PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon

[KuReshtin]

Originally Posted by Socratov

I don't mind making something vegetarian for you as long as you are willing to return the pleasure with meat when cooking for me

I agree with this view. However, I'm equally inclined to go along to a vegetarian's house to have a meal that is vegetarian as long as they don't start lecturing about the virtues of vegetarianism and how it's morally wrong to eat meat and all the usual spiel. If they do, I'm very likely to start telling them how good meat tastes and it tends to get a bit awkward. And then I don't return for meals at their place again.

I accept that the vegetarians don't serve meat in their homes, since I use the same reasoning for not having any coffee available in my home. I don't drink coffee, so why should I keep coffee in my house if someone who do drink coffee should happen to stop by?

I still like this, though.

[GolemsVoice]

@Golemvioce: I applaud your view, but then again, it's virtually the same as mine: I eat meat and as long as you don't bother me I don't care about what you eat. I don't mind making something vegetarian for you as long as you are willing to return the pleasure with meat when cooking for me

I certainly would, it certainly would also be a complete mess, though. The only thing I can reliably "cook" is salad and pasta :-)

[Aedilred]

Originally Posted by dehro

ahem..no.
bones are ground and used for a number of purposes, cattle-food component, for instance..brains are eaten or used as components for various kinds of salami, viscera are used to stuff salami in (the film that surrounds the meaty part you eat..is in fact just that)..and I'm sure there are other uses too.. skin..cowhide and pighides are..well.. leather.. and used for other stuff too...
it's a centuries old saying/truism, in Italy at least, that you don't throw away any part of a pig.

so..no.

Yes, but...

In considering the question in issue, animal byproducts for e.g. pet food, leather manufacture, glue, and so forth, aren't all that relevant (a world that banned the eating of meat would almost certainly ban carnivorous pets). It's the portion of the animal that ends up directly contributing towards human energy requirements that's important. The stuff that's ground up and fed back to animals is relevant for consideration, but you lose another boatload of energy along the way. There is a lot of rubbish that goes into sausages and the like, it's true, but mass-market sausages are, to be honest, largely vegetable product anyway.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Doesn't matter had steak.

[GolemsVoice]

Oh, while we're here: what's the thing about bacon?

[Thump]

Originally Posted by GolemsVoice

Oh, while we're here: what's the thing about bacon?

Not sure. All I know is that bacon is delicious and goes with everything, even chocolate and peanut butter.

[Mystic Muse]

I had a bacon sundae once. It was delicious.

[Thump]

This one time at a local fair I went to, they had a stand that had caramel apples wrapped in bacon. I tried it for the lulz.

Best.

Thing.

EVAR.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by GolemsVoice

Oh, while we're here: what's the thing about bacon?

Thin enough that its presence doesn't overpower sweet things like a big slab of meat would, a mix of fat and protein that is generally considered good-tasting, a variety of possible textures from chewy to crispy, used to be relatively cheap and plentiful, though I couldn't say for sure between its increased popularity meaning they can charge more for it and increased consumption(?) or at least use in an increased number of different consumer products as well as the impending pork shortage....

[Holocron Coder]

Originally Posted by GolemsVoice

Oh, while we're here: what's the thing about bacon?

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by KuReshtin

I accept that the vegetarians don't serve meat in their homes, since I use the same reasoning for not having any coffee available in my home. I don't drink coffee, so why should I keep coffee in my house if someone who do drink coffee should happen to stop by?

Well, coffee actually basically keeps nigh-indefinitely and is a minor concession for the sake of keeping your cupboard/pantry/kitchen well-appointed if you're doing much in the way of entertaining that would necessitate coffee, but most people really don't do that sort of entertaining in this day and age near as I can figure anyway, unless it's one-on-one entertaining related to mating. Meat at least doesn't do so well after aeons in the freezer and won't keep otherwise unless you're going bulky and keeping an entire salt-cured and sealed ham somewhere on the premises.

[GolemsVoice]

Arr, matey, that be tha way of tha sea!

[dehro]

Originally Posted by Aedilred

Yes, but...

In considering the question in issue, animal byproducts for e.g. pet food, leather manufacture, glue, and so forth, aren't all that relevant (a world that banned the eating of meat would almost certainly ban carnivorous pets). It's the portion of the animal that ends up directly contributing towards human energy requirements that's important.

why? (genuine question..not being obtuse here, I just don't get it)

The stuff that's ground up and fed back to animals is relevant for consideration, but you lose another boatload of energy along the way. There is a lot of rubbish that goes into sausages and the like, it's true, but mass-market sausages are, to be honest, largely vegetable product anyway.

not the ones I eat, thankyouverymuch.
also..how do you go about banning carnivorous pets? do you kill them off? way to go to be green.. do you set them free? half of them will try to get back home and die on your doorstep rather than leave..the other half will turn feral.. do you know how many packs of dogs would start roaming the rubbish bins of the big towns and basically endanger the lives of anybody who happens to take a hike on his own somewhere in the countryside?.. dogs are only a couple of generations removed from feral wolflike creatures.
the practicalities of having to start hunting wild dogs would beat, at least for a few decades, the benefit of cutting down on meat consumption.
and that's without considering the economical backlash... there are entire comunities that survive on farming, hunting, fishing, food processing..entire areas of employement would have to learn new skills and re-deploy in some other field of business..provided that there is a field with enough employement opportunities for everybody to migrate towards. and that's just the surface..there are entire populations..minorities, whose entire lifestyle is based on hunting.. I'm thinking the amazonian tribes, the inuit, certain tribes in mongolia..half of the more remote populations in africa...
you start changing the "western world" towards a crusade against meat consumption..sooner or later that will become the standard towards all other cultures "must" strife.. which means effectively wiping out millennia of traditions, cultures and habits that on their own have very little impact on nature..all because WE couldn't keep the numbers to an acceptable level..
suddenly the moral highground on which the premise is build that it's for the betterment of everybody..starts to crumble while you look at it.

in fact the entire premise that such a decision should be based on a moral compunction is flawed.. we don't decide to become vegans or vegetarians for the betterment of the world. we do it to feel better about ourselves. the world will do pretty well whether we and other species survive on it or not. the world will be zoomin around the Sun for a long time after we've depleted every resource, died out and a new balance between the species has been struck... probably with cockroaches still scurrying around like they do today.
in fact..the faster we deplete the resources WE need..the faster we'll stop being a nuissance to the planet.

Originally Posted by Dusk Eclipse

Doesn't matter had steak.

I see what you did there..

[Eldan]

Never liked bacon. The taste doesn't do it for me, and I get sick from too much grease. In fact, I can't think of all that many people I know who like it. (And yes, that includes different varieties of bacon.)

[Coidzor]

Don't large packs of feral dogs eat unattended children because they lack any fear of man and are hungry? Or was that just propaganda to keep from allowing large packs of feral dogs to be allowed to build up?

[Karoht]

Originally Posted by Mystic Muse

I had a bacon sundae once. It was delicious.

I had a room mate from mainland China. No word of a lie, his favorite food in the entire world is cubes of pig blood.
Denny's had a "Maple Bacon Sundae" on their menu for a bit.
He claimed it was the most disgusting thing he's ever eaten. The only food that has ever made him want to gag.
Still finished it though.
I want to remind you that this is a fellow who grew up in the land of eating offal, chicken feet, and balut eggs. And he found that, of all things, to be disgusting.
Perspective people, perspective.

[dehro]

Originally Posted by Karoht

Still finished it though.

not emptying their plates is considered bad manners in China, Korea and such.. an Italian friend of mine knew this and kept piling stuff on the plate of a Korean visiting friend until the latter almost begged him to stop it..

[Scowling Dragon]

I don't eat pork bacon. Religious stuff. I eat TURKEY BACON!

[Aedilred]

Originally Posted by dehro

why? (genuine question..not being obtuse here, I just don't get it)

Because they're byproducts which aren't fulfilling the function of feeding humans, which is the point. If these products were essential, they'd be produced even if the world went vegetarian, through specialist animal-rearing. If not, then, like meat, we won't have them any more. That the meat industry has a number of innovative ways of selling us their byproduct doesn't mean those products aren't fundamentally waste of that industry.

Moreover, the manufacture, processing and distribution of those waste byproducts into consumer articles is almost certainly going to be at least as consumptive of energy as synthesising the consumer product in the first place, or just finding another method of production (from vegetable byproduct, or whatever)

Originally Posted by dehro

not the ones I eat, thankyouverymuch.

Yeah, good sausages aren't. But a surprising proportion of them are

Originally Posted by dehro

also..how do you go about banning carnivorous pets? do you kill them off? way to go to be green...
<snip>

Well, yes. Please note I'm not actually advocating that the world should go vegetarian tomorrow. Or at all. I'm a pretty unapologetic carnivore. But I'm also a fan of people being aware of what they're eating, where that's coming from, the various implications thereof - I think it's better for them, better for the producers of that food, better for any animals being eaten, and better for the planet.

In the entirely hypothetical situation that pan-global legislation was passed banning the consumption of meat for environmental reasons it would be extremely difficult to justify the retention of companion animals, especially carnivorous ones, which serve less productive purpose than do meat animals. The actual method of disposing of both domestic pets and livestock is not really the point. In reality, what would likely occur is a phasing-out of said animals through compulsory sterilisation. Or we could just heap them up and burn them, a la Foot and Mouth. That's probably what PETA would do.

As for the damage it would do to cultures, livelihoods, etc., well, yes, those are valid points, and those are some of the main reasons it will almost certainly never happen. The interest groups opposing it are just too strong. However, the fact is that legislation to change just about anything will always run into this sort of issue, and forces a rather cold cost/benefit analysis. Or it's done for reasons only tangentially linked to the issues at stake and is more about punishment or weakening of those interest groups in order to pursue separate goals. I could give examples, but that'd be straying into real-world politics territory.

Originally Posted by dehro

not emptying their plates is considered bad manners in China, Korea and such.. an Italian friend of mine knew this and kept piling stuff on the plate of a Korean visiting friend until the latter almost begged him to stop it..

Depends where, I think... Where I was in China, emptying your plate was an indication you hadn't been given enough and wanted more. A good host is expected to provide more food than his guest will eat; a good guest doesn't request more than he's been given.

[dehro]

Originally Posted by Aedilred

Because they're byproducts which aren't fulfilling the function of feeding humans, which is the point. If these products were essential, they'd be produced even if the world went vegetarian, through specialist animal-rearing. If not, then, like meat, we won't have them any more. That the meat industry has a number of innovative ways of selling us their byproduct doesn't mean those products aren't fundamentally waste of that industry.

I'd say there's a strong argument to be made that if that happens those "waste elements" cease to be waste..
Also, it's a fact that as we went along, we've found out things about these byproducts as we were re-inventing and re-using them that have now made them favourite over other materials.. there are medical uses for those waste/byproducts and uses in various industries that are just more effective or very difficult to reproduce with other raw materials/sources.
whether this is true in for a value of true high enough to still make people butcher pigs and cows for those "byproducts" and thereby making the meat/muscle the actual by-product or not, remains up for debate. I don't know enough about it.
one could argue that should those by-products become the main reason for keeping breeding farm animals, we'd soon find other uses for the muscle/flesh we wouldn't be eating.. uses related to other fields of industry we are now neglecting because we have the perfect use for those bits already (yummy steaks).
so that would bring us back to the reasons why such a global legislation would have been issued.
I can't see that it would be for economic reasons.. ecologic reasons.. mmh I'm not buying the conservation of energy as a sufficient reason for it.. since there are today plenty of benefits that counter the relative disadvantage of using up resources to feed cattle. (cows eat grass.. we can cut out the middle-man, but our stomachs aren't built to digest grass.. which means we'd only get more room for intensive farming and crop rotations..which bring a wealth of other issues to the soil and so on..ultimately, cows grazing the crap out of a piece of land are still healthier for said piece of land than growing 4-5 crops a year or building a greenhouse on it)
so, again, we're left with the moral/ethical reason, which falls flat on it's butt when we consider that we are but a loud disturbance in the cycle of life of our planet.. we may take most of said life with us before we go out with a bang, but we can't take it all with us.. flora and fauna will find new forms in which to envelop the planet long after we're gone.

Depends where, I think... Where I was in China, emptying your plate was an indication you hadn't been given enough and wanted more. A good host is expected to provide more food than his guest will eat; a good guest doesn't request more than he's been given.

you're probably right.. it's a rule in some areas, and the opposite is true in others. (I was actually brought back a dish in a hong kong restaurant, once, because I hadn't finished it, the waiter had noticed it and my host might have taken offence if he had too)

[Xondoure]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Except fruit.

I fully understand that consuming plants directly means less loss of energy as you move up the food chain. That's not the energy I'm concerned with. I'm doubting that the overall energy cost in growing and moving those plants so that people can get them and eat them is notably lower than it is for animals. A human needs and can only take about the same amount of energy no matter its source, plant or animal. If plant matter has a lower energy density than meat; I'll have to check that; then that means that more of it needs to be transported to feed the same number of people than if you fed those people with animals, or a combination of plants an animals.

I have seen the numbers on the emmisions of the livestock, but that's a natural biological emission. If that animal had never been domesticated and was roaming free in the various plains and praries they'd be putting out at least similar if not the very same amount of green house gasses. Eliminating that emission is calling for that animal to be driven to extinction.

Anyway, I'm just not convinced that the overall energy cost and the associated green-house emissions are significantly lower in the production of an amount of plant-based foods that would provide a given value of useable-by-humans energy than in the production of animal based food products with an equal amount of energy. The number of variables for determining those values in any given community are staggering.

I'm pretty sure you can't get all of the necessary vitamins and nutrients necessary to maintaining peak health from only fruit, though I must concede that an all fruit diet does indeed avoid killing anything, as long as you only take fruit that's naturally fallen and never pluck a one.

Because that chicken needs to eat so much grain in order to live, by removing the chicken from the equation we reduce the amount of crops we need to grow. Therefore there is less farmland being used, we need to transport less grain, and the whole thing is much more energy efficient. What you're missing is while transporting meat may be more calories per mile you also had to transport the vegetables to the meat so there is no gain only loss. On top of that, using less farmland is a worthy goal in and of itself because nitrogen run off is causing algi explosions in the ocean which suffocate all life for miles, and other unpleasant side effects.

Now I'm not saying in an ideal world no one ever eats meat again. All I'm saying is that by cutting down on our meat consumption over time we could reduce green house gasses, and quantity of farmlands. And this wouldn't result in mass genocide of chickens (which is laughable considering how many billions get slaughtered a year) but simply in less breeding.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Xondoure

Now I'm not saying in an ideal world no one ever eats meat again. All I'm saying is that by cutting down on our meat consumption over time we could reduce green house gasses, and pasteurized lands. And this wouldn't result in mass genocide of chickens (which is laughable considering how many billions get slaughtered a year) but simply in less breeding.

Intentionally making chickens go extinct is laughable because we eat them? Not because we're so ornery that it'd be basically impossible to get all humans to go along with it?

Also, we don't pasteurize land. Mostly we pasteurize liquids, such as milk. I'm not sure if pasturize works either for turning land into pasture land.

[Xondoure]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

Intentionally making chickens go extinct is laughable because we eat them? Not because we're so ornery that it'd be basically impossible to get all humans to go along with it?

Also, we don't pasteurize land. Mostly we pasteurize liquids, such as milk. I'm not sure if pasturize works either for turning land into pasture land.

That's a mispelling on my part for pasturize. And yeah, that's not the word I'm looking for either (will go fix now.)

[Starwulf]

Originally Posted by GolemsVoice

Oh, while we're here: what's the thing about bacon?

*Cough Cough* Ahem. A bit of poetry for your pleasure.

Roses Are Red
So is Bacon
Poetry is Hard
Mmm... Bacon

The preceding poem was lifted from a shirt in some Christmas magazine recently sent to my place.

[Chess435]

PETA at this point may as well change their motto to Plasmaaaaaaaa!

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Xondoure

Because that chicken needs to eat so much grain in order to live, by removing the chicken from the equation we reduce the amount of crops we need to grow. Therefore there is less farmland being used, we need to transport less grain, and the whole thing is much more energy efficient. What you're missing is while transporting meat may be more calories per mile you also had to transport the vegetables to the meat so there is no gain only loss. On top of that, using less farmland is a worthy goal in and of itself because nitrogen run off is causing algi explosions in the ocean which suffocate all life for miles, and other unpleasant side effects.

Now I'm not saying in an ideal world no one ever eats meat again. All I'm saying is that by cutting down on our meat consumption over time we could reduce green house gasses, and quantity of farmlands. And this wouldn't result in mass genocide of chickens (which is laughable considering how many billions get slaughtered a year) but simply in less breeding.

Unless you've actually done some absolutely staggering research; seriously, scientific achievment award level stuff; you can't know that.

Just off the top of my head, if the chicken has a higher energy density than the plants that feed her, then removing her from the equation means we have to produce more weight in grain for humans than we produced weight in chicken, which may or may not have the end result of actually needing to convert more land to crop producing farmland, and/or raise overall transportation cost for that food.

Nevermind that removing the chicken from the equation falls flat either morally, because it requires driving a species into extinction, or by logical fallacy. Chickens will go feral rather than extinct if left on their own, meaning that they continue to eat grain and produce their biological emissions and/or become a pest-animal that has to be regularly neutralized.

I can't logically concede to this argument without actual data that's at least in the ball-park. Unfortunately, I rather doubt that anyone's actually done all of the necessary research to collect that data. That, or if there is truth in your assertion, the data is being suppressed for economic reasons. As others have pointed out, converting large portions of industrialized nations to a low/no-meat diet will inevitably run into issues of economic and social turbulence as well as the tremendous reduction in several industries.

@ whoever tried to throw out byproduct use: It most certainly does count. There are many places where synthesis is either a woefully impractical option or an utter non-option. If byproducts are being put to use, they're not waste. Waste is the stuff that ends up in landfills and, ironically, most of it is synthetic. You can't just throw out part of the equation because it supports the other guy instead of you.

[Tonal Architect]

Originally Posted by Xondoure

TL;DR being a vegetarian is much better for the planet, and is a moral choice each of us has to make unlike other species. Now, not judging what choices you do make (as I said, I eat meat) but it's hard to argue that the world wouldn't be at the very least a more sustainable place if more people cut down on meat and other animal products.

Personally, I'd say that this is more of a quick fix to overpopulating the earth than a solution in and of itself... The recent Paleo Diet fad has led me to a few bouts of nutrition research, and there's a lot of convincing argument for a low carb diet...

Besides, we've had animal husbandry for ages now, and not once if not when our population exploded has the idea of actually fully depleting resources on a planetary scale been close to truth. The Inuit also don't seem like they were an enviromental threat any time during their history, and they come close to eating nothing but meat.

And then, even carbs can only go so far... Once even veggies, legumes and fruits become too expensive, I wonder if algae farms will be next green.

[Ravens_cry]

Algae, yeast, ideas like that have been thrown around for a long time. At present and likely near future, such would be best for long term space missions.

[Traab]

Im not worried about the planet. You know why? Because its foolishness to think that we can do much of anything that will effect it long term, on a geological time scale. We could launch every nuke in existence at the same time, and so long as the planet itself doesnt shatter and drift into space in a thousand pieces, the world will heal in time. The real issue isnt that we are killing the world, its that we are going to be killing ourselves. Once we die out due to whatever finally kills us, the world will start to self correct, and in another 30,000 years there wont be any sign we ever existed. The worst that will happen is we will make the planet unsuitable for life in some way, then we die, and the things we did that ruined the earth for us stop happening and life eventually starts over again. So i dont worry about the fate of earth.

[Tebryn]

Originally Posted by Traab

Im not worried about the planet. You know why? Because its foolishness to think that we can do much of anything that will effect it long term, on a geological time scale. We could launch every nuke in existence at the same time, and so long as the planet itself doesnt shatter and drift into space in a thousand pieces, the world will heal in time. The real issue isnt that we are killing the world, its that we are going to be killing ourselves. Once we die out due to whatever finally kills us, the world will start to self correct, and in another 30,000 years there wont be any sign we ever existed. The worst that will happen is we will make the planet unsuitable for life in some way, then we die, and the things we did that ruined the earth for us stop happening and life eventually starts over again. So i dont worry about the fate of earth.

I'm pro-keeping the species alive honestly.