Produce better to eat all

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 19/11/13, 13:13

But more and more hidden camera reports show the terrible conditions of industrial farming.
as if it were industrial farming that was terrible! No, death is what it is whether it comes from an industrial farm or the old way and that just to satisfy morbid tastes individuals. I previously mentioned the Nazi camps: would the killing of the people concerned have been more justifiable if they had been received in a 4-star hotel?
(it's the same for agriculture: shit in a 4 star, it's shit)
Nothing justifies these massacres on a small or large scale! : Evil: : Cry:
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 19/11/13, 19:19

The death camps were not only used for the physical extermination of people, they were the scene of ill-treatment and humiliation aimed at denying (killing) the human dignity of the detainees, which seems to me a particularly aggravating circumstance of this industrialization of murder.

Likewise, the animal husbandry conditions added to the horror of their killing; not only is their life abnormally short, but the expression of their animality is prohibited because of their appalling living conditions.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 19/11/13, 23:26

Janic wrote: nothing justifies these massacres on a small or large scale! : Evil: : Cry:
In other words: stop raising animals.
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 19/11/13, 23:58

Cuicui wrote:
Janic wrote: nothing justifies these massacres on a small or large scale! : Evil: : Cry:
In other words: stop raising animals.
It is also the end of the Inuit way of life, which only survived by killing animals. And what about the carnivores who kill herbivores so cruelly?
0 x
User avatar
Rabbit
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 823
Registration: 22/07/05, 23:50
x 2




by Rabbit » 20/11/13, 02:46

Your words shock me. I think the comparisons you make
are moved.
Death is part of life. Eating and being eaten is also part of it.
What is reprehensible is to take a life to waste it.
Throw away food of animal or
vegetable is an immoral act. After we can philosophize on the interest
of animal husbandry and the different methods of practicing it. We can
also meditate on the greatest value than the life of a hen
on that of a cow, on the short life of a salad that cannot be
procreate, on the grain of wheat which comes down to a clamp
starch as it carries with it the hope of many centuries of
harvests. Is the vegetarian full of scruples only aware
lives that he grinds under his feet when he is going to commune with the
nature during a walk on a beautiful Sunday afternoon?
And when the time comes when we eat insects, will we have
a quieter conscience? Is the life of a worm more despicable
than that of a pig? We are doomed to take life for
maintain ours.
To choose between eating worms or pig, I prefer the pig.
I only take two lives a year to feed my family. That would have been
verses it would have taken several thousand to say the least. it is
therefore more moral to slaughter a pig than thousands of worms.
On the other hand, to feed the pig it will have taken thousands of
grain of wheat, unlike worms that eat it
10 times less. But as the worms don't seem to be aware
of their own existence some have a good conscience by
roasting alive.
In fact there are choices to be made and to be assumed.
The real problem is that the people of the city have lost the connection
that binds them to the earth. They no longer know where the nuggets come from and
other prepared dishes. For them eggs appear spontaneously
in boxes of 12 or 6, it depends on the brand. They don't
plus the relationship between the cows that graze along the roads and
glass of morning milk or steak at dinner. Rare are those
who have seen and touched hens, cows and pigs.

One last word. When I have to sacrifice one of my pigs I am sad.
It is painful to me but I must do it because this pig will feed my
family for several months. But all the time I've been fattening her
I did everything to make him happy, I ended up attaching myself but
when the fateful moment comes. I assume. Passing the bacon
smokes house it's a pure delight, nothing to do with what is on offer
in the city. As much compare fresh milk and canned skimmed milk. And I'm not talking to you about smoked ham nuts in wood
beech and birch. To damn a saint.
0 x
User avatar
sherkanner
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 386
Registration: 18/02/10, 15:47
Location: Austria
x 1




by sherkanner » 20/11/13, 08:12

Janic's point is typical of those who are vegetarians / vegans for a long time and who become extremist borderline because vegetarianism is above all a question of moral choice, but has however no scientific basis or justification.
A diet where you have to use supplements to have a normal life is not a good diet. Plant proteins are very difficult for humans to ingest.

Second, feeding exclusively on seeds will not feed the planet, contrary to what they want to give us, it is above all the industrial lobbying of grain producers. Cereals are produced with a lot of pesticides and fertilizers but do not prevent soil depletion
If the use of fertilizers is necessary, it is precisely to offset this impoverishment. (yes, recently I have been anti-seed, given the state in which they put me).

Man did not evolve to eat only vegetables and fruits. If we need vitamins and minerals (called essential) it is because our ancestors easily found them around them. I'm talking about the pre-agriculture period.
Cereals were only used during periods of famine (winters), and were certainly prepared in the same way as they are still used today in Africa (soaking, fermentation in order to limit the action of anti-nutrients that 'they contain).

Man is omnivorous and is known to be a hunter-gatherer. Basically everything he could hunt, and find to carry, he ate, mainly believed and this during most of our evolution (this includes insects which are still too often left out).
Numerous studies show this (be careful, it is often necessary to re-read the studies in full to see if the conclusion is indeed correct and not oriented as is often the case).

I do not denigrate agriculture, it is the foundation of our civilization, I only say that this agriculture allowed the man to survive more easily during difficult tempos, but that now, the foods which were only considered as a way to fight hunger in difficult times, are our everyday foods.

Coming back to the subject, eating better for me involves eating vegetables that live in harmony with the earth (biodynamic -> demeter) and which don't let it wither away a little more each year. I am lucky to have a demeter garden 200m from my house, I buy most of my vegetables there, it is certainly expensive, but it is worth it.
The same goes for animal protein. I found there are few producers who raise their cattle only in meadows, on grass (fodder in winters), their poultry run free outside, and are not stuffed with antibiotics, pigs freely bask around their water point. Certainly it is a little more expensive (although some parts of the animal are at the same price as those of battery farming)

The complete nonsense of today's diet is to grow cereals (yes, I want them) to feed: cattle that are not adapted to eat them, pigs that become fat and sick, poultry who survive only with a lot of food supplements and other antibiotics. All these meats have the same main defect, they have no muscles, and for poultry the bones are soft, a sign that their breeding is not correct.

I tried to reduce my animal proteins by replacing them with vegetable proteins, all that that accomplished and gaining fat, and this in spite of my efforts to lose weight. I also felt bloated, and in bad shape.

Just like the vegetarians / links, I made a moral commitment:

My moral commitment is to eat foods that are closer to what nature is capable of producing, and this by being just guided by the hand of man, and not forced as is the case with production food industry (I do not touch GMOs, everything that is processed is banned, sugar is almost non-existent).
0 x
When we work, we must always give 100%: 12% on Monday; 25% Tuesday; 32% Wednesday; 23% on Thursday; and 8% on Friday
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 20/11/13, 09:08

Ahmed hello
The death camps were not only used for the physical extermination of people, they were the scene of ill-treatment and humiliation aimed at denying (killing) the human dignity of the detainees, which seems to me a particularly aggravating circumstance of this industrialization of murder.


That's right ! the human being united in himself the best and the worst and when the worst is expressed it becomes unnamable. But, as you put it, it's a circumstance aggravating, which in judicial terms consists in adding to a recognized offense, a plus like premeditation for example, but with or without aggravating circumstances, it is and remains an offense.
Same thing for animal murder, the desire for death and suffering on a joyful side that we find accentuated in hunting (pleasure) or bullfighting for example (or formerly circus games) which underlines that this is not the subject or the object which matters, but the spirit which animates the one who is thirsty to see blood flow (that of the others in general, it is less painful!), this morbid desire which concerns the psychoanalysis.
Likewise, the animal husbandry conditions added to the horror of their killing; not only is their life abnormally short, but the expression of their animality is prohibited because of their appalling living conditions.

Always okay that adds, but we can only add to what already exists: therefore the horror which already exists!

cuicui hello
Cuicui wrote:
Janic wrote:
nothing justifies these massacres on a small or large scale!

In other words: stop raising animals.

This is a recurring question among VGLs and even more so among vegans.
In reality this is a false problem. The farm animal can have as much its place as the wild animals, but not in the current proportions whose only destination is an early death, a cow normally lives 20 years, however a dairy cow has an average life expectancy of 8 at 10 years old (if she is not sick and slaughtered before)
Farm animals maintain the plant areas to which humans are accustomed and which would otherwise return to the wild. Then these animals were helpers for the peasant by their muscular power, which disappeared with the mechanical traction and they do not serve any more that with the leisures or the butchery (with, the butchery in any case besides).
While bulls are mainly intended for slaughter and rarely for reproduction, cows are most often intended to ensure the renewal of the herd or the production of milk. The cow is raised either for its milk (breeds of dairy cows), or for the production of meat (breeds for meat or "suckling"), or for both (mixed breeds).
Like all mammals, a cow can only give milk after it has given birth. Before having her first calf, the young female is called heifer.
Dairy cows at the end of life are normally fattened and sent to the slaughterhouse (cull cows). In France, they supply most of what is marketed under the name "beef". France had 18,9 million cows in 2006.

Wikipedia
Note that this is end of life dairy when production decreases and the cow is no longer profitable because it could live at least 10 more years;
It is also the end of the Inuit way of life, which only survived by killing animals.

It's interesting to see that the arguments are always the same, but let's go anyway.
The Inuit, unlike bears, reindeer, wolves, etc ... are not in their natural environment since unlike other animals they must use devices to survive, hence their inevitable animal consumption. Only the earth is not covered with Inuit, they represent only a tiny part of the world population which is not concerned with an anti-physiological diet reducing life.
And what about the carnivores who kill herbivores so cruelly.

Re-classic! Nature does not give in sentimentality and each living being belongs to an animal category defined by its physiology (and partially its psychology) known and recognized since the works of famous anatomists or not.
Then each predator is equipped with means allowing this predation, which does not exist in humans without claws, without canines for grasping, without sharp molars, etc ... therefore humans are not naturally a predator, at most a scavenger when circumstances and need allow it.
So where we argue on sentimentality, humanism, which so many recommend but do not apply, and in this case the comparison with the exterminating camps is justified because the spirit that animates these butchers is the same; or we leave the feelings aside and in this case only the main rules of biology and physiology must be taken into account and the human omnivorous (that those who affirm this point fail to demonstrate biologically - and not culturally -) is only an untruth which human societies are customary and not only in this area of ​​course.
That said, everyone acts according to their conscience, but in this case we should no longer complain about the harmful effects of these bad choices.

Hello bunny
Your words shock me. I think the comparisons you are making are inappropriate.

Of course it is made to shock! When you want to harvest plums, shake the plum tree or they will dry out and rot on the tree. Why do you think environmentalists put forward nuclear accidents rather than the benefits of electricity production without CO2?
Is the vegetarian full of scruples only aware of the lives he crushes under his feet when he goes to commune with nature during a walk on a beautiful Sunday afternoon?

here too this discourse is one of the classics opposed to the VG and which disturb some VG elsewhere. The hippie period has long since passed and many VG live in cities like carnists and do not commune with nature more than others. We must stop these images of Epinal for postcards!
So, in truth, these are not sentimental scruples because one must indeed take a life to maintain another life whether this one is vegetable or animal, the whole is to know what type of life is suitable for the individual concerned. Our laughs in animal nutrition put animal meal in the cattle feed and the result was catastrophic, but this could only be done because the human intervened in a natural process which these cattle would not have not adhered outside lairage. (It is the same in lab animals subjected to a "scientifically studied" diet that no guinea pig would absorb in wild conditions, which distorts the results elsewhere)
To choose between eating worms or pig, I prefer the pig.
It is a question of cultural habits not of "dietetics" or gastronomy. Tastes and colors… !!!
One last word. When I have to sacrifice one of my pigs I am sad.
It is painful to me but I must do it because this pig will feed my family for several months. But all the time that I fattened him I did everything to make him happy, I ended up attaching myself but when the fateful moment comes. I assume.

Always the same self-justification arguments that we find among fans of bullfighting "the animal is happy, including in the arena, etc ... " the problem is that at 99,99% it is the bull that ends up in steak, not the bullfighter.
The crocodile crying over the victim he has just devoured must be sad too! You could feed your family with a better adapted food which would avoid this sadness and in addition it would avoid all the physical ills which are related to it, which confirms more and more the works on dietetics and the pathologies of which the humans complain ignoring the relationship between cause and effect because culture and culinary habits have never taken it into account until our modern era.
But fortunately the SS, the cash cow that everyone greedily treats, is it not there to face our overflows? To the delight (there are not sad them!) Labs large producers of poisons that allow to continue a lifestyle that keeps each consumer in power to use their diligent services. Where is the ecology in all this?
Finally, it is not a question of knowing who, one here, one there, can eat his pig fattened on the farm, but whether this model is applicable to the whole of wealthy society like ours and to all the more so to the rest of the world's population and the answer is no! Or, with a growing world population, we feed farm animals with wasteful forces and less humans; or we do the opposite, but not both together because we cannot have the butter and the money of the butter at the same time. So except to show navel-gazing, human society will have to make a choice! And so to answer the subject of the thread: no! producing better will not meet the ever greater demands of a growing population, a large part of which (this is "normal") aspires to the American-European model which is the model par excellence of non-quality.
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 20/11/13, 09:53

Life on earth is based on the food chain where many living things feed on other living things, which is in itself shocking. The most peaceful world possible (but probably not the most efficient) would undoubtedly be only plant where any animal (in particular human) would be banished.
While waiting for this dream to come true, the best is not to live the best possible with the least possible nuisance, and to take better care of humans by helping them to avoid or evacuate the suffering, especially psychic, which drives them to greed and cruelty?
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 20/11/13, 10:23

Life on earth is based on the food chain where many living things feed on other living things, which is in itself shocking.
it is only shocking because we are used to a certain sentimentalism linked to our culture of the good and bad. Secondly because we are subject to instinctive and selective mechanisms which orient us towards what is best suited to our survival (as a species more than as an individual). So we are sensitive to the death of a pet with which have been woven emotional ties, but not with the pig of an industrial breeding or not. On the other hand, we have no more compassion for a blade of grass or a fruit than do other non-carnivorous animals. These are the natural laws and the transgression of these generates suffering, illness, early death!
The most peaceful world possible would undoubtedly be only plant where any animal (in particular human) would be banished.
If this world was created in this way, it was because it was the best balanced! The plant world without animals, including insects, would not survive on its own! This balance between animal and plant is what best fits the global ecology. The problem comes mainly from the human being who is a bad manager of it because of his voracity and his egocentrism aggravated by the demographic explosion.
Now as long as consciousness does not awaken to some of these aspects, the world will remain as it is except for unexpected global upheaval. But individually everyone can do their part towards a less cruel world!
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 20/11/13, 11:03

Cuicui wrote:(...) is not it best to live as well as possible with the least possible nuisance, and to take better care of humans by helping them to avoid or evacuate the suffering, especially psychic, which pushes them to greed and cruelty?


Fully agree!
But imagine that the concept of suffering has been posed for over 3000 years and has led to Jainism and Buddhism, a doctrine that leads to ... vegetarianism!
The human being, as an animal with the highest degree of intelligence (yes yes!) Has the duty to limit as much as possible the suffering that it can cause, and what better than to "become" vegetarian again?

As a reminder of our origins, humans are animals from a primate line, not felines or canines ...
Primates are not originally meat-consuming animals, it was only through the control of fire that we were able to consume them in significant quantities, cooking acting as a pre-digestion in a way.
Homo-sapiens is clearly an omnivorous animal with a vegetarian tendency, this evolution is probably made by the Baldwin effect (ie natural selection via a cultural modification).

That said, and going back to our time, it is completely absurd to want to compare the traditional way of life of the Inuit, for example, with an average American!
It is clear that in many regions of the world, meat food is the only source allowing access to the necessary nutrients, but again: do we all live around the Arctic Circle or in the Siberian taiga? I do not think so...

The question is therefore not to oppose vegetarianism and meat diet but to conclude by saying that technically speaking, it is hardly possible to export the current model to the rest of the world.
In the very near future there will be a choice between eating vegetarian and consuming GMO meat, because we will have no other solution ...
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 188 guests