to charge more money from consumers that do want to make more ethical purchases, but don't necessarily care enough to investigate what those labels mean.

With words like "free range" the corporations deceive consumers into imagining the chickens living good lives on rustic farms with lush fields bathed in sunshine. Easier on the conscience. The reality is that for a broiler chicken to be labeled "free range" by the USDA, the company merely has to give the chickens access to the outdoors. There are no other criteria. Nothing specifying the quality of the environment, size of the outdoor area, stocking density, or anything else.

So, to get the label while keeping maximum profits, companies simply create a filthy, tiny strip outside, which is so small that barely any chickens can fit on it at, so there's not much difference from having no access at all. "Free range" broiler chickens are still confined en masse in sheds, with little room to move from the high stocking densities, and undergo the same growth hormones that cause them heart disease and crippled limbs as unlabeled broiler chickens.

Same issue for "free range" eggs. There's not even a monitoring body in place for companies that use the label, so as you can imagine it's as meaningless as it gets. Hens are still jammed into pitch-dark sheds, and endure the same terrible conditions.

Heck, for a company to use the "free range" label for chicken, all they have to do is cut a window into the building to satisfy the condition of "access to outdoors." It's perfectly legal, costs them next to nothing, and the companies make a huge profit by charging more for the eggs.



Question for people that are knowledgeable about the economics of farming: Looking at the beef industry's statistics, the US beef industry's cattle have a net value of 44 billion. The production costs are listed as 54.8 billion. I'm probably reading the data wrong, or not understanding something, because it doesn't make sense how it's a profitable industry if their production costs are 10 billion higher than their product value.

Aijin Wrote:Yeah, many people who call themselves vegetarian aren't that strict about it, and end up going back to their old ways since it's so much more convenient to be an omnivore in the world. Most people prefer to lounge on the boat rather than rock it, no surprise there.

Fixed it for you. America is not the only country in the world eating meat or even large amounts of meat. Its a first world country, thing.

As to the stats question. Take note that the production cost figure is fairly out of date, having been recorded back in 2007. Without looking around too, that may be the flat production cost ignoring benefits such as federal and state assistance.

Hyperborea Wrote:I would be much more suspect of the refined sugar and grains in your diet. Those are much more recent additions to the human diet.

I've heard that a lot from Paleo diet advocates. And it kinda makes sense.

Francesca2207 Wrote:I was watching the movie Amazing Grace, which is about William Wilberforce's activism to abolish slavery in England, and it made me think about the animal rights movement.

Ahhh, Wilberforce! I haven't seen that film, but I'm a big fan of his. He's a great example of how true compassion doesn't apply only to our own species. He dedicated his life not only to ending slavery, but to ending animal cruelty as well.

Francesca2207 Wrote:There has to be direct action through legislation.

Passing laws is definitely a huge part of the movement, and animal rights organizations have been critical to passing welfare measures like Proposition 2 in California (requiring that veal, egg-laying hens, and sows have enough room to lie down and turn around) and huge changes internationally, like Greece banning animals in circuses, the EU banning animal testing in cosmetics, India banning keeping dolphins captive, Austria banning fur farms, etc.

Still educating the public, and gaining support for ending animal exploitation, is critical. Foie gras was recently banned in California due to the production being considered animal cruelty, but unlike hamburgers the entire population doesn't eat foie gras, so the opposition was limited to people who like pricey French cuisine The majority was on the side of being okay with foie gras becoming illegal, so it passed. Beef, pork, and milk are way too mainstream to be banned any time soon. Gaining huge public support is vital to even have a hope of ending those industries. As for whether or not I think it'll happen.... Not in our lifetimes, but who knows. It's impossible to know what change the future will bring. A day when women could vote, or slavery is illegal, used to be pipe dreams as well. Heck, our grandparents couldn't even have imagined something like an iPhone existing when they were growing up

Quote:But you can't separate the food itself from our food cultures and the marketing. People from different food cultures eat things that would absolutely disgust people from other cultures. Why do some children eat fish eyes as though they were candy, whereas an American child would likely vomit? It's a matter of what our parents feed us since we are children, and what we grow up seeing those around us eat, more so than any innate drive.

I don't agree with this. People's likes and dislikes towards food is individual. It doesn't have anything to do with what your other family members like. At the end of the day, you like foods that taste good to you. Even if I grew up around certain foods, it doesn't mean I going to like them. I've always hate onions, but my family loves them. For my whole life, I've been the only person in my family to hate them and they've tried every possible way to get me to eat them. All have failed.

Btw, I'm American and I LOVE fish eyes. It's the first part of the fish that I eat.

Quote:Our palette is really malleable, and defined by whatever we're accustomed to.

Yes, it is mallaeble, but it is according to your taste. I grew up on fast food. I loved the fast food burgers and fries, but hated the soda. These days I still love burgers and fries, but not from fast food restaurants. I prefer good quality meat from a butcher shop. I don't drink soda or any juice drinks anymore. Also, I drank coconut juice every day as a child, but eventually got sick of the taste. I didn't have any changes in my diet. After a while, the taste just didn't appeal to me any more.

Quote:American culture really reinforces meat and dairy consumption, teaching kids that vegetables are undesirable and meat and milk yummy from a very young age. When I babysit kids and sit and watch TV like Cartoon Network with them, pretty much every show that has food in the episode shows characters being disgusted by veggies, but merrily gulping down milk and stuffing their faces with meat. When you're constantly surrounded by those media images from birth, it's very hard to separate the cultural influence from any innate desire for animal products.

People decide whether or not to like foods when they taste them (not because a cartoon character says so). Popeye loved to eat spinach and it gave him big muscles, but that never made anyone I know run out and grab some spinach. Brussel sprouts are notorious on TV programs for being a food that people hate, but I love them. In fact, I tried them because all the TV shows said it tastes bad and loved them instantly. It doesn't matter if TV shows says the opposite. When you taste them, you decide for yourself. The worst a TV show can do is to decrease the likelihood of people eating a certain food for the first time. But once they eat it, taste will likely be the deciding factor.

Quote:Absolutely. But just because someone is trying to support a particular view doesn't necessarily make their information invalid. The comparison of physiological characteristics between herbivores/carnivores is pretty straightforward science rather than influenced by opinion. I've seen similar articles by more neutral medical publications in the past, but with a quick Google search I couldn't relocate them in the first few pages. Like any other topic, there are definitely crappy articles about veganism with poor sources and distorted information to try and prove a point, but there are also brilliant articles with great information out there.

Yes. It doesn't necessarily mean the information is valid, but one study you posted was by someone clearly profiting from the article (blatant Amazon link to their book). The other was by a vegan website. Such a site would likely have little interest in posting articles that go against veganism. They have a bias that makes their news coverage far from neutral. Same thing would be true of a website dedicated to carnivores.

Lastly, Biblical (and other religious) diets contain meat and say it's OK to kill certain animals. So I doubt meat will ever be abolished anytime soon.

Aijin Wrote:Passing laws is definitely a huge part of the movement

Yeah, I don't think a small number of animal rights hippies using the government to force their views on everyone else is going to work out for them, in the long run. Eventually, a bigger group of thugs will come around, and use the same tactic right back at them.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

Aijin Wrote:Passing laws is definitely a huge part of the movement

Yeah, I don't think a small number of animal rights hippies using the government to force their views on everyone else is going to work out for them, in the long run. Eventually, a bigger group of thugs will come around, and use the same tactic right back at them.

Animal rights hippies? That's unnecessary insulting, and downright wrong. The majority of citizens care about issues of animal welfare. If you see a guy on the street violently beating his dog with a baseball bat, the common response is outrage and disgust, not "Well, the dog is his property and animals are inferior to humans, therefore if he derives pleasure from beating his dog into a bloody pulp it is his right to do so." Animal protection laws get passed with public and government support, not just because of "animal rights hippies."

Look at Proposition 2 in California, in which the majority of Californian voters voted to ban the use of gestation crates, battery cages, and veal crates. Pretty much the only counties that voted NO were agricultural ones. When surveyed on general animal welfare issues, usually over 90% of the public answers that they believe animals should be treated well, without unnecessary suffering. They may not care enough about it to drop the products from their diet, but when given the option they would choose for the animals to be treated well. Just like not all of us might care about genital mutilation enough to go out and try and stop it, but if given a ballot where we vote yes or no to ban it, most everyone would ban it.

Calling animal rights organizations "thugs" is absurd. The meat and dairy industry have way more financial and political influence. The only reason animal rights and welfare organizations get anything achieved is because the public and governments see eye to eye with them on many issues. The HSUS may have used its resources to get Prop 2 on the ballot, but it was voters that went, "Yeah, it IS screwed up that the living space of hens is smaller than a piece of paper, and pregnant pigs spend their entire lives unable to move. We should stop this."

Aijin Wrote:The majority of citizens care about issues of animal welfare.

As the example you yourself gave. People only care about 'cute' animals like dogs and cats, and some select others. Cows, pigs, and chickens rarely fall into this category. Sure, you can point at California's Prop 2. But I'll remind you that such a proposition would face a LOT resistance in most other parts of the country. California is one of the most progressive states in the country, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that they passed something like that.

Show me more red and blue states passing similar laws in their states, and I'll start to believe that people actually do care about cows and pigs just as much as they do about dogs and cats.

I want my cows pampered before I eat them.

I chuckled when I read this today. There were people pointing out earlier "Humans aren't meant to eat meat, we're vegetarians!"

Mutations helped people survive Siberian winters

Quote:"Researchers have identified three genetic mutations that appear to have helped humans survive in the frigid climate of Siberia over the last 25,000 years. One helps the body's fat stores directly produce heat rather than producing chemical energy for muscle movements or brain functions, a process called 'nonshivering thermogenesis.' Another is involved in the contraction of smooth muscle, key to shivering and the constriction of blood vessels to avoid heat loss. And the third is implicated in the metabolism of fats, especially those in meat and dairy products—a staple of the fat-laden diets of Arctic peoples."

vix86 Wrote:I chuckled when I read this today. There were people pointing out earlier "Humans aren't meant to eat meat, we're vegetarians!"

Indigenous Siberians are a pretty minute % of the population, and to what extent the nonshivering thermogenesis produced by ENPP7 actually increased warmth isn't stated. Saying that the entire human species is natural born meat eaters due to indigenous Siberians developing ENPP7 after 25,000 years of a diet high in animal fat is a leap. I'm not surprised that their bodies positively selected for genes that could provide some warmth from the diet, but I wouldn't call it evidence that "humans are meant to eat meat." We simply adapt over long stretches of time to whatever our environment is. The alleles of agricultural societies are different than those of indigenous meat eaters like the Sami, for that reason. The frequency of the allele APOE*4--a large risk factor for Alzheimer's and heart disease--for example, is 6 times higher in Sami than in populations with long agricultural histories, due to the Sami's diet of constant reindeer meat for many generations. Many of their alleles help them with the reindeer meat diet, even though under other circumstances they can be harmful.

Quite a few indigenous populations have fine rates of disease despite huge consumptions of meat, but you have to remember that it's only the specific types of meat that they have eaten for all those generations, combined with the other foods in that diet. The Sami might do fine on reindeer meat, but now that they're switching to the Western diet high in beef, pork and dairy, their rates of heart disease and obesity have been skyrocketing. Indigenous Siberians are having the same downward health trend after switching to a Western diet.

The reality is the vast majority of us are not from indigenous tribes where our ancestors have eaten a specific food for thousands of years, and we've undergone positive gene selection for that diet, and continue eating that way now. It's much more relevant to look at how consumption of beef, pork, poultry, and dairy in modern societies affects our health than it is to look at indigenous populations. And there's no denying that over consumption of these animal foods is having a detrimental effect.

vix86 Wrote:Show me more red and blue states passing similar laws in their states, and I'll start to believe that people actually do care about cows and pigs just as much as they do about dogs and cats.

Florida banned gestation crates in 2002, Arizona in 2006, and Rhode Island last year. Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the world, has agreed to phase them out after strong costumer disapproval. Veal crates are banned in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and Michigan, in addition to California.

I never said people care about farm animals as much as cats and dogs; we are in far closer proximity to companion animals, and sympathize and bond with them strongly, whereas most people never even meet real farm animals. Regardless, people do care about how farm animals are treated.

Survey by Oklahama State

Quote:95% of people said it was important to them how farm animals are cared for

I found it interesting that although 81% of respondents thought animals have the same ability as humans to feel pain, apparently respondents thought it okay for 11,500 farm animals to suffer if it would prevent the suffering of one human. Loops back to the speciesism topic

Hyperborea Wrote:Ummm, you're claiming that switching from reindeer to beef is the cause of obesity and disease in the Sami people? So, for people whose ancestors have been eating beef for a long time they should be sure to stay with beef and not switch to vegetables?

Are you sure that it's not the refined sugar, grains (particularly the refined ones), and maybe the frying/deep frying in vegetable oils that might be the problem?

No, no, when I said "Western diet high in" I meant that the switch to large quantities of Western meats is one part of the health problem. The other factors like refined foods, and meals dripping in oil, have huge health impacts too, of course.

The good thing about not being a native speaker is that I have an excuse for when my sentences don't convey what I mean. Though lately I keep calling myself American...so clearly my identity has changed after all these years. Can't use that excuse forever.

Hyperborea Wrote:Humans in the Stone Age also laughed, breathed, procreated, urinated, played, ran, and slept. Are those also now out of fashion?

Comparing eating meat to breathing? Lol, this is a joke right? Meat is a choice of foods. You can't compare a preference for certain types of food to essential parts of living. You're not going to drop over dead if you have a Field Roast sausage for breakfast instead of one made from pig parts.

Hyperborea Wrote:I'll also point out that nobody has ever been known to "drop over dead" from not eating "Field Roast sausage". Though, may god have mercy on your soul if you're forced to eat one of those.

If Field Roast Sausages are anything like Boca Burgers, I'd rather drop dead.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

Aijin Wrote:Passing laws is definitely a huge part of the movement

Yeah, I don't think a small number of animal rights hippies using the government to force their views on everyone else is going to work out for them, in the long run. Eventually, a bigger group of thugs will come around, and use the same tactic right back at them.

Bigger group of thugs, you mean like corporations? You can't get any bigger than that. They already bought the government and most people in it.

By the way, suppose slavery exists and that anti-slavery people were the minority. Would it be right for them to force the government to abolish slavery?