How to eat without killing anything

Post Reply New Topic

Even if you can feed an adult cow on milk, you would get less milk out than you put in. It takes energy to make milk, and at each step some energy is lost as heat. That's the second law of thermodynamics at work. If you feed a cow on milk, even if the cow used all that energy to make milk and none to move and to maintain its body, some energy would still be lost in digesting the ingested milk, transporting the protein to the udder and making milk again. If you hope to get out more milk than you put in, that means getting out more energy than you put in. Your idea is a version of a perpetuum mobile, and those are impossible in this universe.


I can't think of any predator that lives on lions or killer whales. Until very recently (a few hundred thousand years at most) you would have had a hard time finding a predator of adult elephants. You could try defining parasites as predators, but then everything is both predator and prey.


What difference does that make to responsibility?

You can enjoy meat and not kill the animal... easy problem solved.

Only eat one leg

Which is worse than killing the beast.

1. It inflicts pain
2. It leaves the beast disabled.

Very not-nice.

ruveyn

I should have specified joke. I was fulfilling the letter of the statement and at the same time violating the underlying point.

You haven't tasted soy or rice milk I take it...



lol. The Cathars would say otherwise.



Troll much?

Humans are heterotrophs. This means we survive by eating organic matter produced by other organisms. Unless you learn to photosynthesize, you have to get used to the fact that other things die to keep you alive.

Well I guess you are right on teh circle of life thing, so then it shouldn't matter if I eat meat or not cause it's part of that same circle of life.

I was just making a joke about other people killing the meat for me. If I had to, I'd kill my own meat. In fact, I want to experience the killing of the chicken in Puerto Rico some day, and then learn how to pluck it and prepare it like that. Don't get me wrong, I'd eat it too.

As far as responsibility, my responsibility is to feed my kids nutrients, and you can't get better nutrients than meat, fruits, vegetables, and cow milk. They say bad things about soy milk now, especially with kids. I forget what it was or where I read it, but I remember re-thinking choosing soy formula for my kids, but once you get them used to a formula, it's hard to change. Either way, my responsibility is to my family, not animals. I love animals and I'm against animal torture, but no animal would think twice about killing me and eating me if it were hungry enough for the meat. They surely wouldn't think twice on trying to take down one of my kids since they appear vulnerable to the animal (they aren't vulnerable with me as their mom). It's nature's law. Eat or be eaten. We eat, and we refuse to be eaten. Got a problem with that? If so, I know some hungry animals who would love to have you for dinner.

Yes. I like 8th Continent Vanilla Soymilk, but everything else I've tried tastes like ass (not to be taken literally, haha).

idiocratik:

In hindsight I think I might have overreacted but this part is what I took offense to:

Veganism is for whiny liberals who support Islamo-fascists and "the sky is falling" political propaganda.

It would be impossible to eat without killing ANYTHING... Think of the microorganisms living on everything that would have to die in your stomach even if you only eat fruit! lol. But, eating while killing the least amount of things possible is actually part of my reasoning for being a vegetarian. Please don't take this as me trying to convert you all into vegetarians, i'm really not(but people always seem to assume that i am when i'm just explaining my personal reasoning for being one). But, being a vegetarian, aside from meaning that animals don't die for your diet, also means that LESS plants die for your diet. See, the massive amount of animals that they raise in those farms consume a much more massive amount of vegetation. They consume wayyyyyyyyy more vegetation than what is made up for with their meat. So, when you eat meat, it's not only a matter of that animal's life.. but also the lives of everything it had to eat being raised in that farm. When you don't eat meat, it's only a matter of the life of what you're actually eating being destroyed. So, think about it this way... Eating vegetables, you're only consuming whatever it is that you are consuming. But, eating meat, you're not only consuming the meat of an animal, but also the tons and tons of plant matter that went into "creating" that meat. Again, this is NOT trying to get anyone to become a vegetarian, i don't really care what you eat. My reptiles eat meat. This is just coming at the killing-less-plantlife thing from a logical standpoint.

I got your point. Basically, if our "system" consists of all living species then the second law of thermodynamics demads that energy comes from outside, i.e. by photosynthesis. So everything that can not photosynthesize should get energy from things that can. THat is, we all have to eat plants, either directly, or indirectly by eating animals that eat plants or drinking milk that has to be produced through animal eating plans.

BUT HERE IS ANOTHER SOLUTION THEN: what iif a plant produces milk, such as soy milk. I don't know much about it, so can you tell me: do we have to kill soy to get soy milk, and do we have to kill cane to get cane sugar? If the answer to either of these two questions is no, then we can start off by a diet of soy milk and/or cane sugar. Then we can feed our cows similar diet (stop our caws from eating grass and feed them with soy milk and/or cane sugar). So, since the diet of our caws still comes from plants that photosynthesize (even though caws don't have to kill them any more), they will be able to continue to produce milk. This will allow us to add cows milk as well as milk products to our diet as welll, without our caws killing grass to do that.

I know you said in your next reply that is a joke; but actuallly I think that is a good idea. I would rather be without one leg then dead. Also you can improve on this by cutting just little pieces of meet instead of a whole leg from a lot of different caws.

By the way I heard that there are some animals that can regrow the missing part of the body. So may be it iis a good idea to eat these.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I basically said we can't do anything about the grass caws have eaten before 2009, and we will make sure that they won't eat any more grass after 2009. So by that logic, yes we can eat animals that are already killed but we shouldn't kill any more animals. I don't have a problem with that. I am just fine eating the ones that are killed; I am just speculating on what society can do to stop the killing.

I figured as much. That was probably a bit extreme, I agree. I tend to do that.

Please! Please stop the nonsense. Look up the Krebs Cycle. This is how we get our energy; it is our nature. We cannot get around it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krebs_cycle

ruveyn

By the way according to Old Testament clean/unclean laws, all the animals that eat other animals are considered unclen. Don't you think THAT could have been rationale behind these laws.

I also konw there ia another reason for that. Namely, whenever you go up the food chain a specy above has to eat A LOT of species below thus accomulating a lot of toxins. So the higher up species you eat, the more toxins you get from them. But it is interesting that this health thing totally coincides with the humane thing that species higher up have more consciousness than the ones lower hence kiilling them is worse. If you believe in God, perhaps He designed these two things to coincide (especially since He cared enough to declare the animals higher on a food chain to be unclean)



A response of a vegeterian is that you don't need to kill in order to survive, since you can survive while being a vegeterian.

Now I know that response has a logical error, namely they forgot that they kill vegies in order to eat them. But that is a different logical error from the one you are tallking about. So, if we allow them to make that error, then they are perfectly consistent with "survival" idea since you don't need to kill ANIMALS in order to survive.