Meat, meat & more meat

[history]

Monoculture/annuals are what are destroying the planet. Kieth calls it ecocide. There are many orders of magnitude more species destroyed (animals AND plants, and even down to the microbes in the soil) to plant annuals -- literally clearing everything, habitats and all -- than if we ate primarily animals; also in the process, destroying the perennials that actually sustain the soil.

There's basically no topsoil left to speak of because of intensive farming. Topsoil is crucial to the planet's ability to sustain the web of life. There's simply no way to support 7 billion or more people on this planet for much longer. Even if there was not impending ice age, cometary catastrophes, etc. Free grazing animals would be the solution, but at this point, Mother Nature will clean the slate/put things back into balance. Everything (including the human population) could NOT have gotten so out of balance without agriculture. It seems to me, as simple as that.

Thanks for your answer, SeekinTruth. I have not had sufficient time to look into this further and I do believe I have old implants from my vegggie advocacy days still running.

I want to be clear that you are saying that even free grazing animals cannot sustain 7 billion people, is that right? Do you have a number for how many people could be sustained by free grazing animals?

Thanks again.

:)

 

[SeekinTruth]

Well, what I'm saying is that agriculture and "civilization" are responsible for the human population explosion. I don't have a hard number for how many people could be sustained by free grazing animals.

My guess would be not too many. What I mean is that during hunter-gatherer times, the human population was somewhere in the tens of millions. Each community of hunter-gatherers ranged up to a couple of hundred people or so. They took what was available from nature/Earth, rather than forcing her to yield what they want. Their entire worldview was different and all their values -- how they relate to life and the universe.

They had not only much better health, but quality of life and much greater leisure time to develop human relations and human potentials. But, in any case, the human population of the planet seems to have been VERY low compared to agricultural "civilization." I guess we could portray it all as quality vs. quantity. FWIW.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

I will take exception with your premise that animals do not know they are being raised for food. I think some of them do and I have some friends in my farming community who agree. One friend in particular, a man who builds barns, told me about a conversation he had with a very fat pig and how the pig told him he knew he was going to be food and he/the pig was okay with it.

What do you mean by "he had a conversation with a very fat pig"?

Anyways, I agree that I simply made an assumption. Maybe they do know, at some level, and accept it as part of reality.

I am not okay with is how we raise our food.

I'm with you on this. Neither am I okay with this.

there is nothing natural about a slaughter house.

I agree.

The "unlucky" pigs on factory farms can't turn around their entire lives, they are beaten on the head with metal pipes for "fun", day old piglets are thrown up against the factory walls in kill the piglet worker amusement games, they have their ears ripped off by sadistic workers, the list of cruelties is endless and much of this goes on in North Carolina where I have a home, so I am very aware of these atrocities, atrocities that ARE the rule not the exception on factory farms.

This is sad indeed.

I don't think killing plants is okay. I loathe hurting trees or plants, although, walking on grass brings me much joy. I don't value one life more than the other, at least intellectually, and I am certainly aware that there are many levels of awareness that we don't have immediate access to, so plants may very well be screaming when they are killed, but the mother cow will certainly defend her baby if she sees you are a threat and that baby will bleed and SCREAM so you can hear it if you stab it

Well said. That's exactly what I meant. We are in no position to determine that killing one or another is more ok than the other one. It's the same. It's killing to consume.

and, with those facts alone, for me, we owe it to them/animals to give them the most ethical, natural life and the most painless death possible.

I agree 100%.

 

[SMM]

I'm enjoying eating meat, although, I'm still not happy with what it takes to get it on the plate.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat...
I went to buy some meat the other day, at a Lidl store - not where I usually go though there was no meat or fish at the place I was, & when I walked in they had banners which read, "Love meat? Love Lidl!"

There's basically no topsoil left to speak of because of intensive farming. Topsoil is crucial to the planet's ability to sustain the web of life. There's simply no way to support 7 billion or more people on this planet for much longer. Even if there was not impending ice age, cometary catastrophes, etc. Free grazing animals would be the solution, but at this point, Mother Nature will clean the slate/put things back into balance. Everything (including the human population) could NOT have gotten so out of balance without agriculture. It seems to me, as simple as that.

..which brings me to the thought of this store being one whose source(s) of meat is intensive rearing, although I have yet to check. I agree on the condition of this planet as a result of agriculture; would there be 7 billion or more people without it? I doubt.

 

[Rich]

Yeah, I'm in the same boat...
I went to buy some meat the other day, at a Lidl store - not where I usually go though there was no meat or fish at the place I was, & when I walked in they had banners which read, "Love meat? Love Lidl!"

There's basically no topsoil left to speak of because of intensive farming. Topsoil is crucial to the planet's ability to sustain the web of life. There's simply no way to support 7 billion or more people on this planet for much longer. Even if there was not impending ice age, cometary catastrophes, etc. Free grazing animals would be the solution, but at this point, Mother Nature will clean the slate/put things back into balance. Everything (including the human population) could NOT have gotten so out of balance without agriculture. It seems to me, as simple as that.

..which brings me to the thought of this store being one whose source(s) of meat is intensive rearing, although I have yet to check. I agree on the condition of this planet as a result of agriculture; would there be 7 billion or more people without it? I doubt.

Saw this ethical comparison of UK supermarkets which may be of interest: (Lidl didn't fair too well)

Environment: Scores worst on recyclable packaging. Does not report on environmental impact, so we can only presume that its making no effort.

Animal welfare: Limited stocking in higher welfare alternatives, but has made no commitments of its own.

Corporate behaviour: Terrible reputation among European retail unions, and caused a scandal last year when it emerged that Lidl routinely spied on its employees in Germany. A hugely complex corporate structure makes it very hard to hold Lidl accountable.

_http://makewealthhistory.org/2009/03/10/which-is-the-most-ethical-supermarket/

If you're unable to find a local farm shop/butcher/reputable delivery supply then the article recommends better choices than bulk discount supermarkets like Lidl and Aldi. Worth paying more I think for quality sources of meat.

 

[SMM]

Yeah, I'm in the same boat...
I went to buy some meat the other day, at a Lidl store - not where I usually go though there was no meat or fish at the place I was, & when I walked in they had banners which read, "Love meat? Love Lidl!"

There's basically no topsoil left to speak of because of intensive farming. Topsoil is crucial to the planet's ability to sustain the web of life. There's simply no way to support 7 billion or more people on this planet for much longer. Even if there was not impending ice age, cometary catastrophes, etc. Free grazing animals would be the solution, but at this point, Mother Nature will clean the slate/put things back into balance. Everything (including the human population) could NOT have gotten so out of balance without agriculture. It seems to me, as simple as that.

..which brings me to the thought of this store being one whose source(s) of meat is intensive rearing, although I have yet to check. I agree on the condition of this planet as a result of agriculture; would there be 7 billion or more people without it? I doubt.

Saw this ethical comparison of UK supermarkets which may be of interest: (Lidl didn't fair too well)

Environment: Scores worst on recyclable packaging. Does not report on environmental impact, so we can only presume that its making no effort.

Animal welfare: Limited stocking in higher welfare alternatives, but has made no commitments of its own.

Corporate behaviour: Terrible reputation among European retail unions, and caused a scandal last year when it emerged that Lidl routinely spied on its employees in Germany. A hugely complex corporate structure makes it very hard to hold Lidl accountable.

_http://makewealthhistory.org/2009/03/10/which-is-the-most-ethical-supermarket/

If you're unable to find a local farm shop/butcher/reputable delivery supply then the article recommends better choices than bulk discount supermarkets like Lidl and Aldi. Worth paying more I think for quality sources of meat.

Thank you for this :) Had been ordering organic meat from Eversfield Organic then funds ran short - time to stock up. Worth looking for a good continuous source. I have also been looking into canning with a pressure cooker, getting a hold of a pressure canner has proven tricky.

Well, what I'm saying is that agriculture and "civilization" are responsible for the human population explosion. I don't have a hard number for how many people could be sustained by free grazing animals.

My guess would be not too many. What I mean is that during hunter-gatherer times, the human population was somewhere in the tens of millions. Each community of hunter-gatherers ranged up to a couple of hundred people or so. They took what was available from nature/Earth, rather than forcing her to yield what they want. Their entire worldview was different and all their values -- how they relate to life and the universe.

They had not only much better health, but quality of life and much greater leisure time to develop human relations and human potentials. But, in any case, the human population of the planet seems to have been VERY low compared to agricultural "civilization." I guess we could portray it all as quality vs. quantity. FWIW.

The idea of mass breeding animals in ill-conditions to then effectively kill for profit I can't comprehend. As well as the contradiction between endorsing vegetarianism/veganism for ethical/moral implications but then enganging in war & usurping natural resources.

 

[Carl]

Yeah, I'm in the same boat...
I went to buy some meat the other day, at a Lidl store - not where I usually go though there was no meat or fish at the place I was, & when I walked in they had banners which read, "Love meat? Love Lidl!"

There's basically no topsoil left to speak of because of intensive farming. Topsoil is crucial to the planet's ability to sustain the web of life. There's simply no way to support 7 billion or more people on this planet for much longer. Even if there was not impending ice age, cometary catastrophes, etc. Free grazing animals would be the solution, but at this point, Mother Nature will clean the slate/put things back into balance. Everything (including the human population) could NOT have gotten so out of balance without agriculture. It seems to me, as simple as that.

..which brings me to the thought of this store being one whose source(s) of meat is intensive rearing, although I have yet to check. I agree on the condition of this planet as a result of agriculture; would there be 7 billion or more people without it? I doubt.

Saw this ethical comparison of UK supermarkets which may be of interest: (Lidl didn't fair too well)

Environment: Scores worst on recyclable packaging. Does not report on environmental impact, so we can only presume that its making no effort.

Animal welfare: Limited stocking in higher welfare alternatives, but has made no commitments of its own.

Corporate behaviour: Terrible reputation among European retail unions, and caused a scandal last year when it emerged that Lidl routinely spied on its employees in Germany. A hugely complex corporate structure makes it very hard to hold Lidl accountable.

_http://makewealthhistory.org/2009/03/10/which-is-the-most-ethical-supermarket/

If you're unable to find a local farm shop/butcher/reputable delivery supply then the article recommends better choices than bulk discount supermarkets like Lidl and Aldi. Worth paying more I think for quality sources of meat.

Thanks for this Pob. I bought some pork chops from Lidl last night, as my organic meat supply has ran out and I'll not be in the house to take another delivery for a little while. Compared to the meat I get from Devon Rose or Graig Farm, the taste is really poor. Not to mention the conditions the animals must be in to produce meat so cheaply.

 

[Rich]

Thanks for this Pob. I bought some pork chops from Lidl last night, as my organic meat supply has ran out and I'll not be in the house to take another delivery for a little while. Compared to the meat I get from Devon Rose or Graig Farm, the taste is really poor. Not to mention the conditions the animals must be in to produce meat so cheaply.

You're welcome Carlise. Another supplier we use is http://www.abelandcole.co.uk/ their marketing materials, service and delivery are really professional. We like their pork belly and mince in particular but also buy organic butter and coconut milk from them since their prices are very competitive. Worth checking out.

 

[SMM]

There was a dozen-feet tall fridge freezer full of meat in my dream