I am going to be on discussion about veganism
-
Here's someone probably selecting themselves out of evolution:
-
@djls45 said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
Free-range cattle would be on a ranch (with no fences if it's actually free range).
The ones I've seen just have one big fence around the perimeter. Does that count or is it only free-range if the cattle are allowed to wander onto the highway?
-
@antiquarian said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@djls45 said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
Free-range cattle would be on a ranch (with no fences if it's actually free range).
The ones I've seen just have one big fence around the perimeter. Does that count or is it only free-range if the cattle are allowed to wander onto the highway?
If they wander onto the highway, there will be a brief moment of pain and then they will be completely free-range forever.
-
@pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@antiquarian said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@djls45 said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
Free-range cattle would be on a ranch (with no fences if it's actually free range).
The ones I've seen just have one big fence around the perimeter. Does that count or is it only free-range if the cattle are allowed to wander onto the highway?
If they wander onto the highway, there will be a brief moment of pain and then they will be completely free-range forever.
In Idaho, if you hit livestock on the road, you're liable for all losses. Period. No matter what. Of course, there are about as many sheep and cows as people, so...
-
@remi said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@jaloopa said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
If veganism were adopted on a large scale, it would be worse for animals in a lot of ways. Modern varieties of cows get sick if they're not milked, as they produce far more milk than is "natural". Sheep no longer shed throughout the year, they need to be sheared or their wool keeps growing
If veganism was adopted on a large scale, these animals would simply stop being reared. So unless the switch happened magically all in one night, nothing worse would happen for any of those animals.
If we kill all the adult humans, there won't be any child humans, so they won't need to be killed by us!
-
So I just found this Reddit:
-
@pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@boomzilla said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@jaloopa said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
If veganism were adopted on a large scale, it would be worse for animals in a lot of ways. Modern varieties of cows get sick if they're not milked, as they produce far more milk than is "natural". Sheep no longer shed throughout the year, they need to be sheared or their wool keeps growing
See, this is what I mean by 'as nature intended'. WE did this. WE fucked with evolution so that this happened.
Yeah, well, we're part of nature, too.
That's a very broad interpretation of 'nature'. I mean the traditional processes of natural selection and things like that. We circumvent them, turn around, and spit in their faces.
But... it's only natural to do so, for a human....
-
@djls45 said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
But laws like e.g. natural selection don't apply to us because we just circumvent them
So that's a different level of "law" than the laws of physics?
Yes! Some laws are more lawful than others!
-
@pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@antiquarian said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@djls45 said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
Free-range cattle would be on a ranch (with no fences if it's actually free range).
The ones I've seen just have one big fence around the perimeter. Does that count or is it only free-range if the cattle are allowed to wander onto the highway?
If they wander onto the highway, there will be a brief moment of pain and then they will be completely free-range forever.
Wat. At best they'd be stunned for a second, mostly...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU24_C0lEcg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unbi6__CIlk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAEicGMECEw
Granted, we don't get confirmation that most of these animals survived (or instantly died, for that matter), but unless they hit the vehicle very particularly in a manner to produce insta-kill, their moment of pain will be anything but brief!
-
@pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
Care to, y'know, conclude that with literally anything? Provide explanation? Logic? es that pretend to be logic?
Take your average joe. Throw him in the wilderness. See if he can circumvent a bear.
We survive because we're better at banding together and developing tools. That's not something absent in the rest of nature. It's evolved in other species too.
@pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
Back in the olden days, if you had a disability, you died. Now, we have all sorts of corrective surgery, prosthetics, etc. which ensure that you'll not only not die, but probably have children who can inherit your disability.
That's also not something absent in the rest of nature. Other animal species take care of the weak and disabled, for the same reasons. Morale, etc.
@pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
Just because they can still survive in their environment doesn't make them not inferior.
That's the point. They've adapted to their environment. You're predicating their fitness based on environmental change. That's not how evolution works. Fitness is determined by your current environment.
-
@remi said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
If veganism was adopted on a large scale, these animals would simply stop being reared. So unless the switch happened magically all in one night, nothing worse would happen for any of those animals.
No. They'd either be released into the environment to procreate where they'd suffer because they were bred for their current environment, or be put down en mass.
PETA ended dog racing, ended up with a lot of dogs in shelters that they had to then kill.
-
@boomzilla said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
Here's someone probably selecting themselves out of evolution:
They'd have to define "truly free". Have they had a toddler?
-
@djls45 said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@remi said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@jaloopa said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
If veganism were adopted on a large scale, it would be worse for animals in a lot of ways. Modern varieties of cows get sick if they're not milked, as they produce far more milk than is "natural". Sheep no longer shed throughout the year, they need to be sheared or their wool keeps growing
If veganism was adopted on a large scale, these animals would simply stop being reared. So unless the switch happened magically all in one night, nothing worse would happen for any of those animals.
But that only works for the next generations. What about the current one?
What "what about the current one"? A vaguely realistic scenario for the world switching to veganism would be that it would happen in at least a few years. So the existing cattle would get slaughtered for meat like it currently is, and farmers would simply stop rearing new ones. There might be a temporary glut of meat (or other animal products) on the market (if a lot of people immediately stopped buying them), but that would just drop the price for those who haven't switched to veganism yet.
Really, I don't see any problem with that bit (not that I'm defending the idea that we switch to veganism, but I'm just saying that this wouldn't change much for the currently living cattle).
And we'd have to actively prevent the current generation from reproducing so that those varieties die out and future generations don't require frequent milking or shearing.
Yeah well, it's not like cattle is allowed to breed freely and unchecked anyway. Just stop putting the ram in the middle of the ewes and, hey presto! no new lamb is born. For wild roaming herds, they're already round up every year or so, so do a few rounds of massive sterilisation at that time and you're done (or let them live, if they manage to live with minimal human intervention at the moment they might be able to continue).
If we want to preserve a few specimen in zoos or parcs, yeah, they'll require some special upkeep. But that's not any worse than shipping tons of bamboo from the other side of the world just so that you can get a panda bear.
-
@remi said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
Just stop putting the ram in the middle of the ewes
Do they still do that? Geeze, I was under the impression we were genetically modifying them and artificially incriminating them.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@remi said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
Just stop putting the ram in the middle of the ewes
Do they still do that? Geeze, I was under the impression we were genetically modifying them and artificially incriminating them.
From the documentaries that I've seen, apparently they still do, at least in some small scale herd. Not sure if the huge industrial ones work the same way, although it would seem to me that it's probably less effort to just let the ram do what he naturally wants to do rather than isolating the ewes and inseminating them one by one. In genetics terms, there isn't much difference between both methods!
I remember a fun fact, which is that they put some paint on the belly of the ram before letting it loose, so that afterwards they just have to look at which ewes have got paint on their back to know the ones that have been, hem, visited by the ram.
(also, that probably doesn't apply to cows, I think artificial insemination is much more common there... not sure why, maybe bulls wouldn't naturally mate with as many females as rams do? Or there is more danger of wound? Or it's harder to move a bull between herds than a ram? I don't know...)
(also, I have tried to find something fun to say about your typo of "artificially incriminating", but my wits are failing me...)
-
@lucas1, so what happened in the end?
Did you eat the vegan or did he eat you?
-
@remi said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
your typo of "artificially incriminating",
Is it a typo if the word isn't misspelled and technically is grammatically correct? Granted, incriminating isn't the word... Wait, WTF? Incriminating ah there we go, isn't the word I was typing for, but it's still interesting to ponder. Insemination. There, if I type slightly more deliberately it works...
-
@cartman82 said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@lucas1, so what happened in the end?
Did you eat the vegan or did he eat you?
He was eaten, the last post was "it is all happening"....
-
@cartman82 said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
did he eat you?
Are you calling @lucas1 a vegetable?
-
@remi said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
But that's not any worse than shipping tons of bamboo from the other side of the world just so that you can get a panda bear.
I can see you're not familiar with bamboo.
-
@boomzilla Yeah, it's much harder to get rid of than to grow.
-
@boomzilla No, but that's not really the point anyway, that was just an analogy.
Would you prefer a car analogy? They always go wrong at some point, this should go well.
-
@djls45 You could go back further.
I've known a number of Christians who were vegetarian on the grounds that "in Genesis God only told Adam and Eve to eat the plants." You don't even have to get out of the named book for that to be explicitly superseded (immediately following Noah's Ark).
-
@carrievs said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@djls45 You could go back further.
I've known a number of Christians who were vegetarian on the grounds that "in Genesis God only told Adam and Eve to eat the plants." You don't even have to get out of the named book for that to be explicitly superseded (immediately following Noah's Ark).
Didn't God also tell them not to eat apples or wear underpants?
-
@djls45 said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
But laws like e.g. natural selection don't apply to us because we just circumvent them
So that's a different level of "law" than the laws of physics?
I didn't vote for it
-
@ben_lubar said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
not to eat apples
This is from a pun in Latin between the words for "evil" (malum) and "apple" (mālum).
The command was to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which was in the middle of the Garden of Eden. Since access to the Garden was revoked due to Adam and Eve's disobedience, the command is now moot.not to ... wear underpants
No, he told the priests to wear undergarments so that when they were up above the people during the performance of their duties, the wind or certain movements couldn't expose them. It was an anti-
measure.
-
@djls45 said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
No, he told the priests to wear undergarments so that when they were up above the people during the performance of their duties, the wind or certain movements couldn't expose them. It was an anti-
measure.That seems silly; the idea is to keep such thoughts out of the minds of the priests, not the people looking at them.
-
@pie_flavor said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
@djls45 said in I am going to be on discussion about veganism:
No, he told the priests to wear undergarments so that when they were up above the people during the performance of their duties, the wind or certain movements couldn't expose them. It was an anti-
measure.That seems silly; the idea is to keep such thoughts out of the minds of the priests, not the people looking at them.
Why not both?
