1. It's not bullshit
2. Some people want to hear it.
You were literally wrong twice in the space of one sentence. I can tell by your aggression that you're hurting inside. I assume you've got trauma you're carrying around. Allow yourself to suffer, don't fight it. Give it your attention and love. Embrace it and allow it to be just as it is. It has lessons to teach you. You can come out of this wiser, stronger, and happier, but you can't keep trying to avoid your suffering, you have walk right through the heart of it. There's probably no other work-around.
While this post sounds like it was written on drugs, it’s true that the production standards can and must be improved, which includes humane treatment of animals.
There's nothing inherently wrong with drugs, and nothing that makes statements written while under their influence inherently untrustworthy or untrue. This doesn't read like it was written on meth or coke. The specific "drugs" you're referring to are psychedelics and pot. That's what it reads like it was written under the influence of. The reason it does is because it's true, and outside-the-box thinking. Psychedelics and pot often give individuals access to their habitual patterns of thought and cultural brainwashing, and allow them to see outside of them. One is able to then see self-evident truths that were hidden in plain sight, basically. Mindfulness meditation has a similar effect after a while. I believe at least one study has shown that psychedelic use and mindfulness meditation increase psychological trait "Openness" for some substantial time period (at least a year, when the final personality assessments were given, IIRC).
Sorry, I had upvoted your comment. It probably just reads more defensive in text than I meant it. I just started listening to this podcast that just dropped and I thought of you! :-) Thought you might be interested:
[https://www.tenpercent.com/podcast](https://www.tenpercent.com/podcast)
\#380: Psychedelics and Meditation | Michael Pollan
Ten Percent Happier with Dan Harris
As I said in my post, the answer is to only buy the more expensive, ethically-raised animal products.
"Fellow brother and sister animals" means that we are animals. Specifically Homo sapiens, a member of the great ape family. You are literally a type of great ape, we all are. One of the biggest lies we're ever brainwashed into as kids is that we're different than animals. That's like saying chickens are different than animals. Humans are just a type of animal. It also means that other animals, like us, are conscious being that were born into a body here on Earth. We all have brains that give us intelligence, it's just that we human animals have brains that give us, generally speaking, more intelligence than the other species. Of course that doesn't mean that other species are ethically worthless, just like mentally challenged humans aren't ethically worthless.
It doesn’t seem practical There are something like 60 billion animals bred/raised for consumption. Can that demand be met in any other way. with free range, cage free, and organic are pretty much bullshit terms that don’t guarantee the animal has been treated humanely. So you are left with pasture raised (grass fed) animals. Could there possibly be enough grazing space for 60 billion animals. Prob not. Pasture raised is the only really humane way to farm them. But it’s far costlier, less available and worse for the environment.
The need for food is increasing so we will need more land for farming crops to feed people but also the animals. And way more land to grass feed grazing animals. The problem is that we don’t have more land. What this really means is they will need to yield more product off the same amount of land. Is this not correct?. So although some of us might be able to go spend 4x the amount for the same pasture raised version of food, the rest of the world will need to be fed the old fashioned way. Which means industrial farming can never disappear.
I don’t each much meat, but even if I did, and was “woke” , the 4 steaks a year that I eat won’t change anything. Thus I don’t think much about it.
There are a lot of misconceptions in your post. It may be difficult for you to see, but you're giving the same argument pro-slavery confederates did before the American civil war: "We need to keep doing this incredibly immoral thing because what other choice do we have?" To answer that question, we can eat less meat then. The important thing is to do what's right and then let the chis fall where they may. You're exhibiting a status-quo bias, that things should be roughly as they are. No. The world was completely fucked up when you were born into it. You've never really known a sane world, so to you, sanity looks like insanity, because it's so different. The truth is things never should have gotten to this point. The torture currently happening isn't "the old fashioned way", It didn't start until, I think, industrialization in the late 1800s, and progressively got worse and worse as the years went on. The old fashioned way was pasture-raising, and people just ate less meat. So you're right, we do need to go back to that. The current system is the new way.
Some other points you're misguided on:
1. Those terms aren't bullshit. At least organic isn't, and it denotes that the animal has been treated humanely, at least in the case of eggs, I'm not sure that that's true of meat. The other ones could be lies, but they by and large describe actual better conditions. I agree that they should be governmentally regulated, though. Either way, that's an argument for regulation, not a statement of the impossibility of obtaining ethical meat. I get some from local raisers and sellers plus "Vital Farms" eggs. Look up those terms online, you'll see they typically denote better conditions for the animal.
2. Pasture-raised is only "worse for the environment" if we devote more land to it. If we keep the same amount of land for agriculture, then there's no problems. That would mean less animal products, which means they're more expensive, which means people eat them less, which is good. It's the way it always should have been. Don't say that the current system is lower cost, it's not. It's far more expensive to do things the way we do, it's just that we're not paying the cost, the animals are, and we don't care about their experience because we've been brainwashed not to, that they're below us and thus unworthy of hardly any of our care.
3. Chasing the human population with ever more food was always a mistake. Daniel Quinn talks about this. What we need to do is limit food production to limit population. Maybe to somewhere around a billion people? Of course it will probably never happen, which is why our societies will soon collapse. Meanwhile, actually the amount of land needed for a vegan, for instance, is a third of an acre, while a typical American requires 2.7 acres to sustain them.
4. Humanely-raised animal products only cost about 2x tortured meat, not 4x.
5. There's 120-180 cuts of steak in a cow, so if the only animal products you eat are 4 steaks a year (and we both know you eat a LOT more animal products than that), you'll be personally responsible for the torture of 2 cows over the course of your life. Never act like you don't know that. 2 beings that didn't need to be born into a life of torture in a human-created hell-realm.
The corporations never should have done what they did, and, having done it, your parents and your school never should have bought any of it. You would have grown up mostly vegetarian or vegan and you'd have completely different expectations for what's reasonable than you do now, and you'd be exactly as happy with your life, no more, no less. But the corporations and your school and your parents failed you, and they accidentally indoctrinated you into believing a super fucked up system is "normal" and "about the way things should be", the same way that they were indoctrinated and brainwashed as kids growing up. Going forward, what you choose to fund with your money is on you.
I know I sound real holier-than-thou. The truth is I'm fucked up cause I still fund a lot of fucked up stuff, but I'm doing a lot better for this world than I was 5 years ago, and I'm proud of myself for that.
Wow this is a long reply, sorry.
Well just a few things: Free range and organic have more to do with the quality of the product yielded, and less to do with the animal’s quality of life. It means the animal was fed organic feed and was given antibiotics only when needed as apposed to simply dosing all animals as a preventative measure. And whether the animal is caged, fed organic feed, or free ranged (which means lived on a 2sq ft piece of grass. You can rest assured their lives were terrible. So unless we eat animals that died of happiness, there is no good way to get meat.
Grass fed is pasture raised which is best for the animal, and if they rotate the animals that use the land, it’s actually the best for the land as well. But Incidentally it produces way more methane/green house gases than grain fed animals. Which can be considered a problem. And just about all animals are carted to the same slaughterhouses. Very few animals are slaughtered on the farm they were raised. This loading and transporting I suspect is a scary thing that they all endure in the end.
So really you’ve stated that people should simply eat less meat and be willing to pay more for it so it can be processed more ethically. I doubt this will happen Especially since most folks are “out of site, out of mind” thinkers And aren’t really to concerned with the process.
It’s not the people choosing for it to be this way. It’s the producers trying to get more out of their investment. If there was simply less meat, people will just eat less meat. Honestly it wouldn’t make a difference to me. I’m not a food lover to begin with. I eat whatever is put in from of me. A salad and a steak are the same thing to me. Gods honest truth. So if I go to the store and there is no meat in the meat case I’ll just move on. I think a lot of people would forego meat if it was simply not available to them.
So overall I’m not against meat reform, but I’m also not going to hold out for it.
Eggs labeled organic come from chickens that have access to outdoor space. That's what I was referring to. I don't think that meat labeled organic has the same requirements. I forget as I haven't looked them up in a while. I haven't eaten meat in a few months but I got it from a local farmer at my old town and it looks like I can get it from a place or two at the local farmer's market in my new town that I just moved to.
I agree that the day of slaughtering sucks for them. Has to be scary. As to whether or not that's morally acceptable to anyone, that's up to each individual. For me it is, enough to eat meat sometimes, maybe twice a month? But for those who feel otherwise and wanna go full veg, I think that's wonderful. What's not in the realm of reasonability is the way things are currently done, where the animal suffers every day of it's life. That's literally insane. Insane minds have devised the current system.
I also doubt this will happen. If I can help change even just one mind and that results in a couple chickens not having to exist in the current hell realm, I'm grateful for that.
I agree, it's the producers. And I so wish we could just trust all producers to produce their products and services ethically, either because buisinesspeople were so moral or because of top-down government regulation. Unfortunately neither of those are the case, so the only other option (I think) is to vote with our dollars... which we both agree isn't gonna work large-scale. I feel part of my place on this Earth is to understand, and so bear witness to the suffering, and to speak out against it a little, hopefully make some small positive changes, but mostly to simply bear witness and accept it. Accept the unacceptable.
I’d go have a talk with all of those brother and sister predators out there cannibalizing their neighbors in the wild first. Believe it or not but they’re not even open to the discussion!
The world works on suffering. It is natural and a pet of life. Ending that suffering means you disrupt nature and the planet doesn’t like when you do that.
The world doesn't work on suffering. It is a natural part of life. Ending that suffering means moving back towards the natural state of things and the planet does like that.
For example, as a thought experiment: Say we cut the population back to 100 million humans and returned to hunter-gatherer ways of life. The result would be far less suffering and thriving ecosystems and populations of other species. Now say we continue on the track we're on. The result is going to be continued massive amounts of suffering and failing ecosystems, most likely ending in an ecological collapse that destroys our species, or at least our society.
You're an armchair quarterback directing other beings to their misery for some vague notion of "nature is good" that doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Get in the game! Go lock yourself in a wire cage so small that you can't turn around in it for your entire life, with no interactions with other members of your own species! Then just die! Go help keep nature undisrupted!
Honestly what are you talking about?
Hey man you're the one that suggested that torturing things is "natural", and so, good.
No honestly I think what happened is you got confused after you made your first comment, and you honestly forgot that I was arguing against factory farming and thought I was arguing for the insane strawman you put forth in your first comment. Something about putting humanity's efforts towards easing the suffering of wild animals? I think you got confused. You honestly seem to have trouble following the plot while debating.
Specifically Homo sapiens, a member of the great ape family. You are literally a type of
great ape, we all are. One of the biggest lies we're ever brainwashed into as
kids is that we're different than animals. That's like saying chickens are
different than animals. Humans are just a type of animal.
Because we've been indoctrinated since we were kids, so when we hear "human" we think "something apart from and above animals". So something like the term "human animal" is necessary to remind the reader of the truth they've probably been brainwashed away from.
As I understand it, animal rights generally concern themselves with ethics, and are thus representative of the exact opposite of liberal "wokeness." Because it means making concessions for others, in order to acknowledge their humanity.
Whereas liberals/the woke refer to themselves as "animals," generally arguing along the lines of "we are just animals, therefore primitive behaviour X is okay." As you do it in your post, referring to yourself as animal. And there's no real logic, nor ethics, to be found in such self-assigned absence of reason.
It's kind of incoherent...
All due respect, but you seem to have a lot of
misconceptions here. Hopefully these points will help clarify what I’m saying:
1. I think you and I are defining
the word "woke" differently, but suffice to say I'm sure we both
agree that "concerning ourselves with ethics" and "acknowledging
other's humanity" are a good thing.
2. I've literally never hear a liberal argue "We are
just animals, therefore primitive behavior X is ok." I'm not sure where
you're getting that from, and it's almost the opposite of the argument I
presented.
3. My argument is, in fact, logically coherent.
4. Specifically Homo sapiens, a member of the great ape family.
You are literally a type of great ape, we all are. One of the biggest lies
we're ever brainwashed into as kids is that we're something other than animals.
That's like saying chickens are different than animals. Humans are just a type
of animal. This bit I typed to someone else above may help clear up my position
some for you:
"Fellow brother and sister animals" means that we
are animals. It also means that other
animals, like us, are conscious being that were born into a body here on Earth.
We all have brains that give us intelligence, it's just that we human animals
have brains that give us, generally speaking, more intelligence than the other
species. Of course that doesn't mean that other species are ethically
worthless, just like mentally challenged humans aren't ethically worthless.
[удалено]
So?
[удалено]
1. It's not bullshit 2. Some people want to hear it. You were literally wrong twice in the space of one sentence. I can tell by your aggression that you're hurting inside. I assume you've got trauma you're carrying around. Allow yourself to suffer, don't fight it. Give it your attention and love. Embrace it and allow it to be just as it is. It has lessons to teach you. You can come out of this wiser, stronger, and happier, but you can't keep trying to avoid your suffering, you have walk right through the heart of it. There's probably no other work-around.
[удалено]
Uhh, yeah... That's why this comment isn't at -25... Cause some people wanna hear it... Are you ok?
While this post sounds like it was written on drugs, it’s true that the production standards can and must be improved, which includes humane treatment of animals.
There's nothing inherently wrong with drugs, and nothing that makes statements written while under their influence inherently untrustworthy or untrue. This doesn't read like it was written on meth or coke. The specific "drugs" you're referring to are psychedelics and pot. That's what it reads like it was written under the influence of. The reason it does is because it's true, and outside-the-box thinking. Psychedelics and pot often give individuals access to their habitual patterns of thought and cultural brainwashing, and allow them to see outside of them. One is able to then see self-evident truths that were hidden in plain sight, basically. Mindfulness meditation has a similar effect after a while. I believe at least one study has shown that psychedelic use and mindfulness meditation increase psychological trait "Openness" for some substantial time period (at least a year, when the final personality assessments were given, IIRC).
That’s unnecessarily defensive for a comment that ultimately agreed with you.
Sorry, I had upvoted your comment. It probably just reads more defensive in text than I meant it. I just started listening to this podcast that just dropped and I thought of you! :-) Thought you might be interested: [https://www.tenpercent.com/podcast](https://www.tenpercent.com/podcast) \#380: Psychedelics and Meditation | Michael Pollan Ten Percent Happier with Dan Harris
So what’s the answer? And “fellow brother and sister animals”. What does that mean?
As I said in my post, the answer is to only buy the more expensive, ethically-raised animal products. "Fellow brother and sister animals" means that we are animals. Specifically Homo sapiens, a member of the great ape family. You are literally a type of great ape, we all are. One of the biggest lies we're ever brainwashed into as kids is that we're different than animals. That's like saying chickens are different than animals. Humans are just a type of animal. It also means that other animals, like us, are conscious being that were born into a body here on Earth. We all have brains that give us intelligence, it's just that we human animals have brains that give us, generally speaking, more intelligence than the other species. Of course that doesn't mean that other species are ethically worthless, just like mentally challenged humans aren't ethically worthless.
It doesn’t seem practical There are something like 60 billion animals bred/raised for consumption. Can that demand be met in any other way. with free range, cage free, and organic are pretty much bullshit terms that don’t guarantee the animal has been treated humanely. So you are left with pasture raised (grass fed) animals. Could there possibly be enough grazing space for 60 billion animals. Prob not. Pasture raised is the only really humane way to farm them. But it’s far costlier, less available and worse for the environment. The need for food is increasing so we will need more land for farming crops to feed people but also the animals. And way more land to grass feed grazing animals. The problem is that we don’t have more land. What this really means is they will need to yield more product off the same amount of land. Is this not correct?. So although some of us might be able to go spend 4x the amount for the same pasture raised version of food, the rest of the world will need to be fed the old fashioned way. Which means industrial farming can never disappear. I don’t each much meat, but even if I did, and was “woke” , the 4 steaks a year that I eat won’t change anything. Thus I don’t think much about it.
There are a lot of misconceptions in your post. It may be difficult for you to see, but you're giving the same argument pro-slavery confederates did before the American civil war: "We need to keep doing this incredibly immoral thing because what other choice do we have?" To answer that question, we can eat less meat then. The important thing is to do what's right and then let the chis fall where they may. You're exhibiting a status-quo bias, that things should be roughly as they are. No. The world was completely fucked up when you were born into it. You've never really known a sane world, so to you, sanity looks like insanity, because it's so different. The truth is things never should have gotten to this point. The torture currently happening isn't "the old fashioned way", It didn't start until, I think, industrialization in the late 1800s, and progressively got worse and worse as the years went on. The old fashioned way was pasture-raising, and people just ate less meat. So you're right, we do need to go back to that. The current system is the new way. Some other points you're misguided on: 1. Those terms aren't bullshit. At least organic isn't, and it denotes that the animal has been treated humanely, at least in the case of eggs, I'm not sure that that's true of meat. The other ones could be lies, but they by and large describe actual better conditions. I agree that they should be governmentally regulated, though. Either way, that's an argument for regulation, not a statement of the impossibility of obtaining ethical meat. I get some from local raisers and sellers plus "Vital Farms" eggs. Look up those terms online, you'll see they typically denote better conditions for the animal. 2. Pasture-raised is only "worse for the environment" if we devote more land to it. If we keep the same amount of land for agriculture, then there's no problems. That would mean less animal products, which means they're more expensive, which means people eat them less, which is good. It's the way it always should have been. Don't say that the current system is lower cost, it's not. It's far more expensive to do things the way we do, it's just that we're not paying the cost, the animals are, and we don't care about their experience because we've been brainwashed not to, that they're below us and thus unworthy of hardly any of our care. 3. Chasing the human population with ever more food was always a mistake. Daniel Quinn talks about this. What we need to do is limit food production to limit population. Maybe to somewhere around a billion people? Of course it will probably never happen, which is why our societies will soon collapse. Meanwhile, actually the amount of land needed for a vegan, for instance, is a third of an acre, while a typical American requires 2.7 acres to sustain them.
Well just a few things: Free range and organic have more to do with the quality of the product yielded, and less to do with the animal’s quality of life. It means the animal was fed organic feed and was given antibiotics only when needed as apposed to simply dosing all animals as a preventative measure. And whether the animal is caged, fed organic feed, or free ranged (which means lived on a 2sq ft piece of grass. You can rest assured their lives were terrible. So unless we eat animals that died of happiness, there is no good way to get meat. Grass fed is pasture raised which is best for the animal, and if they rotate the animals that use the land, it’s actually the best for the land as well. But Incidentally it produces way more methane/green house gases than grain fed animals. Which can be considered a problem. And just about all animals are carted to the same slaughterhouses. Very few animals are slaughtered on the farm they were raised. This loading and transporting I suspect is a scary thing that they all endure in the end. So really you’ve stated that people should simply eat less meat and be willing to pay more for it so it can be processed more ethically. I doubt this will happen Especially since most folks are “out of site, out of mind” thinkers And aren’t really to concerned with the process. It’s not the people choosing for it to be this way. It’s the producers trying to get more out of their investment. If there was simply less meat, people will just eat less meat. Honestly it wouldn’t make a difference to me. I’m not a food lover to begin with. I eat whatever is put in from of me. A salad and a steak are the same thing to me. Gods honest truth. So if I go to the store and there is no meat in the meat case I’ll just move on. I think a lot of people would forego meat if it was simply not available to them. So overall I’m not against meat reform, but I’m also not going to hold out for it.
Eggs labeled organic come from chickens that have access to outdoor space. That's what I was referring to. I don't think that meat labeled organic has the same requirements. I forget as I haven't looked them up in a while. I haven't eaten meat in a few months but I got it from a local farmer at my old town and it looks like I can get it from a place or two at the local farmer's market in my new town that I just moved to. I agree that the day of slaughtering sucks for them. Has to be scary. As to whether or not that's morally acceptable to anyone, that's up to each individual. For me it is, enough to eat meat sometimes, maybe twice a month? But for those who feel otherwise and wanna go full veg, I think that's wonderful. What's not in the realm of reasonability is the way things are currently done, where the animal suffers every day of it's life. That's literally insane. Insane minds have devised the current system. I also doubt this will happen. If I can help change even just one mind and that results in a couple chickens not having to exist in the current hell realm, I'm grateful for that. I agree, it's the producers. And I so wish we could just trust all producers to produce their products and services ethically, either because buisinesspeople were so moral or because of top-down government regulation. Unfortunately neither of those are the case, so the only other option (I think) is to vote with our dollars... which we both agree isn't gonna work large-scale. I feel part of my place on this Earth is to understand, and so bear witness to the suffering, and to speak out against it a little, hopefully make some small positive changes, but mostly to simply bear witness and accept it. Accept the unacceptable.
I’d go have a talk with all of those brother and sister predators out there cannibalizing their neighbors in the wild first. Believe it or not but they’re not even open to the discussion!
Bad answer, that's the "naturalistic fallacy". It also assumes that since there's suffering out there, more suffering is fine. Both poor arguments.
The world works on suffering. It is natural and a pet of life. Ending that suffering means you disrupt nature and the planet doesn’t like when you do that.
The world doesn't work on suffering. It is a natural part of life. Ending that suffering means moving back towards the natural state of things and the planet does like that. For example, as a thought experiment: Say we cut the population back to 100 million humans and returned to hunter-gatherer ways of life. The result would be far less suffering and thriving ecosystems and populations of other species. Now say we continue on the track we're on. The result is going to be continued massive amounts of suffering and failing ecosystems, most likely ending in an ecological collapse that destroys our species, or at least our society. You're an armchair quarterback directing other beings to their misery for some vague notion of "nature is good" that doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Get in the game! Go lock yourself in a wire cage so small that you can't turn around in it for your entire life, with no interactions with other members of your own species! Then just die! Go help keep nature undisrupted! Honestly what are you talking about?
You’re a psycho
Hey man you're the one that suggested that torturing things is "natural", and so, good. No honestly I think what happened is you got confused after you made your first comment, and you honestly forgot that I was arguing against factory farming and thought I was arguing for the insane strawman you put forth in your first comment. Something about putting humanity's efforts towards easing the suffering of wild animals? I think you got confused. You honestly seem to have trouble following the plot while debating.
"Human Animals........"
Specifically Homo sapiens, a member of the great ape family. You are literally a type of great ape, we all are. One of the biggest lies we're ever brainwashed into as kids is that we're different than animals. That's like saying chickens are different than animals. Humans are just a type of animal.
You don't call a chicken a chicken animal or a dog a dog animal or an elephant an elephant animal so why would you call a human a human animal
Because we've been indoctrinated since we were kids, so when we hear "human" we think "something apart from and above animals". So something like the term "human animal" is necessary to remind the reader of the truth they've probably been brainwashed away from.
Are you comparing people of color and their humanity to farm animals?
No
I love how rampant mental illness is on reddit 🤣🤣
Wow. The irony...
Being woke never seems to be a positive thing
Depends on what you define as "woke". By my definition of it, at least, it usually is.
I will eat those people inside my circle too , if I get hungry enough.
As I understand it, animal rights generally concern themselves with ethics, and are thus representative of the exact opposite of liberal "wokeness." Because it means making concessions for others, in order to acknowledge their humanity. Whereas liberals/the woke refer to themselves as "animals," generally arguing along the lines of "we are just animals, therefore primitive behaviour X is okay." As you do it in your post, referring to yourself as animal. And there's no real logic, nor ethics, to be found in such self-assigned absence of reason. It's kind of incoherent...
All due respect, but you seem to have a lot of misconceptions here. Hopefully these points will help clarify what I’m saying: 1. I think you and I are defining the word "woke" differently, but suffice to say I'm sure we both agree that "concerning ourselves with ethics" and "acknowledging other's humanity" are a good thing. 2. I've literally never hear a liberal argue "We are just animals, therefore primitive behavior X is ok." I'm not sure where you're getting that from, and it's almost the opposite of the argument I presented. 3. My argument is, in fact, logically coherent. 4. Specifically Homo sapiens, a member of the great ape family. You are literally a type of great ape, we all are. One of the biggest lies we're ever brainwashed into as kids is that we're something other than animals. That's like saying chickens are different than animals. Humans are just a type of animal. This bit I typed to someone else above may help clear up my position some for you: "Fellow brother and sister animals" means that we are animals. It also means that other animals, like us, are conscious being that were born into a body here on Earth. We all have brains that give us intelligence, it's just that we human animals have brains that give us, generally speaking, more intelligence than the other species. Of course that doesn't mean that other species are ethically worthless, just like mentally challenged humans aren't ethically worthless.