[2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Blame Quintushalls for this.

Moderators: NeatNit, Kimra

User avatar
Eisbreaker
He Who Must Not Be d
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 6:29 am

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by Eisbreaker »

I have decided to do my part and help reduce the suffering of animals by eating vegans instead.
Don't drink and drive, take LSD and Teleport.

User avatar
Oldrac the Chitinous
Chicken O' the Sea
Posts: 3476
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:41 pm
Location: The Perfect Stillness of the Deep
Contact:

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by Oldrac the Chitinous »

Kimra wrote:
Sahan wrote:I wouldn't have an issue with eating whale it was possible to farm whales with minimal environmental impact. Which is practically impossible. The problem is that they were almost hunted to extinction, mainly for their oil rather than their meat too.
Actually their population is increasing again, it's not what it was but it is on the rise again. My problem with eating whale is that there is no way to kill them quickly. Their death is slow and painful, and I am opposed to that.
Dynamite in the blowhole.
Police said they spent some time working out if they could charge the man with being armed with a weapon, as technically he was armed with part of a fish.

User avatar
smiley_cow
polite but murderous
Posts: 6508
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: The vast and desolate prairies

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by smiley_cow »

Kimra wrote:
Sahan wrote:I wouldn't have an issue with eating whale it was possible to farm whales with minimal environmental impact. Which is practically impossible. The problem is that they were almost hunted to extinction, mainly for their oil rather than their meat too.
Actually their population is increasing again, it's not what it was but it is on the rise again. My problem with eating whale is that there is no way to kill them quickly. Their death is slow and painful, and I am opposed to that.
Their population is on the rise but the problem with whales though is that they reproduce so slowly it takes a long time for them to make up numbers when you're killing them (most large species give birth to one calf once every 1-2 years). Then again, the Norwegians and Japanese are currently killing a non-endangered species (Minke whales) and it seems their number is high enough their population isn't declining, though I've had trouble finding any real numbers but I'm pretty sure they're in no immediate danger

Off course the biggest threat to whales right now is probably either the overabundance of mercury in the ocean or a disappearing food supply. BC keeps getting Grey whales that have starved to death washed up on their shores.
GUTCHUCKER wrote:You didn't get the 'whales are delicious' subtext Gang?
Actually from what I've heard, whale meat isn't very good. It's also full of mercury so it's not very healthy either.

When whales were going extinct through over hunting though, it was their oil everyone wanted. Not their meat.

Personally I'm not against whaling per se. The Inuit do it too, and people rarely have a problem (though I guess they're also OK within International law) I just think measures need to be taken to make sure it's sustainable. If I'm confident whale populations are healthy, I'm OK.
thunderling wrote:so its better to kill stupid people?
VEGANS ARE NAZIS
I don't understand why you guys are all so angry. It's just eating habits.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.

HungryHippo

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by HungryHippo »

smiley_cow wrote:
HungryHippo wrote: My argument was simplistic, so perhaps you did not properly understand.

However, your response makes little sense. What are you trying to say?

While theoretically, yes, any patch of existence could be used for anything at all, given infinite resources and technology, technically it obviously isn't so. Nowhere did I claim this to be the case.

What I said was that there were enough agricultural lands as it is today to feed everyone on earth, and that we fully had the capacity to increase total food production without increasing the total surface of land dedicated to agriculture. Furthermore, there are a lot of surfaces we could use for agriculture that aren't used for anything else in urban areas.

Pollution can be considerably reduced by alternative production methods, such as by growing organic instead of conventional, and there are many laws that have been voted upon and which are getting continuously better applied that help reduce agricultural pollutions of all kinds.

Therefore, I don't buy neither the vegan pollution approach nor the vegan "we take food from the poor to give it to the cows" approach. If you are so disconnected from reality by having lived in the cities all your life and never having ventured in the farmlands, then sure, feel pity for the animals all you want, even if that pity is directionally proportional to how cute the animal is. That won't stop me from doing was man has been doing since the beginning: eating meat.
Issue 1: Pretty sure Frostbite was referring to the fact that some land just isn't suited to agriculture, and that's usually the land used for raising cattle. (Certainly how it's done where I live.) Frostbite, feel free to correct me if I got it wrong, though.

Issue 2: If we were to only produce organic food we wouldn't be able to produce enough food to feed the entire world. (We currently do produce enough food to feed everyone, we just have some areas getting way too much, and others not nearly enough.) Organic food is a luxury, and if you're privileged enough to only eat it, consider yourself lucky.

Issue 3: I do live on farmlands. Farming is our number one export here. I'm not talking about ethically raised animals when I talk about horrible conditions. I'm talking about the ones forced into a small space their entire lives and force fed antibiotics because they live so close to other animals this is the only way to keep them from dying on mass whenever any virus goes through. Not to mention force feedings, genetically altered to be as fat as possible to the point where they can't naturally do anything else, etc. It's really not a cuteness thing at all either. I'm not sure where that came from.
About organic, statistics say that after the first year of switching from conventional farming, you can lose about 50% of your yield. However, after a few years, you should be able to catch up with similar production. That is, if you are into commercial organic growing, and not just hobby farming. This is for plants. For animals, sure the production loss can be greater according to what type of animal you breed. But then again, less animals = more wheat, so that's not an issue.

If you don't want to eat those genetically-altered crammed antibiotics-injected chickens, then you can eat meat, just eat organic. I know a few people who are mostly vegetarians but will do exceptions now and then for organic meat. Granted, it is more expensive, but it's predicted that organic prices will decrease with time as more people switch to these methods.

If we stopped wasting all of our eggs, milk, wheat, maple syrup, turkey, chicken, etc., just to keep prices artificially high, then everyone could produce organic and we'd still have a higher food output then we currently have.

As for suitability of the lands, that's just an economical factor. Take the same land, put it in a different context, and you'll have it intensively farmed. Some cultures have farmed in the most inhospitable of terrains. However, in our western society, life is more expensive, and so it needs to be economically worth it to farm that patch of land for it to be done. You could farm mountains, swamps, and rooftops if you wanted to. But would it be financially viable? If it's not being done, then that's likely because it wouldn't.

Durandal_1707

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by Durandal_1707 »

Eisbreaker wrote:That means that even if I were to travel to Antarctica via trebuchet, find a polar bear, chop said bear's head off with a gasoline-powered chainsaw, and went on to consume its head after deep-roasting it with misc. condiments and a bit of Tabasco sauce, it would still be a completely natural event.
Well, it couldn't be any more unnatural than whatever event caused the polar bear to get to Antarctica in the first place, so I can't disagree with you there.

User avatar
GUTCHUCKER
Gotchucker's less handsome twin
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:26 am
Location: Paradise City?

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by GUTCHUCKER »

"Ant/arctica" means no-bears-place!
Datanazush wrote:I ship Mohammed and Jehova.

User avatar
Eisbreaker
He Who Must Not Be d
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 6:29 am

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by Eisbreaker »

Didn't do my research before posting a random joke argument at 2 AM. Sue me.
Don't drink and drive, take LSD and Teleport.

User avatar
Kaharz
This Intentionally Left Blank
Posts: 1571
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:17 pm

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by Kaharz »

HungryHippo wrote:About organic, statistics say that after the first year of switching from conventional farming, you can lose about 50% of your yield. However, after a few years, you should be able to catch up with similar production.
What statistics and what is your definition of "organic?"
Kaharz wrote:I don't need a title. I have no avatar or tagline either. I am unique in my lack of personal identifiers.

User avatar
Frostbite
I dunno.
Posts: 2611
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:34 am
Location: Avoiding the zombie hordes.
Contact:

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by Frostbite »

HungryHippo wrote:statistics say
I'll keep this post extremely simple.

Link?
Doin' podcasts before they were cool.

User avatar
Apocalyptus
Not what you were expecting
Posts: 5278
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:00 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by Apocalyptus »

Citation needed!
Kimra wrote:Next they'll be denying us the right to say "We'll rape your arse if you don't come to this fucken country."

User avatar
Frostbite
I dunno.
Posts: 2611
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:34 am
Location: Avoiding the zombie hordes.
Contact:

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by Frostbite »

Eisbreaker wrote:Didn't do my research before posting a random joke argument at 2 AM. Sue me.
Will do. Just remember, it was your idea.
Doin' podcasts before they were cool.

Tharwen

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by Tharwen »

Surely that graph would point directly at cows, given that they were bred to fit almost those exact criteria?

User avatar
GUTCHUCKER
Gotchucker's less handsome twin
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:26 am
Location: Paradise City?

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by GUTCHUCKER »

Oh hey wait a minute
cantbebotheredreadinghisname wrote:If you don't want to eat those genetically-altered crammed antibiotics-injected chickens, then you can eat meat, just eat organic.
Yeah, why the fuck would I want to eat chickens who are unlikely to get sick and have DNA in them?
'Organic' sounds totally appetising to me too.
Datanazush wrote:I ship Mohammed and Jehova.

User avatar
Eisbreaker
He Who Must Not Be d
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 6:29 am

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by Eisbreaker »

In theory getting salmonella will improve your immune system eventually.
Don't drink and drive, take LSD and Teleport.

User avatar
GUTCHUCKER
Gotchucker's less handsome twin
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:26 am
Location: Paradise City?

Re: [2011-Oct-09] Microneurontarians

Post by GUTCHUCKER »

That happens after they die, antibiotics tend not to work then
Datanazush wrote:I ship Mohammed and Jehova.

Post Reply