[QUOTE=SIRIUS;34733946]Specific businesses would suffer, but different ones would take their place to accomodate for new demand. i'm not saying this would be fast nor easy, but it is where we should be moving. i'm just saying there's nothing making it impossible
[editline]17th February 2012[/editline]
it would make more sense for you to tell me how it isn't possible.[/QUOTE]
Specific businesses? Meat production and sales is a massive industry, the whole thing would go down the drain. What would we do with the millions of animals which have gone from valuable livestock to literally nothing? They can't just be released, ecosystems are fragile things.
We have told you how it isn't possible, your responces have been pretty damn weak.
[QUOTE=Sanius;34734049]he said "move away from meat" not "stop eating meat."[/QUOTE]
"Moving away" is a stopgap towards actually stopping something entirely. Trying my hardest to avoid a slippery-slop argument there, but that is how I have always seen, and known the phrase to be used.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;34734079]"Moving away" is a stopgap towards actually stopping something entirely. Trying my hardest to avoid a slippery-slop argument there, but that is how I have always seen, and known the phrase to be used.[/QUOTE]
fair point. I guess I'm projecting my view onto him.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;34734035]You brought the argument to the table, you are the one with the burden of evidence. Show us why you are right, and we then counter your points. That is how an argument works, not the way you seem to think it does.
Oh, and why should we stop eating meat? Humans are omnivores, we can eat meat if we want, it's a pretty fucking rad position for our species.[/QUOTE]just because we can doesn't mean we should, especially to the extent we do now.
the way i'm suggesting we start the move is simply stop increasing development, despite demand. instead increase development in agriculture and other non meat food types.
[QUOTE=Sanius;34734049]he said "move away from meat" not "stop eating meat."
[editline]16th February 2012[/editline]
not in the massive quantity that we consume it at today. and besides, there are many viable alternatives to meat.[/QUOTE]
It's needed desperately for people with poor nutrition who as of yet, do not have meat or very much of it.
The wealthy in First world nations have plenty, but for around 1 billion people on this earth they do not have access to meat. Depriving 1 in 7 people of the choice of meat is absolutely terrible, and must be fixed.
Only once everybody on Earth has access to cheap, healthy, mass-produced meat, then can we listen to your advice of going on a diet without meat.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34734412]It's needed desperately for people with poor nutrition who as of yet, do not have meat or very much of it.
The wealthy in First world nations have plenty, but for around 1 billion people on this earth they do not have access to meat. Depriving 1 in 7 people of the choice of meat is absolutely terrible, and must be fixed.
Only once everybody on Earth has access to cheap, healthy, mass-produced meat, then can we listen to your advice of going on a diet without meat.[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with a meatless diet. what I think the world at large would benefit from is if people in the west consumed less meat, from low-yield animals especially. people in the west consume way more than is necessary which in turn means that everybody else gets very little.
in my opinion this issue is cultural. it's not something that can or should be fixed with government intervention, and trying to meet the demand will only compound the issue
[QUOTE=Sanius;34734466]I don't agree with a meatless diet. what I think the world at large would benefit from is if people in the west consumed less meat, from low-yield animals especially. people in the west consume way more than is necessary which in turn means that everybody else gets very little.
in my opinion this issue is cultural. it's not something that can or should be fixed with government intervention, and trying to meet the demand will only compound the issue[/QUOTE]
I like to eat lots of meat though who are you to tell me to stop? I would love it if I could live on a meat only diet, it's literally my favorite food. From chicken to lobster to pulled pork, I love all types of meat, and I'll never ever stop eating it. Who are you to tell me that I eat too much of it? I'm not fat. Even if I was, why do you get to dictate my diet? I say that you don't eat enough meat! You should honestly eat more.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;34734766]I like to eat lots of meat though who are you to tell me to stop? I would love it if I could live on a meat only diet, it's literally my favorite food. From chicken to lobster to pulled pork, I love all types of meat, and I'll never ever stop eating it. Who are you to tell me that I eat too much of it? I'm not fat. Even if I was, why do you get to dictate my diet? I say that you don't eat enough meat! You should honestly eat more.[/QUOTE]
people and animals alike are negatively effected by your gluttony. get over yourself
[QUOTE=Sanius;34734835]people and animals alike are negatively effected by your gluttony. get over yourself[/QUOTE]
Admittedly, that is what this kind of development wants to try and avert (along with artificially grown meats which are still nowhere near developed enough). The animals here wouldn't know what suffering is, they won't respond to any changes in living condition as long as the body is fed as they are incapable. No suffering as it cannot suffer.
And I honestly doubt he's a "glutton" just because he eats meat, and would live off it if possible. It's quite simple to eat only meats and still eat little. I largely live off meats as most vegetables just don't do it for me, but I don't eat so much that it would be considered gluttony or wasteful.
Perhaps you should get over yourself? You seem to do this every time you join a debate.
This is going to make the animal rights activists [B]royally pissed.[/B] But seriously this makes me kind of uncomfortable.
[QUOTE=archangel125;34727921]Furthermore, with this method, you're loooking at diseases spreading almost instantly among an entire 'crop' of chickens. And they've not always succeeded in catching the new diseases in time, have they? MCD? Swine Flu? Bird Flu?[/QUOTE]
I guess you don't know much about the current production systems, then, because I don't believe there could be a worse situation for generating zoonotic disease strains.
And what are you even talking about?
MCD/BSE is not a conventionally transmitted infection, and both swine and bird flu are a result of the horrific practices.
[editline]17th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=squids_eye;34733872]I'm sorry but please explain to me how fast food restaurants, steak houses, kebab shops, butchers etc can easily convert to not selling meat?
You are incredibly naive if you think the human race could easily stop doing [B]something that it has always done.[/B][/QUOTE]
You know that a majority of the world doesn't eat much meat, right?
Even in the west the kind of meat production seen today was virtually unheard of a hundred years ago.
[QUOTE=Sanius;34734835]people and animals alike are negatively effected by your gluttony. get over yourself[/QUOTE]
What's that? I can't hear you over the crunch of my popcorn chicken.
[QUOTE=Sanius;34734835]people and animals alike are negatively effected by your gluttony. get over yourself[/QUOTE]
Yeah, think of those chickens we would be harming by providing a humane means of maintaining.
And think of those people we would be harming by producing more chicken in a systematic manner which could provide a much higher yield than we currently have also reducing the footprint of poultry farms making it potentially possible to make more room for other things to be grown.
Where is your point?
[QUOTE=Contag;34735528]I guess you don't know much about the current production systems, then, because I don't believe there could be a worse situation for generating zoonotic disease strains.
And what are you even talking about?
MCD/BSE is not a conventionally transmitted infection, and both swine and bird flu are a result of the horrific practices.
[editline]17th February 2012[/editline]
You know that a majority of the world doesn't eat much meat, right?
Even in the west the kind of meat production seen today was virtually unheard of a hundred years ago.[/QUOTE]
Obviously I'm not saying we ate meat as much as we eat it today but meat has still been a part of our diets for centuries. If anything, it's relatively recent rise in popularity just makes it even more difficult to get rid of.
Anyone saying this would raise disease [del]are stupid[/del] don't know what they're talking about, a lot of the problems in crowded chicken farms is caused by stress, and the chickens start hurting each other which infects them through open wounds, there would be no stress (as they are brainless) and couldn't peck each other and waste would be collected in a tube. They also wouldn't be touching so there would be little to no way of disease, viruses, etc, to spread. I assume the place could be much more easily cleaned as well. I'm all for this.
[editline]16th February 2012[/editline]
Also, with tube-feeding they would be getting all nutrients they need, further reducing chances of disease. I honestly don't get how your brains can think this = disease.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34731530]Or you can put on earmuffs, close the curtains and lay in bed.
[/QUOTE]
To me, that seems to be a really sad state of existence. You do know that there are people who live in the country not for farming, but because the actually [B]don't like[/B] living like this? The only thing that I could ever ask for would be speedy internet, other then that I love living in the country.
And you describe country houses as single-room cabins that has only a fireplace to light and keep it warm. I am pretty sure that I am in my own room right now, able to control light settings and all, without disrupting anybody else's room.
This seems too expensive to work.
If they're performing brain surgery, removing their feet, then attaching them to a massive structure of tubes, I don't see how they're going to make any profit at all.
Land isn't expensive enough to require vertical chicken farms in the first place.
[QUOTE=jeimizu;34736511]This seems too expensive to work.
If they're performing brain surgery, removing their feet, then attaching them to a massive structure of tubes, I don't see how they're going to make any profit at all.
Land isn't expensive enough to require vertical chicken farms in the first place.[/QUOTE]
The brain surgery isn't very complex, it is little more than just lopping its head off at the right point and then putting tubes down its throat hole. They already have to declaw and debeak chickens at the moment so it isn't exactly much different.
As long as it doesn't taste bad, I don't see the issue here.
They can't feel pain, so it's humane I'd say.
I'll stick to whatever tastes better and whatever is cheaper.
When will we get animals that coook themselves for you? I really want to meet the meat.
Eh...this is a bit uncomfortable, but as sad as it is to admit it's definitely an improvement over what we are doing now, which only tells you how bad it is now. Yeah, it's nice to try and think that there has to be a better way, but it's just not being realistic.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;34736771]This is pretty cool in my opinion. Brainless chickens hooked up to life support, a vertical FACTORY OF FLESH. The livestock has become one with the machines that harvest it, the lines between them have been blurred. It's disgusting and in the eyes of some, horribly inhumane. THIS is Science I can get behind.[/QUOTE]
Does that mean that, if it's prepared unproperly, you get an extra dosage of your daily amount of iron?
This is super goddamn creepy, seems like it would take a fuckload of time and resources to manage and there's already methods that raise chickens in a humane way. Like, for example, the way it's been done since they've been domesticated. Seriously they're walking eating machines, you barely have to provide them with food because they [i]will[/i] find something if they search far enough. Free-range chickens are healthier, probably a few thousand times more happy (except for living in constant fear of hawks) and simply taste better which offers a much more attractive product.
I don't know if anyone answered this, but...[QUOTE=ewitwins;34712556]How can you even prove something like that?[/QUOTE]Partially or fully blind chickens don't really freak out as much as regular ones. They're pretty chill, just sort of wander around pecking until they get something. Partially blind ones are mostly preoccupied by the same kernel of corn until somebody steals it. Chickens, on the whole, don't give a shit about anything for too long as they're constantly hunting for things to eat with few exceptions. Roosters watch for danger, broody hens are busy with baby-making and the actual babies divide their time equally between following mom and stealing her food.
I have a half blind frizzle hen, and she sucks at beak-eye coordination. When I was younger, an entire batch of chicks turned up blind for some reason and when they grew up, they just huddled together in a tight group and strip-pecked the lawn. It's pretty difficult to not please chickens, just throw them a bunch of crap to peck at and they're satisfied for the better part of a day.
It's a really fucked up system, but it makes so much sense to use this over current method. Though this is making me give second consideration to switching to free range chicken like my sister always urges we do.
[QUOTE=HiddenMyst;34738489]It's a really fucked up system, but it makes so much sense to use this over current method. Though this is making me give second consideration to switching to free range chicken like my sister always urges we do.[/QUOTE]
Free range usually has a higher mortality rate than barn and cage systems, and more cannibalism, though there are less bone breaks (around ~40%, compared to 80% in cages IIRC)
[QUOTE=RocketSnail;34723953]You don't get it.
Chickens/dairy cows/pigs aren't "free ranged".
Many farmers set up operations where the animals grow up in the dark, are put on a conveyor belt, and slaughtered.
Take a glance at "Meet your meat" on YouTube.[/QUOTE]
No.. YOU dont "get it".
SOME animals are "free range". Free Range is a different operation to battery farming, whereby the animals have sufficient space to grow, are allowed outdoors and have freedom to roam around. The end product is, of course, more expensive, but also much nicer to eat.
[QUOTE=Harry3;34740407]No.. YOU dont "get it".
SOME animals are "free range". Free Range is a different operation to battery farming, whereby the animals have sufficient space to grow, are allowed outdoors and have freedom to roam around. The end product is, of course, more expensive, but also much nicer to eat.[/QUOTE]
Free range is terrible and if you think it's manifestly better than alternate industrial production systems then you've bought the farm lobby's PR message about free range, hook line and sinker
[QUOTE=Contag;34740925]Free range is terrible and if you think it's manifestly better than alternate industrial production systems then you've bought the farm lobby's PR message about free range, hook line and sinker[/QUOTE]I agree with you. As I said my gran owns a small farm and the chickens taste like eh. They're smaller and more tender. The meat tastes about the same as the one in shop. What is this magical free range chicken that is nicer to eat?
It's better, but it's not really important when they're both fairly terrible ways (in terms of animal suffering) of producing meat or eggs
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.