What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Meet your meat

  • Thread starter 7santiago
  • Start date
  • #41
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]What's scarey is that people with so little regard for other people have so much power. They don't care about the starving people. No, their agenda is what matters. We have people who are completely out of touch with what the rest of the world needs, shirking the things that can help to save it.

I agree with you but I don't think we should turn this discussion into another bush thread.
 
  • #42
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I agree with you but I don't think we should turn this discussion into another bush thread.

Believe it or not, but he didn't even come to mind while I was posting this. I was thinking more along the lines of PETA, "Green Peace," etc. lol
 
  • #43
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] say that you're flat-out wrong about that

Nooooo you dont tell people there wrong, there libal to get defensive.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]People often cite the organisms created in labs which feature a plant with the a section of animal DNA incorporated in to the plant's DNA, giving it a property of the plant. Tobacco with firefly genes, tomatoes with freeze-resistant fish genes, and so on. "They're feeding us Frankenstein food!" they say; but the fact is that these are lab created products, and they STAY in the lab. "There's no controll over genetically modified foods!" they say; which is absolutely correct- except for the FDA and scores of other groups closely monitoring genetically enhanced foods

Genetically modified grain crops incorporating pesticides of their wn are already coming onto the scene here in the corn belt. Our legislators are in a bg lobby fight with the EU over their ban on genetically modified crops. Several genetically modified wheat strains are already in production here, and potential problems have already arising regarding insect immunity and pollen pollution. But I don’t see the deal on pollen pollution because even though weeds to get the modified crops pollen on their stigmas, Wheat is either a hexaploid or a tetraploid and unlikely to breed with wild diploid species. In addition, Because of the loss of seed dispersal mechanisms, domesticated wheats cannot survive in the wild.

Being a carnivore or omnivore is not a requirement for developing intelligence. The Kea, arguably the third smartest animal o the planet, came to develop its intelligence from the need for curiosity and exploration of new plant food sources.
 
  • #44
Wait does this mean Rocky Mountain Oysters are out of the picture too!
smile_k_ani_32.gif


DANG IT!

But man Mokele is all over this! Many great points.

Cheers
 
  • #45
Yummy, mountain oysters.
smile_n_32.gif
 
  • #46
Thanks guys, I've just had this debate so many times I've got it memorized by now.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Yummy, mountain oysters

Well, they are a type of nuts....
smile_m_32.gif


Mokele
 
  • #47
Whoohooo, glad thats all cleard up!

laugh.gif
 
  • #49
/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\

LMAO!!!

I would also like to profess my love for Mokele and his vast knowledge, cool logic and unique style.

Might join in on this debate later,
Zac
 
  • #50
Join the Revolution now!

(diggin the comic)
 
  • #51
Mokele said this a few pages back:

"People form superficial judgements based on poor understanding, and rarely let these go, even if faced with an actual explantation.  Call me elitist, but I fervently believe that any decision requiring any level of expertise should *never* be in the hands of the public."

I felt the same way when I was in my 20s.  But 20 years later, I realize I don't have all the answers and neither does anyone else.  The people who really scare me are the ones who, after growing up, still believe in their own infallibility or in someone else's.  Whether they be vegans or people with graduate degrees.  If the world were such a simple place, someone would have figured everything out long ago.

As for the topic at hand, it takes a lot of calories of plant to raise a few calories of meat.  If the meat industry were based on cattle grazing grasslands, one could argue it's a sustainable system with the cattle converting low quality grass to a high quality food we can eat.  But ranchers get pennies per pound for their effort and the cattle end up in feedlots to be stuffed with corn and hormones and antibiotics.  It's a food production system that consumes lots of fossil fuel & water while causing lots of ecologic and economic damage.  It's perfectly reasonable to be bothered by the scene; or to just be thrilled at how cheap beef has become.  I favor the first answer, but I'm wrong sometimes.
 
  • #52
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I felt the same way when I was in my 20s. But 20 years later, I realize I don't have all the answers and neither does anyone else. The people who really scare me are the ones who, after growing up, still believe in their own infallibility or in someone else's. Whether they be vegans or people with graduate degrees. If the world were such a simple place, someone would have figured everything out long ago.

It's not a matter of having all the answers, but one of having sufficient background knowledge to be able to accurately process what you observe. That's why I used the electroretionography example; it highlights the different conclusions reached by people who lack and possess sufficient information.

To claim you know *everything* because of a grad degree is foolish. But to claim that someone with a grad degree does not understand their subject better than the uneducated mass is equally foolish. There are people whose entire scientific careers have focused on pain, how it works in humans and animals, how to alleviate it, and what euthanasia methods are most humane given particular constraints. To claim that Joe Sixpack can evaluate the situation better is nothing but a product of the populistic anti-intellectualism that poisons US culture.

Mokele
 
  • #53
Bruce yah just got to buy the beef straight from the ranchers who butcher their own. saves alot of the hassle
smile_m_32.gif
 
  • #54
When someone's only tool is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.  I don't want high school dropouts performing surgery, but I also don't want surgeons setting public health policy.

If electroretinography needs to be done, it needs to be done by expert electroretinographers.  But we can't rely on expert electroretinographers to decide whether electroretinography is an ethical thing to do or whether to devote more resources to electroretinography.  It's a difficult balancing act.  Even more difficult than using that word so many times in so few sentences.

As for Rattler's suggestion, it's too bad more people can't/don't buy beef straight from the rancher.  Or sausages from a local sausage maker and so on.  But they want to save a little money and, anyway, the agricultural-industrial complex makes it pretty much impossible.  I've probably linked to this before, but here's my favorite article about the subject: http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/2/2000/596
 
  • #55
[b said:
Quote[/b] (7santiago @ May 25 2006,9:44)]6 LOL kidney beans, brocoli ,spinach, brussels sprouts,almonds ,sweet potatoes ,cabbage, asperagus, and bananna all have b12
try again!  
biggrin.gif
actually, you're not quite correct... vegans don't get enough b12 to fight off heart disease or depression.... B12 only comes from meat products (eggs, liver and such) all supplements are made from these.
As far as the foods you mentioned you're thinking of B6
 
  • #56
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I don't want high school dropouts performing surgery, but I also don't want surgeons setting public health policy.

Then who? The public, who has even less understanding? Politicians, who will flat-out ignore facts if it lets them pander to the ignorant masses? Or a new group of experts in public health policy? I'd go with the latter; at least they've got enough information to know what they're doing.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If electroretinography needs to be done, it needs to be done by expert electroretinographers. But we can't rely on expert electroretinographers to decide whether electroretinography is an ethical thing to do or whether to devote more resources to electroretinography. It's a difficult balancing act.

I fail to see how it is. On the decision about the ethics of a technique, who better to ask than an expert? If you ask non-experts, they'll form snap judgements based on superficial observations, without the knowledge of details needed for *correct* conclusions.

I think you're making self-interest out to be too huge a part of this. While it can play a role, a) that's why we have neutral inspection agencies, both governmental and independent, and b) while people are inherently selfish, people also tend to have ethical standards. Just because they know a useful technique doesn't mean it'll *always* be used and the ethical ramifications waved away.

Take me. I do animal testing for my research, some of which will be terminal. I'm well-acquainted with various techniques for doing my research, some of which is terminal, some not. While I *do* have the self-interest motive of making my reputation as a scientist, I also had to have a *long* *hard* think about it before I even began. Furthermore, while I feel ethically confident in my decision, I do not simply treat animals as disposable; extensive statistical analysis is performed on pre-experiments in order to determine the *minimum* number of animals needed to reach a valid conclusion. Do I have a vested interest and a focus on this that might skew my vision, sure. But there's *no* question that I'm vastly more qualified to make the proper decisions than some PETA loon; I know precisely what's involved, thoroughly understand the techniques involved and the science behind them. Additionally, my techniques and decisions are scrutinized by regulatory agencies and other scientists, who are also familiar with the techniques and situation.

I'll also offer a counter-example: the university's animal regulation system, IACUC. Some IACUCs kick teh butt and are a credit to the system, and ours is pretty good...except that we're one of the 3 labs on campus that deals with non-mammal vertebrates. As a result, all they know is mammals, and our lab has a long history of fighting with them because they focus on useless trivia based on incorrect application of their knowledge of mammals. We've had the beurocratic equivalent of knock-down-drag-out fights over simply getting to use unsealed branches and wood for climbing apparatus. They've been so unfamiliar with the setup and species that they've overlooked two-foot-long fish as thick as my arm in unfurnished tanks (they thought we were keeping goldfish and griped that we only labeled for lungfish until we showed them the lungfish and pointed out that the goldfish was *lunch* for the lungfish). All of these problems and others trace back to people unfamiliar with the system making decisions about it.

Yes, there's the issue of self-interest, but I'd argue that's *much* less of a problem than letting people who are ignorant of a system have a deciding role in managing it.

Mokele
 
  • #57
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Then who? The public, who has even less understanding? Politicians, who will flat-out ignore facts if it lets them pander to the ignorant masses? Or a new group of experts in public health policy? I'd go with the latter; at least they've got enough information to know what they're doing.

Well said.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]To claim that Joe Sixpack can evaluate the situation better is nothing but a product of the populistic anti-intellectualism that poisons US culture

Unfortunately it's Joe Sixpack who decides who runs the show...
 
  • #58
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Unfortunately it's Joe Sixpack who decides who runs the show..

Wow, I didn't know JBL had so much power.
 
  • #59
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Meat very good. We're omnivorous creatures for a reason: Until the investion of the supermarket, vegetarianism wasn't an option. There is nowhere on earth (i.e. area in which a human can walk to gather their food/ farm food without technology) that would suppor the human metabolism on pure vegitarianism.

Vegetarianism's always been an option. You just didn't go to the butchers and visited the bakers and vegetable seller. Of course, before supermarkets the culture was different and your family would probably have called you ungrateful and you'd cause problems for yourself socially. Vegetarianism has come about because of a social shift - I think it's good. Social change for reasons of morality has made a lot of countries a nicer place to live in. We tend not to see medieval methods of torture nowadays in most countries. People realised that's not really a nice thing to do, and now vegetarians think it's not a nice thing to eat animals. All the usual health stuff that's trotted out is ludicrous - we're meant to be omnivores etc. etc. If humans didn't change and adapt and progress, we'd all still be living on the plains in Africa.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]There is nowhere on earth (i.e. area in which a human can walk to gather their food/ farm food without technology) that would suppor the human metabolism on pure vegitarianism.
I don't know what you mean here, but to be honest it sounds like drivel.
 
  • #60
So what is being argued here? Is it whether or not people can survive on a soley vegan diet(assume no supplementation) or is it the ethics of eating meat. It seems to be the former...I'd think that should be pretty clear cut at this point.

We eat meat here but steak tends to be a rarity...usually it is fish, chicken or similar. Sometimes lamb. But its hard to beat a steak. Made a bunch of Wonton last night.
 
Back
Top