Expert prognosis for the planet

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

If this glacier breaks up into the ocean then we will see an immediate 1.5-3 foot rise in sea level and possibly worse.

So countries that use the Metric System are safe?

My impression is that insurance companies are the businesses most aware of climate change. They are the ones who have to weigh the risk of insuring. I have mentioned before that not being able to insure a property has massive flow on effects through an economy.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Your analysis of his first point is not represented correctly. It went like this:

Antagonist
1. Choosing to eat animals is a personal choice.
2. Personal choices aren't about morals.
3. Personal choices are about desires.
4. I desire to eat meat therefore eating meat is a moral personal choice.

This is false in the A then B context and in the circular reasoning context.

Protagonist...challenges line 2 and 3.
1. Some personal choices are falsely claimed to be personal.
2. It is not a personal choice when a choice involves another creature, especially when that choice involves the suffering of that creature.
3. Choosing to harm a person or dog is immoral because there is suffering.
4. Therefore, choosing to harm a person or dog is not a personal choice.
5. People claim that choosing to eat animals is a personal choice.
6. Eating animals leads to animal suffering.
7. Needless animal suffering is immoral.
8. Therefore, the choice of needlessly eating animals is not a personal choice, and it is immoral.

Those are direct points I or someone else can argue against. Where does the dog fighting, genital mutilation, and murder plug in? Because that is the straw man piece. He implied that if you argue against any of those points you are also arguing against these points.

In the presenters line of reasoning, can somebody be opposed to dog fighting and also have no moral objections to eat meat? Does he present that as inconsistent application of morality?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

When you say most, do you mean by species or biomass?

OK, lets go with a large number. I didn't count or weigh them.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Just because we were omnivores doesn't mean we need to stay omnivores.

I don't disagree, but it is unlikely you could get the entire species to change, unless there is a catastrophic event that leads to it.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Regardless, we do many things that are unnatural or that differed from our past, so using a "natural" argument as to why we should continue to eat animals, especially when it means being cruel to animals and damaging the earth in the process actually seems more contrived.

Whether it is natural or unnatural was not my point. Only that switching the planet wholesale seems like a pipedream and goes against our natural make-up. I also agree there are cruel practices in the meat industry that need to be improved and no longer hidden away. There are also bad practices in the non-meat food industry as well that need to be improved.

I will say that having grown up in a family that raised most of our own food, including cows, chickens, pigs, I do not see the slaughter of animals for food as "cruel" when done properly. They should be raised responsibly however.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

Live as you wish and do good as you see it. Allow others to do the same. Period.

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

So, in order to fit both of your acceptable versions of morality, everyone needs to do good only as you both see fit, and as you both allow it? Got it. A very, and unfortunately, common attitide these days.

We are omnivores by nature. Our teeth and biological makeup prove that beyond question. I choose to not defy nature. If you choose otherwise, I have absolutely no problem with that.
I have also sheltered and rehabilitated countless animals, worked on dairy farms, scooped newborn calves out of manure gutters, and given lifelong homes to thirteen cats and six beloved canine friends. I have no patience for those who are cruel to animals. I also have no patience for those who view their views as the only acceptable views.

My moral compass includes a healthy dose of humility, heaping piles of gratitude for the blessings bestowed upon me, and motivation to be as helpful as I can to others. Forcing my will, my beliefs, and my opinions on others, outside of raising my children in their childhood, isn't my place. The Golden Rule is certainly a great guideline. Would either of you appreciate being lectured and admonished as you have been doing here?

Live, and let live. Change the things you feel need changing by example and through kindness.

If someone took your statement literally outside of the context of this thread then that would be a terrible philosophy for living. If I thought rape and murder was something I wished and was good then should others accept that? Of course not because my choices affect others. Similarly, in the context of this topic, people choosing to eat animals the way we do with factory farming and at the scale we do affects others. It leads to more pollution, more land use for grazing and crops, more destruction of ecosystems, greater destruction of species, increase in greenhouse gas emissions, etc.

My original post said this, and it was a video providing counter arguments against anti-veganism. The arguments that followed support the position above in a thread that is centered around "Expert prognosis for the planet", meaning, we are discussing topics around the health and future of the planet. I have since defended that position. Are you suggesting that I am "forcing my will, my beliefs, and my opinions on others" by arguing my views in a forum setting? I lecture and admonish myself, and I am fine with someone doing the same if it is in the context of a debate. I have had a number of religious and other types of debates in my life on both sides, so I am not thinned skin enough to care.

Save the animals, the planet and the human race. Be a vegan:

As the video discusses, we can compare our teeth or digestive tracts to other obligate carnivores and herbivores, and they are closure to herbivores, and there is nothing there that suggests we need to eat meat or need to be omnivores. Our past doesn't have to define our future. We choose to defy our nature in all sorts of ways that to suggest we must be omnivores because we use to is silly and is special pleading. As I mentioned, eating animals is an unnecessary choice that has real ramifications for our species, other species, our land, ecosystems, pollution, climate change, etc. Most understand this fact, and if they don't then they stay in willful ignorance, but it would mean an inconvenience in their lives and a decrease in the pleasure of eating what they wanted to eat, so it comes down to a type of selfishness or ignorance.

Most people are overweight, don't work out, eat poor foods, etc, so expecting people to be vegan is a long shot. No one deconverts overnight. Hopefully people can start by reducing their intake of animal products, which is entirely possible considering the average person gets twice the amount of protein they need and far more saturated fat and cholesterol too. Baby steps.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

So countries that use the Metric System are safe?

My impression is that insurance companies are the businesses most aware of climate change. They are the ones who have to weigh the risk of insuring. I have mentioned before that not being able to insure a property has massive flow on effects through an economy.

lol exactly.

That is a good point. I wonder if there is a way to follow what they are doing and/or lobbying/supporting. This was also true of cigarette companies and oil companies as it pertains to lung cancer and climate change, respectively. People who have a dollar to lose or gain tend to predict the future the best.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Those are direct points I or someone else can argue against. Where does the dog fighting, genital mutilation, and murder plug in? Because that is the straw man piece. He implied that if you argue against any of those points you are also arguing against these points.

In the presenters line of reasoning, can somebody be opposed to dog fighting and also have no moral objections to eat meat? Does he present that as inconsistent application of morality?

Yes, but they would need to sight an argument other than, "because it is my personal choice". Personal choice is often used as an argument on its own: "I eat meat because it is my personal choice." He opens his argument with personal choice because he wants that audience to eliminate that argument from their mind, and he wants them to first understand that they need to have arguments besides feelings and desires as to why they choose to eat meat. If they believe "personal choice" is an argument for an action that is a moral action (because it involves other people and other creatures that suffer) then sighting "personal choice" could be a moral argument to do anything, such as not being opposed to dog fighting, murder or genital mutilation. Once the audience accepts that "personal choice" isn't a moral argument for anything then they are ready to deal with other arguments that follow more logically than those about feelings and desires.

I didn't find his argument very hard to follow, but maybe it is, so hopefully that helped because, as you can see, he is allowing for someone to be against dog fighting and for eating meat, but not merely because it feels right or for personal choice. Clear? For instance, someone could argue that eating meat is cruel, but it is necessary because they are allergic to all plants, but they are also against dog fighting because it is cruel. This would be logically consistent with his first point because someone is sighting "personal choice"; they are sighting a medical condition.

People do the same thing with other topics when the topic isn't something they choose for good or sound reasons or when they are uncomfortable about discussing their views or want to avoid discussing their views for any number of reasons. For instance, often religion is sighted as a "personal choice" when someone either can't or doesn't want to argue their beliefs/opinions/position. Sometimes this is because someone has no arguments affirming their choice, and other times it is because the may understand their arguments are weak or may be poorly received, or they want to avoid the debate all together, so "personal choice" is sighted to end the argument, but in the case of eating meat, it is a choice that is a moral choice because it affects others, so it isn't a "personal choice".

[soundman98]

sure seems like the simple answer here is to kill all humans.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I don't disagree, but it is unlikely you could get the entire species to change, unless there is a catastrophic event that leads to it.

Whether it is natural or unnatural was not my point. Only that switching the planet wholesale seems like a pipedream and goes against our natural make-up. I also agree there are cruel practices in the meat industry that need to be improved and no longer hidden away. There are also bad practices in the non-meat food industry as well that need to be improved.

I will say that having grown up in a family that raised most of our own food, including cows, chickens, pigs, I do not see the slaughter of animals for food as "cruel" when done properly. They should be raised responsibly however.

I agree that it is unlikely to happen suddenly. It will probably happen gradually out of necessity, but partially through awareness*, and that is where most vegans are. Some are against all animal deaths, but the vast majority of vegetarians, plant based dieters and vegans understand the reality of the situation. Most want people to just consider eating less meat. My deconversion from religion was gradual. My deconversion from meat was gradual too. My wife has been vegetarian for over 25 years and just now went vegan in the last few years. For me, I eat healthy whole foods, but then I switched to organic and cage-free, free-range, and tried to do the best I could. Then I cut back my meat intake in half or more. Then when my wife went vegan, I dumped dairy, and over time, I went more of a pescatarian (fish, eggs) plant based diet, and now I am animal based. I am not vegan because I haven't eliminated animal products from everything, and I will still have a steak or something for rare occasions. I have a glass of alcohol about once in six months, so I am far from an alcoholic who drinks daily. People are mostly meat-holics, and they could greatly reduce their consumption. If I had a chicken, and it produced eggs, I would eat them. I am not against reasonable farm practices. The problem is that it is very hard to know what is happening behind the scenes from just reading the label. That is one of the points brought up in Netflix's Seaspiracy that the Dolphin Safe Tuna label is a lie, but people use that label to try to make informed decisions about their purchases. I used to eat farmed salmon from Whole Foods where my wife works. While I can say it is probably better than other farmed salmon, I don't know, and often salmon is produced in barely or in small pens in terrible conditions then fed food to help them look pink instead of gray or dyed. Having an animal-based diet is the most moral position I can come up with after seeing all the evidence and considering my options.

*We are destroying the oceans and critically depleting the fish stocks, so there will likely be a tipping point where the cost of fish will get so high because the ships will have to continue to get bigger and work harder for far less yields. This is happening now where prices continue to go up and the size of fish get smaller, but it'll likely be more dramatic in decades to follow. We are suppose to add another 2 billion more people to the world's population by 2050, and there will be even more emerging economies that will be increasing their standard of living and wanting more resources, so there will be strains on the global supply of food without more growth, more rainforest destruction, more land occupied by farms, etc. The effect of methane production, oil production, CO2 production, etc for livestock and farmland for livestock will become more apparent in time. Just like we are seeing action taken against climate change, people will naturally turn their attention to other offenders. We won't be moving to veganism because of a change in our moral conscious; that is far, far, far further into the future. It will be for practical matters like price, resources, water supply, apparent deforestation, rising subsidies on feed and water for livestock, etc.**

**If we just eliminated the subsidies for water and corn and soy and factored in the healthcare and climate disruption costs then the average pound of hamburger meat might cost $35-50/pound. That could cause some changes.

According to recent studies, the U.S. government spends up to $38 billion each year to subsidize the meat and dairy industries, with less than one percent of that sum allocated to aiding the production of fruits and vegetables

In addition to subsidies, Americans pay for meat consumption through healthcare costs and climate disruption. As David Simon illustrates in his book Meatonomics, consumers foot an estimated $2 in external costs for every $1 of product the meat and dairy industry sells.9 In other words, a $4 Big Mac actually costs society $11.

Research from the University of Oxford calculates that eliminating animal-derived protein from the global food system would save $1.6 trillion in environmental costs by 2050

https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/removi...al-agriculture

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

sure seems like the simple answer here is to kill all humans.

Did you say something?



Or institute family planning or a max family size like one or two children per household, and help some countries out of poverty, so they can have longer lives and smaller families.

[soundman98]

[MuseChaser]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

....
Or institute family planning or a max family size like one or two children per household, and help some countries out of poverty, so they can have longer lives and smaller families.

Ah, yes... beautiful. Control of the unwashed by those who know best. A wonderful philosophy. History. It's really cool. Check it out. When the few make decisions for and control the many, it never ends well.

I know.. that was incredibly condescending and snarky, which is rarely my style, and is far from being kind. However, it was my honest gut reaction to asserting that any human has the right to legislate how many kids a family may have.

We should be good stewards of our environment, locally and globally. There is no question there. We should not take pleasure in suffering, whether animal or human. We can do better in all aspects of our lives, including decreasing the environmental impact (whether or not it's as dire as you suggest.... and it isn't) of farming animals for food, and treating the animals raised for food more humanely. Suggesting that we need to ABANDON eating meat because we are destroying the planet by doing so is just... well.... wrong on so many levels.

You believe what you wish, and live as you wish. Again, I have no issue with that. I take GREAT issue with the condescending attitude that you are correct and that those who disagree are wrong.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

Ah, yes... beautiful. Control of the unwashed by those who know best. A wonderful philosophy. History. It's really cool. Check it out. When the few make decisions for and control the many, it never ends well.

I know.. that was incredibly condescending and snarky, which is rarely my style, and is far from being kind. However, it was my honest gut reaction to asserting that any human has the right to legislate how many kids a family may have.

Well, whether we are talking about having a plant-based diet or population control, there is a proactive path and a reactive path. Obviously governments and societies have laws and regulations to protect people, animals, the environment, etc, so for me to suggest we have laws in the future that further protect people, animals, the environment, etc is not profound, right? As far as population control, there are only a few paths:

1. The population will continue to grow and/or usage of resources will increase.
2. The population will stabilize or decrease and/or usage of resources will decrease.

As economies emerge more and more, we see usage go up and up, so it is highly, highly unlikely we will see a decrease in resources. That leaves population. Population will continue to increase indefinitely if we had unlimited resources like we colonized new planets, but let's say we don't have that option. Only a few things will stop or decrease population:

1. Public sentiment and family planning
2. Government laws restricting family size
3. Disease/environment deaths
4. War
5. Bottlenecks in resources, but war will come before that of course

What we actually see is that the poorer someone or country is the higher the family size is, so poverty or famine because of resource scarcity could exacerbate problems. Some of these things are reactive and some are proactive. China tried a proactive approach. India also has tried proactive penalties. Say we don't try a proactive approach, and all we do is try to focus on family planning, we will likely still see another two billion people by 2050, as discussed before. Our planet has finite resources, so we can only expect things to get worse. We can wait and see what happens. Maybe famine or wars or environmental impacts would lead to deaths naturally, but these are probably not the type of futures anyone wants, but they are inevitable unless birth rate stabilizes naturally. Limits on family size might be necessary and accepted in the future.

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

We should be good stewards of our environment, locally and globally. There is no question there. We should not take pleasure in suffering, whether animal or human. We can do better in all aspects of our lives, including decreasing the environmental impact (whether or not it's as dire as you suggest.... and it isn't) of farming animals for food, and treating the animals raised for food more humanely. Suggesting that we need to ABANDON eating meat because we are destroying the planet by doing so is just... well.... wrong on so many levels.

You believe what you wish, and live as you wish. Again, I have no issue with that. I take GREAT issue with the condescending attitude that you are correct and that those who disagree are wrong.

How is it not dire? I usually like to start with a position of agreement then work to bridge the gap, but I have to first know if someone is willing to change their beliefs, consider evidence, are intellectually honest, care about morality, bla, bla, bla. If I am talking to someone who wants to believe what they want to believe regardless of the possible evidence I could show them then it isn't worth investing my time in that debate because the person isn't open minded. So I have to ask, what would you consider dire like how bad does something have to get in order for you to be concerned enough to consider changing your ways or calling something dire? Like say fish populations have dropped by 50% and that coral reefs have decreased by 40% or whatever (I'm making up the numbers for the example), if those are not dire then what would be dire? Would it be 80% and 90%, respectively? What is dire to you? Like if 40% of the rainforest was destroyed, then would that be fine, and if it is then would 100% be fine or what is your number? Obviously there are many things going on like deforestation, destruction of the ocean floor/habitats/reefs, over-harvesting of sea life, pollution, methane/CO2 accumulation, etc, but without understanding your position, it is a single-sided debate where I am providing evidence, but there isn't much counter-arguments. So far, the counter-arguments for veganism were mostly covered in the video, but I can restate what was already presented or expand on any one of them if someone wants to debate the issue in this thread on the fate of the planet.

Again, you are in a thread about the prognosis of the planet, so we are discussing things that are impacting the environment. I have provided examples supporting my arguments. Do you have arguments supporting a position that the impacts that are happening around the world is not problematic? I'm not really concerned about your feelings while stating positions in an argument. I don't even know where I have been specifically condescending. If arguing against someone else in a debate by providing evidence is condescending then I am guilty.

[MuseChaser]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

.. If I am talking to someone who wants to believe what they want to believe regardless of the possible evidence I could show them then it isn't worth investing my time in that debate because the person isn't open minded....

I couldn't have said it better myself. That's exactly how things appear from my point of view, except that I have not questioned your morality as you have mine, simply because we disagree on the moral and environmental implications of being an omnivore, as we are meant to be.

China and India, those "pro-active" bastions of virtue you mentioned, ARE by and large the two biggest sources of any man-made impact on our environment. China, especially, is also, perhaps not coincidentally, one of the world's biggest violators of human rights and least "free" places to live. Emulating China and India WOULD certainly hasten our path to global destruction.

I don't find debate enjoyable. You know very well that I have zero chance of changing your mind, regardless of how much verified data I post, so there's no point. Plus, I don't feel the need to change your mind. As I said earlier...live as you wish. Just maybe learn to respect others who don't share your views, and be open to the possibility that there is more than one way to live a good life. Your way is not the only way.

I come here for the beer. This has made the beer taste bad. I'm going back to having fun. Out.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

I couldn't have said it better myself. That's exactly how things appear from my point of view, except that I have not questioned your morality as you have mine, simply because we disagree on the moral and environmental implications of being an omnivore, as we are meant to be.

I am open minded to the extent that people have reasonable and universal perspectives on morality. I don’t subscribe to the notion that people can choose their own morals individually, culturally, etc, so rape, slavery or murder could never be justified to me just because a person, group, society, culture, religion, etc says it is apart of their morals and practices. Either actions cause harm or they don’t. There are grey areas, but this topic isn’t a grey area. There are clear, objective facts.

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

China and India, those "pro-active" bastions of virtue you mentioned, ARE by and large the two biggest sources of any man-made impact on our environment. China, especially, is also, perhaps not coincidentally, one of the world's biggest violators of human rights and least "free" places to live. Emulating China and India WOULD certainly hasten our path to global destruction.

I don’t know what you are arguing because your statements don’t seem logical or sound. The countries have huge populations, so they have huge amounts of pollution, but the US isn’t the greatest when we compare per capita (see below on CO2). Regardless, what does that have to do with the benefits of instituting population control there or here? You seem to be arguing that because they are bad at one thing then they must be bad at everything. I hope you can see that this line of reasoning is illogical. China leads the world in recycling, but is no longer importing our trash. Does that one fact mean we fail, and we should emulate them entirely? No. That would be illogical. We need to judge things on their own. Was the population control methods effective? It seems like they were. Will it be necessary to institute population control methods before we deal with wars over resources, pollution/land and famine? Yes, unless people choose to reduce their children on their own, or we colonize another planet. Do you have an argument against these inevitable possibilities?

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

I don't find debate enjoyable. You know very well that I have zero chance of changing your mind, regardless of how much verified data I post, so there's no point. Plus, I don't feel the need to change your mind. As I said earlier...live as you wish. Just maybe learn to respect others who don't share your views, and be open to the possibility that there is more than one way to live a good life. Your way is not the only way.

I come here for the beer. This has made the beer taste bad. I'm going back to having fun. Out.

You got me wrong. I have no interest in having beliefs that are incorrect. If you have data to the contrary then have at it. I haven’t actually had anyone provide data to the contrary yet, but I’ll be happy to see some. I’ve already stated that I deconverted from religion and eating meat, so I’ve lived and argued both sides. Is there a way to eat animals humanly? Yes, but the vast, vast majority of people don’t. Is there a way to eat meat at the volume the world does, but do it sustainably, so it doesn’t have an impact on the land, ecosystems, fish stocks, pollution, climate change, etc.? No.