I am honestly puzzled by some people, and from this video you (alonside Jane Goodall) same to fall in this group, so maybe you can make me slightly less dumb, by answering two of my questions... 1 - What's the appeal of "lets make a movement"? (To me to the dirty, ugly, heretical deserve to be murdered the worst way possible skeptic, it seems that striving to innovate, to create options to do things better, is far more workable than trying to shame, or legally (or god forbid physically) force people to conform to your goals. Build affordable electric cars, as opposed to lets ban people from using powered vehicles. Not to mention that as things tend to go, movements tend to create mantles of power. And unless there is some very strict incentives to guide those who will inherit said power, its more likely than not to do the exact opposite what was intended. Did Jesus preach for crusades, or to use the forbidden example, did Lenin plan turning the lower classes into slaves in the gulag system? Pragmatically speaking, if you have a post that gets paid to talk about, and to solve problems related to the enviroment, they are not incentivised to do anything more than a token effort at ellimitaing said problems. Hell, they are incentivised to create more of them, for their own best intrests.) 2 - Yes, hurting living/feeling stuff is not ideal. Still pain is part of life. I have honestly hard time seeing how its any different - let alone better - to be gutted & eaten alive by large predatory mammals, as opposed to being bled out by a human hunter with a well placed shot. So why go vegan? (Yes, i agree that humans can do worse, than nature, if they are borerline criminally neglectful, or cruel, however we are able to do much better. And veganism does the least to solve issues like this. You do realize that living beings do actually prefer living as opposed to not living , even in very extreme cases. Erasing lifestock as is, is not necessarily the most ethical thing to do. Of course its what Peta would do, after all they have better kill ratio among animals they "save", than most extermination programs among the animals they spot)
@Adrian The Earthling "In addition, It is not healthy in the slightest to eat animal products. The World Health Organisation and many other scientific organisations have confirmed this." I have to respectfully disagree with said claim. In a similar fashion how i simply cannot hold the "linear no-treshhold" model of radiation exposure recommended by WHO to be an accurate representation of reality. There are groups where the exact opposite of what you describe occurs as a result from switching away from traitional meat based diets, epdiemic levels of diabetes among inuits for example. As such this blanket statement is false and misleading. That is without even getting into debates about "non-meat" animal products, and their effects on health. (And no i do not care about authority, i care about the arguments put forward by said authority. While who classifies micorwave radition - emitted by mobile phones - as "possibly caricongenic", this statement contradicts basic physic, and fails at the basic sanity check of "were is the increase in cancer proportionally with the epidemic like spread of mobile phone technology?") Fish consumption is correlated with positive health outcomes, how does that come about? "Living and eating vegan will also help solve environmental destruction. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, water pollution and causes more greenhouse gases than all transport combined. The United Nations along with other organisations have confirmed this. For more information and statistics check out Cowspiracy documentary." 1# - cow are VERY far from the only source of meat, or the most commonly eaten meat. (Its misleading, if not outright fraudulent to equate methane emissions from cows, to those of chickens, pigs, or more exotic and less resource intensive animals like mealworms - which is excellent, can't recommend it enough) 2# - As far i know the wast majority of deforestated areas are not used for animal husbandry, or cultivation of feedstock (feel free to corret me on that) 3# - The descriptor of water pollution indicates that the problem is the same as emission of organic heavy metal compounds. This is - again - very misleading, the overloading of natural waters with nutrients is an issue sure. However its not only a technologically solvable problem, its also a problem created by the improper, wasteful usage of resources. As the same nutrients would be far better utilized - among other things - for algae based hydrocarbon production, rather than simply wasting them. "The main key word is necessity. It is not necessary to hurt or kill animals (unless of self defence). The "large predatory mammal" that you mentioned needs to eat as part of its nature. The human hunter in most cases doesn't need to shoot an animal." Yes, its not necessary to kill animals for human sustenance. However its also not necessary, to artificially inflate the number of animals earth is able to sustain with human technology. The resources that sustain the animals in question wouldnt exist without humans. Considering that the animals in question can easily have better lives than those in the wild and often do (even disregarding the fact that the wast majority of people try to do their best out of simple human decency) due to simply economic factors, keeping sheep in poor conditions leads to useless unsellable wool, keeping cows in inhumane conditions requires far more effort, and far more involvement from (paid) human workforce, than simply designing around them as the work of Temple Grandin shows. To put it bluntly most farms (at least where i am from) are not horror farms, with insane cramped conditions, rampant disease, starving animals, corpses littering the ground. Neither are slaughter houses institutionalized workplaces for sadists. And its very far from impossible to kill/murder/put off an animal in such a way that its nervous system has no time to realize whats happening, thus preceive pain, and suffer. Sudden, and massive blunt trauma is easily able to do the job. And you know what? Its easier on the worker both mentally (not causing suffering), and physically - due to not having to struggle with the animal. In my humble opinion creating non-existing echological niches for animals to live, where they couldnt have before, is far from evil, even if the animals in question are not immortal - especially if care is taken to minimize the suffering they experience in their lifetime. And when they experience less suffering than their "wild" counterparts, statements like: "Its evil to keep animals for food, since eating meat is not necessary" Is patentedly wrong, as it misses the wast majority of said organisms life experience. Your explanation would hold more value if it would have used some logical arguments, maybe using some citations. As opposed to only being made out of declarations from your preceived omnipresent wisdom, and appeals to authority - often to declarations from authorities, where said cautiour declarations have very little to do with the state of afffairs in reality.
I don't think he claims "omnipresent wisdom". Might want to have a discussion in person or over internet call because this system of debating in UA-cam comments seems to become ridiculously convoluted and drawn out, as each person tries to reply to every point in depth, creating more and more points. If LouisPee and yourself would be up for a joint chat, I'd be up for it
There's no reason cows should be put into machines, turned upside down, and gutted alive like they are. The economic side of that alone should be enough to make you mad. No hamburger has ever been good enough to justify that. Even that pales in comparison to what they do in China, whose methods of killing animals are unspeakably horrible. The US could go to war with China and their treatment of animals alone would be enough to justify it, because it really needs to be stopped.
Grab Jane Goodall Masterclass here: bit.ly/3dAeztA
So good!
THANKS, ALEX!
if you have Jane Goodall, It is WORTH IT!
yea
Yeah!
I am honestly puzzled by some people, and from this video you (alonside Jane Goodall) same to fall in this group, so maybe you can make me slightly less dumb, by answering two of my questions...
1 - What's the appeal of "lets make a movement"?
(To me to the dirty, ugly, heretical deserve to be murdered the worst way possible skeptic, it seems that striving to innovate, to create options to do things better, is far more workable than trying to shame, or legally (or god forbid physically) force people to conform to your goals. Build affordable electric cars, as opposed to lets ban people from using powered vehicles.
Not to mention that as things tend to go, movements tend to create mantles of power.
And unless there is some very strict incentives to guide those who will inherit said power, its more likely than not to do the exact opposite what was intended. Did Jesus preach for crusades, or to use the forbidden example, did Lenin plan turning the lower classes into slaves in the gulag system?
Pragmatically speaking, if you have a post that gets paid to talk about, and to solve problems related to the enviroment, they are not incentivised to do anything more than a token effort at ellimitaing said problems. Hell, they are incentivised to create more of them, for their own best intrests.)
2 - Yes, hurting living/feeling stuff is not ideal. Still pain is part of life. I have honestly hard time seeing how its any different - let alone better - to be gutted & eaten alive by large predatory mammals, as opposed to being bled out by a human hunter with a well placed shot.
So why go vegan?
(Yes, i agree that humans can do worse, than nature, if they are borerline criminally neglectful, or cruel, however we are able to do much better. And veganism does the least to solve issues like this. You do realize that living beings do actually prefer living as opposed to not living , even in very extreme cases. Erasing lifestock as is, is not necessarily the most ethical thing to do. Of course its what Peta would do, after all they have better kill ratio among animals they "save", than most extermination programs among the animals they spot)
@Adrian The Earthling
"In addition, It is not healthy in the slightest to eat animal products. The World Health Organisation and many other scientific organisations have confirmed this."
I have to respectfully disagree with said claim.
In a similar fashion how i simply cannot hold the "linear no-treshhold" model of radiation exposure recommended by WHO to be an accurate representation of reality.
There are groups where the exact opposite of what you describe occurs as a result from switching away from traitional meat based diets, epdiemic levels of diabetes among inuits for example.
As such this blanket statement is false and misleading.
That is without even getting into debates about "non-meat" animal products, and their effects on health.
(And no i do not care about authority, i care about the arguments put forward by said authority. While who classifies micorwave radition - emitted by mobile phones - as "possibly caricongenic", this statement contradicts basic physic, and fails at the basic sanity check of "were is the increase in cancer proportionally with the epidemic like spread of mobile phone technology?")
Fish consumption is correlated with positive health outcomes, how does that come about?
"Living and eating vegan will also help solve environmental destruction. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, water pollution and causes more greenhouse gases than all transport combined. The United Nations along with other organisations have confirmed this. For more information and statistics check out Cowspiracy documentary."
1# - cow are VERY far from the only source of meat, or the most commonly eaten meat.
(Its misleading, if not outright fraudulent to equate methane emissions from cows, to those of chickens, pigs, or more exotic and less resource intensive animals like mealworms - which is excellent, can't recommend it enough)
2# - As far i know the wast majority of deforestated areas are not used for animal husbandry, or cultivation of feedstock (feel free to corret me on that)
3# - The descriptor of water pollution indicates that the problem is the same as emission of organic heavy metal compounds.
This is - again - very misleading, the overloading of natural waters with nutrients is an issue sure. However its not only a technologically solvable problem, its also a problem created by the improper, wasteful usage of resources. As the same nutrients would be far better utilized - among other things - for algae based hydrocarbon production, rather than simply wasting them.
"The main key word is necessity. It is not necessary to hurt or kill animals (unless of self defence). The "large predatory mammal" that you mentioned needs to eat as part of its nature. The human hunter in most cases doesn't need to shoot an animal."
Yes, its not necessary to kill animals for human sustenance.
However its also not necessary, to artificially inflate the number of animals earth is able to sustain with human technology.
The resources that sustain the animals in question wouldnt exist without humans.
Considering that the animals in question can easily have better lives than those in the wild and often do (even disregarding the fact that the wast majority of people try to do their best out of simple human decency) due to simply economic factors, keeping sheep in poor conditions leads to useless unsellable wool, keeping cows in inhumane conditions requires far more effort, and far more involvement from (paid) human workforce, than simply designing around them as the work of Temple Grandin shows.
To put it bluntly most farms (at least where i am from) are not horror farms, with insane cramped conditions, rampant disease, starving animals, corpses littering the ground.
Neither are slaughter houses institutionalized workplaces for sadists.
And its very far from impossible to kill/murder/put off an animal in such a way that its nervous system has no time to realize whats happening, thus preceive pain, and suffer. Sudden, and massive blunt trauma is easily able to do the job.
And you know what?
Its easier on the worker both mentally (not causing suffering), and physically - due to not having to struggle with the animal.
In my humble opinion creating non-existing echological niches for animals to live, where they couldnt have before, is far from evil, even if the animals in question are not immortal - especially if care is taken to minimize the suffering they experience in their lifetime. And when they experience less suffering than their "wild" counterparts, statements like:
"Its evil to keep animals for food, since eating meat is not necessary"
Is patentedly wrong, as it misses the wast majority of said organisms life experience.
Your explanation would hold more value if it would have used some logical arguments, maybe using some citations. As opposed to only being made out of declarations from your preceived omnipresent wisdom, and appeals to authority - often to declarations from authorities, where said cautiour declarations have very little to do with the state of afffairs in reality.
This is a very interesting conversation.
I don't think he claims "omnipresent wisdom". Might want to have a discussion in person or over internet call because this system of debating in UA-cam comments seems to become ridiculously convoluted and drawn out, as each person tries to reply to every point in depth, creating more and more points. If LouisPee and yourself would be up for a joint chat, I'd be up for it
There's no reason cows should be put into machines, turned upside down, and gutted alive like they are. The economic side of that alone should be enough to make you mad. No hamburger has ever been good enough to justify that. Even that pales in comparison to what they do in China, whose methods of killing animals are unspeakably horrible. The US could go to war with China and their treatment of animals alone would be enough to justify it, because it really needs to be stopped.