New Zealand’s pasture based systems aren’t exactly the idealistic visions people have of them. Even just environmentally, their attempts to scale them up have required huge amounts of fertilizer and lead to huge amounts of pollution. For instance for their dairy production:
The large footprint for milk in Canterbury indicates just how far the capacity of the environment has been overshot. To maintain that level of production and have healthy water would require either 12 times more rainfall in the region or a 12-fold reduction in cows.
[…]
The “grass-fed” marketing line overlooks the huge amounts of fossil-fuel-derived fertiliser used to make the extra grass that supports New Zealand’s very high animal stock rates.
Since your comments in this thread clearly show you aren’t interested in good faith discussion in the first place, I’m perfectly happy with you not replying to my comments.
Given that any meat a normal person consumes is produced unethically in deplorable conditions, I don’t think it can be the ethical choice. If you raise the animals yourself and kill them quickly and humanely, sure. Or even go hunting and eat the meat. Fish and eat the fish. Otherwise, I don’t see how anyone could contend it’s ethical.
My dad is a conservative red blooded american, and he rarely consumes meat because he has worked in and around a number of factory farms of varying sizes. From chickens, pigs, to cattle. It’s all produced in truly abhorrent ways.
Your attitude betrays some level of cognitive dissonance imo, but what do I know, I’m just a lemming.
We were talking about how dominant factory farming is, and how things that try not to do that do not scale. The response to that was to ignore this and throw up hands and say “eh, guess we can’t do anything”. Am I’m supposed to instead assume that one has to eat meat and ignore that we don’t have to?
New Zealand’s pasture based systems aren’t exactly the idealistic visions people have of them. Even just environmentally, their attempts to scale them up have required huge amounts of fertilizer and lead to huge amounts of pollution. For instance for their dairy production:
https://theconversation.com/11-000-litres-of-water-to-make-one-litre-of-milk-new-questions-about-the-freshwater-impact-of-nz-dairy-farming-183806
Damn, guess I’ll just keep eating 100% factory farmed then.
You can always stop eating meat
That is the next stage of the purity test, yes, but I have a sneaking suspicion that OP wouldn’t be satisfied with that either.
I was going to reply to your earlier comment, but I’m now seeing there is little interest in any good faith discussion
Since your comments in this thread clearly show you aren’t interested in good faith discussion in the first place, I’m perfectly happy with you not replying to my comments.
My comments, which are heavily sourced and cited, show that?
Yup. Very, very clearly, because you refuse to even entertain the idea that any form of eating meat can be an ethical choice.
All of your comments here are obviously propaganda, and so by their very nature are not intended to be in good faith.
Given that any meat a normal person consumes is produced unethically in deplorable conditions, I don’t think it can be the ethical choice. If you raise the animals yourself and kill them quickly and humanely, sure. Or even go hunting and eat the meat. Fish and eat the fish. Otherwise, I don’t see how anyone could contend it’s ethical.
My dad is a conservative red blooded american, and he rarely consumes meat because he has worked in and around a number of factory farms of varying sizes. From chickens, pigs, to cattle. It’s all produced in truly abhorrent ways.
Your attitude betrays some level of cognitive dissonance imo, but what do I know, I’m just a lemming.
We were talking about how dominant factory farming is, and how things that try not to do that do not scale. The response to that was to ignore this and throw up hands and say “eh, guess we can’t do anything”. Am I’m supposed to instead assume that one has to eat meat and ignore that we don’t have to?