5 of 8
5
My response to Sam’s book
Posted: 19 November 2008 05:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20
Jefe - 19 November 2008 10:15 PM
lindajean - 19 November 2008 10:11 PM
Nulono - 19 November 2008 12:48 PM

Killing is not relative.

Killing a fly is as egregious as killing a Kindergardener?

I am guilty of many child-like murders. smirk


MURDERER!

vampire

I think the correct term is “murderess” and I hope no one prosecutes me for all of the child-like flies I have killed.  confused

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2008 05:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20
Jefe - 19 November 2008 10:17 PM

]

I wonder what the average food-footprint reduction would be if north americans and europeans cut their meat intake by 1/3?

Excellent queston.
I’m so glad you asked….....

http://www.goveg.com/environment-wycd-footprint.asp

What we choose to eat has an enormous impact on the environment. Following a diet loaded with animal flesh, eggs, and dairy products is like trampling the Earth in an SUV—it’s bad for the environment and wastes vast amounts of resources. Switching to a vegetarian diet reduces your “ecological footprint”, allowing you to tread lightly on the planet and be compassionate to its inhabitants.

Consider the following:

  * Eating animals causes global warming. A major report by the University of Chicago in 2006 found that adopting a vegan diet has a greater impact in the fight against global warming than switching to a hybrid car does.
  * It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of animal flesh. It’s shockingly inefficient to feed plant foods to farmed animals and consume their flesh rather than eating the plant foods ourselves.
  * In the U.S. every second, chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows in factory farms produce nearly 89,000 pounds of excrement, which is contaminated with the antibiotics and hormones that are pumped into these animals. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the runoff from factory farms pollutes our waterways more than all other industrial sources combined.
  * Industrial agriculture consumes and wastes a tremendous amount of resources: In the U.S., 70 percent of all grains, 80 percent of all agricultural land, half of all water resources, and one-third of all fossil fuels are used to raise animals for food.
  * Eating animals destroys the rain forest. Most environmentalists are aware that the Amazon has been slashed and burned in order to create grazing space for cows. But perhaps an even greater threat is the destruction of rain forest in order to create land where feed is grown for factory-farmed animals in wealthy nations. A recent report by Greenpeace blamed the chicken-flesh industry, particularly KFC, for leading the way in destroying the Amazon.

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2008 05:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20
Jefe - 19 November 2008 10:32 PM
lindajean - 19 November 2008 10:27 PM

  * It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of animal flesh. It’s shockingly inefficient to feed plant foods to farmed animals and consume their flesh rather than eating the plant foods ourselves.


I just read an interesting science blog post about this very issue.  It seems that the entire north american meat industry is reliant on corn in such a fundamental way that if weevils or some other blight were to cause a significant dearth of corn for any significant amount of time, it could lead to a near universal shift in eating patterns out of necessity alone.  I’ll try to dig it up.

I’m going to start praying the weevils get their wish.

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2008 06:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
lindajean - 19 November 2008 10:15 PM

We do not have to kill in order to eat, or better yet, we don’t have to kill sentient life in order to eat.  Unless by “killing” you mean cultivating, harvesting and eating plant-based foods.

I’d like to understand your assumptions a little better before I sign up for not chowing down on what you consider to be sentient beings. I think the subsequent thread has seen more rationally-digestible arguments about how to nourish ourselves. I have to be honest though: Unless you make your first points about controlling and then reducing human population, I don’t really care to hear a peep out of you about compassion for our four-legged friends.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2008 10:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1585
Joined  2006-10-20
Salt Creek - 19 November 2008 11:09 PM

controlling and then reducing human population

And this is the rub.  Eating vegetarian, driving a Prius, and switching to CFL bulbs will have not nearly the effect that reducing our population will - something about perpetual growth in a closed system.  I propose reducing Christian and Muslim populations first.

The deal we want to make is to reduce our impact on the planet’s resources without a reduction in our cushy lifestyle, and trading in the SUV for a Mini Cooper or bringing your own bags to the grocery store is a drop in the bucket.  The planet could use one less person more than one less grocery bag, but the party will continue to rage no matter how much the party pooper tells us to keep it down lest we attract the attention of the cops.  Did anyone who bought a huge SUV give a shit about the planet before gas prices were more than $4/gallon in the US?

Folks want to pretend to save the planet, but really we want to save our lifestyle first and will exhaust every alternative in an effort to hold off Rev. Malthus’s predictions for as long as we can.

 Signature 

“All extremists should be killed!” - neighbor’s bumper sticker

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2008 08:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3765
Joined  2007-03-11
Skipshot - 20 November 2008 03:09 AM

I propose reducing Christian and Muslim populations first.

Bad strategy. The communist/Buddhist/whatever Chinese and the Hindu Indians pollute much more than the children of Abraham.  Start with them, reduce each by 2/3 to get them down to manageable size. That would take care of a 1.5 billion.

Then, and only then, proceed on with the Muslims. Easy pickings, since they don’t have the bomb, except for Pakistan, which India will take care of. Reduce by another 2/3, which would be approximately 1 billion.  Now, you have reduced the world population from 7 billion to 4.5 billion, and have probably halved the pollution.  Good start.

You don’t have to worry about white Christians, since we aren’t having any children or converts anymore, and are basically turning secular.  So you can then start on the African and Latin Christians first.  That should take care of another billion, so now you have only half the world to deal with. I would suggest throwing in the Japanese for good measure (eliminate the competition) and the Russians, too (can’t trust ‘em - and they are Orthodox). 

By this point, you almost have the world to yourselves.  This would be real change, so perhaps President-elect Obama would go for it and implement it as policy.  He will have the military power to do it in about two months.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2008 08:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
Jefe - 19 November 2008 11:15 PM

At some point we’re going to have to face the fact that we’re outbreeding our environment’s ability to sustain us.

No we’re not. Nature will take care of it at some point by killing a shitload of us off in some probably nasty way. With religion firmly in charge of many minds they’ll still be quite capable of denying the facts even on pain of death.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2008 09:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08
lindajean - 19 November 2008 10:11 PM
Nulono - 19 November 2008 12:48 PM

Killing is not relative.

Killing a fly is as egregious as killing a Kindergardener?

I am guilty of many child-like murders. smirk

I was replying to “Lion killing a cub?  Lion raping a lioness?  How did you determine this from the lion’s point of view without injecting your own assumptions into it?”.

I can easily tell if a lion has killed a cub. That is not an opinion.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2008 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
Nulono - 20 November 2008 02:43 PM

I can easily tell if a lion has killed a cub. That is not an opinion.

You’re also not fooling anyone into believing you’re actually stupid enough to really think that’s pertinent to the actual question, or to the topic at hand.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2008 03:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20
Jefe - 19 November 2008 10:40 PM
lindajean - 19 November 2008 10:33 PM
Jefe - 19 November 2008 10:32 PM
lindajean - 19 November 2008 10:27 PM

  * It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of animal flesh. It’s shockingly inefficient to feed plant foods to farmed animals and consume their flesh rather than eating the plant foods ourselves.


I just read an interesting science blog post about this very issue.  It seems that the entire north american meat industry is reliant on corn in such a fundamental way that if weevils or some other blight were to cause a significant dearth of corn for any significant amount of time, it could lead to a near universal shift in eating patterns out of necessity alone.  I’ll try to dig it up.

I’m going to start praying the weevils get their wish.

I would think choosing to cut back would be less distressing than a global corn-pox.


Unless we reach a point where a blight from the weevils might seem rather benign compared to the magnitude of other global devastations.  And it is possible a blight in some form would be necessary before reaching an apex that would result in changes in human habits. As humans we seem continuously content to go along our merry ways thinking our lifestyles are necessary and deserving of our happiness.

But you are right, wishing for a blight seems overly dramatic.  With hindsight a smiley would have been appropriate downer

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2008 03:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

“Salt Creek”

I’d like to understand your assumptions a little better before I sign up for not chowing down on what you consider to be sentient beings. I think the subsequent thread has seen more rationally-digestible arguments about how to nourish ourselves. I have to be honest though: Unless you make your first points about controlling and then reducing human population, I don’t really care to hear a peep out of you about compassion for our four-legged friends.

Let me make it perfectly clear, I am in favor of population control.  The issue (and arguments) I have had on this forum have been related to the methods used to control populations. I won’t waste your time or mine repeating my views on that—you can study the pertinent threads to discover what those are.

But your assumption that my compassion for four (or two) footed creatures dominates any passion I have to reduce populations is ill-formed (if it is such assumptions you have.) The two are not mutually exclusive of any beliefs that I hold.

[ Edited: 20 November 2008 05:19 PM by zelzo]
 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2008 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2006/08/choosing_life_consistently.php

Time to go pro-life all the way: for reasons related to my opposition to abortion, I am adopting the “consistent ethic of life” and renouncing my support for capital punishment. I believe that the mere potential for good inherent in all human life is a sufficient basis for abolishing the death penalty. Whether it is expressed in religious, secular or philosophical terms, there is a something at the core of even the worst of us worthy of respect and protection.

The death penalty debate, unlike the abortion one, is rarely framed in purely religious terms. This is not to say that religious arguments, and passionate ones, are not sometimes raised by both sides of the controversy. What I mean is that advocating for one side is generally not viewed as “imposing religion” upon society. There is no slogan equivalent to “keep your rosaries off my ovaries” in the capital punishment arena. No one says “keep your Mass off my cyanide gas.” When a legislature enacts or repeals a death penalty bill, objections based upon church/state separation generally do not arise. [They also tend to fade in discussions of late-term abortion or infanticide].

But reading Jill of Feministe’s call to de-emphasize the problem of executing the innocent in favor of rejecting capital punishment on its face, I was struck by the parallels to my own allegedly “magical” anti-abortion position. The abolitionist—one who puts aside questions of innocence, racism, age or retardation and the like in favor of a complete ban—is arguing for nothing but life for life’s sake. Such an argument against execution, it seems, could easily be easily be dismissed as “DNA magic,” as a fetishistic obsession with the bare resemblance of the criminal’s genetic structure to our own, or as an embrace of “ensoulment.” Why not simply declare that the condemned, like the fetus, is “subhuman” or a mere “parasite”? Why protest against the perfectly “legal medical procedure” of lethal injection?

It is of no use to distinguish the prisoner by asserting that his clump of cells has developed to the point where he is a “real” human being with a consciousness. The consciousness only counts against the argument. Having metastasized into something evil, the creature’s possession of a brain only aggravates the danger posed. Nor do arguments concerning the condemned’s capacity for pain carry much weight. Any death can be brought about painlessly and instantaneously, with the subject experiencing no more discomfort than a blastocyte. It is magical thinking to say otherwise—factually and scientifically false. And if the question “how would like it if your mother had aborted you?” is for some reason nonsense, then so is the question “how would you like it if the state had executed you?” In either case, you would be in no position to complain today.

These specious objections aside, the abolitionist position can rest only upon a respect for the core human identity and the potentiality for goodness it entails. It is a potentiality that may, unlike the fetus, take far longer than nine months to realize. Rehabilitation can be a long and expensive process. And it must be recognized that it is, in fact, only a potentiality, not an actuality.

But I believe that that is enough. Vengeance solves nothing, resurrects no one, and I seriously doubt that those inclined to kill are deterred (or necessarily even aware) of the prospect of the ultimate penalty. Every person can eventually serve to some productive use, even if incarcerated. I am persuaded by the reasoning of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium vitae that:


[We] ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.


In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.


George H. Smith, author of the seminal work “Atheism: The Case Against God” comes to a similar conclusion with respect to capital punishment. He contends that the right to life is “inalienable” and that the death penalty is impermissible even in cases “where reasonable doubt is impossible and where the crimes have been especially heinous” [“A Killer’s Right to Life,â€? Liberty 10, no. 2 (November 1996): 46]. I concur that whether argued as a question of mere humanity or mere Christianity, we are better off with less killing than more.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2008 08:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15

Humans are not special or privileged. So, why is a Lion killing and raping OK but it is wrong humans, because morality is relative not universal.

Not eating meat will help the world about as using corn to run our cars.


If you want to know about corn and how we got to where we are at see the movie King Corn. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Corn_(film)

PS don’t confuse the problems with corn with eating meat.

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2008 02:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

A lion killing and raping is NOT okay, and humans are NOT special. Each creature has a moral obligation towards its own.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2008 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
Nulono - 25 November 2008 07:24 PM

A lion killing and raping is NOT okay, and humans are NOT special. Each creature has a moral obligation towards its own.


You presuppose morality which makes your argument fallacious. 

Arguments like that are proof that Pro-Life Atheism is an ill conceived philosophy.

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 8
5
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed