PDA

View Full Version : DX3 - Vegetarianism the way of the future?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Sep 2008, 11:04
Okay, I happily declare myself as a vegetarian... but excuse me if I'm being somewhat presumptuous here but I assume, in the DX universe, everyone is vegetarian.
The food you find to pick up (apart from health packs) and consume is all soy protein and candy bars and there are no signs of any chicken takeaways, burger bars (not even greasel pit burgers!) or similar fast-food outlets within the city areas.

As today, I imagine a vast number of the human population voluntarily gave up meat products for ethical purposes (as well as for any pre-existing religious reasons) but I think vegetarianism would have been enforced by DX world governments who realised that to feed the world, animal produce was no longer feasible. Animal produce was once good for creating monetary profit, yes, but now no longer beneficial in feeding the world - poor health, famine and hunger negating any profit therein. It is a hard fact that land is more productive when used to grow grain and not to rear animals.

Anyway, it all makes sense to me for the DX inhabitants to be totally vegetarian (except, perhaps, for any extreme rural inhabitants or urban black market consumption/underground economy?) and I don't see that changing in DX3, do you?

Like it or not, vegetarianism is an inevitable way of life in the future... agree or disagree? :p

Tsumaru
1st Sep 2008, 11:36
I disagree with every single statement in the above post. Well, except for the ones in regards to your own beliefs, and your observations on the items found in Deus Ex.

DXeXodus
1st Sep 2008, 11:46
Don't forget the guy selling meat in the Wan-Chai market in Hong Kong. He even tells you that all the restaurants in the area buy their meet from him :D

So my opinion is no, vegetarianism is not the way of the future. Meat is awesome. IMO of course.

Nathan2000
1st Sep 2008, 11:47
Okay, I happily declare myself as a vegetarian... but excuse me if I'm being somewhat presumptuous here but I assume, in the DX universe, everyone is vegetarian.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6449/vegetariandq7.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/img204/vegetariandq7.jpg/1/)

jordan_a
1st Sep 2008, 11:49
The food you find to pick up (apart from health packs) and consume is all soy protein and candy bars and there are no signs of any chicken takeaways, burger bars (not even greasel pit burgers!) or similar fast-food outlets within the city areas.Maybe they didn't have time to work on that. As you noticed many textures are "generic" in DX1.


vegetarianism would have been enforced by DX world governments who realised that to feed the world, animal produce was no longer feasible.There is much more food production than people.


Like it or not, vegetarianism is an inevitable way of life in the future... agree or disagree? :pCompletely disagree. ;)

DXeXodus
1st Sep 2008, 12:02
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6449/vegetariandq7.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/img204/vegetariandq7.jpg/1/)

Yes! That's the guy I was talking about. Thanks Nathan.

MaxxQ1
1st Sep 2008, 12:43
[Charleton Heston]SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!![/Charleton Heston]

Another (possible) example of carnivorism in DX, is in the Mole People tunnels. Though it's never pointed out specifically, one has to wonder what the two guys at the end of the tunnel near the Mole People/NSF leader's hideout were going to do with that dead cat...

I'm a proud member of:

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

DXeXodus
1st Sep 2008, 12:47
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

I too belong to this glorious society.

No offense meant to vegetarians at all by the way. I truly respect what you all stand for. Each to their own and all.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Sep 2008, 12:48
Hehe, love that caption image and the PETA reference, very funny, lol! :D

Wow, I completely don't remember the meat-seller at Wan-Chai market, my bad. :o
(Maybe black market though?)
Also, the Mole People cat scenario maybe that was an example of hunger... you'll eat anything then, right?
Still, I'm glad I gave you guys something else to 'beef' about, if you'll excuse the pun. :p

But, seriously though.... given the known logistics of producing meat versus producing grain; do you not believe that vegetarianism will become a way of life in the future?
Human population is increasing at an incredible (and frightening) rate and land is decreasing... where will this lead us?
In the previous DX games, there is definitely a focus/leaning toward a vegetarian diet, imo.

Eidos Montreal, please give us more Soy packs in DX3... I think their inclusion in the game was meant as another (profound?) message. :thumbsup:


Oh, to consider the carnivore/omnivore point-of-view, I guess there is the possibility of a future in lab-based vitro meat, though?
Perhaps an expensive alternative, only for the tables of the elite/rich?
Definitely a possibility... scientists are growing 'flesh' in laboratories today.

Tracer Tong
1st Sep 2008, 17:13
Oh, to consider the carnivore/omnivore point-of-view, I guess there is the possibility of a future in lab-based vitro meat, though?
Perhaps an expensive alternative, only for the tables of the elite/rich?
Definitely a possibility... scientists are growing 'flesh' in laboratories today.

We have succeeded, as of 2006/7, to clone selected cow meat.

On another note, I, too, am a proud member of the aforementioned PETA

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Sep 2008, 19:00
Interesting. So, you mean specifically "cloned flesh/cow meat" in a lab... and not just cloned livestock for meat consumption? Can you link to any further details on that, thank you. I'd be interested to know if this is still at experimental stage and not yet deemed 'safe to eat', or if it is soon to go to market...

Yes, happy you are proud to eat meat... I'm not here to preach to anyone on that score. :p
I, in turn, am extremly proud to join the many distinguished and compassionate humans (famous or otherwise) who choose not to eat meat. After all, it isn't a habit that is necessary for my survival. ;)

I'm just really happy to see that there are soy packs and candy bars in the DX games and I definitely want to see the return of them in DX3.
But maybe some of you guys want to see "proper" food in DX3 for nourishment purposes?
Greasel burger, anyone? :D

MaxxQ1
1st Sep 2008, 19:43
Interesting. So, you mean specifically "cloned flesh/cow meat" in a lab... and not just cloned livestock for meat consumption? Can you link to any further details on that, thank you. I'd be interested to know if this is still at experimental stage and not yet deemed 'safe to eat', or if it is soon to go to market...

I believe it's cloned cattle, for eating, milk, and methane production :D There was something on the news over the summer about people wanting the cloned meat clearly labeled in supermarkets, so they can decide whether to eat it or not. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is - cloned cow is still cow. Just 'cause it came from a lab and not a momma cow doesn't mean it's any less nutritional (or more dangerous to eat) than farm-grown.


Yes, happy you are proud to eat meat... I'm not here to preach to anyone on that score. :p

Good, 'cause if you were, I'd have to go all Gunther Hermann on you (obligatory DX topic inclusion).


I, in turn, am extremly proud to join the many distinguished and compassionate humans (famous or otherwise) who choose not to eat meat. After all, it isn't a habit that is necessary for my survival. ;)

My sister is a recovering vegetarian. She ate no meat for about 7 years, then started being omnivorous again.


Greasel burger, anyone? :D

Nahhh...too stringy and (pardon the pun) greasy. Gimme a nice, thick, medium-well Karkian steak, with a side of garlic mashed potatos, and some hot, buttered corn-on-the-cob, and I'll be happy.

mook333
1st Sep 2008, 20:39
I remember reading this book with genetically engineered chicken treesbut there meat tastes gross

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Sep 2008, 21:26
I believe it's cloned cattle, for eating, milk, and methane production :D There was something on the news over the summer about people wanting the cloned meat clearly labeled in supermarkets, so they can decide whether to eat it or not. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is - cloned cow is still cow. Just 'cause it came from a lab and not a momma cow doesn't mean it's any less nutritional (or more dangerous to eat) than farm-grown.

Good, 'cause if you were, I'd have to go all Gunther Hermann on you (obligatory DX topic inclusion).

My sister is a recovering vegetarian. She ate no meat for about 7 years, then started being omnivorous again.

Nahhh...too stringy and (pardon the pun) greasy. Gimme a nice, thick, medium-well Karkian steak, with a side of garlic mashed potatos, and some hot, buttered corn-on-the-cob, and I'll be happy.

You may well be correct there, I'm not really clued-up on the subject of cloned animal produce/meat - its just that I remember reading about possible health issues ages ago. Obviously, governments and agencies wanted the produce fully tested before it was offered for public consumption. What happened after that, I have no idea.
Cow or not though, I guess its wise to show some caution and/or ask questions. ;)

All Gunther Hermann on me, huh? I guess he did display some paranoid tendencies, hehe. :p

What on earth is your sister 'recovering' from? :eek: I hope she is better soon.

The garlic mashed potatoes and hot, buttered corn-on-the-cob sounds delicious! You are making me hungry! :D









*Goes to raid the fridge* :whistle:

Tsumaru
1st Sep 2008, 23:57
I, in turn, am extremly proud to join the many distinguished and compassionate humans (famous or otherwise) who choose not to eat meat. After all, it isn't a habit that is necessary for my survival.

Just as I am extremely proud to join the majority distinguished and compassionate humans (famous or otherwise) who choose to eat meat. After all, "necessary for survival" isn't the only thing that impacts our decisions in life - remind me again why you're on an internet forum for a computer game?

ewanlaing
2nd Sep 2008, 00:35
Though I'm not a vegetarian, I think it would be interesting if everyone in DX 3 was. But that might make it seem too futuristic.

To be honest, even though I eat meat, I absolutely cannot find a good enough reason why.

And I think MissDenton is just poking fun at us, so let's not fly off the handle.

iWait
2nd Sep 2008, 01:13
I am fine with vegetarians, though I truly disagree with parents that decide to raise their children as vegetarians.
Meat provides many nutrients not found in a "regular" vegetarian diet (excluding soy products and vitamin supplements.) A lot of people do not realize the amount of needed nutrients blood and certain organs provide. The liver, for example, provides huge amounts of vitamin C.

But, in the future, would it not be more efficient to feed everybody pills that include all the needed nutrients?
For instance: You wake up in the morning, take your glucose pill, your vitamin pill, and your mineral pill, etc.. etc..

ikenstein
2nd Sep 2008, 02:14
i ate a vegetable once.

yaachhghh!

ikenstein
2nd Sep 2008, 02:16
before you ask - it was a pea.

MaxxQ1
2nd Sep 2008, 02:16
What on earth is your sister 'recovering' from? :eek: I hope she is better soon.

It was a lame joke. It was meant to be like "recovering alcoholics" are getting over their dependency on booze. In that context, my sister is getting over her addiction to rabbit food. :rasp:

I use it when people ask me what religion I am - I tell 'em I'm a recovering Catholic. Been on the wagon for 30 years now. :D

K^2
2nd Sep 2008, 04:57
Greasel burger, anyone? :D
If you cook them with lots of baking soda, it neutralizes the acid and makes them really tender. Also, heat will take care of the neurotoxins, but you have to give them at least 4-5 hours in the oven. Nutritious and delicious!

DXeXodus
2nd Sep 2008, 04:59
Should I pre-heat the oven first? And which spices would you recommend?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Sep 2008, 06:35
Just as I am extremely proud to join the majority distinguished and compassionate humans (famous or otherwise) who choose to eat meat. After all, "necessary for survival" isn't the only thing that impacts our decisions in life - remind me again why you're on an internet forum for a computer game?

Tsumaru: perhaps you could remind me again why I shouldn't be on an internet forum for a computer game? :p

iWait: So are you categorically stating that a vegetarian diet is unhealthy and a meat diet is healthy, lol? :eek: :nut:




Though I'm not a vegetarian, I think it would be interesting if everyone in DX 3 was. But that might make it seem too futuristic.

To be honest, even though I eat meat, I absolutely cannot find a good enough reason why.

And I think MissDenton is just poking fun at us, so let's not fly off the handle.

At last, an intelligent and fair response, thank you.
I could find plenty of reasons not to eat meat, and so I became a vegetarian... ;)

Well, I'm not exactly poking fun at people here... but I do have a good sense of humour.
Lets just say, I find it amusing that some people do fly off the handle just because another declares themselves to be a vegetarian, hehe. :D

derblaueClaus
2nd Sep 2008, 06:40
Should I pre-heat the oven first? And which spices would you recommend?

As it is Green I would prefer some Green Pepper..... Also it can not be wrong to use some Chilli :cool:

Tsumaru
2nd Sep 2008, 08:07
Tsumaru: perhaps you could remind me again why I shouldn't be on an internet forum for a computer game?
Because it's not necessary for survival.


I find it amusing that some people do fly off the handle just because another declares themselves to be a vegetarian, hehe.
You must be speaking from some experience you had somewhere else in your life, because I see none of that happening here.


To be honest, even though I eat meat, I absolutely cannot find a good enough reason why.
Simplicity. Meat on the whole is very abundant, and it is remarkably easy to find a sufficient source of complete proteins in meat. You also know that you're getting X, Y and Z nutrients (do you want me to go list them all? I can.) and don't need to go seek special foods to get each of those. It makes preparing meals and managing your diet a lot easier.
Furthermore, it tastes good.
And last but not least, debates about the ethics of it are not only not 100% conclusive - but extremely controversial. I can go on a huge rant here about how it is not necessarily unethical, and rebut points which support the whole "animal right-to-life", but there is plenty of that everywhere. As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof lies on the vegetarians to give irrefutable evidence which says it is wrong to eat animals. Until then, a simple reliance on natural instincts (we need to RATIONALISE not to eat meat - for very few people is it instinctive to have a solely vegetarian diet), tradition, and what we know of the food chain and our biology is enough to sustain a meat-eating diet unless we can be shown that it is truly unethical. Do you really need a reason to eat meat? Or do you need a reason not to?
These are just some very small, very debatable points. I don't want to get into a whole ethics debate here. I'm merely illustrating that it is actually not that hard to find reasons to eat meat, and in reality - do you need those reasons in the first place?

gh0s7
2nd Sep 2008, 09:40
(....)
Like it or not, vegetarianism is an inevitable way of life in the future... agree or disagree? :p

Do you mean a way as in "everybody being vegetarian"? Because that's not going to happen; a majority, sure, why not. But everybody eating vegetables? Nope, because there will always be, at least, one person who does not agree, and that will eat meat (or anything else).

If there are no people eating meat, the vegetarians won't have the psychological motive to restrict their nutritional habits to vegetables only, and it's inevitable that some grow curious or wish to eat something different.


(....)
But, in the future, would it not be more efficient to feed everybody pills that include all the needed nutrients?
For instance: You wake up in the morning, take your glucose pill, your vitamin pill, and your mineral pill, etc.. etc..

Ever saw the movie "The Island"? ;) :D

Cr4sh
2nd Sep 2008, 10:30
But, in the future, would it not be more efficient to feed everybody pills that include all the needed nutrients?
For instance: You wake up in the morning, take your glucose pill, your vitamin pill, and your mineral pill, etc.. etc..

Nope, they tested it, and after a few days the human organism did not accept pills anymore, they were not digested or something. At least you would need something to fill your stomach, some mash made of fiber or so... and, i don't think this would be tasty ^^

DXeXodus
2nd Sep 2008, 11:14
I really enjoy eating. I don't eat excessively and I am far from overweight, but I would hate it if pills replaced food. Eating is about more than survival in the modern world.

René
2nd Sep 2008, 13:24
Eidos Montreal, please give us more Soy packs in DX3... I think their inclusion in the game was meant as another (profound?) message.

Hmm, I dunno about that. I always preferred this form of healing:
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Cavern/4087/food.gif

Anyone know what game that's from...? :rolleyes:

Red
2nd Sep 2008, 13:41
Wolf3D

ikenstein
2nd Sep 2008, 15:15
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Cavern/4087/food.gif

Anyone know what game that's from...? :rolleyes:

isn't that from crysis?

Romeo
2nd Sep 2008, 15:25
1Because it's not necessary for survival.


2You must be speaking from some experience you had somewhere else in your life, because I see none of that happening here.


3Simplicity. Meat on the whole is very abundant, and it is remarkably easy to find a sufficient source of complete proteins in meat. You also know that you're getting X, Y and Z nutrients (do you want me to go list them all? I can.) and don't need to go seek special foods to get each of those. It makes preparing meals and managing your diet a lot easier.
Furthermore, it tastes good.
And last but not least, debates about the ethics of it are not only not 100% conclusive - but extremely controversial. I can go on a huge rant here about how it is not necessarily unethical, and rebut points which support the whole "animal right-to-life", but there is plenty of that everywhere. As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof lies on the vegetarians to give irrefutable evidence which says it is wrong to eat animals. Until then, a simple reliance on natural instincts (we need to RATIONALISE not to eat meat - for very few people is it instinctive to have a solely vegetarian diet), tradition, and what we know of the food chain and our biology is enough to sustain a meat-eating diet unless we can be shown that it is truly unethical. Do you really need a reason to eat meat? Or do you need a reason not to?
These are just some very small, very debatable points. I don't want to get into a whole ethics debate here. I'm merely illustrating that it is actually not that hard to find reasons to eat meat, and in reality - do you need those reasons in the first place?
1) Can you remind ME why your on an internet forum? Miss Denton was at least applying this topic to the game, YOU on the other hand are simply attacking her. Besides, videogames, entertaining as they may be, obviously arn't necessary for survival, or we'd have never made it to the 1900's.

2) Wow, she's speaking from experience... Like everyone else is here.

3) As much as I love meat, it's been mentioned numerous times that the majority of meats around arn't good for you. They're either fattening, coagulents or contain high levels of Mercury. And our food chain was enough to sustain our farmland concepts, but if you hadn't noticed, we're in a food shortage these days because our farms can't sustain the population.

Lastly, and deserving a point of it's own, it is beyond obvious that she was just playing around. So lighten up or go away.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Sep 2008, 19:16
Because it's not necessary for survival.
If you are going to pick up on words, at least make sense...
Of course a video game isn't necessary for survival, I agree with you. But neither is eating meat, that was my general "point", ie. message to get across. The question is, are you unbiased enough to agree with me? ;)
We could all waste our time listing a whole bunch of things that people do that isn't necessary for our survival - but that would be childish and unproductive. I was giving my reason for being a vegetarian. Your statement about a video game forum lacks any reason.
(PS. A big thank you to Romeo for bringing attention to this point too. :))


You must be speaking from some experience you had somewhere else in your life, because I see none of that happening here.
Ummm, if you read back you will see that I was merely responding to another member's post and it was that member who made the suggestion, not I. At no point did I make any reference to any bad experience happening 'here'.
Did I? Nope. :p
Vegetarianism is not a religion for me, it is just a personal choice. I am not here to proclaim that vegetarianism MUST be adopted by all and sundry. By the same token, if I were a meat-eater, I would not be here to proclaim that vegetarianism isn't worth the time of day or feel the need to attack anyone for their values.
Seriously, my initial post was to ask whether people thought it may be an inevitable way of life in the future, particularly in relation to the DX world. THAT is what I am interested in discussing.


Simplicity. Meat on the whole is very abundant, and it is remarkably easy to find a sufficient source of complete proteins in meat.
If you are talking about 'abundance', wrong. It's running out.
Human demands on natural animal products are dangerously at the point of depletion - consider fish stocks for example. Once we've eaten it all, you are talking thousands of years before those supplies become anything like 'abundant' again. Nature has set a perfect balance but our utter greed (and subsequent waste - whilst others die of hunger in other parts of the globe) interferes with this.
With regard to 'simplicity'... vegetation is as simple as it gets. It is the MOST important nutritional source on the planet. Plants that have photosynthesis are supplying us with the first product of the food chain - as well as the source for oxygen, our clothes, our furniture, our fossil fuels, among other things. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point - without vegetation, there would be no Sunday dinner (the meat bit) for you, my friend!

Ummm, it is remarkably easy to find sufficient sources of proteins in non-meat products too. Absolutely. :)


You also know that you're getting X, Y and Z nutrients (do you want me to go list them all? I can.) and don't need to go seek special foods to get each of those.
I am sure you can list X, Y and Z nutrients... please do, if you wish to. However, nutrients are found in many food sources, meat or otherwise so I'm not quite sure of the exact point you are making? I must add that it is an absolute MYTH to believe that only a meat-eating diet is a healthy diet.
As you mentioned it, may I ask whether you know the X, Y and Z of additives in your meat products? When you eat a supermarket pork pie, for example, is it just 100% pork meat and natural pastry you are eating? Nope. Maybe in the good ol' days, but not today...

Why refer to a vegetarian diet as 'special food'? So, everything else that you eat (minus the meat) is 'special food', yeah?


It makes preparing meals and managing your diet a lot easier.
Well, that is a matter of opinion. Cooking meat requires a lot more management. You have to make sure it is stored and cooked correctly because meat is, in fact, 'flesh' and it begins to rot/decay as soon as it is exposed to air. It is rife with bacteria and other dangerous organisms. There is also a lot for meat-eaters to consider regarding additives in processed meats and the methods of which they are made. There is nothing "easy" about that. Sure, it is easy to just buy your meat products from the supermarket without giving a second thought to how it actually got there and what the ingredients specifically are.


Furthermore, it tastes good.
So does my veggie cooking, I'll have you know, lol! :rasp:


I can go on a huge rant here about how it is not necessarily unethical, and rebut points which support the whole "animal right-to-life", but there is plenty of that everywhere. As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof lies on the vegetarians to give irrefutable evidence which says it is wrong to eat animals.
Nonsense. The burden of proof does not lie with vegetarians giving irrefutable evidence of why it is wrong to eat meat! You address this matter as if all vegetarians, including myself, categorically state that it is "wrong to eat meat". Not true. I never said it was wrong to eat meat...please don't put words in my mouth or assume that all vegetarians have this point-of-view. As already stated earlier in this thread (maybe you missed that bit?) if I chose to eat meat then I would only opt for organic meat. When I made that statement, how does it equate to me declaring that it is "wrong to eat meat"?
You need to take into account that people choose to become vegetarians for many different reasons. Some consider it to be healthier alternative; others are influenced by their religious or philosophical beliefs etc. For me, personally, I became vegetarian because I am totally against factory farming. In this cruel practice, we turn sentient animals into nothing but money-making, egg or flesh-producing "machines". We deny them a natural life and that, to me, is a shameful practice which I do not wish to be part of or support the existence of by consuming such products.


Until then, a simple reliance on natural instincts (we need to RATIONALISE not to eat meat - for very few people is it instinctive to have a solely vegetarian diet), tradition, and what we know of the food chain and our biology is enough to sustain a meat-eating diet unless we can be shown that it is truly unethical. Do you really need a reason to eat meat? Or do you need a reason not to?
These are just some very small, very debatable points. I don't want to get into a whole ethics debate here. I'm merely illustrating that it is actually not that hard to find reasons to eat meat, and in reality - do you need those reasons in the first place?

How lucky you are to be able to talk about natural instincts.
What about the natural instincts of animals that we have locked up inside noxious ammonia-stinking factory farms/sheds? (The diseased dead bodies of which end up in your KFC bucket...eg. chickens).

To conclude, I never said that there must be a reason to eat meat, or not to. But if you are talking ethics, then lets just say that not eating meat for 'spiritual' awareness is a good enough reason for me. I am aware of the conditions of which animals are reared in factory farms and I am also educated on the slaughterhouse process. Neither practice appeals to me and this is MY reason for not eating meat. Obviously, I cannot speak for anyone else and have absolutely no wish to.

Now you can chew on that please, hehe. :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Sep 2008, 20:22
Do you mean a way as in "everybody being vegetarian"? Because that's not going to happen; a majority, sure, why not. But everybody eating vegetables? Nope, because there will always be, at least, one person who does not agree, and that will eat meat (or anything else).

If there are no people eating meat, the vegetarians won't have the psychological motive to restrict their nutritional habits to vegetables only, and it's inevitable that some grow curious or wish to eat something different.


No, I didn't mean 'everybody' will be a vegetarian...sorry, that is why I mentioned possible rural and blackmarket meat consumption. But, yes, I meant the majority at least - particularly those people dwelling in city areas.

Being a vegetarian doesn't mean you only eat vegetables. We can eat everything else that you eat, excluding meat. That amounts to a good variety of foodstuffs, yeah? :)
Incidentally, next time you visit your local supermarket just check out what is available for veggies in the fresh and frozen produce sections. This includes a wide range of meat-free, protein-enriched produce such as lincolnshire sausages, bacon rashers, burgers, hot dogs, southern-fried chicken nuggets etc. This is only the range that 'simulates' meat too. So, I'm eating similar meals to you guys (with the exception of the "joints of meat" typically found on your sunday dinner plates) and getting all the protein I need. :p

Yes, I agree that there will always be curiosity and the wish to eat something different. But, in terms of the future, I am suggesting that the choice may no longer be available. You just have to imagine the time when there is no longer enough land to rear cattle and there isn't enough water in which to flush away the vast amount of waste-products collecting inside factory farms.
Life in a DX world has changed dramatically from what we are presently accustomed to. I am suggesting that this is the reason why the DX game offers Soy packs for your health... there really isn't much else to choose from.
The Soy provides all the protein and other nutrients you need to survive in those times... job done. :cool:

René
2nd Sep 2008, 21:52
Anyway, it all makes sense to me for the DX inhabitants to be totally vegetarian

Let's try and swing this topic back on topic...

All the inhabitants of DX to be totally vegetarian? What about the upper class who could use eating meat as a status symbol? Similar to how rap stars drive blinged-out Cadillac Escalades and Hummers? What if people had gone the vegan route, but there remained only the ruling elite who could acquire meat?

ewanlaing
2nd Sep 2008, 22:27
It'd be great if meat eating became one of those illegal things that only the upper class do, like all those Hollywood stars who snort cocaine.

foxberg
2nd Sep 2008, 22:29
Well, lets just put it bluntly this way: Denton, or whoever else Auggie is the main male character, doesn't seem to date anyone. He just doesn't have to "get it up". Obviously the same goes for women. Meat means sex. Soy bars and protein shakes? They better start cloning people then. Wait?!! Where did JC came from? Now it all makes sense...

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Sep 2008, 22:40
I am fine with vegetarians, though I truly disagree with parents that decide to raise their children as vegetarians.
Meat provides many nutrients not found in a "regular" vegetarian diet (excluding soy products and vitamin supplements.) A lot of people do not realize the amount of needed nutrients blood and certain organs provide. The liver, for example, provides huge amounts of vitamin C.


I'm glad to hear that you are fine with vegetarians. But isn't a practicing vegetarian likely to encourage this lifestyle in their offspring? It's a natural progression.
So, I am sorry to read that you disagree with parents who raise their children as vegetarians. I don't know if this is a form of stereotypical thought, but it seems most unfair. It somewhat implies that such parents demonstrate irresponsibility or even cruelty/neglect, perhaps? :eek:
If so, I strongly disagree... but don't worry, I have not taken offence but it is important for me to respond to your statement. :)

I will be the first to raise my hand up here, but not to confess any 'guilt', only 'acknowledgement'.
Both of my kids have been vegetarian since birth. I, on the other hand, was brought up in a typical (of that generation) 'meat and two veg' environment and was not given any vegetarian choice or opportunity, sadly.

In order to dispel another possible veggie myth here, may I immediately state that my children are extremely healthy - both physically and mentally.
They are happy, confident and intelligent children and I'm proud of them both for the beautiful individuals they are.
NEVER at any point in their lives have they expressed regret at being vegetarian. That is because all the reasons for encouragement of this lifestyle has been fully explained and shown to them and they have independently agreed upon those reasons. Furthermore, they were also informed right from the start (when old enough to understand, of course) that should they ever choose to eat meat; then I would not wish to stop them. It is their choice, their life. Absolutely no authoritarian 'pressure' has been applied to ensure their adherence to this lifestyle. Absolutely not.
Like any loving parent, I have only offered my guidance in life as to what I sincerely believe is important and relevant in respect of them growing up to be good people.
That is, simply, the values of respect, compassion and love to fellow human-beings (and nature); and the creative use of their intellect, ie. to question and think deeply about all issues that effect them and the world they live in.




***



Let's try and swing this topic back on topic...

All the inhabitants of DX to be totally vegetarian? What about the upper class who could use eating meat as a status symbol? Similar to how rap stars drive blinged-out Cadillac Escalades and Hummers? What if people had gone the vegan route, but there remained only the ruling elite who could acquire meat?

Merci bien, Rene. :)

Yes, indeed. I agree this is most definitely a realistic scenario for the DX world.
Just like food rations are enforced during wartime or with other incidents of emergency/disaster, the common people have to make do with the 'necessities' for survival, in this case, the consumption of Soy packs.
But, yes, certain 'delicacies' such as animal meat will no doubt find their way onto the tables of the upper-class/elite.
A very lucrative business for the black market... I just hope the Omar wouldn't want to run the operation. That would completely ruin their image for me, hehe. :D


***


Well, lets just put it bluntly this way: Denton, or whoever else Auggie is the main male character, doesn't seem to date anyone. He just doesn't have to "get it up". Obviously the same goes for women. Meat means sex. Soy bars and protein shakes? They better start cloning people then. Wait?!! Where did JC came from? Now it all makes sense...

LMAO, a most amusing deduction there!
Classic... :D

Absentia
3rd Sep 2008, 00:19
I think MissDenton has definitely defended and explained herself well here without resorting to a flame war (which was looking likely to me)

To be honest, there's not a lot I can say on this topic...because I'm really not that interested either way =P
The idea of meat suddenly becoming gold dust and only avaliable to upper-class might be a cool idea, just showing the separation between social classes and the (as the Deus Ex Bible states) elimination of the middle class.
I think it's very much a matter of when the game takes place. What would initially happen (if youre ideas about meat being so unsustainable is true) is that of course prices on meat would boom as industry suffered. I don't think that there would be a point where meat was totally abandoned, but I think it would shift into the background as "just another foodstuff" only it would be seen as very high-class.
The general public would obviously not be able to afford it, and have to resort to a vegetarian diet. "resort" is a key word here, because I'm saying that people wouldn't WANT to be vegetarian. Not everyone is going to find a soft spot in their heart for the poor animals that suffer and think "oh well, this is a good thing". They'd just have to unwillingly get used to it.

Over time of course, vegetarianism would be more accepted as the norm for these people, but we are talking over generations, and I don't think DX3 would (or SHOULD) really be put that far in the future.

And I said earlier that I wasn't really that interested in it....

Mindmute
3rd Sep 2008, 00:40
Well, lets just put it bluntly this way: Denton, or whoever else Auggie is the main male character, doesn't seem to date anyone. He just doesn't have to "get it up". Obviously the same goes for women. Meat means sex. Soy bars and protein shakes? They better start cloning people then. Wait?!! Where did JC came from? Now it all makes sense...

I do hope there was a great deal of sarcasm there... I spent a great deal of my life with a vegetarian diet and I can't say I've had any complaints in *that* department... :rolleyes:



A very lucrative business for the black market... I just hope the Omar wouldn't want to run the operation. That would completely ruin their image for me, hehe.

Meat selling cyborgs? I can't even begin to imagine the number of ways in which that would be wierd...



I'm glad to hear that you are fine with vegetarians. But isn't a practicing vegetarian likely to encourage this lifestyle in their offspring? It's a natural progression

I'd consider that a moot point, I am very much a believer that everyone is entitled to make their own choices without pressure from someone else.

minus0ne
3rd Sep 2008, 02:18
I only eat meat, fish and dairy that complies with the eko label (ie free roaming animals that actually have somewhat of a life before landing on my plate, and ones that aren't fed bits and pieces of their own species for food). I don't think you have to be a fully fledged vegetarian to care about the conditions of the bio-industry. Simply avoid buying and eating the cheapest mass-produced meats.

Simplicity. Meat on the whole is very abundant, and it is remarkably easy to find a sufficient source of complete proteins in meat. You also know that you're getting X, Y and Z nutrients (do you want me to go list them all? I can.) and don't need to go seek special foods to get each of those. It makes preparing meals and managing your diet a lot easier.
Furthermore, it tastes good.
Actually meat from the bio-industry is an *EPIC* waste of resources, and most livestock only store around 15% of the nutrients they're fed. I'll agree it's a good (healthy) idea to eat meat at least two times a week, but how that meat is 'produced' is FAR from simple. And meat is only 'abundant' because mankind keeps insane amounts of livestock, which costs an insane amount of resources. On top of this lunacy, a cow in Europe or North America actually gets subsidised three times the amount of money an average African person earns.

Oh and nuts will cover most of your nutritional needs if you don't eat meat, and I don't consider nuts to be "special foods". Actually meat is a "special food", seeing as though we're biologically not made to eat meat at all (we, like apes, thrive best on fruit, berries and nuts). Most liver and kidney disease stems from eating meat (as well as drinking alcohol), not to mention Vegetarians suffer far less heart disease.

In answer to the OP: I think it's very possible we might one day stop eating meat from animals. Though if we can produce meat without animals, could that be considered vegetarian?

Already we have an animal rights political party here in the Netherlands, but there's still a lot of work to be done. Hopefully they won't rest till the entire bio-industry has collapsed and made way for a more animal and environment friendly, resource-efficient way of production.

If it were up to the UN (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2008/06/is_it_time_to_turn_vegetarian.html), we'd already be vegetarians.

I, for one, will be dining at the first insect-food restaurant when it gets here :p Insects being by far the most nutritious and truly abundant food-source in the world. 80% of the world population eat insect-foods, yet us 20% stubborn Westerners still can't imagine eating Cockroach au Vin :D

DXeXodus
3rd Sep 2008, 04:11
Miss Denton, may I ask whether you are a vegetarian or a vegan? Just interested to know.

Oh, and thank you for responding to Tsumaru in a mature manner and not resorting to flaming. I would give you a cookie, but you already have one. :p

Fledz
3rd Sep 2008, 04:31
As someone who is about to complete my 4th year university degree in Biomedical Science (basically pre-medicine) I can tell you from experience that average vegetarians are less healthy generally than average omnivores. Yes you can get proteins and vitamins from supplements and vegetables, but there are quite a number of them which are not available at all unless you eat red meat. That is a proven fact, and you can easily see it if you take the time to read the extensive amount of journals available on the internet in approved scientific databases.
Hence why disorders such as anemia are so common amongst those who do not eat red meat. You probably won't die if you have a proper diet but somewhere along the line you can expect to have a very high chance of contracting a disease or a disorder due to lack of appropriate nutrients.
Is it not apparent why in so many nations it is illegal to force a child to be a vegetarian, especially in their early stages of life and is considered a form of child abuse? Not only because you're pushing your lifestyle onto them but because you are depriving them of necessary nutrients which are essential for a completely healthy life and which they cannot receive if you're eliminating certain food groups.
The clear sign that we all really should be eating a balanced diet are our teeth. Look at the mirror, how many different types of teeth do you have? That makes you an omnivore, not a carnivore and not a herbivore. Your body is tailored for maximum efficiency when consuming both plants and meat products, including milk and eggs.

It is absolutely your choice to choose what to eat but to claim that being a vegetarian is better for you and will result in the abandonment of meat is both uneducated and naive. I suggest you do a lot of reading and speak to some nutritionists and doctors.

EDIT - Also, you may be basing your views on the western world too much (USA, Australia, UK etc) where the obesity levels are appalling. Of course being vegetarian is better for you than eating take-away 6 days a week and hardly ever having a cooked meal with lots of greens (also essential for a healthy life ;)), but that's not the right way to look at it.
It is also evolutionary fact that the human race as we know it shot up to what it is today when we started eating cooked red meat, accelerating our development 4 fold. That speaks volumes in itself.

Tsumaru
3rd Sep 2008, 04:37
I honestly cannot believe how you people missed the point so badly. I'm not even sure how I keep getting accused of making attacks either. Seriously. Where did I attack anyone? =/


1) Can you remind ME why your on an internet forum? Miss Denton was at least applying this topic to the game, YOU on the other hand are simply attacking her. Besides, videogames, entertaining as they may be, obviously arn't necessary for survival, or we'd have never made it to the 1900's.
Thankyou for agreeing with me.


Of course a video game isn't necessary for survival, I agree with you. But neither is eating meat, that was my general "point", ie. message to get across. The question is, are you unbiased enough to agree with me?
Actually, you just agreed with me. And thankyou for doing so.


Ummm, if you read back you will see that I was merely responding to another member's post and it was that member who made the suggestion, not I. At no point did I make any reference to any bad experience happening 'here'.
Did I? Nope.
Good. So we're in agreement again. It feels good when people reply to my posts just to say "Yes Tsumaru, I agree completely with you. There is no issue here."


Lastly, and deserving a point of it's own, it is beyond obvious that she was just playing around. So lighten up or go away.
I'm perfectly 'light'. It actually sounds like you're the one who is taking it all too seriously. Maybe you need to step back, take a deep breath, get over your stigma of all posts attached to my username and your personal dislike of me (I'm assuming this derives from where I pointed out your hypocrisy in another thread) and try and read my post again without already assuming I've done something wrong.


With regard to 'simplicity'... vegetation is as simple as it gets. It is the MOST important nutritional source on the planet. Plants that have photosynthesis are supplying us with the first product of the food chain - as well as the source for oxygen, our clothes, our furniture, our fossil fuels, among other things. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point - without vegetation, there would be no Sunday dinner (the meat bit) for you, my friend!
I hardly said we should wipe out vegetation. Although if I want to argue, vegetarians do more to eliminate vegetation than meat-eaters. After all, you have to eat more vegetation to make up for the nutrients we get in our meat. Stop eating all the trees, MissDenton! We need them for our oxygen, clothes, furniture and fossil fuels among other things. =P


I must add that it is an absolute MYTH to believe that only a meat-eating diet is a healthy diet.
Good thing that's not what I said then.


Why refer to a vegetarian diet as 'special food'? So, everything else that you eat (minus the meat) is 'special food', yeah?
You don't think hunting for this or that particular nut to get the complete proteins is searching for a particular (ie, special) food? If you want to attack the semantic issue of my use of "special" - go ahead, but I hardly see how it really contributes to the discussion.


Well, that is a matter of opinion. Cooking meat requires a lot more management. You have to make sure it is stored and cooked correctly because meat is, in fact, 'flesh' and it begins to rot/decay as soon as it is exposed to air. It is rife with bacteria and other dangerous organisms. There is also a lot for meat-eaters to consider regarding additives in processed meats and the methods of which they are made. There is nothing "easy" about that. Sure, it is easy to just buy your meat products from the supermarket without giving a second thought to how it actually got there and what the ingredients specifically are.
I did say managing diet as well as just cooking. But since you want to address cooking - yes, perhaps it is a matter of opinion. But personally I found purchasing a chicken from the store, putting it in the fridge when I get home, and then later chopping it up and putting it in the oven to roast for dinner fairly straight-forward. It's not like I need to manually seek out the bacteria and dangerous organisms or anything and destroy them with my microscopic health-ray. I find it a lot more of a chore to assemble all the ingredients for a healthy vegetarian meal and cooking them in such a way that they actually taste nice. That could just be because I'm a ****ty chef though. *shrugs*


So does my veggie cooking, I'll have you know, lol!
That's great. Not saying it doesn't.


Nonsense. The burden of proof does not lie with vegetarians giving irrefutable evidence of why it is wrong to eat meat! You address this matter as if all vegetarians, including myself, categorically state that it is "wrong to eat meat".
Actually, I address this matter in the way that if you need a REASON for anything, ie "why should I...?" - then you need a reason NOT to eat meat; as opposed to a reason to do so. Whatever that reason may turn out to be. If the argument is about ethics, then a vegetarian has the burden of proof to say it's unethical. If it's about health, then a vegetarian has the burden of proof to say it's more healthy to go vegetarian. Are you familiar with the term prima facie? We live in a society where it is prima facie right, acceptable and the norm to eat meat. Thus the burden of proof rests with opposing parties. That is just how it works, and that is all I am saying. Of course, someone who is particularly concerned with the rationale behind every single one of their actions could feel the need to justify the eating of meat; but they would also need to justify not eating it, and weigh up the rationale of each against each other. I suspect that this is not something ewanlaing really intends to do, however.


Not true. I never said it was wrong to eat meat...please don't put words in my mouth or assume that all vegetarians have this point-of-view.
I didn't say your name or make any reference to you at all, so I'm not putting words in your mouth. Perhaps you need to stop putting words in mine.


For me, personally, I became vegetarian because I am totally against factory farming. In this cruel practice, we turn sentient animals into nothing but money-making, egg or flesh-producing "machines". We deny them a natural life and that, to me, is a shameful practice which I do not wish to be part of or support the existence of by consuming such products.
That's great. And yet that doesn't REALLY support vegetarianism; or at least, not wholly - it only supports up to the point of free range purchases. This would be akin to saying "Nike makes use of sweatshops, so I'm not going to wear ANY shoes". There are certainly animal cruelty issues in the meat industry, but there are also alternatives which minimise it (I hesitate to say remove, as some would argue any slaughter of animals for food is cruel). It bears worth mentioning here that buying only organic and free range meat is exactly what I do for exactly these reasons. Funny that.


How lucky you are to be able to talk about natural instincts.
What about the natural instincts of animals that we have locked up inside noxious ammonia-stinking factory farms/sheds? (The diseased dead bodies of which end up in your KFC bucket...eg. chickens).
It's funny how you got into this big iffy thing as if I've made accusations against you (which I have not). I have made no attacks or any sort. And yet here you are insinuating I have done something wrong in regards to eating meat. And don't deny it. I can see quite clearly the word your, in "your KFC bucket". And the sarcasm in that first line. So don't give me this hypocritical bull****.


To conclude, I never said that there must be a reason to eat meat, or not to.
No, you didn't. Which is why I was replying to ewanlaing. Not you. Hence the quote of his post.


<everything he said in regards to me>
I actually agree with everything you say; well, except for the misconception I've put up with the use of the word "special". I was using it in the context of "not common/ordinary". If I ask the average person, "where do you get your protein?", they will probably say "meat". If I ask "and if tomorrow you found out that a terrible disease had gone into ALL meat products, where would you get your protein?" most of them, I suspect, wouldn't have the slightest clue at all. I personally know that nobody I have spoken to except vegetarians or nutritionists had any idea. So the point here is that you have to do additional research to find out, where do I get complete proteins from. Where do I get my iron from? Where do I get my omega 3 fatty acids from? And so on, so forth. It's by no means difficult, and I am not suggesting you have to go and necessarily buy supplements or specialty foods. I merely used "special" to mean foods which you identify and purchase specifically to make up for the nutrients lost in a no-meat diet - what with meat being the thing common and usual to society.



Quickly, everybody jump on me for making personal attacks, starting flamewars, taking things too seriously, blowing up over nothing, blah blah blah. *rolls eyes*

DXeXodus
3rd Sep 2008, 04:51
Nobody is going to jump on you Tsumaru. Lets just leave it to a difference of opinion.

Lets please get back on topic.

The topic, for those that have forgotten, is "DX3 - Still a Vegetarian World?"

........Go:thumbsup:

Tsumaru
3rd Sep 2008, 04:54
Well, the issue with that, is some folks with good memory pointed out that it wasn't a vegetarian world in the first place. So "still" does not really apply.

Personally I think, as I've expressed fairly clearly in my earlier rants, that humanity has a natural tendency towards eating meat. I can't feasibly see vegetarian lifestyles becoming the norm unless it actually becomes IMPOSSIBLE to eat meat. In Deus Ex, however, what with cloning being possible - I don't see that happening.

I always attributed the "soy packets" to being seemingly "healthier" which is why they were used to "heal" you. As opposed to like a chicken wing. You could bring up the candy bars then of course - but then you might say the sugar hit gives you the energy to keep going or something. Again, a chicken wing doesn't seem to work quite the same.

DXeXodus
3rd Sep 2008, 05:02
Perhaps the thread title is a bit bias and misleading.

I agree with what you say though. I cannot foresee vegetarianism becoming the "primary" way of life in the future. I sure wouldn't want it that way either. As for some vegetarians (not all) that say eating animals is unnatural, wouldn't the scientific method of 'cloning' meat be even more unnatural?

Tsumaru
3rd Sep 2008, 05:07
Sure, but I'm dealing with the issue of vegetarianism as a "last resort". There will still be vegetarians for other reasons, and you may get some who say "meat is fine, cloned meat is not" and go vegetarian as well - but I think on the whole we're going to always find a solution where the majority of society can keep chowing down on their steaks.

minus0ne
3rd Sep 2008, 05:16
I actually agree with everything you say; well, except for the misconception I've put up with the use of the word "special". I was using it in the context of "not common/ordinary". If I ask the average person, "where do you get your protein?", they will probably say "meat". If I ask "and if tomorrow you found out that a terrible disease had gone into ALL meat products, where would you get your protein?" most of them, I suspect, wouldn't have the slightest clue at all. I personally know that nobody I have spoken to except vegetarians or nutritionists had any idea. So the point here is that you have to do additional research to find out, where do I get complete proteins from. Where do I get my iron from? Where do I get my omega 3 fatty acids from? And so on, so forth. It's by no means difficult, and I am not suggesting you have to go and necessarily buy supplements or specialty foods. I merely used "special" to mean foods which you identify and purchase specifically to make up for the nutrients lost in a no-meat diet - what with meat being the thing common and usual to society.
Well we could put that down to culture (of meat-eating) and our current industry. I'm pretty sure hunter-gatherers ate nuts and fruit in addition to meat (when they could get it). But anyway I see what you meant by special foods. I have a couple of vegetarian friends, but I can tell you straight away all of my friends would know the answers to those questions (which nutrient is in what food), it's pretty common knowledge, or should be.

Quickly, everybody jump on me for making personal attacks, starting flamewars, taking things too seriously, blowing up over nothing, blah blah blah. *rolls eyes*
Actually I just popped in this topic, read some posts and wanted to add my 2c - I didn't single you out or didn't mean to attack you or anything ;)

So anyway, DX3 devs, give us Smoked Grasshopper jerky and Caramel Crunch Beetlebars in addition to Soy Food packs :p

Tsumaru
3rd Sep 2008, 05:32
but I can tell you straight away all of my friends would know the answers to those questions (which nutrient is in what food), it's pretty common knowledge, or should be.
Maybe Australians are just idiots. There's probably a reason why we just passed the Americans in terms of obesity. But seriously. They can tell you where to find complete proteins outside of meat? That's impressive. Most people I talk to don't even know what a complete protein is.

Romeo
3rd Sep 2008, 05:34
Yeah, we canadians arn't overly aware of where to find such nutrients without speaking with a nutritionist first. But still, let's revert back to topic.

gh0s7
3rd Sep 2008, 10:23
(....)
You just have to imagine the time when there is no longer enough land to rear cattle and there isn't enough water in which to flush away the vast amount of waste-products collecting inside factory farms.
(....)

Someone would find a way, eventually. Humans are quite the resourceful bunch, don't you think? ;)

Anyway, I agree with Fledz; a balanced diet is the best, which is what I, personally, (try to :o ) do.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Sep 2008, 10:42
Well, nobody can say this thread hasn't promoted discussion, which is what we need while we await further news on DX3. I'll help keep this forum buzzing, hehe. :p

Okay, let me address some interesting/relevant points so far made...

1. I offer apologies if using the phrase "Still a Vegetarian World?" in the thread title is misleading to some people; but in no way was it intended to be bias. The Mods can remove the word 'Still' if they think it will help. I used the phrase not to proclaim that the game is pro-veggie but simply because of the evident and predominant use of soy packs and candy bars as a health/nourishment/energy source within the game AND because such foodstuff may (or may not) suggest that vegetarianism could be a relevant issue in the future.
As DX is a unique and thought-provoking game in terms of addressing philosophical matters, I believe the devs deliberately favoured the use of soy because it symbolises the immediate consumption of vital protein/nourishment within a small and easily obtained package. Given the imagined changes in economy and ecology of the future, the use of soy packs fits in very well, imo. I may be wrong, of course, and someone did suggest that maybe the devs didn't have time to work on that area. However, I believe this isn't the case and that choosing soy was a deliberate act, customary to the rest of the game content and I hope we will see soy packs return in DX3.

2. Generally, we appear to be in agreement that the idea of meat suddenly becoming like golddust and only availiable to the elite upper-class might be a realistic one in the DX world. I do think that meat produce will shift into the background in the future. As suggested, the fact that many people will have to 'resort' to a vegetarian diet (rather than voluntarily adopting it) is most definitely relevant, yes.

3. Having said that, I am in total agreement that vitro lab 'meat' may offer a solution to the problem.
It has been asked if a vegetarian would find lab meat just as deplorable as factory-farmed animal meat. Obviously, I cannot answer for anyone else but personally I wouldn't have a problem with it. Growing artificial meat-like substances in factory labs does not represent cruelty or suffering to a sentient being. Therefore, this practice would certainly not be opposed by me, personally.

4. DXeXodus: I am veggie, not a vegan. I think a vegan diet is much more difficult than a veggie diet as you cannot consume any animal-derived produce such as dairy products, eggs or even honey. I can't give up my honey, hehe. :D
To endorse my views on animal welfare further, I don't buy battery eggs, only local free-range eggs. I also avoid products that contain gelatine.
I take my hat off to all vegans though - it is a very abstemious, disciplined diet and one that I would find difficult to manage.

5.Welcome to the forum, Fledz. :)
You stated that average vegetarians are less healthy generally than average omnivore and that there are quite a number of protein/nutrients which are not available unless you eat red meat. Firstly, the term 'generally' is important here because I am sure available statistics would not prove that vegetarians suffer from worse health, or are even more likely to die before, meat-eaters. Given the known scientific facts about meat produce - I would suggest that this diet is the less healthier. As for the comment that eating red meat is absolutely necessary to obtain the required proteins/nutrients is false, sorry. A balanced diet is one which contains carbohydrate, protein, fat, vitamins, mineral salts and fibre in the correct proportions. Perhaps you can list exactly what nutrient(s) you suggest vegetarians cannot obtain from a balanced diet? I have already addressed B12, by the way. Also, many omnivores don't eat red meat, only white meat and this is because the consumption of red meat isn't considered to be healthy at all.
Still, I don't wish to delve too deeply into a discussion about the possible benefits or inadequacies of each diet because any argument can be cancelled out by another. For example, if you are to suggest that most veggies will suffer from anemic disorders; then I could equally say that meat eaters are more likely to develop cancer. Sooooo, let's not go there, hehe.

You also ask:
Is it not apparent why in so many nations it is illegal to force a child to be a vegetarian, especially in their early stages of life and is considered a form of child abuse? Not only because you're pushing your lifestyle onto them but because you are depriving them of necessary nutrients which are essential for a completely healthy life and which they cannot receive if you're eliminating certain food groups.
Firstly, just because something is deemed 'illegal' in a certain country (or even legal) does not mean that law is fair or even justified. It is legal to smoke tobacco in my country, and given the known health issues and subsequent deaths worldwide caused by the use of this substance, how is this law righteous? It is really up to each individual to evaluate the reasoning behind certain laws... and I make no apology for not agreeing with a law that deems a vegetarian diet for children as 'illegal'.

I'm sorry, but by the same token - if I were not a vegetarian and feeding my children meat, then I can equally be accused of 'pushing my lifestyle' onto them, yes!?
I am not depriving my children of any necessary nutrients essential to a healthy life. As far as I am concerned, I am only depriving them of the vast array of unhealthy processes and ingredients found in (factory farmed/processed) meat - not to mention, of course, excessive fat content and other 'unhealthy' additives etc. For anyone who is interested: http://www.goveg.com/lettuce_meat.asp

Furthermore, your suggestion that bringing children up on a vegetarian diet amounts to "child abuse" is just plain dumb. It is also an extremely shallow comment to make - I would love to hear you repeat that statement to any adult who was actually abused as a child. It would be clear to them that you really don't have a clue what you are talking about or what abuse is really like... lucky you for being so fortunate; but naive of you to think that a vegetarian parent feeding their children comes anything remotely close to child abuse. This really is the dumbest comment I have ever heard against vegetarianism.

Seriously, the notion that my children are suffering in any way is absolutely rediculous. I happily challenge you or anyone else to prove to me that my two kids suffer from ill health, mentally or physically as a result of a vegetarian diet.


The clear sign that we all really should be eating a balanced diet are our teeth. Look at the mirror, how many different types of teeth do you have? That makes you an omnivore, not a carnivore and not a herbivore. Your body is tailored for maximum efficiency when consuming both plants and meat products, including milk and eggs.
Vegetarian or not, it isn't difficult to eat a balanced diet, lol.
This discussion does not argue against whether humans are naturally omnivores, I think you are going way off topic now. We wish to consider whether a vegetarian lifestyle may be a necessity of the future, especially in relation to the game.


It is absolutely your choice to choose what to eat but to claim that being a vegetarian is better for you and will result in the abandonment of meat is both uneducated and naive. I suggest you do a lot of reading and speak to some nutritionists and doctors.
LOL. I know you are a university student but there is more to learning than just taking the 'text book' approach. The abandonment of meat is not uneducated and naive - quite the opposite in fact according to my research of the facts available. I would have to suggest that it is you who should be the one to seek advice via books and nutritionists/doctors... so that your knowledge extends beyond that of what you study. Let me assure you that I have already educated myself on all issues many years in advance of yourself and I still do so today.



It is also evolutionary fact that the human race as we know it shot up to what it is today when we started eating cooked red meat, accelerating our development 4 fold. That speaks volumes in itself.
This theory may or may not be correct; but I believe Einstein himself would be turning in his grave at that suggestion, hehe. :D
Even if it were true... what relevance does it have to this discussion? We are not debating human evolution or tendencies as far as past or present eating habits are concerned. Much of what you have offered is all off topic and I really shouldn't be expected to justify to anyone here why I, and my children, are vegetarian; just as I don't expect anyone to justify to me why they eat meat.

Essentially, this thread is promoting discussion regarding the possibility of a vegetarian diet within the Deus Ex world.
Lets keep the discussion relevant to the game if possible, thank you. :)

foxberg
3rd Sep 2008, 12:09
... a cow in Europe or North America actually gets subsidised three times the amount of money an average African person earns.

Are America and Europe supposed to subsidies an average African person instead? How 'bout this: people in Africa are dying from starvation so let's not eat two times a week to show our support. Isn't that a problem that their governments should take care of? We were stupid enough spending billions of dollars to support those poor nations. The outcome? Their governments officials became multimillionaires and their people are still dying from starvation. So please, don't insult my intelligence and use these sort of comparisons.


Is it not apparent why in so many nations it is illegal to force a child to be a vegetarian, especially in their early stages of life and is considered a form of child abuse? Not only because you're pushing your lifestyle onto them but because you are depriving them of necessary nutrients which are essential for a completely healthy life and which they cannot receive if you're eliminating certain food groups.

I agree with you a 100%. This should be made illegal not only in certain countries but worldwide. When kids grow up let them feed on grass and roots if they want so. But deliberately depriving a child from necessary nutrients? This is a crime. Next thing you know mother's milk will be considered bad for infants as well.

DXeXodus
3rd Sep 2008, 12:33
OK, seriously now people. Back on topic.
This is a thread about vegetarianism in relation to the Deus Ex world and DX3 in particular. Not a debate about whether it is right or wrong.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Sep 2008, 14:17
This should be made illegal not only in certain countries but worldwide. When kids grow up let them feed on grass and roots if they want so. But deliberately depriving a child from necessary nutrients? This is a crime. Next thing you know mother's milk will be considered bad for infants as well.
LMAO :D
Your comment on mother's milk is very silly. I don't know if was intended to add some sort of reason or justification to your statement; but it doesn't. :p
So is the comment regarding grass and roots unsubstantiated too; but hopefully I don't need to state the obvious on this forum... people can make their own minds up as to what contributes to an intelligent discussion, and what doesn't... ;)

Okay, please tell me exactly how I deprive my children of necessary nutrients?
Thank you. :p


***



Someone would find a way, eventually. Humans are quite the resourceful bunch, don't you think? ;)
Anyway, I agree with Fledz; a balanced diet is the best, which is what I, personally, (try to :o ) do.

Resourceful? Yes... and no.
Depends on what exactly we are talking about. When it comes to managing this earth, I don't think we are resourceful at all. No way.
But on the topic of foodstuffs in the future... yes, the production of vitro/lab grown meat has already been mentioned as a possible substitute. However, there is no way we can replace the loss of trees and arable land as quickly as we are destroying it.


Anyway, I agree with Fledz; a balanced diet is the best...
I agree that a balanced diet is the best too.
However, the focus shouldn't be that a vegetarian diet is not balanced; that simply isn't true. A meat-eater can be guilty of having an unbalanced diet as well.
Put simply, we must ALL eat a balanced diet - vegetarian or not.


***


OK, seriously now people. Back on topic.
This is a thread about vegetarianism in relation to the Deus Ex world and DX3 in particular. Not a debate about whether it is right or wrong.

Yes, absolutely.
Forgive me for wishing to reply to some comments made though. One has to do their bit to dispel any myths and biased viewpoints on vegetarianism. :)

Voltaire
3rd Sep 2008, 15:12
The DX world was far from vegetarian. Does anyone else not recall the amount of meat on show in the HK butcher shop, or the Lucky Money freezers? It is possible though, that the western world had abandoned such carnal sustainance, and had gone veggie as seems to be the case (prevalent soy food ownership etc).

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Sep 2008, 15:21
The DX world was far from vegetarian. Does anyone else not recall the amount of meat on show in the HK butcher shop, or the Lucky Money freezers?
Yes, we remembered. Check out first page for funny caption screenshot. :D

PS. I'm sure that 'quiet, woman!' reference isn't addressed to me. :o


It is possible though, that the western world had abandoned such carnal sustainance, and had gone veggie as seems to be the case (prevalent soy food ownership etc).

Exactly, that is what I am suggesting for discussion. :)
And more because of having to consume less meat, rather than wanting to.

Voltaire
3rd Sep 2008, 15:27
Woah, my bad there. Totally missed page 1. And 2.

I like the idea of the black-market meat though, it's kinda interesting to think like that.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Sep 2008, 15:47
Oh, and thank you for responding to Tsumaru in a mature manner and not resorting to flaming. I would give you a cookie, but you already have one. :p

No problems. :)
Oh, I don't wish to sound greedy, but I have no objection to receiving two Eidos cookies!
A white choc chip & hazelnut one would be delicious, thank you. :D

rokstrombo
3rd Sep 2008, 15:47
Woah, my bad there. Totally missed page 1. And 2.

lol "I knew there were some pages that came before 3 but I just couldn't remember their names" :p

Back on topic, until I got to Hong Kong I was of the impression that there wasn't a lot of meat available in 2052. Whole foods in general are getting quite expensive these days, and I would imagine civil war and a massive plague wouldn't help the situation. Many people today can only afford to live on soy and refined grain (and presumably suffer health consequences due to this fact), so it's not such a stretch that this could become more prevalent in a first world country like the United States as the population increases.

Whole foods (especially meat) have been considered luxuries in various times and places.

Romeo
3rd Sep 2008, 18:57
No problems. :)
Oh, I don't wish to sound greedy, but I have no objection to receiving two Eidos cookies!
A white choc chip & hazelnut one would be delicious, thank you. :D
Wait, you were given a Deus Ex cookie? When did this happen? Gosh!

And yes, with the food crisis these days, hearing about their effects in Deus Ex would be a cool touch that helped bring the game back to reality a touch.

DXeXodus
4th Sep 2008, 04:16
No problems. :)
Oh, I don't wish to sound greedy, but I have no objection to receiving two Eidos cookies!
A white choc chip & hazelnut one would be delicious, thank you. :D

Cookie preference duly noted. Your cookie will arrive shortly MissDenton. I am sending it via augmented pigeon.

[EDIT]..... and it has arrived in a very crudely photoshopped form.

[EDIT2] Limited Edition cookie supplies are now depleted. Sorry for those who missed out.

Romeo
4th Sep 2008, 05:09
LOL! Augmented pigeons carrying photoshopped cookies... Sounds like yet another party I was at...

Maximus
4th Sep 2008, 06:24
Miss Denton, good luck with your crusade here :) I've been vegetarian for six years and have long given up trying to convince people on messageboards that its better or anything. You will always get a weirdo robot like Tsumaru claiming that you can't get an essential nutrient or two unless you eat meat - never mind that if that were true, I'd be dead and so would a large portion of india, sri lanka and asia. They also can't deal with the fact that its environmentally more sound and is much healthier.

Its so strange, when you say you're a vegetarian some people automatically say "oh thats strange, I love meat!" and then don't shut up about how they couldnt give up meat. I've always thought thats like saying, "I'm an insomniac!" and people saying "Thats strange, i always sleep really well!"

In the game, I think the reason there was a lot of "soy food" around was because its generally a plentiful source of protein that is efficiently grown, and is mass-produced into some kind of futuristic foodstuff thats palatable and healthy, rather like Futurama's Bachelor Chow.

Maximus

DXeXodus
4th Sep 2008, 07:01
You will always get a weirdo robot like Tsumaru claiming that you can't get an essential nutrient or two unless you eat meat

Please try not to call people names like this. I'm not trying to be petty or anything so please don't get me wrong. It's just that it can derail a thread and I only just managed to get this one anywhere vaguely on topic. (except for the cookie joke, but that is just for fun).

The point is, this can lead to an argument which is unnecessary. Tsumaru has his own opinion and he is more than entitled to it.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Sep 2008, 10:01
Miss Denton, good luck with your crusade here :) I've been vegetarian for six years and have long given up trying to convince people on messageboards that its better or anything. You will always get a weirdo robot like Tsumaru claiming that you can't get an essential nutrient or two unless you eat meat - never mind that if that were true, I'd be dead and so would a large portion of india, sri lanka and asia. They also can't deal with the fact that its environmentally more sound and is much healthier.

Its so strange, when you say you're a vegetarian some people automatically say "oh thats strange, I love meat!" and then don't shut up about how they couldnt give up meat. I've always thought thats like saying, "I'm an insomniac!" and people saying "Thats strange, i always sleep really well!"

In the game, I think the reason there was a lot of "soy food" around was because its generally a plentiful source of protein that is efficiently grown, and is mass-produced into some kind of futuristic foodstuff thats palatable and healthy, rather like Futurama's Bachelor Chow.

Maximus

Thanks for your words of encouragement, Maximus, but may I just make it clear that I am not on any kind of crusade.
This thread was to promote discussion about vegetarianism in a DX future world, not to convince people to give up meat. :)

Sure, people have inevitably asked personal questions (and some have even made unfounded statements) to which I have happily responded to. No problems.
DxeXodus, you guys are doing a great job regarding keeping this thread on topic.
In the meantime, please let me assure you that I am not offended by people asking me fair/sensible questions - these do contribute overall to two-way discussion on the topic and I am happy to answer them.

The only shame is that when I do reply to a particular 'statement' (not a question), I don't get an answer back. As it is, I am still waiting for a reply about what exactly this 'exclusive' nutrient is that vegetarians supposedly cannot get... and also how on earth, as a parent of vegetarian children, I am committing child abuse, lol. The latter probably the most rediculous statement I have EVER heard against vegetarianism, to date.
So, yeah, some statements made have been 'over-the-top'/stupid but I think it illustrates an important point; that is, how vegetarianism still bares the brunt of unfounded prejudice, sadly.
Yes, people are indeed entitled to their opinions/points-of-view, but I think opinions can lose their worth/purpose if they are not well-reasoned or based on clear evidence. Anyone can have an opinion that the world is flat and not round, but... you know. ;)

The real irony of it all is that people can find MANY MORE *definite* facts about why factory-farmed meat (and battery eggs) isn't healthy to eat (as opposed to why being vegetarian is *supposedly* unhealthy) and yet all these counter-facts are conveniently ignored/never considered. I guess some habits die hard and I can only assume that it comes down to lack of understanding and constructive, neutral self-research... probably supported by some form of mental self-preservation/reasoning for the continuance of eating meat - rather to actually know what is on the other side of the fence. It isn't difficult to just take a peek; you don't even have to jump right over the fence, just look, digest and think/consider. If your opinion still doesn't change - fair enough, I then can totally respect that opinion because it is supported by real effort to gather information and facts, rather than just stereotypical copy-cat thought.

***


Wait, you were given a Deus Ex cookie? When did this happen? Gosh!

Romeo, you haven't been paying attention to your boss's activities on this forum! :p
Rene baked me the first choc-chip cookie as a prize for finding Spector's post on Eidos Facebook site.
I don't know how you missed this important presentation award. :eek:
It was a full ceremonial occasion with a fanfare, expensive champagne and everything. :cool:

Now I have another Eidos cookie from DXeXodus, yummy! THANK YOU!
Duly displayed on my avatar screen, thank you very much! Both cookie awards have been added to my siggy too.

Romeo, when the time comes that I deserve another exclusive Eidos cookie, you can bake that one for me.
I do hope you are a good cook. :D
Oh, and if you are using egg as an ingredient, free-range only please. :whistle:



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/coolXtina/robothand-1.jpg
"As machines get to be more and more like men, men will come to be more like machines."

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc159/eternaltreasure/DX3cookie-2.jpghttp://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc159/eternaltreasure/EidosCookie-1.jpg
EXCLUSIVE EIDOS DEUS EX 3 COOKIES - Suitable for Vegetarians

DXeXodus
4th Sep 2008, 10:09
Now I have another Eidos cookie from DXeXodus, yummy! THANK YOU!


*Insert evil laugh*
My mission is a success. That cookie contained a special ingredient. Yes! Augmented pigeon!

On topic though... Sorry you are not getting the answers to your questions. I would tell what this "Vital nutrient" is that you are not getting apparently, but I have no idea what it is. :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Sep 2008, 10:20
That is evil! :eek:
LOL :p

Oh, that 'exclusive/elusive'' nutrient doesn't exist, that's why nobody knows (or can say) what it is. :D

As already mentioned, its probably B12 they refer to; but you don't have to eat red meat to get it. That's why omnivores who eat white meat only are not deficient in B12. ;)

gh0s7
4th Sep 2008, 17:33
Resourceful? Yes... and no.
Depends on what exactly we are talking about. When it comes to managing this earth, I don't think we are resourceful at all. No way.
But on the topic of foodstuffs in the future... yes, the production of vitro/lab grown meat has already been mentioned as a possible substitute. However, there is no way we can replace the loss of trees and arable land as quickly as we are destroying it.


I agree that a balanced diet is the best too.
However, the focus shouldn't be that a vegetarian diet is not balanced; that simply isn't true. A meat-eater can be guilty of having an unbalanced diet as well.
Put simply, we must ALL eat a balanced diet - vegetarian or not.


What do you mean, not knowing how to manage the Earth? The population in the five continents are increasing (despite wars, catastrophes, famine, lack of supplies and infrastructures, etc etc etc). So the world is, apparently, suffering due to our meddling; that hardly means, IMO, anything more than a temporary setback.*
The costs for such will be terrible, most likely. But Humanity will persevere, adapt and overcome. We survived so much until now; I see no reason to stop. :)

As a side-note, 500 hundred years ago, nobody thought it possible to go to the stars and back. ;)

When I mentioned a balanced diet, I meant it as eating a little bit of everything, so to speak, in order to, not only accomplish the bodily needs without overconsumption, but also to satisfy your taste preferences and psychological needs (especially the latter).
Why stick with just vegetables? Why not eat meat, fish, vegetables, cereals, etc, in a moderate habit/manner, following a program to not abuse and, thus, keep a leveled number of vitamins and proteins and etc (which, again, is what I try to do (and occasionally fail :o ).

* Note: While I talk of this in a light manner, I do such to insure a moderated level of discussion; no need to start talking of this as Death was about to knock on our door. :)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Sep 2008, 22:27
What do you mean, not knowing how to manage the Earth? The population in the five continents are increasing (despite wars, catastrophes, famine, lack of supplies and infrastructures, etc etc etc). So the world is, apparently, suffering due to our meddling; that hardly means, IMO, anything more than a temporary setback.*
The costs for such will be terrible, most likely. But Humanity will persevere, adapt and overcome. We survived so much until now; I see no reason to stop. :)

As a side-note, 500 hundred years ago, nobody thought it possible to go to the stars and back. ;)

* Note: While I talk of this in a light manner, I do such to insure a moderated level of discussion; no need to start talking of this as Death was about to knock on our door. :)

I meant what I said - we need to manage the earth better. We are not resourceful enough in that respect.
Sorry, but I don't understand your note about not talking about this as if 'death was about to knock on the door', lol.
Not sure if that statement was addressed to everyone, or just me? It surely can't apply to me as that thought was never suggested or even entered my head, lol.

Anyway, back to what I was saying...
'Irreplaceable' loss is not a 'temporary setback'.
Since resources are finite and population continues to grow, we are in danger of "running out", eventually. Even if we take the (naive?) view that it won't or can't possibly run out 'entirely', then we should still be concerned about serious resource 'shortage'. Either way, both scenarios will greatly effect us and by the time we realise, it may be too late to take an easier, more efficient path.

Sure, human-beings will persevere, adapt and overcome. I don't doubt that for a minute. After all, that's what the Omar did. :cool:
But what exactly are the implications? What changes and difficulties must we endure and are we even prepared? It isn't like we can make earth's resources 'persevere, adapt and overcome'... so, we will never naturally have back what once was; we can only have/use whatever is left. Logically thinking, it sounds like its going to be a HUGE challenge of perseverance, adaptation and survival for humanity. I'm not saying we are not resourceful enough to do it; we are. I'm just saying that its going to be much more difficult for us to do it... especially the longer we leave it. Guess its the old cliché of: 'Don't know what you've got, till its gone'. Particularly so if Earth is still, at that time, the only known planet that can support life.
The main point I'm making is that it would be more intelligent for us to manage the earth's resources better today; than it is to manage just whatever is left tomorrow. Then, when tomorrow does come, we are already prepared.


When I mentioned a balanced diet, I meant it as eating a little bit of everything, so to speak, in order to, not only accomplish the bodily needs without overconsumption, but also to satisfy your taste preferences and psychological needs (especially the latter).
Why stick with just vegetables? Why not eat meat, fish, vegetables, cereals, etc, in a moderate habit/manner, following a program to not abuse and, thus, keep a leveled number of vitamins and proteins and etc (which, again, is what I try to do (and occasionally fail :o ).

I know you explained that a balanced diet to you is 'a little bit of everything'... but that would be the same as me telling you that you should eat things you don't want to, or don't enjoy... otherwise you are not receiving a balanced diet. Remember, you and I are both are already getting 'everything' we need - neither of us, therefore, is required to eat something else for no particular reason.

Umm, I don't just eat 'vegetables', lol.
Vegetarian cuisine does not consist of an assortment of bland-looking vegetables sitting on a plate.
I guess its the same as some people's idea of a good salad being a limp lettuce leaf, some sliced tomato and cucumber. What happened to imagination and creativity!
Veggie food is not boring. Long gone are the days when all a veggie could find apart from a 'vegetable' was dried TVP or lentil bake. :D

I suppose if you don't know about the sort of vegetarian food available (obviously because you don't look for it/buy it/eat it), then it would be difficult to imagine it exists... but it does.
There is a huge selection of subsitute meat products available (which, by the way, are packed with protein and nutrients) and I can purchase them very easily at my supermarket, and many dishes I can obviously make myself.
I can buy pretty much the same style of food you have in your fridge or freezer right now - burgers, sausages, bacon rashers, hotdog frankfurters, chicken and mushroom pies, meat mince pies, sausage rolls, cornish pasties, chinese beef chow mein, meatballs, lamb mint cutlets, southern-fried chicken nuggets, chicken roast roll, ham slices, peppered beef steak, etc. In fact, the selection continues to grow because of good demand - vegetarianism is growing in popularity. Even meat-eaters are turning to certain veggie meat alternatives simply for improved health reasons. I believe the veggie frankfurter is very popular with kids and adults - they taste just as good, but obviously don't have the ingredients found in a traditional meat frankfurter (I won't bother going into detail on that one... :whistle: ).
In addition, I enjoy making my own meals like omelette, quiche and pizza and by using Quorn meat I can easily enjoy delicious dishes like chicken curry, stroganoff, spaghetti bolognese, lasagne and chilli mince etc.
Phew, I've missed loads of other stuff out too, but hopefully I've got the point across.
So, you see, I don't just eat vegetables... ;)
I can pretty much simulate all the meals you have as a meat-eater - minus the Sunday dinner "leg of lamb" sort of thing.

Oh, and in case it isn't obvious... maybe I should also mention that I get to enjoy all the chocolate, cakes, biscuits, puddings and other sweet treats (in normal, moderate proportions of course!) that are not deemed as 'vegetables' either.

Why should I eat meat? Or, rather, why would you be concerned that I don't eat meat?
I already satisfy my taste preferences (I really enjoy what I eat) and all psychological needs (no inadequacies here either).
I do eat everything in a moderate habit/manner, consume the relevant vitamins and proteins etc. I keep having to say it, but it isn't difficult for a vegetarian to have a healthy, balanced diet.

Please, no more dietary advice from anyone please, hehe!
But thank you anyway. :)

Fledz
4th Sep 2008, 23:31
But what about the day that you are no longer able to "easily buy at the supermarket"? A lot of supplements are not that easy to manufacture and a lot of them come from hard to find seaweeds and the like. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I looked that kind of food can be awfully expensive.

That line of thought doesn't quite fit in with what has been said above. Say for example that the world plunges back into some sort of dark age and supplies are cut off. I'm quite certain that a hunter could sustain themselves much easier than someone who relies on products in their local supermarket, which actually come from the other side of the world ;)

Tstorm
4th Sep 2008, 23:52
Oh yeah, lets see robots... killing machines... conspiracy... and... SPINACHHH! ! ! EVERYWHERE ! ! ! !. No you want to ruin a game you do it to something else like mario because they already ruined that.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Sep 2008, 01:55
But what about the day that you are no longer able to "easily buy at the supermarket"? A lot of supplements are not that easy to manufacture and a lot of them come from hard to find seaweeds and the like. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I looked that kind of food can be awfully expensive.

That line of thought doesn't quite fit in with what has been said above. Say for example that the world plunges back into some sort of dark age and supplies are cut off. I'm quite certain that a hunter could sustain themselves much easier than someone who relies on products in their local supermarket, which actually come from the other side of the world ;)


Oh, I see... a complete shift. So you are now posing questions in relation to the future? Well, at least that is more on topic, thank you.
Well, just as is seen in DX (which is set in the future) there will be items like Soy Packs which will provide plenty of protein/nourishment to survive on.
I still don't have to eat meat to get all the goodness I need; and neither will you. Should meat become a delicacy that even you may now not be able to afford - then Soy packs will sustain you quite adequately. It wouldn't matter if the soy is sold at a supermarket, or issued out by the government for basic survival. It wouldn't matter if you did or didn't like the taste of Soy either. The point is, it provides the nourishment you need to get by each day.

Not too sure about your comments on 'supplements' though - are you refering to vitamin pills and such like?
Only, I don't take any supplement pills. I don't need to, everything I need is in the food I eat. Naturally, of course.

As for the seaweed you refer to, I believe you mean Lavarbread?
This is a traditional Welsh delicacy. It is also known as 'Seaweed Bread.'
I don't know how expensive it is for you, but its pretty cheap near me, seeing as I live in West Wales, lol. If it is any more expensive further afield, I guess its the same as me having to pay extra to enjoy American blueberries instead of local blackcurrants from my country, for example. If I can't afford it, then I must go without.
Anyway, I don't really get your point. Yes, some foods in the future could be extremely expensive - but more likely meat than soy. Soy can be grown and distributed far more cheaply than animal produce today... so I think its fair to assume that the basic logistics will remain the same in the future..


Say for example that the world plunges back into some sort of dark age and supplies are cut off. I'm quite certain that a hunter could sustain themselves much easier than someone who relies on products in their local supermarket, which actually come from the other side of the world.
If we are now discussing the extreme view of a total "Collapse" (yes, it could happen) whereby all food transportation has been terminated, shops are closed, absolutely nothing available etc, then you would be correct in saying that a hunter trapping and eating an animal (wild or domestic, I guess) would better sustain themselves than a vegetarian could. No objection to that opinion. As already mentioned, people become vegetarians for different reasons. My reason is because I don't wish to support factory farming and NOT because I think eating meat is unnatural or against my religion etc. Anyway, from the situation you describe, I guess factory-farms won't be in operation anyway. ;)

So, given a dire situation whereby I either eat an animal or die of starvation, I'm going to eat an animal. I may be a compassionate person - but I'm not stupid.
Of course, anyone who may have a religion that dictates a vegetarian diet - they will probably choose to honour their beliefs and accept death.
Also, it isn't unknown for humans to eat other humans just to "survive". It may not be something that we find a pleasant experience, but the majority of us (veggie or not) would do it to live.
Still, until anyone comes face-to-face with such gloomy scenarios... the fact remains that we do have a choice. Its up to each individual to choose what is right for them personally.

Oh, and as I have always shown courtesy and responded to all your questions or statements, perhaps you would be kind enough to answer my questions to you, when you made your earlier post? Thank you. :)

***


Oh yeah, lets see robots... killing machines... conspiracy... and... SPINACHHH! ! ! EVERYWHERE ! ! ! !. No you want to ruin a game you do it to something else like mario because they already ruined that.

Umm, no, just soy packs everywhere. It is what already exists in the DX game... and there was nothing that 'ruined' this game because of that. :p

Romeo
5th Sep 2008, 02:57
Romeo, you haven't been paying attention to your boss's activities on this forum! :p
Rene baked me the first choc-chip cookie as a prize for finding Spector's post on Eidos Facebook site.
I don't know how you missed this important presentation award. :eek:
It was a full ceremonial occasion with a fanfare, expensive champagne and everything. :cool:

Now I have another Eidos cookie from DXeXodus, yummy! THANK YOU!
Duly displayed on my avatar screen, thank you very much! Both cookie awards have been added to my siggy too.

Romeo, when the time comes that I deserve another exclusive Eidos cookie, you can bake that one for me.
I do hope you are a good cook. :D
Oh, and if you are using egg as an ingredient, free-range only please. :whistle:



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/coolXtina/robothand-1.jpg
"As machines get to be more and more like men, men will come to be more like machines."

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc159/eternaltreasure/DX3cookie-2.jpghttp://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc159/eternaltreasure/EidosCookie-1.jpg
EXCLUSIVE EIDOS DEUS EX 3 COOKIES - Suitable for Vegetarians
Oh, I am a good cook. It's one of the habits any good bachalor has. What's your proferred variety? =P

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Sep 2008, 07:22
Oh, I am a good cook. It's one of the habits any good bachalor has. What's your proferred variety? =P

How cool is that?! :cool:
Guys certainly can be very good cooks, yes. :)

Wow, you wish to know what flavour I desire... before I even win the next cookie?! :eek:

Umm, is a strawberry shortcake flavour okay? :D

DXeXodus
5th Sep 2008, 07:36
Wow. Now MissDenton, you are getting quite adventurous with your cookie choice. :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Sep 2008, 08:04
Firstly, everyone can call me "MissD" - faster to type. ;)

You think strawberry shortcake is adventurous?
Oh, only I was going to ask for the very finest Jamaican Ginger, generously laced with toffee liqueur and topped with a sprinkling of small banana chips.

I thought I would come across as quite cheeky if I asked for that. :o

:D

Absentia
5th Sep 2008, 10:47
It appears most people have MissD the point of this thread...

ohoho!

DXeXodus
5th Sep 2008, 11:16
Da dum Tish...... Pun of the day award goes to Absentia.
You get a cookie. But you will have to ask Romeo. I'm all out of cookies.

gh0s7
5th Sep 2008, 11:21
@ Miss Denton: I'm not advising anyone on what to eat or not; merely stating my opinion. If you can eat veggie meat (great choice of words, really; quite straight to the point :D ), good for you. However, having tasted most, if not all, that you have detailed, it still pales in comparison with the real meat (real is subjective, considering the amount of chemicals and whatnot, but that's another matter, methinks) for me. Or my taste buds.
In the end, I think it all comes down to individual preferences/choices, regardless of being the best recommended health diet.

As for vegetarianism being the way of the future, who knows? But not in DX3; personally, I think that it would take a few more centuries to let go of the "old ways". ;)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Sep 2008, 11:50
It appears most people have MissD the point of this thread...

ohoho!

LOL, I do admit that is funny! :D



Da dum Tish...... Pun of the day award goes to Absentia.
You get a cookie. But you will have to ask Romeo. I'm all out of cookies.

Hehe, yeah, give him a cookie.
Preferably one packed with sticky toffee pieces so his jaw locks up! :whistle:
:p



@ Miss Denton: I'm not advising anyone on what to eat or not; merely stating my opinion. If you can eat veggie meat (great choice of words, really; quite straight to the point :D ), good for you. However, having tasted most, if not all, that you have detailed, it still pales in comparison with the real meat (real is subjective, considering the amount of chemicals and whatnot, but that's another matter, methinks) for me. Or my taste buds.
In the end, I think it all comes down to individual preferences/choices, regardless of being the best recommended health diet.

As for vegetarianism being the way of the future, who knows? But not in DX3; personally, I think that it would take a few more centuries to let go of the "old ways". ;)

I agree that you are only stating your opinion... and I'm stating mine. It's all cool. :)

Yes, I used to eat meat so I do know the flavours are not identical, of course. ;)
Even knowing that a real cut of lamb might taste better than a veggie lamb cutlet - I still happily prefer to choose a vegetarian diet.
That is because enjoying the taste of what I eat is not as important to "me" as knowing what it is I am eating.
In terms of an animal, a sentient being like you and I, it is more important for me to question how that animal lived and died, before it reached my plate.

Umm, but you don't consider DX and DX:IW quite a vegetarian society already... what with reference to soy packs and candy bars as opposed to a chicken leg or something?
I'm not saying everyone is a veggie in the DX world; but I do believe the majority might be because they must resort to it.

gh0s7
5th Sep 2008, 12:08
(....)
Umm, but you don't consider DX and DX:IW quite a vegetarian society already... what with reference to soy packs and candy bars as opposed to a chicken leg or something?
I'm not saying everyone is a veggie in the DX world; but I do believe the majority might be because they must resort to it.

Perhaps the player finds soy packs and candy bars because that's the majority of "mobile" (as in, able to carry around) food supplies?

Considering how little we know of the DX world, it might be very difficult to ascertain such aspect. :confused:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Sep 2008, 12:16
Well, yes, I'm not trying to ascertain certain aspects... just making a suggestion for discussion. :)

There are a lot of starving people around in DX, so I think it would be fair to ascertain that meat isn't a common commodity any more.
As someone else mentioned previously, it wasn't until you got to the busy environment of the HK market that you actually started to see 'meat' in the game.

gh0s7
5th Sep 2008, 13:40
^ Possible, yes. Perhaps it's not a common commodity in the US? Could their meat market being boycotted and/or facing unknown difficulties, at the time?

LatwPIAT
5th Sep 2008, 14:25
I don't think grand-scale vegitarianism would fit Deus Ex. If vegitarianism was presented as a good thing, I'd, as an omnivore, feel that my beliefs were stepped on, and I'm sure Miss Denton would have issues with a negative portrayal.

In addition, I'd feel it was impounding my ability to choose. Deus Ex always gave me extreme amounts of choice. I could get high on Zyme if I wanted, I could choose to smoke, or I could not smoke, I could go drunk into Manderly's office, or I could gobble down a candy bar while waiting for a chance to snipe Maggie Sue (That's her name right?) Or I could not. I could be a sober, drug-clean clean guy who beleives too much sugar is the scourge of the world.

Really, there was rarely I'd fell that Deus Ex removed my ability to choose. Only once I felt that Deus Ex removed that ability, and that was when I rebelled against UNATCO (I wanted to rebel against the osternibly "right choice" the game tried to force on me. Yes, I like meta/post-modernism...) All other times my curiosity, and/or desire to further the plot drove the game. I wanted to capture NSF for stealing Ambrosia, I wanted to prevent Vandenberg from being nuked, I wanted to stop Bob Page from taking over the world. The game gave me enough choice to rarely question it's forced, linear plot. I, and I'm sure a lot of other people, wouldn't like to be forced into a mold. JC wasn't a vegitarian, not even forced to be by society. JC was an agent of, well, a mix of justice, the truth and the player's desires. After all, this is partly an RPG. JC is who I want him to be. If I want JC to be a sleaze who takes zyme on the job and eats intensively farmed meat, then I will do and imagine him, me, doing that. If I want him to be an uptight vegetarian who beleives that nutrients can be gathered from other things that dead animals, that he, I, is that.

The beliefs Deus Ex forced upon me, first a sense of justce in my, then a sense of family, a desire to survive, then a desire to revove the world from MJ12's clutches were... simple. It never forced me to accept that merging with Helios was right, I could join the Illuminati instead, or plunge the world into a Dark Age. Simply put, I never saw Deus Ex as forcing any belife upon me that I wouldn't have myself.

tl;dr
Deus Ex doesn't force beliefs the generic player won't have themselves upon them, and therefore should force vegitarianism upon anyone either.

jamhaw
5th Sep 2008, 16:31
I think it is useful to remember Deus Ex takes place mostly in research labs, army bases and slums controlled by bums and terrorists presumebly they can't be picky about what they eat.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Sep 2008, 16:56
I don't think grand-scale vegitarianism would fit Deus Ex. If vegitarianism was presented as a good thing, I'd, as an omnivore, feel that my beliefs were stepped on, and I'm sure Miss Denton would have issues with a negative portrayal.
In addition, I'd feel it was impounding my ability to choose. Deus Ex always gave me extreme amounts of choice. I could get high on Zyme if I wanted, I could choose to smoke, or I could not smoke, I could go drunk into Manderly's office, or I could gobble down a candy bar while waiting for a chance to snipe Maggie Sue (That's her name right?) Or I could not. I could be a sober, drug-clean clean guy who beleives too much sugar is the scourge of the world.

Really, there was rarely I'd fell that Deus Ex removed my ability to choose. Only once I felt that Deus Ex removed that ability, and that was when I rebelled against UNATCO (I wanted to rebel against the osternibly "right choice" the game tried to force on me. Yes, I like meta/post-modernism...) All other times my curiosity, and/or desire to further the plot drove the game. I wanted to capture NSF for stealing Ambrosia, I wanted to prevent Vandenberg from being nuked, I wanted to stop Bob Page from taking over the world. The game gave me enough choice to rarely question it's forced, linear plot. I, and I'm sure a lot of other people, wouldn't like to be forced into a mold. .

I don't think vegetarianism would be presented in DX3 as necessarily a 'good thing'. I'm offering the suggestion that there could be economical and ecological reasons for why meat-eating may shift to the background. Certainly, the governments of DX3 are not going to dish up some cult-like new way of life whereby they expect all citizens to give up meat and become 'righteous' people or, even, to avoid being prosecuted by some new non-meat law.
Sure, if politics in DX3 suggests to the public that only meat consumption is righteous or legal; then I wouldn't be too happy about that, hehe. :D

On the other hand, perhaps fresh fruit and vegetable stock may become more scarce than meat - so it would be a case of either eat meat, or die of hunger. In that instance, I would have to accept this fact and eat it. Just as if the opposite were true, meat eaters would have to accept the fact that they will have to shift to soy packs on a more regular basis.


JC wasn't a vegitarian, not even forced to be by society. JC was an agent of, well, a mix of justice, the truth and the player's desires. After all, this is partly an RPG. JC is who I want him to be. If I want JC to be a sleaze who takes zyme on the job and eats intensively farmed meat, then I will do and imagine him, me, doing that. If I want him to be an uptight vegetarian who beleives that nutrients can be gathered from other things that dead animals, that he, I, is that.
The beliefs Deus Ex forced upon me, first a sense of justce in my, then a sense of family, a desire to survive, then a desire to revove the world from MJ12's clutches were... simple. It never forced me to accept that merging with Helios was right, I could join the Illuminati instead, or plunge the world into a Dark Age. Simply put, I never saw Deus Ex as forcing any belife upon me that I wouldn't have myself.
Deus Ex doesn't force beliefs the generic player won't have themselves upon them, and therefore should force vegitarianism upon anyone either.

Well, we don't actually really know whether he was a vegetarian or not. I don't think there is any script within the game that shows him buying or eating meat, is there? I could be wrong, but I don't remember any such thing. If anyone knows differently, please share.
Obviously, I'm not saying that this fact proves that he was a vegetarian, not at all. I'm just trying to add argument to your statement "JC wasn't a vegetarian"... when, in fact, you can't actually say that with any absolute certainty.

But, back to the point. It really doesn't matter about the 'personal' reasons for anyone wanting to be a vegetarian or not, in this game or in real life.
We should really be discussing any possible 'impersonal' reasons - ie. ecological, economic, political, sociological etc
Indeed, nobody should be 'forced' to do anything that they don't really have to do. But, sometimes.... we are forced to because of circumstances beyond our control.
Just as in food rations during wartime; or modern-day water rations - there will always be ecological emergencies that require us to do without this or without that in order to weather the storm.

Ecopirate
5th Sep 2008, 22:22
I could actually see vegetarianism as becoming a divisive sort of camp. The way that GMO politics play out today. With the population exploding as much as it is, not even factory farming will be able to support peoples' addictions to animal products. As ecosystems continue to collapse, opportunistic hunting in third world countries becomes that much more difficult as well. It seems almost expected that eventually, livestock production and trade will fall off as people starve. 70% of the world's wheat, 80% of its corn, and 90% of its soy go to livestock, and eventually, that will prove unsustainable (It already does, but people don't realize that yet). And yet, with cloned meat being an option, meat will not lose itself to the annals of history. Raised beef, even factory farmed, is surely to be restricted to the economic aristocracy - CEOs, politicians, the like.

But what of cloned meat? As we know, cloning isn't exactly sure science yet. For all we know, cloned meat could be nearly like eating an entire cancerous tumor, literally, as the cells don't function as they should. If there's a huge, disastrous event regarding cloned meat, it could taint public perception of it for a good, long time (Not arguing one way or another with it, but take nuclear power, as an example). Furthermore, there's a huge debate between Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) food right now. A lot of people are entirely against it, and avoid it like the plague. Cloned meat will probably result in the same thing. If free-market capitalism keeps creeping along, you can bet that safety regulations will degrade in favor of "market control", so cloned meat will certainly remain on the market. But it could actually make for an excellent dialogue within the game to discuss the problems of overpopulation, factory farms, GMO food and the like - all within one, simple vector.

Ecopirate
5th Sep 2008, 22:27
It should also be noted that humans are NOT omnivores. We're opportunists. Scavengers. Our primary food source was meant to be plant-based, supported by insects and the rare influx of meat. Meat doesn't even digest right in our stomachs. And don't get me started on eggs and dairy. If we were meant to be omnivores, vegans like myself would be dropping dead in the street, not exercising daily and certainly not competing in sports. Olympic athletes and other professionals in sports wouldn't be eating vegan diets.

gamer0004
6th Sep 2008, 08:03
It should also be noted that humans are NOT omnivores. We're opportunists. Scavengers.

Which means we're omnivores.



Our primary food source was meant to be plant-based, supported by insects and the rare influx of meat. Meat doesn't even digest right in our stomachs. And don't get me started on eggs and dairy. If we were meant to be omnivores, vegans like myself would be dropping dead in the street, not exercising daily and certainly not competing in sports. Olympic athletes and other professionals in sports wouldn't be eating vegan diets.

That's BS and you know it. Because you would in fact be dropping dead in the street if this wasn't 2008. If you would've tried this in the stone age you would have died. Only because of technology and more knowledge of plants and other food sources you can sustain such a diet.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
6th Sep 2008, 21:14
Maybe there is confusion with understanding the term omnivore? :scratch:

One could claim that nearly every animal is omnivorous since a purely meat eater or purely plant eater is, in fact, quite rare.
So, an animal that is often categorised as a carnivore (ie. has teeth and claws designed primarily for ripping open flesh) are best described as 'carnivorous'
But they are not ALL strictly meat eaters - most will eat some type of plants too as a part (sometimes even the main part) of their diet.
Hence, we can easily become confused with it all.
As a strict Vegan, Ecopirate would be classified as a 'herbivore'. Or a fruitarian if he only ate fruits and nuts.

There can be no argument - humans are omnivore; ie. able to "generalise" our food intake. We neither have carnivore or herbivore specialisations for acquiring or processing our food.
We can survive by eating just about whatever is available to us.
Omnivores can generally be categorised as 'opportunistic" feeders - but NOT scavengers, as Ecopirate claims. Those two terms are quite separate.
If we were to be classified as scavengers, then we would be stopping at the side of the road to take a chew on any dead, rotting animal we might spot, lol.


All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat.
However, we are NOT required to consume animal protein. We do have a choice. It should not be considered 'only natural' for humans to include meat in their diet.
The best argument in support of a meat-free diet remains primarily ecological, ethical and health concern.
That's all there is to it...

As far as a future world is concerned, as in DX, a predominantly vegetarian diet would be effected by ecological issues foremost.
Ethical and health would remain a personal issue.

***

As for gamer004's comments. These are not strictly correct either...so perhaps the BS is flying from both sides, lol. :p

Vegan and vegetarian diets are long-established dietary customs... not modern-day habits that could only be sustained in current times.
The earliest known records (unwritten history assumed to date back even longer) of vegetarianism was established in the ancient Greek civilisation.
Names I'm certain most will know - Plutarch, Seneca, Diogenes, Ovid, Plato, Plotinus and Socrates all supported vegetarianism.
Pythagoras and his followers formed one of the very first known vegetarian communities.

So, given such an old history, it is incorrect to claim that vegans or vegetarians would be dropping dead on the street if it were not for modern day food technology and more knowledge of plants. :)

gamer0004
7th Sep 2008, 07:37
As for gamer004's comments. These are not strictly correct either...so perhaps the BS is flying from both sides, lol. :p

Vegan and vegetarian diets are long-established dietary customs... not modern-day habits that could only be sustained in current times.
The earliest known records (unwritten history assumed to date back even longer) of vegetarianism was established in the ancient Greek civilisation.
Names I'm certain most will know - Plutarch, Seneca, Diogenes, Ovid, Plato, Plotinus and Socrates all supported vegetarianism.
Pythagoras and his followers formed one of the very first known vegetarian communities.

So, given such an old history, it is incorrect to claim that vegans or vegetarians would be dropping dead on the street if it were not for modern day food technology and more knowledge of plants. :)

Yeah I knew that there were Greek vegetarians. But that doesn't mean anything for my point since around that time man finally started to really to explore the world in combination with the birth of science.
It's all a matter of what's modern... :)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
7th Sep 2008, 10:08
Yeah I knew that there were Greek vegetarians. But that doesn't mean anything for my point since around that time man finally started to really to explore the world in combination with the birth of science.
It's all a matter of what's modern... :)

Yes, but even many ancient religions that embrace vegetarianism are much older that Greek historical writings.
In other words, people have been happily existing on a non-meat diet since extremely early times. There is nothing 'scientific' involved with not eating meat.

However you look at it, you cannot imply that humans cannot exist without the intake of meat in their diet for the reasons you initially stated. :p

comy
7th Sep 2008, 11:11
Just a little reply to the "not getting all the proteins when being a veegie"
If we can only get the needed things from meat, how do the animals who eat only grass and other plants survive??? Where do they get the needed proteins?

Besides back to the topic:
I guess the world in DX will be turning to a veggie way of life, but it probably will not be the only way. I would think that meat would still be sold, more exclusively , but still. The majority however would be veggies, which is in the end by my standards a proper way to go anyway.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
7th Sep 2008, 11:54
Just a little reply to the "not getting all the proteins when being a veegie"
If we can only get the needed things from meat, how do the animals who eat only grass and other plants survive??? Where do they get the needed proteins?

Besides back to the topic:
I guess the world in DX will be turning to a veggie way of life, but it probably will not be the only way. I would think that meat would still be sold, more exclusively , but still. The majority however would be veggies, which is in the end by my standards a proper way to go anyway.

To answer your question about how herbivore animals can survive on vegetation only. It is because they have the bio-chemistry to manufacture ALL the fundamental amino acids required to build proteins.
Humans cannot actually do this. I think our bodies can produce most of the essential amino acids, but certainly not all of them.
Therefore vegetarians need to obtain what's missing elsewhere - easily done though. ;)

Well, the term 'a proper way to go' can always be argued against by meat-eaters, obviously.
Personal preferences will rule the day (but only if economics allow it) and any spiritual reasons will always be a matter for the individual.

Personally, of course, I agree with you that vegetarianism is the proper way to go - but that's from a wholly spiritual point-of-view.
However, I could not argue in favour of such a statement from a general point-of-view because not all of society will currently agree.
Having said that, attitudes are changing and vegetarianism is growing in popularity for various reasons - health concern being a strong influence.
That is why surveys show that many average meat-eaters (especially parents with children) are also including vegetarian alternatives in their diet voluntarily.

As far as DX3 and the future are concerned, I do see increased vegetarianism as an inevitable conclusion to economical/ecological/sociological changes that WILL take place.

timborg
8th Sep 2008, 05:44
i'm a humanian

if vegetarian eat vegetables

so i'm a humanian

K^2
8th Sep 2008, 07:17
To answer your question about how herbivore animals can survive on vegetation only. It is because they have the bio-chemistry to manufacture ALL the fundamental amino acids required to build proteins.
Humans cannot actually do this. I think our bodies can produce most of the essential amino acids, but certainly not all of them.
Right. And it is easy enough to understand, too. Most likely, our ancestors way, way back were able to synthesize all of the amino acids. But if our ancestors, when they started eating meat, started getting enough of certain kinds of amino acids from meat, there was no longer a selection for genes required for these to be synthesized. And any gene that isn't selected for breaks down after enough generations due to errors in DNA replication or some other source of mutation.

Fortunately, all of the amino acids you need are still present in some plants in high enough quantities, but unlike diets with meat, which easily takes care of these with no planning, a purely vegetarian diet will require some careful balancing.

comy
8th Sep 2008, 12:10
Well about the careful planing of the diet. I agree to some extent, but being a vegeterian since little, I've never had a feeling of having to resort to some extreme practices of how to superbly balance my diet, and I have yet to show any sign of any shortage of amino acids or any other organic substance needed for my functioning. You do not need meat to stay alive and healthy. It is a fact. My body is working just fine without red meat, thank you very much :rasp:
I would like to commend on MissDenton for her extremely well written posts. They are not intrusive, but are sensible and honest. I've seen lots of vegeterians who like to make personal attacks on meateaters, and I think they give a bad rep to other normal vegeterians. Everyone has a choice, its up to him/her. It is right for everybody to make up his mind, while not being looked down on or hated (that goes either way).
Just my thought on the matter.
(sry for offtopic)

K^2
8th Sep 2008, 14:34
comy, I don't want to offend you, but you can't necessarily tell if you are developing the way you should be. For example, mental growth is the one that suffers most. You don't have a basis for comparison there. Maybe you are smart enough now, but you were supposed to be far more advanced. This is especially dangerous at young age.

Now, it might be that you have gotten proteins from other sources. A lot of dairy products, perhaps? I also have a friend who is "vegetarian" but eats fish. I'm sure she doesn't have any problems like that. So it all depends.

And yes, you most certainly don't have to eat meat to stay healthy, but you can't just expect to stop eating meat, adjust nothing else in your diet, and be fine in most cases. Some people do have diverse enough diets as it is, but this is not true for majority.

Again, this is most dangerous in young age. If you stop eating meat after 30, just add some soy to your diet, and you'll be basically fine. But if you don't want your children to eat meat, seriously, talk to a nutrition specialist first. Maybe your diet is ok for them, but it might not be. Do you want to take that risk?

JerichoMccoy
8th Sep 2008, 16:07
You know, for some reason, I've noticed, any time somebody talks about what to eat, there seems to be a HUGE debate about it.

Human kind, mon. Human kind...

DX3 and Vegetarianism...

Well, I sort of felt it was weird that in DX1, when your in the Chinese market district, when you went to the upstairs cafe in the restaurant, the Waiter would only offer you a soda and soy food in a packet.

I forgot how many Creds that Soy Food cost, but dangit! It wasn't even cooked!

I would say that a lot of food would be synthesized to look like meat when really its just Whey Protein and other preservatives to make it taste and look like meat.

With the Grey Death, pollution, world overgrowth, and then that dreaded Collapse, well, to get real chicken would be some sort of business transaction of a shady kind.

I don't think the DX Civvies would all choose to be vegetarian, but with the way disease is able to spread, I would think some of the scientific community would get together and synthesize (or formulate, whichever) a way to make food that looks and tastes like chicken without having to kill a chicken.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
8th Sep 2008, 23:09
Well about the careful planing of the diet. I agree to some extent, but being a vegeterian since little, I've never had a feeling of having to resort to some extreme practices of how to superbly balance my diet, and I have yet to show any sign of any shortage of amino acids or any other organic substance needed for my functioning. You do not need meat to stay alive and healthy. It is a fact. My body is working just fine without red meat, thank you very much :rasp:
I would like to commend on MissDenton for her extremely well written posts. They are not intrusive, but are sensible and honest. I've seen lots of vegeterians who like to make personal attacks on meateaters, and I think they give a bad rep to other normal vegeterians. Everyone has a choice, its up to him/her. It is right for everybody to make up his mind, while not being looked down on or hated (that goes either way).
Just my thought on the matter.
(sry for offtopic)

Welcome to the forum. :)

Thank you for your interesting contribution. May I ask how many years you have been vegetarian; and are your parents vegetarian too? You don't have to answer, by the way... I'm just curious.

Yes, I agree that it isn't difficult for a veggie to eat a balanced diet. I really don't know why general opinion assumes otherwise. But I've replied about this previously; no point repeating things.

Thank you very much for your kind words. Though I wouldn't like to take all the credit; the majority of forum members here are fabulous human-beings who have managed to get their points across in an equally fair way too. So far, it's been an interesting debate for all, I hope. :)

Oh, lol, yeah... I've also noted similar discussions on other forums getting out-of-hand. A vegetarian who hates on meat-eaters is just as narrow-minded as a meat-eater who hates on a veggie. I never participate in these kinds of debates because they lose their credibility as soon as you read stuff like that. It's just so immature and, of course, pointless as the debate achieves nothing in the end. :rolleyes:

***


Right. And it is easy enough to understand, too. Most likely, our ancestors way, way back were able to synthesize all of the amino acids. But if our ancestors, when they started eating meat, started getting enough of certain kinds of amino acids from meat, there was no longer a selection for genes required for these to be synthesized. And any gene that isn't selected for breaks down after enough generations due to errors in DNA replication or some other source of mutation.

Fortunately, all of the amino acids you need are still present in some plants in high enough quantities, but unlike diets with meat, which easily takes care of these with no planning, a purely vegetarian diet will require some careful balancing.

Yeah, you could be correct about the genetic history; seems logical. :)

Vegetarians find enough protein and nutrients in common foodstuffs that pretty much represent our normal daily consumption. This includes all dairy products (milk, yoghurt, butter, cheese etc), eggs, grains, rice, cereal, nuts, seeds, pulses, wheat protein, soya protein and any of the meat substitutes such as sausages, pies, chicken pieces and mince etc, as previously mentioned. Really, we pretty much have the same items you put in your supermarket trolley, but we just substitute the meat for the simulated meat products. Its as easy as that. As long as we eat a balanced diet, like you, there is no problem.

***


comy, I don't want to offend you, but you can't necessarily tell if you are developing the way you should be. For example, mental growth is the one that suffers most. You don't have a basis for comparison there. Maybe you are smart enough now, but you were supposed to be far more advanced. This is especially dangerous at young age.
Now, it might be that you have gotten proteins from other sources. A lot of dairy products, perhaps? I also have a friend who is "vegetarian" but eats fish. I'm sure she doesn't have any problems like that. So it all depends.
And yes, you most certainly don't have to eat meat to stay healthy, but you can't just expect to stop eating meat, adjust nothing else in your diet, and be fine in most cases. Some people do have diverse enough diets as it is, but this is not true for majority.
Again, this is most dangerous in young age. If you stop eating meat after 30, just add some soy to your diet, and you'll be basically fine. But if you don't want your children to eat meat, seriously, talk to a nutrition specialist first. Maybe your diet is ok for them, but it might not be. Do you want to take that risk?

Sorry to respond to a post that was directed to comy... but upon reading it, I felt the irrisistable urge to reply. Sorry!

You suggest to comy that because he/she(?) follows a veggie diet they don't necessarily know if they are developing the way they should be - mental growth being the one that would suffer the most. Firstly, even a meat eater wouldn't know if they were developing properly. We ALL have to eat a balanced diet to avoid any deficiencies. There is no distinction between any kind of diet in that respect. A meat eater doesn't necessarily have a diet sufficient in all aspects, not at all. ;)
Why all this (paranoid?) focus on vegetarians, I don't know, lol. :D

Secondly, you go on to imply that being a vegetarian may make you somewhat stupid, for want of a better word... or at least "not as smart as you should be" and that this would be especially dangerous at a young age! Excuse me while I have a little private giggle here. (*Teehee, teehee* :D )
Seriously, some of the most intelligent people in history (not including the unknown) support(ed) a vegetarian diet! Some of the most successful and creative people in the world (not including the unknown) support a vegetarian diet. Da Vinci, Darwin, Edison, Einstein, Franklin, Gandhi, Isaac Newton, Tolstoy, Van Gogh, Voltaire, HG Wells etc... As much as I'd love to, I won't bore anyone here by adding a HUGE list of names of famous people who are veggies who I deem as being very intelligent and insightful human beings. Equally, of course, there are just as many intelligent people who are not vegetarians - I just wanted to point out that your comments about intelligence and sub-development are quite invalid in that respect.

As for the being young bit... both my kids are in the top set in their school subjects. Their intelligence levels are actually advanced for their years; well above 'average'. Also, there is absolutely no likelihood that they will suddenly lose this intelligence as they get older because they will somehow not develop properly due to being vegetarian. Let us dispel yet another myth! :D



You know, for some reason, I've noticed, any time somebody talks about what to eat, there seems to be a HUGE debate about it.
Human kind, mon. Human kind...

DX3 and Vegetarianism...
Well, I sort of felt it was weird that in DX1, when your in the Chinese market district, when you went to the upstairs cafe in the restaurant, the Waiter would only offer you a soda and soy food in a packet.
I forgot how many Creds that Soy Food cost, but dangit! It wasn't even cooked!
I would say that a lot of food would be synthesized to look like meat when really its just Whey Protein and other preservatives to make it taste and look like meat.
With the Grey Death, pollution, world overgrowth, and then that dreaded Collapse, well, to get real chicken would be some sort of business transaction of a shady kind.

I don't think the DX Civvies would all choose to be vegetarian, but with the way disease is able to spread, I would think some of the scientific community would get together and synthesize (or formulate, whichever) a way to make food that looks and tastes like chicken without having to kill a chicken.

Yes, food is always a hot-potato topic, hehe. :D

Wow! Thanks for that information regarding the waiter at a cafe only offering you soda and soy food! I don't remember that at all and that certainly adds more weight to the suggestion that the DX future world is predominantly vegetarian - whether by choice or for ecological reasons. Thank you for that information. :thumbsup:

Yes, I agree that simulated meat that looks and tastes like meat is definitely going to be a reality in the future. Quorn (chicken cubes, southern-fried nuggets etc) has certainly captured the flavour and texture very well already; so the technology has already started... and can only improve.

K^2
9th Sep 2008, 01:08
As for the being young bit... both my kids are in the top set in their school subjects. Their intelligence levels are actually advanced for their years; well above 'average'. Also, there is absolutely no likelihood that they will suddenly lose this intelligence as they get older because they will somehow not develop properly due to being vegetarian. Let us dispel yet another myth! :D
I have a feeling that you aren't the kind of parent who would simply stop giving her kids meat and call it proper vegetarian diet. There are, unfortunately, people who do think so.

Yes, I know that any kind of diet can be screwed up. I live in United States, so I see evidence of that on daily basis.

What I'm saying is that a vegetarian diet is easier to screw up in ways that will manifest in mental deficiencies. In my opinion, that dwarfs any weight problems you might develop with poorly balanced meat diets.

And again, keep in mind that this isn't a universal truth for every person. For example, I can eat all kinds of junk food and not gain a pound. I have a deficiency of some enzyme that converts glycogen into fat. So that metabolic pathway is very slow, and I gain virtually no fat. Of course, it is a double edged sword. Having only a glycogen storage in my body it makes very difficult to grow muscle weight as well. But I managed to get it to a good level, and it now takes no effort to sustain. Most people who eat like I do wouldn't be able to walk through doors.

There might be similar deviations in mental development that allows certain individuals to be vegetarian from birth, have low intake of certain amino acids, and turn out fine. And then there can be people for whom the effect is far more serious. Perhaps, their system breaks down the amino acids a little faster than it should, requiring more intake of non-synthesized amino acids. Such condition would be undetected, but taking out meat from such person's diet without replacing it with sufficient alternative sources would result in very serious health problems at any age.

Lo Bruto
10th Sep 2008, 06:08
Like in any RPG there are several healing itens.
The devs just wanted to create a better healing food item. And with all that "soy is good for health" stuff, they decided name it "Soy food".


There's no debate.
Finito. :cool:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Sep 2008, 06:12
I have a feeling that you aren't the kind of parent who would simply stop giving her kids meat and call it proper vegetarian diet. There are, unfortunately, people who do think so.

Yes, I know that any kind of diet can be screwed up. I live in United States, so I see evidence of that on daily basis.

What I'm saying is that a vegetarian diet is easier to screw up in ways that will manifest in mental deficiencies. In my opinion, that dwarfs any weight problems you might develop with poorly balanced meat diets.

And again, keep in mind that this isn't a universal truth for every person. For example, I can eat all kinds of junk food and not gain a pound. I have a deficiency of some enzyme that converts glycogen into fat. So that metabolic pathway is very slow, and I gain virtually no fat. Of course, it is a double edged sword. Having only a glycogen storage in my body it makes very difficult to grow muscle weight as well. But I managed to get it to a good level, and it now takes no effort to sustain. Most people who eat like I do wouldn't be able to walk through doors.

There might be similar deviations in mental development that allows certain individuals to be vegetarian from birth, have low intake of certain amino acids, and turn out fine. And then there can be people for whom the effect is far more serious. Perhaps, their system breaks down the amino acids a little faster than it should, requiring more intake of non-synthesized amino acids. Such condition would be undetected, but taking out meat from such person's diet without replacing it with sufficient alternative sources would result in very serious health problems at any age.



Now that you made your thoughts more 'generalised', I can see where you are coming from. :)
Yes, I am sure there are some irresponsible vegetarian parents but I would imagine that there are probably far more irresponsible meat-eating parents.

On the whole, I think most parents (veggie or otherwise) are responsible in all matters, not just diet. :cool:

LatwPIAT
10th Sep 2008, 07:37
Now that you made your thoughts more 'generalised', I can see where you are coming from. :)
Yes, I am sure there are some irresponsible vegetarian parents but I would imagine that there are probably far more irresponsible meat-eating parents.

On the whole, I think most parents (veggie or otherwise) are responsible in all matters, not just diet. :cool:

Well, yes, since there are more non-vegitarians than vegitarians, I imagine there are more irresponsible non-vegitarian parents than there are irresponsible vegitarian parents.

K^2
10th Sep 2008, 17:36
Now that you made your thoughts more 'generalised', I can see where you are coming from. :)
Yes, I am sure there are some irresponsible vegetarian parents but I would imagine that there are probably far more irresponsible meat-eating parents.

On the whole, I think most parents (veggie or otherwise) are responsible in all matters, not just diet. :cool:
I don't think it is so much about them being irresponsible as it is about them being ignorant. There are a lot of people who simply don't understand why meat is important in our diet. "Cows don't eat meat, and they are fine."

I think it is very important to inform general population on exactly what kind of nutrients they get from meat, and what alternative sources it can be replaced with. Soy is good, but not every meat-diet can simply have meat substituted with soy and be fine. Many people would also need to increase their intake of various grains, for example.

The message shouldn't be just, "Think about the animals. Don't eat meat." It should be, "Think about the animals. Here is a site with info on how you can stop eating meat and be healthy."

Though, personally, I'd also question the ethical reasons for not eating meat. I think it is a bit more complicated than saying that killing animals is wrong. Would allowing them to go extinct because once nobody eats meat nobody is breeding them be less wrong? The answer might be obvious to you, one way or another, but I don't see it as a black-and-white kind of question.

And here is another question. What if we start growing muscle fibers artificially, separate from the rest of the animal. No bone; no nervous system of any kind. Just meat, required amount of fat, and some blood vessels to make it all work. The tissue would be stimulated by electric pulses to make it grow the way it should. If meat was grown like that, would you still be a vegetarian? (I'd like to actually hear what people here think about that.)

This is, of course, irrelevant when talking about individuals who don't eat meat for religious or health reasons.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
11th Sep 2008, 00:44
Well, yes, since there are more non-vegitarians than vegitarians, I imagine there are more irresponsible non-vegitarian parents than there are irresponsible vegitarian parents.

Yes, of course there are (currently) more meat-eaters than veggie. :)
The point I'm trying to get across is that there should not be unnecessary concern or focus on vegetarians in an attempt to give some reason or excuse that a meat-free diet is somehow a notoriously unhealthy one.

When you agree that there are probably more meat-eaters with an irresponsible diet - yes, "thank you". This is exactly the shift in focus we need.
Surely concern should also be directed at meat-eaters? Not only because of any *possible* inadequacies in their diet, but also the *definite* additional 'additives' in their diet. Factory-farming gives rise to a whole number of problems - and whatever is fed or adminstered to the animals (eg. dead carcass, chemicals, steriods, antibiotics) in order for them to survive the appalling conditions in which they are kept inevitably gets passed down the foodchain, to the meat-eater. Furthermore, processed meat production is also rife with additives... there really is an awful lot of issues for meat-eaters to consider; far more than a vegetarian needs to worry about in that respect.

To conclude, I do wonder how come there isn't one meat-eater here who has actually expressed concern about the problems of factory-farming and the related health issues?
Yet, ironically, so many have expressed concerns over a vegetarian diet.
LOL, life is a paradox... and it doesn't make much sense, hehe! :p

***


I don't think it is so much about them being irresponsible as it is about them being ignorant. There are a lot of people who simply don't understand why meat is important in our diet. "Cows don't eat meat, and they are fine."

I think it is very important to inform general population on exactly what kind of nutrients they get from meat, and what alternative sources it can be replaced with. Soy is good, but not every meat-diet can simply have meat substituted with soy and be fine. Many people would also need to increase their intake of various grains, for example.

The message shouldn't be just, "Think about the animals. Don't eat meat." It should be, "Think about the animals. Here is a site with info on how you can stop eating meat and be healthy."

Though, personally, I'd also question the ethical reasons for not eating meat. I think it is a bit more complicated than saying that killing animals is wrong. Would allowing them to go extinct because once nobody eats meat nobody is breeding them be less wrong? The answer might be obvious to you, one way or another, but I don't see it as a black-and-white kind of question.

And here is another question. What if we start growing muscle fibers artificially, separate from the rest of the animal. No bone; no nervous system of any kind. Just meat, required amount of fat, and some blood vessels to make it all work. The tissue would be stimulated by electric pulses to make it grow the way it should. If meat was grown like that, would you still be a vegetarian? (I'd like to actually hear what people here think about that.)

This is, of course, irrelevant when talking about individuals who don't eat meat for religious or health reasons.

Yes, I understand what you are saying but ignorance manifests itself in many ways. Unless we have educated ourselves on issues from BOTH sides of the fence, we remain ignorant. Often, it is easy to fall victim to blind ignorance - making it easier to ignore several important matters and focus, instead, on other less important issues. :)

As for the 'importance of meat', most veggies do understand what "properties" of meat are important in their diet (in case that is what you meant) and do ensure that they are getting those particular nutrients from elsewhere. That equates to 'no importance in meat'.

Yes, I agree that there may be a necessity to increase intake of certain foods such as grain, but this isn't as difficult as you think or suggest it is. Any increase of grains, vegetables, dairy products, fruit, soy etc is a good thing as it all amounts to a well-balanced diet. Because a vegetarian diet is much more varied that just the 'meat and two veg' scenario, it inherently becomes much more adequate in many ways.

I do understand what you are saying that vegetarianism shouldn't just about be about 'think about the animals'. As already mentioned, people become veggie for different reasons. Personally, I do think about the animals but I also think about myself too. From what I know of factory farming and processed meat produce (as detailed in reply to LatwPiat) I'm pretty sure I've made the right choice.
Generally, I don't think killing animals is wrong. I've already said that if it came down to my survival, I would eat meat if there was no other choice. The main focus for me is that I do have a choice right now and while it exists I prefer a vegetarian diet. Obviously, I can't speak for everyone else on this matter.

As for your question about animals becoming 'extinct' if we don't eat them... that isn't logical. Factory-farmed animals won't become extinct, they just won't be in the factories. Instead, you will have small, natural pockets of animals living on the land as they were intended to do, by nature. Also, there is nothing good about the breed or stock of any animals existing in a factory farm - they are very far removed from their 'natural' state that without the use of steroids, antibiotics etc, they wouldn't survive at all. Many have wasted muscles anyway, due to lack of use/confinement in one small space.
Factory-farm animals owe their miserable existence ONLY to us. End all factory farming tomorrow and go back to natural ways and they will develop and live normally, as they always have.

Your question about growing 'flesh' is an interesting one. Hopefully others will answer this. :)
Earlier in this thread, I made a similar suggestion regarding 'artificial/synthetic' meat.
I think eating this type of meat would mean that one could still be labeled as a 'vegetarian' - simply because it isn't real and doesn't involve an animal. Artificial meat like this could be categorised the same as current day meat-alternatives that already exist, eg. Quorn vegetarian meat products.

However, if this artificial meat is actually 'flesh' with living tissue, blood etc. as you propose, I guess the term 'vegetarian' would not hold true if you chose to eat it because I think there is an obvious difference between "artificial/synthetic meat" and "lab-grown flesh and blood". Even though this meat would not have come from an animal; the fact that it is organic flesh wouldn't appeal to me; but that is probably because I have become accustomed to not liking the sight of animal flesh and blood. Obviously, future generations would not view this kind of meat the same way because of the factors involved. Interesting though - lab-grown flesh may even mark the demise of vegetarianism as I assume that less people will be concerned about animal-ethics and, hopefully, health concerns.

I guess it would be viable to assume that both types of 'meat' may be available to the public in the future. The synthetic meat for vegetarians and the 'lab-grown flesh' for regular meat-eaters. That way, both parties remain happy and their personal reasons for such a diet remain intact. :cool:

Romeo
11th Sep 2008, 06:13
Although I'm incredibly impressed at how you're both completely understanding of eachother's choices... Shouldn't we bring this back to Deus Ex? ;)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
11th Sep 2008, 06:44
^ A good idea. ;)

I guess when people keep saying how inadequate a vegetarian diet is... I have to respond. I'm just waiting for 'someone' who is not vegetarian to admit how inadequate (and even over-adequate) a meat diet can be, hehe. :p

I think we are still generally on topic, especially when we discuss future implications - but all this anti-vegetarian propaganda isn't helping much, lol. :D

Romeo
11th Sep 2008, 07:09
I don't think meat is an absolute necessity, just as I don't find it sinful to be consumed, and I completely understand where you're coming from defending your beliefs, but we really do need to relate back to Deus Ex. =)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
11th Sep 2008, 08:32
I don't think it is sinful to consume meat either.
What I find unacceptable is the whole factory-farming scenario.

Back on topic then. :)
Is anyone else going to comment on K^2's proposal about lab-grown flesh?
I really do think that such a product might be the answer in the future - though I imagine, as far as DX3 is concerned, Soy will remain the common source of nourishment (apart from the health-pack).

Really curious to know whether this will be the case or not now.

Romeo
11th Sep 2008, 15:29
I wouldn't mind an assortment of things - Soy packs, candy bars, coffee containers, alcohol (I'm Irish, sorry), various other foods and cigarettes (Even if I don't smoke). It would add a little realism, that's all. Meat doesn't really make sense to carry around though. Shoving a soy pack in your pack makes sense. Shoving a chicken wing in it? Not so much. Nobody likes a barbeque-sauce-covered handgun. Except George Bush.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
11th Sep 2008, 15:32
LOL, true! :D

binlargin
11th Sep 2008, 21:50
To conclude, I do wonder how come there isn't one meat-eater here who has actually expressed concern about the problems of factory-farming and the related health issues?
Yet, ironically, so many have expressed concerns over a vegetarian diet.
LOL, life is a paradox... and it doesn't make much sense, hehe! :p

Because it's a holy war that's why. The same reason why the Macs vs PCs or pro/anti circumcision debates end in tears; polarized opinions, physical selves too attached to ideas. As a meat eater it makes sense that I irrationally defend and apply retrospective justification for my meat eating culture, and by attacking your lifestyle I'm defending my own!

Both sides defend their opinions with propaganda and even outright lies (soya makes boys gay! (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327)) but this is all meaningless (see how similar that article is to the articles against the pollutants in meat? Nobody sees their own propaganda)
When you get down to it, it's a cultural and ethical debate much like a religious one. People grow up as meat eaters because their parents wanted them to grow up healthy and strong, they implant the "it's okay to eat meat" meme and this meme is never lost. Some people suck up the "it's not okay to eat meat" meme and then they battle it out in places like this thread. The way I see it, both are valid forms of human behaviour and I don't care either way.

The only good reason for being a veggie is emotional, everything else is just rationalizing your emotions after the fact. Humans are emotional apes, it causes me pain and suffering to empathise with the pain of others, empathy is a gift I save for living things that I care about. So its okay to eat an animal I've never thought about, and of course the same applies to humans. The moment you start empathising with livestock then it becomes wrong to eat meat (if you have any personal ethics or integrity).

Everything else about it is just a load of points to argue that don't actually matter because nobody cares about them, they only really care about what they feel.

Take this for example-

As for your question about animals becoming 'extinct' if we don't eat them... that isn't logical. Factory-farmed animals won't become extinct, they just won't be in the factories. Instead, you will have small, natural pockets of animals living on the land as they were intended to do, by nature.
So if people stopped keeping dogs as pets they'd revert to wolves? I think not. We humans have domesticated many types of animals and altered their DNA forever, Darwin's theory is all about nature doing the selective breeding that we already knew man could do. Let's face it, if we all stop eating meat then your farmyard pigs aren't going to become boars that can search for truffles, nor will there be any fields for sheep to graze in because they'll be fields of soya or some other crop instead. Unless of course you're going to also abolish capitalism and technology, and we can go back to tribal wars like nature "intended" (!)

When the enlightened vegetarian outlook eventually becomes mainstream it will be because of economic reasons, it will cause extinctions, lots of them. Pigs just aren't useful for anything but meat.

c0ma
12th Sep 2008, 00:56
I'll throw in my two cents...

I never actually thought much about the presence of soy food as evidence that Deus Ex was endorsing vegetarianism. However, one issue that I haven't seen brought up (although I haven't read every article in this thread), and one that I think is likely to effect us in the next forty years (i.e. in Deus Ex's time) is that meat production is very costly. You can get a wide range of data, and it's not completely clear how to measure this anyway, but it's certainly true that it takes many more resources (land, food, and water) and produces much more waste to produce a pound of meat than it does to produce a pound of grain or vegetables.

As the number of people on earth increase, and as we continue to expand American consumer culture throughout the rest of the world, we simply will not have enough resources to produce meat for everyone.

Of course, this is complicated: one gets more calories per pound of meat than per pound of grain, and of course not all meats are equal (chickens require fewer resources than cows, for example). Nevertheless, it's clear that, right now, many more people could be fed, and fed well, if we used the land that is now going to produce feed for cattle for producing grain for humans.

I see no good arguments for eating meat right now. Yes, people like it, we probably used to do it all the time (earlier in our evolutionary history), etc. But that's completely irrelevant. Hunting and fishing in managed ways both seem fine, but that's also irrelevant: how many people, on a day-to-day basis, get their meet that way? How many possibly could?

To answer the engineered muscle tissue question: to me, that would be a dream scenario. I very much doubt that many people will be convinced to not eat meat for a long time, which is disturbing, considering how very bad I believe the entire industry is. But if you could produce muscle tissue artificially, it seems one might be able to sidestep many of these issues. First, it would probably cost less (in terms of resources) and produce less waste because you wouldn't have the whole animal to support. It would also sidestep the issue of killing an animal, which would make many other vegetarians happy. Finally, it would probably end up being much cheaper (in terms of money) for consumers, and thus be much more attractive for people to actually buy.

That's that; I'm interested to hear responses! ;)

Romeo
12th Sep 2008, 02:09
Yep, that was one of the major reasons we were talking about this thread. But from now on, anyone who posts for no other reason than to promote their own personal life-style, be it beefed or unbeefed, is going to get a warning, followed by a nice little vacation.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
12th Sep 2008, 07:17
I want to keep this thread on topic too. :)
This is a short response to binlargin as my comments on extinction have been taken out of context/misunderstood:

***

Binlargin, firstly, it isn't necessary to attack a certain lifestyle in order to defend one's own.
People can still remain neutral about a topic, no matter which side of the opposition they support. :p



So if people stopped keeping dogs as pets they'd revert to wolves? I think not. We humans have domesticated many types of animals and altered their DNA forever, Darwin's theory is all about nature doing the selective breeding that we already knew man could do. Let's face it, if we all stop eating meat then your farmyard pigs aren't going to become boars that can search for truffles, nor will there be any fields for sheep to graze in because they'll be fields of soya or some other crop instead.


Ummm, maybe you misunderstood what I was saying when you quote and ask me if I should expect dogs to revert back to wolves? :scratch:
A typical factory-farm animal such as a pig, will still be a pig. I'm not talking about them going back to an earlier state of DNA, lol.

Farm animals already live outside naturally - not all of them (thankfully) are reared in factories.
All animals will happily occupy themselves with doing what comes natural to them anyway. Pigs still forage for truffles because of the chemical this fungi produces.
As for the comment that there will be no fields for sheep to graze because of plant-based crops - I agree.
Though this isnt an extinction issue. As land decreases, we will need to adjust our economical use of it.
We already know that we can feed more people on crop than we can on meat.

If all pig factory farms close down tomorrow; it will just mean that the residents within will be the last to be transported off to the slaughterhouse.
End of factory-farmed stock, but not the end of the pig as a species.
The lucky ones who are still being bred in the fields (organic) remain and so any suggestion of "extinction" isn't logical.

***


That's it, thank you. :)

Back on topic then people.
We are not here to defend personal lifestyles, we are discussing the possibility (or not) of vegetarianism in a future world like that of DX. ;)

Apollonius
12th Sep 2008, 08:39
I don't mind, as long as DX3 doesn't entail vegans vs vegetarians vs omnivores vs cannibals all vying for our assistance throughout the whole plot :rasp:

It was bad enough having to deal with the 2 competing coffee franchises in DX2 :confused: At least the vegetarian issue has more substance and depth to it as we can see from the boards :p

It might be 'interesting' if an omar made some funny remark about their diet along the way... but i guess most of us would be impartial to the whole topic since there would (hopefully) be more important/interesting issues to deal with throughout the game.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
12th Sep 2008, 09:50
Haha, yeah, none of us want a game where there is too much focus between veggies vs meat-eaters, any more than we would want to fight about coffee brands or the best make of sunglasses for UV protection. :D

Still, such ideas can still make sense when woven into a story/game plotline.
In the future, BIG changes are going to take place.
I strongly believe that the harvest and supply of food will be one of the main problems facing humanity during these times, together with other political/economical/ecological issues, eg. energy/fuel and territory/war.

Wow, I love the Omar - hope they return in DX3.
I guess I'd be chuffed if the game script suggested that they were vegetarians. :cool:
To me, they epitomise an ideology for survival based only upon 'need' rather than 'want'.

binlargin
12th Sep 2008, 22:35
Binlargin, firstly, it isn't necessary to attack a certain lifestyle in order to defend one's own.
People can still remain neutral about a topic, no matter which side of the opposition they support. :p

In a perfect world maybe, but when they're polar opposites it's difficult to maintain neutrality. Besides, it's fun to argue for the things you feel passionately about! There's nothing wrong with people viciously attacking an opinion so long as people don't take it to heart.



Ummm, maybe you misunderstood what I was saying when you quote and ask me if I should expect dogs to revert back to wolves? :scratch:
A typical factory-farm animal such as a pig, will still be a pig. I'm not talking about them going back to an earlier state of DNA, lol.

Pigs are probably a bad example. Compared to undomesticated variety, chickens are big fat things bred for maximum egg yield and minimum survival skills. They're fed by humans, protected by fences and enjoy living close together in overpopulated, sheltered areas (ie barns). They're now members of the human family and not very much like their ancestors, I don't think they'd survive without our help.



Though this isnt an extinction issue. As land decreases, we will need to adjust our economical use of it.
We already know that we can feed more people on crop than we can on meat.
I have to agree with this. We need to convert all the biomass of earth into humans and their food, so we have enough scientists to make the technological singularity happen as quickly as possible. After this, all life on earth is unimportant.


If all pig factory farms close down tomorrow; it will just mean that the residents within will be the last to be transported off to the slaughterhouse.
End of factory-farmed stock, but not the end of the pig as a species.
The lucky ones who are still being bred in the fields (organic) remain and so any suggestion of "extinction" isn't logical.
I meant if the idea that eating animals is wrong becomes the predominant view, then we won't even have organic pig farms. Boars might exist in the wild, but wild boars are not *our* piggies! Our piggies are big fat things bred for meat



Back on topic then people.
We are not here to defend personal lifestyles, we are discussing the possibility (or not) of vegetarianism in a future world like that of DX. ;)
Okay back on topic, the meat grown in vats thing would be like eating mushrooms. Collections of eukaryotic cells with no nervous system, even if in the shape of an animal wouldn't be conscious (philosophically debatable, but at least no more conscious than plants). Given 20 or so years of such technology, the ethical considerations would be things like where its grown, where the biomass comes from, and who owns the intellectual property and gets most of the money. Debates about what kind of animals you can eat would be as meaningless as debates about what colour slaves you should be allowed to own today!

During the transition period, you'd have a bitter war of words, laws and sanctions with corporations spreading vegetarian/vegan FUD on one side to create markets for their new patented products, on the other side you'd have farmers and the meat industry trying to protect their livelihoods.
Would certainly make a good side story for DX3, lots of room for lies, conspiracies and infinite shades of grey.

jamhaw
13th Sep 2008, 18:48
In the continuity bible they mention that the population of the world is actually SHRINKING (due to plagues and such) so really that main argument for vegetarianism does not count in this world. But really in this world you can buy smokes in vending machines :D so I wouldn't take it all to seriously.

gamer0004
13th Sep 2008, 18:51
But really in this world you can buy smokes in vending machines :D so I wouldn't take it all to seriously.

Yeah? You can do that right now as well...

pHdeus
13th Sep 2008, 22:01
Pehaps we should find something on which we can all agree.

The griesels in DX3 should definately all be vegetarians.

:o

Lady_Of_The_Vine
14th Sep 2008, 11:54
^
I certainly hope so!
Greasels are so adorable. :p

Azsh
16th Sep 2008, 00:48
I noticed someone put in the quote earlier from Charlton Heston, but I think it needs to be restated...

Soylent Green (the Soy snack) is made of human flesh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

From the synopsis of the conclusion of the movie.


After Roth dies, Thorn sneaks into the basement of the euthanasia facility, where he sees corpses being loaded onto waste disposal trucks. He secretly hitches a ride on one of the trucks, which drives to a heavily guarded waste disposal plant. Once inside the plant, Thorn sees how the corpses are processed into Soylent Green wafers.

....

the seriously wounded and nearly hysterical Thorn confides to Hatcher the horrible secret behind Soylent Green and urges him to spread the word: "Soylent Green is people! We've got to stop them somehow!"

Deus Ex was merely tipping it's hat to a pivotal dystopian movie.

minus0ne
16th Sep 2008, 02:59
Deus Ex was merely tipping it's hat to a pivotal dystopian movie.
:lol:

jamhaw
16th Sep 2008, 17:44
"Yeah? You can do that right now as well..." Well not where I'm from but no my point is that by the 2070's you are NOT going to be buying coffin nails. There are so many groups dedicated to removing smoking and in many countries you cannot smoke in public places. Look at how the media and schools go after smoking, it's not going to remain common for very long.

minus0ne
16th Sep 2008, 18:19
"Yeah? You can do that right now as well..." Well not where I'm from but no my point is that by the 2070's you are NOT going to be buying coffin nails. There are so many groups dedicated to removing smoking and in many countries you cannot smoke in public places. Look at how the media and schools go after smoking, it's not going to remain common for very long.
It'll be a cold day in hell when they have to pry my last cigarette from my dead fingers :p

Seriously though, they can make smoking in public spaces illegal, but they know damn well they can't forbid smoking altogether. I mean, aside from the fact that it'll basically have the same effect as the Prohibition did with alcohol. And for the same reason my country allows smoking of marijuana (else it'd just become below-the-counter, dealed on the streets where the same guy who sells you weed is trying to get you addicted to coke), they'll always allow smoking to some degree.

But I'll agree there's a modern witchhunt on anything which gives pleasure while being harmful to some extent. It's like governments are acting as if they were our parents, and we're ignorant babies that don't know which things are bad for us (except we do, and they can save their patronising for something else).

Meanwhile alcohol is being *PIMPED* in every film, TV show, commercial and magazine. Having watched quite a bit of movies (well over 20K at least), if I didn't know any better, I'd say drinking would make me sexy, clever, social, funny etc. :rolleyes:

binlargin
17th Sep 2008, 00:27
Seriously though, they can make smoking in public spaces illegal, but they know damn well they can't forbid smoking altogether.
They could slowly phase it out, make it less desirable and keep increasing the legal smoking age and tax until you need to be over 60 and a millionaire to buy a packet of smokes. Let's face it, nicotine is an awful drug. A carcinogenic mild stimulant that's only redeeming quality is that it's highly addictive, shaped by millions of years of evolution to circumvent the nervous systems of insects and birds. You can't say the same for marijuana (a mild hallucinogenic that is lots of fun) or alcohol (a powerful party depressant that is deeply embedded in western culture).

Having said that, widespread addiction and self harm goes hand in hand with dark, dirty, futuristic dystopian nightmares, whether it's milk with knives in it, Case's amphetamines, or a packet of smokes.

minus0ne
17th Sep 2008, 01:09
They could slowly phase it out, make it less desirable and keep increasing the legal smoking age and tax until you need to be over 60 and a millionaire to buy a packet of smokes.
They can most definitely not. People would just turn to cheaper black market cigarettes (the trade in certain parts of Europe alone was enough to partly fund the Bosnian conflict in the 1990s), and it's not like the current minimum age is being strictly adhered to by teens. Also, the less they can sell it in the West, the more the tobacco companies are trying to make Africa and Asia addicted (they hand out free cigarettes to teens, children even). The tobacco companies are more than compensating for their diminishing sales by selling single cigarettes (children can't afford a pack, but even children in poverty can afford a single cigarette).

Let's face it, nicotine is an awful drug. A carcinogenic mild stimulant that's only redeeming quality is that it's highly addictive, shaped by millions of years of evolution to circumvent the nervous systems of insects and birds.
It is, I never said it wasn't awful. However, people can actually enjoy it and even use it to relieve stress. Not to be an advocate of the devil here, but 'slowly phasing out' or even prohibiting it would essentially criminalize tobacco, which would not only have a counter-productive effect (as it has countless times in the past), but potentially mean a heap of trouble for our societies worldwide.

You can't say the same for marijuana (a mild hallucinogenic that is lots of fun) or alcohol (a powerful party depressant that is deeply embedded in western culture).
Agreed, though marijuana being a mild hallucinogenic is debatable :p

Having said that, widespread addiction and self harm goes hand in hand with dark, dirty, futuristic dystopian nightmares, whether it's milk with knives in it, Case's amphetamines, or a packet of smokes.
Indeed, and it would hardly be Deus Ex 3 without widespread drug use of all kinds. Hell, you could essentially turn JC into a Zyme dealer if you so chose to in DX1 :p

Anyway, I'm sure the mods aren't enthusiastic about this little off-topic detour, so I'll leave it at that.

jamhaw
29th Sep 2008, 22:52
Sorry for getting this thread off track I didn't mean to, but I feel that I should inform everyone that, contrary to popular belief prohibition has been known to work. During the Great War Alberta adopted prohibition and the city of Calgary laid of half their police force!

3nails4you
29th Sep 2008, 23:39
Seems more to me like meat is scarce because of mass human consumption in the future...notice how little evidence of livestock there is. The only live non-transgenic animals are mice, pigeons, cats, fishies, etc. Maybe the meat industry is spent and the government encourages consumption of soy, candy bars, etc., since the only meat available is that stuff in the freezer room in the Lucky Money and Wan Chai Market (and some other places, I'm sure).

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Oct 2008, 08:28
Who needs meat when you can munch-out on Eidos cookies and candybars! :p

Romeo
4th Oct 2008, 01:30
It'll be a cold day in hell when they have to pry my last cigarette from my dead fingers :p

Seriously though, they can make smoking in public spaces illegal, but they know damn well they can't forbid smoking altogether. I mean, aside from the fact that it'll basically have the same effect as the Prohibition did with alcohol. And for the same reason my country allows smoking of marijuana (else it'd just become below-the-counter, dealed on the streets where the same guy who sells you weed is trying to get you addicted to coke), they'll always allow smoking to some degree.

But I'll agree there's a modern witchhunt on anything which gives pleasure while being harmful to some extent. It's like governments are acting as if they were our parents, and we're ignorant babies that don't know which things are bad for us (except we do, and they can save their patronising for something else).

Meanwhile alcohol is being *PIMPED* in every film, TV show, commercial and magazine. Having watched quite a bit of movies (well over 20K at least), if I didn't know any better, I'd say drinking would make me sexy, clever, social, funny etc. :rolleyes:
Obviously you've never been to Regina, or you'd learn to appreciate the phrase: A cold day in hell.

Besides, they probably would pry it from your cold dead fingers... Unless you wanted to be buried with the thing which could have very well been responsible for your demise in the first place. lol

Abram730
9th Oct 2008, 05:53
There is much more food production than people.



There sure is. See MrsP if we feed all the people in the world and didn't let them die that slow agonizing death of starvation then food would be plentiful.

It's supply and demand. A plentiful supply lowers prices. Scarcity = profit.

Also starving people make what $1 a day if they are lucky? We get their resources for next to nothing by bribing their leaders and if they have something to say about it they we will yell "terrorists" and invade.

That's life deal with it or change it.


I will add that PETA is having an X-prize type of deal for the invention of lab meat. Industrial grown meat minus the animal. Perhaps you could ask for that in the game. People will continue to eat meat as we are omnivores and you are just an omnivore who doesn't eat meat.

Romeo
9th Oct 2008, 06:07
There sure is. See MrsP if we feed all the people in the world and didn't let them die that slow agonizing death of starvation then food would be plentiful.

It's supply and demand. A plentiful supply lowers prices. Scarcity = profit.

Also starving people make what $1 a day if they are lucky? We get their resources for next to nothing by bribing their leaders and if they have something to say about it they we will yell "terrorists" and invade.

That's life deal with it or change it.


I will add that PETA is having an X-prize type of deal for the invention of lab meat. Industrial grown meat minus the animal. Perhaps you could ask for that in the game. People will continue to eat meat as we are omnivores and you are just an omnivore who doesn't eat meat.
I do believe she intends to change it. Hence her decision in the first place. And if meat's so plentiful, how come we're suffering from a food shortage already? I don't know if you've noticed, but grocery prices are skyrocketing to compensate...

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th Oct 2008, 07:39
There sure is. See MrsP if we feed all the people in the world and didn't let them die that slow agonizing death of starvation then food would be plentiful.


If we feed all the people in the world (by simply managing the earth's resources better), then Humanity would become a race truly worthy of the term "intelligent" - and warrant their existence in the first place. ;)


One farmer says to me, "You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make the bones with;" and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying himself with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every obstacle. ~Henry David Thoreau

Conspiracy Theorist
10th Oct 2008, 17:56
In the story "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," society has become vegetarian at least in part because of replicants. Replicants, which might also be called androids, were the artificially created humans in the story.

If I remember correctly, the reason that their existence compelled society towards a vegetarian diet was because of the inability to sustain the difference between humans and other animals in the eyes of the replicants. The replicants would not distinguish humans from other animals in the same way that many human cultures had for millenia. And, as replicant technology advanced, the replicants themselves became indistinguishable from humans.

"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" was written in 1968 and later became the basis for a film called Blade Runner. I believe that the book's author, Philip K. D.i.c.k., was a pioneer of Film-Noir style science-fiction.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Oct 2008, 18:48
A genius book, that helped inspire a good movie. Blade Runner was AWESOME in its day; and still holds cult-status. :cool:
Incidentally, Daryl Hannah who played one of the androids (Pris) is vegetarian in real life (since 11 years old, according to Wiki).

Prot in the sci-fi movie "K-PAX" was a vegetarian alien.
I also believe everyone in the Matrix movies were vegetarian too... not 100% sure though? :scratch:

Oh, and lets not forget Ermintrude (Magic Roundabout) and most likely Dylan the rabbit too, judging from his peaceful, music-loving and laid-back demeanour, heh! :D

Abram730
13th Oct 2008, 06:05
I do believe she intends to change it. Hence her decision in the first place. And if meat's so plentiful, how come we're suffering from a food shortage already? I don't know if you've noticed, but grocery prices are skyrocketing to compensate...

The poor may not be able to afford meat and be vegetarian by necessity.

the crisis was in price, not supply though.

points
#1 In Capitalism the goal is to make money.
If I could sell you a steak/rice for $1 or $25, what would I choose to sell it for?

#2 Scarcity, is the cornerstone of our economy.
http://www.businesspundit.com/a-shortage-of-scarcity/

As for "The market" fears of a food shortage are as good as a real one and real ones can get out of hand.

imagine plentiful to the extreme. What would $100 dollar bill be worth if nobody want to give you anything for it? Toilet paper perhaps?

#3 The Dollars value does affect food prices.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2008-07-23-food-prices_N.htm

#4 hording out of fear and profit potential.
"The Food crisis"
Hording that "coincidentally" happened at the same time all over the market. Big profits in that and especially if you were speculating in the market. I'm not big on "coincidence" as an explanation, but things can have many causes and conspiracy is only one.

President of KMP (Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas)

The National Food Authority (NFA) and the Department of Agriculture (DA) themselves know that we are facing a rice crisis. The main cause of this crisis is the backward and feudal state of agriculture in the country and is worsened by neo-liberal policies of the Macapagal-Arroyo regime and trade liberalization that has drastically cut rice lands through land-use conversions and crop conversions. Now this was further aggravated by the rice cartel by their control of the rice industry and their hoarding practices today.

Pakistan: Hoarders Create Artificial Shortage
http://www.pakissan.com/english/news/newsDetail.php?newsid=18488

businessweek
But is there a worldwide shortage of rice?

No, there is an artificial shortage because of measures taken by governments of rice-exporting nations.

Who is doing the hoarding?

It's happening at several levels throughout the supply chain by traders, millers, wholesalers, and retailers. The appeal of rice for speculators is that it is easy to store and transport. However, this kind of speculation is extremely risky because the futures market in rice is not very liquid, so it it's difficult to hedge one's bets. There are 15 different benchmark prices for rice depending on quality, and the market is far from transparent.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2008/gb20080428_894449.htm

When people hear food crisis they buy food so I doubt liquidity would of been a big problem.

A few people with the power
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082003898.html

The blame was put on Bio-fuels, but was that true?
Brazil: Biofuels aren't causing global food crisis
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24185112/
exports blocked.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/04/09/how-countries-worsen-the-food-price-crisis.html

fund managers manipulating food prices
http://www.upiasia.com/Economics/2008/05/06/fund_managers_manipulating_food_prices/5352/

After futures trading pushed oil prices up, bio-fuels were to be the answer.

IF conspiracy, then perhaps Oil rich nations(sovereign wealth funds) then parked money in food futures and push up the price to cause a price spike... panic sweeps the world and crush bio-fuels by using PR (biofuels a "crime against humanity")
http://www.boom2bust.com/2007/11/14/sovereign-wealth-funds-buying-up-gold-other-commodities/

read the Forbidden' Investments part
http://www.escapeartist.com/efam/77/Investing_In_Dubai.html

This should serve as a warning though.

A real problem: Oil will run out and it's been the fuel for the population boom(green revolution).
http://www.susps.org/images/worldpopgr.gif
modern agricultural practices require 10 calories of fossil fuel per 1 cal of agricultural product.

Without new technology as much as a 90% reduction in population could happen.

This makes veganism in the future plausable but I find some flaws.

1) Would people give up meat to save a few billion people or would they say "that is what you get for having so many kids"?

2) The energy ratio for chicken is low at 4:1.

3) New ideas
here is one.
permafarming the polyphase model 11:00(the whole talk is good)
Michael Pollan: The omnivore's next dilemma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQPN1O03z8I

I also metioned the idea of growing meat without the animal.

Dx wise a militaristic Area may force Vegetarianism if they use ethanol. Dx is a very pessimistic view and will be set around the oil crisis where the have nots will have big problems. I Don't think the Dx world would be to concerned about the poor other then more security. I would not go as far as saying "Soylent Green is people", but the game is very pessimistic or it doesn't fit the name.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
13th Oct 2008, 15:02
Wow, this is an in-depth post! :eek:

I promise when I get back home I'll read it properly. :)
I'm using an internet cafe at the moment and I can't really concentrate on what you say... and I don't have much time in which to follow the links.

I will get back to you though. Or maybe others will comment too.
Thanks for posting. :)

Abram730
16th Oct 2008, 05:04
I don't think it is sinful to consume meat either.
What I find unacceptable is the whole factory-farming scenario.

Back on topic then. :)
Is anyone else going to comment on K^2's proposal about lab-grown flesh?
I really do think that such a product might be the answer in the future - though I imagine, as far as DX3 is concerned, Soy will remain the common source of nourishment (apart from the health-pack).

Really curious to know whether this will be the case or not now.

Here is an idea.

We are now working on unlocking Quorum sensing in microbial colonies. understanding this complex language should will help us better understand how multicellular organisms form from an egg into an organism.
The idea( As that understanding grows it will be possible to make an egg only grow into meat. No brain, bones, emotion or waste. A machine would circulate, filter and add nutrients to a long tube that small bulbs(baby steaks) would be attached. a small amount of a chemical message on the tube would cause a few blood vesicles to form but overall messages would be the only grow as meat message. when the meat has grown just pick it and pack it. It would be genetically identical to normal animal meat, the only trick involved is disrupting cellular messages to grow only meat(muscle fibers). Shelfs floor to roof filled with steaks. Veal would be the unshocked beef. Meat would be a crop and not dead animals.

I'm not sure if it would be required to play with gene expression, epigenetics or actually rewriting the genome in the starter egg, but again that should all be unlocked with the cellular language.

Cows will go back to more traditional farms to eat grass and become "heritage" beef as the industry will have a more efficient industry to produce meat. They could grow up drinking milk and move to grass. Away from a life being raised on cow blood and moving on to eating corn/fecal mater/dog/feathers/cat/pigs/ext.. that's far from Kosher as cows are raised like pigs.

I eat meat but do take issue with industrial farming.
But vegetarians should know there is no way I can see to get around killing as don't vegetarians kill? what am I talking about?

Do cells feel pain? look close at the reaction of this Protist when the digestive juices of the Amoeba start working. (0:33)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6rnhiMxtKU

just something to put it all in perspective... you've done that to trillions of protists in that stomach of yours. It would be hard to put a number on something like that. Just reframing things a bit.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
17th Oct 2008, 01:06
^
Thank you, I'm going to digest this one too asap. :thumbsup:

I've been away and have other things to catch up on at home... once I have some free time, I'll add my comments on what I have read. :)

DXeXodus
22nd Oct 2008, 04:57
Hey MrsP, I was reading through the DX2 user manual that comes with the game and under food items it had a category with meat and bread. The description below read something like "old-fashioned provisions"

Perhaps a strong piece of evidence for your case. :)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
22nd Oct 2008, 13:51
Hey MrsP, I was reading through the DX2 user manual that comes with the game and under food items it had a category with meat and bread. The description below read something like "old-fashioned provisions"

Perhaps a strong piece of evidence for your case. :)

OMG, yes indeed. Thanks for that info. :thumbsup:

gamer0004
22nd Oct 2008, 16:40
I don't really think it is evidence for anything. Meat is even now old-fashioned food, beause it cannot be considered "modern" and has always been used (consumed). It doesn't mean it's outdated.

minus0ne
22nd Oct 2008, 22:47
Some other interesting stats I picked up from a Tegenlicht (Backlight) documentary piece:

Chickens consume 2.3 times the energy eating their meat yields
Pigs consume 4.5 times the energy eating their meat yields
Cows consume 17 times the energy eating their meat yields

(energy obviously refers to caloric value)

El_Bel
22nd Oct 2008, 22:53
I do believe she intends to change it. Hence her decision in the first place. And if meat's so plentiful, how come we're suffering from a food shortage already? I don't know if you've noticed, but grocery prices are skyrocketing to compensate...

Something to do with fiat currency and inflation.. Cant really explain in english and i dont think you can understand greek :p ..

Lady_Of_The_Vine
24th Oct 2008, 20:36
@ Abram730. As promised, here is my reply. :)

Thank you for all that information in the two posts above. There's a lot, so I won't break it all down and make individual comment unless I'm asked about a specific section.
But to address some main points:

Yes, it does seem inevitable that there will be shortage of energy/fuel, land/food and, without doubt, even fresh water. Scary times ahead...
I agree that alternatives will have to be found and laboratory "meat-without-the-animal" seems a realistic solution. As is alternative energy sources and better ways to collect and/or preserve fresh water. These will all be matters we must face in the future, in a much more serious way.
The Michael Pollan video was really interesting, thank you. Permaculture/re-animation of nature certainly sounds like the best solution to feeding the world. At least it is a productive form of agriculture that heals the earth, rather than destroys it. Excellent. :cool:

As for the final question, "Don't vegetarians kill?"... lol.
yes, this kind of question is often pulled out of the hat. You know, "Don't be cruel to a potato, carrot, lemon or lime" kind of thing.

This is how I keep it in perspective.... For me, if there is no brain then there is no pain.
We understand that pain results from electrical and chemical exchanges between our peripheral nerves, the spinal cord and brain. So, pain must have a brain. If I cut off your hand - this severed part of your body will not feel any pain... only the main part of your body (ie. wrist area) that is still connected to the nervous system and brain will feel pain. Also, consider the logic of the situation - what would be the point of plants being able to feel pain stimuli without having the ability to respond to it? For example, imagine I start clipping my rose bushes in the garden. If they have the ability to feel pain then shouldn't they be digging in their thorns and fighting me off? Certainly, there are some plants (all with no brain, of course) that respond to touch: eg, 'sensitivity plants' which curl their leaves if you touch them and many plants have an 'awareness' (of sorts) to communicate with others in their species (as noted in Attenborough documentaries) or track the Sun across the sky to more favorably collect sunlight. However, these mechanics for general response/survival are a long way from anything deemed as a stimulus-response as a result to feeling pain.

I can only conclude by saying that it isn't really required of a vegetarian to either agree or disagree with any scientific findings about whether or not lower forms of life, such as bacteria or plant cells, feel pain. Embryonic cells are a different matter, of course....
If basic cells do use a different means of sensory perception that does register pain, then fair enough. But there is no concise proof of this and it is impossible to know the subjective experience of cells, bacteria etc. with any certainty, but the balance of the evidence suggests that they do not feel pain. The only observation is that cells will try their best to survive, as is the basis of most life. But I personally can live with my decision only to consume vegetable/fruit/nuts.

I can still give the benefit of the doubt to your suggestion but, in my opinion, a meat-free diet still chooses "the lesser of two evils", if you like. That is how I can put it all in perspective...

Still, this is all off topic as far as the game goes. But let's just say that (in the future) I believe androids are more likely to know of 'pain' than a carrot or potato, lemon or lime, ever will. :p

Thanks again for all the research and links, I enjoyed digesting the information (excuse the pun). :D

Officer Half
25th Oct 2008, 05:02
I really like my meat. Like REALLY. I eat a sandwich for lunch every day Monday - Friday. Every day it has either: Turkey, ham, roast beef, pepperoni, salami, pastrami, or chicken on it. (Along with swiss cheese and spicy brown mustard, all on wheat bread. I'm very picky when it comes to sandwiches. :nut: ) I love steak. Bacon is my favorite food. When I go to Wendy's I get 2 double cheeseburgers. I love little mini sausages. Pot roast is, in my eyes, a gift from above. That's just me though. ;)

In the future though? Depends on what kind of future we are talking here. Nice happy utopian future? Everything is synthesized. (Except for the really rich people. They get real food.)

Or Deus Ex conspiracy riddled future? I doubt there'd be any livestock left, so they'd have to resort to other foods. The corrupt government would've never reformed the current livestock conditions (they are really bad atm). Disease would kill most of them off, the rich people would use up the rest.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Oct 2008, 11:37
Hehe, thanks for the very detailed account of your diet. :D

Yes, I agree with both your scenarios. :)

sushi159
26th Oct 2008, 16:41
Maybe meat products ceased to exist only to emphasize the dystopic environment that was DX. World pollution or industrial change impacted the ecosystem and maybe most animals got wiped out.

Since DX3 is a prequel, maybe there should be some animals left in food.

Mindmute
26th Oct 2008, 16:43
Since DX3 is a prequel, maybe there should be some animals left in food.

*stops eating and puts plate on head for protection, for when MrsP sees that quote.






Since some people have been having an awfully hard time figuring out when I'm joking, I'd like to say that this was a joke. I also in no way think MrsP, as lovely as she is, would attack poor sushi for suggesting meat is still widespread in 2027.
Thank you for reading this,
Mindmute.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Oct 2008, 16:47
*stops eating and puts plate on head for protection, for when MrsP sees that quote.


LOL :D

lumpi
7th Apr 2009, 22:25
Quorn's not so bad, it's quite tasty. But it wouldn't ever satisfy my desire for a bacon butty smothered with tomato ketchup :D

Edit: just noticed bacon butties IS in that list. How does quorn do bacon?

It just has a bacon flavour to it. Like the lamb burgers have lamb flavour, and the southern fried flavour to the chicken pieces etc. Same kind of flavouring you find in crisps, I guess. Quorn is incredibly versatile - I never buy Soya products these days as it always retains its own (horrible) flavour. :hmm:
PS. The Quorn hot dogs are awesome too... give them a try. ;)


It just has a bacon flavour to it. Like the lamb burgers have lamb flavour, and the southern fried flavour to the chicken pieces etc. Same kind of flavouring you find in crisps, I guess. Quorn is incredibly versatile - I never buy Soya products these days as it always retains its own (horrible) flavour. :hmm:
PS. The Quorn hot dogs are awesome too... give them a try. ;)

Are those bacon flavors made of... actual bacon?

Chuckles. :D
No... if it did, I wouldn't buy/eat it. ;)

We have a 'DX3 - Vegetarian Future' thread here:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=79797

I think maybe I should transfer this convo into there... :)

^ Done.

Spyhopping
7th Apr 2009, 22:40
Wow, thread resurrection or what? Back when you were called Mrs. P, immortal. :p

And where has the regen poll gone to? :scratch:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
7th Apr 2009, 22:44
Wow, thread resurrection or what? Back when you were called Mrs. P, immortal. :p

And where has the regen poll gone to? :scratch:

Best place if we're gonna talk about food. :)

Regen poll here:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=87080

PugPug
8th Apr 2009, 02:33
Worldwide vegetarianism will happen eventually. With the only possible exception of the super-rich.

It just takes so much food to raise meat, it isn't practical. Especially as our planet's clean water supply dwindles and the population grows...

In the meantime, I still eat meat about twice a day.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
8th Apr 2009, 10:35
Worldwide vegetarianism will happen eventually. With the only possible exception of the super-rich.

It just takes so much food to raise meat, it isn't practical. Especially as our planet's clean water supply dwindles and the population grows...



I agree. Rearing livestock for food makes no ecological sense whatsoever... the water wastage alone is a serious problem. :(

I believe meatfree products like Quorn will help make the transition to a vegetarian diet an easier one because already the 'sausagemeat' alternative is very, very good. I served up Quorn scotch eggs at a picnic with some of my meat-eating friends and they honestly had no idea they were not eating real sausagemeat. Same for the hotdogs too. :D
At the supermarket, I often see people with meat and Quorn products in their basket... so I think meat-eaters are really considering the alternatives. Perhaps not from the point of view of animal cruelty, but more for the health benefits.

Spyhopping
8th Apr 2009, 10:51
Don't forget that one day it might not even be necessary to kill or farm animals for food. Not that I know anything about it, but nutritionally controlled stem cell 'Petri dish' muscle tissue could be grown for meat.

It could be quite cheap- even if it does sound disgusting :hmm:

Irate_Iguana
8th Apr 2009, 10:57
I agree. Rearing livestock for food makes no ecological sense whatsoever... the water wastage alone is a serious problem. :(

Actually it makes perfect sense. Just not on the scale we are doing it at the moment. Most livestock eats vegetation, or parts of it, unfit for human consumption. Vegetation that would otherwise be completely useless. The problem is that instead of people rearing what they need themselves there are massive factories that overproduce. There is a real problem with overproduction and food destruction, not with raising livestock per se.



I believe meatfree products like Quorn will help make the transition to a vegetarian diet an easier one because already the 'sausagemeat' alternative is very, very good.

They serve it regularly at university and sometimes (when the alternative is gross) I partake in this vegetarian delight. I must say that the taste is simply not there. The structure is close enough, but it is by no means a replacement for properly prepared meat.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
8th Apr 2009, 11:14
Yes, I agree that the 'factory' methods are the main underlying issue. Animals roaming in a field need less water than when they are contained in unnatural conditions. Their waste products are also dealt with naturally by the earth. In the factory environment, it isn't... and so a vast amount of water is required in order to 'flush it' away. Dumb situation really.
Yes, I agree again - we do over-produce. It's very wasteful and disrespectful, imo.

Well, yeah, I did say Quorn sausagemeat was very good - not that it absolutely the same (not yet anyway... but give it time). My meat-eating friends genuinely didn't notice any difference, so that goes some way to prove that Quorn is a good alternative and definitely beats Soya with regard to texture and taste. :cool:

Irate_Iguana
8th Apr 2009, 11:46
definitely beats Soya with regard to texture and taste. :cool:

No arguments from me. I still don't understand why people ever started eating that stuff. It is most foul.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th Apr 2009, 16:25
No arguments from me. I still don't understand why people ever started eating that stuff. It is most foul.

I guess soya (textured vegetable protein) was the only main vegetarian substitute available at the time (since 1960s?) and that is why people ate it. The reason it is so foul is because it always retains its own yucky flavour (and aroma), no matter how much chili, curry or wine you mixed it up with, ha! The good thing about Quorn is that you can flavour it (it soaks up whatever you cook it in) and, of course, the texture is much more appropriate. :cool:

TrickyVein
9th Apr 2009, 22:54
Maybe meat products ceased to exist only to emphasize the dystopic environment that was DX. World pollution or industrial change impacted the ecosystem and maybe most animals got wiped out.

Wait...that sounds like RIGHT NOW

just remember: we need plants and animals but they don't need us

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th Apr 2009, 22:58
just remember: we need plants and animals but they don't need us

QFT. :cool:

Necros
10th Apr 2009, 13:36
I feel bad for the animals too, but not when I'm eating some yummie fried meat or salami or whatever. I love eating meat, it tastes great.
One thing is for sure, unless I'm forced to abandon meat because I can no longer afford it or most of the animals are gone, I won't be a vegetarian.

Though if someone comes up with an actual working replicator (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Replicator), I can be convinced to leave the meat behind. :D

LatwPIAT
10th Apr 2009, 14:59
Though if someone comes up with an actual working replicator (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Replicator), I can be convinced to leave the meat behind. :D

That's not how it works. With a replicator we can turn anything into meat, without having to kill animals. So you can eat meat without worrying about harming animals.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Apr 2009, 15:03
I feel bad for the animals too, but not when I'm eating some yummie fried meat or salami or whatever. I love eating meat, it tastes great.
One thing is for sure, unless I'm forced to abandon meat because I can no longer afford it or most of the animals are gone, I won't be a vegetarian.

Though if someone comes up with an actual working replicator (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Replicator), I can be convinced to leave the meat behind. :D


Its good that you feel bad for the animals and would consider replicated meat. Products like Quorn have paved the way and perhaps in the near future a synthetic and convincing lab meat will remove the commercial aspect (demand and supply) of rearing livestock for food.

It isn't really the eating of meat that is the main problem. The issue for most (and for me) is really that of factory-farming. I don't wish to play any part of it and so, as a consumer, I will not demand it. Here is a question (to all) - do you think humans would be a greater, reverent species if we were to give consideration to the wrongs of turning a sentient-being into nothing but a "machine". Not even a machine really - animals have emotions and senses like ours, unlike a true mechanism. When we remove and degrade their natural lives and instincts to that of having to be like a machine, is that moral? I don't think so... in fact, I know so (in my own sense of righteousness).

If I wasn't vegetarian, I'd only purchase organic free-range produce. That is because I don't denounce the eating of animal flesh per se, it is factory-farming that I deplore. It brings great sadness to me; its one of those practices that make me feel ashamed to be a human-being as I can hardly believe that we have gone down this road. :(

Necros
10th Apr 2009, 15:20
That's not how it works. With a replicator we can turn anything into meat, without having to kill animals. So you can eat meat without worrying about harming animals.
Yeah, that's what I meant to say. Need more coffee. :nut: The night shift begins in a few hours and I haven't slept a lot. :hmm:

It isn't really the eating of meat that is the main problem. The issue for most (and for me) is really that of factory-farming. I don't wish to play any part of it and so, as a consumer, I will not demand it. Here is a question (to all) - do you think humans would be a greater, reverent species if we were to give consideration to the wrongs of turning a sentient-being into nothing but a "machine". Not even a machine really - animals have emotions and senses like ours, unlike a true mechanism. When we remove and degrade their natural lives and instincts to that of having to be like a machine, is that moral? I don't think so... in fact, I know so (in my own sense of righteousness).

If I wasn't vegetarian, I'd only purchase organic free-range produce. That is because I don't denounce the eating of animal flesh per se, it is factory-farming that I deplore. It brings great sadness to me; its one of those practices that make me feel ashamed to be a human-being as I can hardly believe that we have gone down this road. :(
:scratch: So, you are okay with killing innocent animals but are against factory-farming which is basically the same thing, only these animals exist just to be killed. Though I understand your point, it just seems a bit odd to me.

OT I guess, but I think there are many other and I'd also say more important things to be ashamed about. This aspect of humanity is barbaric too but I can think of worse things. :( Damn, now I'll have to watch some Star Trek to regain my hope for our species. :)

Ninjerk
10th Apr 2009, 15:29
OT I guess, but I think there are many other and I'd also say more important things to be ashamed about. This aspect of humanity is barbaric too but I can think of worse things. :( Damn, now I'll have to watch some Star Trek to regain my hope for our species. :)

I've had similar sentiments. It's always been peculiar to me that people take that particular cause on, and I can't remember the last time a vegetarian or vegan I knew had a second thought for anything that was going on in Africa.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Apr 2009, 15:34
Yeah, that's what I meant to say. Need more coffee. :nut: The night shift begins in a few hours and I haven't slept a lot. :hmm:

:scratch: So, you are okay with killing innocent animals but are against factory-farming which is basically the same thing, only these animals exist just to be killed. Though I understand your point, it just seems a bit odd to me.

OT I guess, but I think there are many other and I'd also say more important things to be ashamed about. This aspect of humanity is barbaric too but I can think of worse things. :( Damn, now I'll have to watch some Star Trek to regain my hope for our species. :)

I was trying to generalise the situation. It isn't the same thing - many animals exist/are reared in natural conditions. I would prefer that meat produce is obtained more humanely.

I am okay with killing/eating animals if it comes down to "survival". So, if I was stranded on a desert island, for example, then I'd happily go capture and eat a wild boar in order to ensure I live. If there is an abundance of bananas, coconuts and other delights... I obviously wouldn't bother.

Yes, of course there are other things to be ashamed about. I said it was 'one' of them. ;)



I can't remember the last time a vegetarian or vegan I knew had a second thought for anything that was going on in Africa.

You've just met one, my friend. :p
This discussion is about vegetarianism, after all.

FrankCSIS
10th Apr 2009, 15:41
I've had similar sentiments. It's always been peculiar to me that people take that particular cause on, and I can't remember the last time a vegetarian or vegan I knew had a second thought for anything that was going on in Africa.

I find obscene the parades of bleeding hearts we have to suffer every year during the (extremely short) seal hunting season.

Save the cute furry ones, leave the rest to rot and die, animals and human beings alike.

Ilves
10th Apr 2009, 15:44
Oi, Eidos PR department! If a thread on meat substitutes is among the most active on the DX3 forum more than a year into development... you're doing it wrong! :rasp: http://forums.eidosgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Apr 2009, 15:54
I find obscene the parades of bleeding hearts we have to suffer every year during the (extremely short) seal hunting season.

It isn't nice, I agree. Not to make it less of an issue, but the number of seals culled in this short hunting season is tiny compared to the amount of factory-farmed animals slaughtered every day. Farmed animals are the most exploited and least protected group of animals in the world. 27 million are killed in the United States alone each day, nearly 19,000 per minute – equating to a tragic total of 10 billion animals per year.


Oi, Eidos PR department! If a thread on meat substitutes is among the most active on the DX3 forum more than a year into development... you're doing it wrong! :rasp: http://forums.eidosgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

It all came about because of the use of Soy Packs in DX1. :D
A meatless future is an interesting debate. :cool:

Ilves
10th Apr 2009, 16:11
^ Absolutely. I'm just so starved for some tasty info... :o :p

BTW, @ all the veggies here: Have you ever considered the amount of gunk you're ingesting from all these meat substitutes? Artificial flavoring, coloring, interacting chemicals... I'm trying to keep my overall diet as organic as possible, so that's one of the reasons I haven't dropped the meat yet. But I salute you, you're doing the right thing. :thumb:


Edit: Was this posted yet?

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/221975/march-17-2009/world-of-nahlej---shmeat

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Apr 2009, 16:30
BTW, @ all the veggies here: Have you ever considered the amount of gunk you're ingesting from all these meat substitutes? Artificial flavoring, coloring, interacting chemicals... I'm trying to keep my overall diet as organic as possible, so that's one of the reasons I haven't dropped the meat yet. But I salute you, you're doing the right thing. :thumb:


I guess the best answer to that is to ask if all meat-eaters consider the amount of gunk they're ingesting from factory-farmed meat. There is far more artificial flavoring, colouring, chemicals etc in processed meats.

Good to hear you're sticking to organic. I salute you. :wave:

FrankCSIS
10th Apr 2009, 16:49
It isn't nice, I agree. Not to make it less of an issue, but the number of seals culled in this short hunting season is tiny compared to the amount of factory-farmed animals slaughtered every day. Farmed animals are the most exploited and least protected group of animals in the world. 27 million are killed in the United States alone each day, nearly 19,000 per minute – equating to a tragic total of 10 billion animals per year.

Just to be clear, it's not the seal hunting that bothers me, it's the damn Europeans each year who parade in the streets to cry over the hunting season. Ever since Canada caved in to all this protest, the seal population has exploded, to a point where they're eating the sea dry. Sure the hunting techniques are not as "civilised" as those bleeding hearts might like (as if there ever was such a thing as a civilised death), but it's obscene to parade each year against the hunting of cute furry pets while millions of humans die of slow, agonising, hungry death each year. We're so eager to call it a genocide when animals are slaughtered, but then we cower away when it's time to expose the wrong done to our own species.

Still, as far as the food industry is concerned, I'm absolutely in favor of organic farming. The problem is how unrealistic it is for our urban realities. The only way to encourage the organic growth is to drastically cut our meat consumption. Not just at home, but especially when we eat out. Nothing says industrial farming like Burger King and BBQ chicken joints. That's the tiny part I try to do. I know the farm where my chicken, pig and beef come from, and so I try to strictly eat that meat, and cut down on restaurant meat.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Apr 2009, 17:00
Just to be clear, it's not the seal hunting that bothers me, it's the damn Europeans each year who parade in the streets to cry over the hunting season. Ever since Canada caved in to all this protest, the seal population has exploded, to a point where they're eating the sea dry. Sure the hunting techniques are not as "civilised" as those bleeding hearts might like (as if there ever was such a thing as a civilised death), but it's obscene to parade each year against the hunting of cute furry pets while millions of humans die of slow, agonising, hungry death each year. We're so eager to call it a genocide when animals are slaughtered, but then we cower away when it's time to expose the wrong done to our own species.

Yes, seal hunting has its purpose - we are talking about general survival in most cases.
I absolutely agree that there is no excuse that many starve to death on this Earth. We ALL (nations) need to learn to manage resources better than we currently do. Lets face it, we have enough land and intelligence (you'd of thought...) to ensure that nobody needs to go hungry in this world.


Still, as far as the food industry is concerned, I'm absolutely in favor of organic farming. The problem is how unrealistic it is for our urban realities. The only way to encourage the organic growth is to drastically cut our meat consumption. Not just at home, but especially when we eat out. Nothing says industrial farming like Burger King and BBQ chicken joints.
I don't think it is unrealistic for urban habitats/communities - all are surrounded by rural countryside. We just need to de-centralise and go back to local supply. We've since lost the community-based system... but it can return.

Jerion
10th Apr 2009, 17:01
^^ You picked the Tong ending first, didn't you? :p

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Apr 2009, 17:04
^^ You picked the Tong ending first, didn't you? :p

Nope. Helios or The Omar. :D

FrankCSIS
10th Apr 2009, 17:07
It's unrealistic in the sense that the majority of us don't want to take care of it ourselves. We're all so very specialised in our own labor and work that when we want our meat, we don't want to handle a part of the farm ourselves, but just go out and buy it, already cut with the bones removed.

The only way to have community farms and a decentralised growth system would be for each neighbourhood to own their own little piece of land in the surrounding countryside. This means taking care of the farm ourselves.

It's already happening with communal gardens. A lot of people, even here in the cold white north, are growing their own stuff in small community gardens all over the city. But there's a huge difference between planting/watering crops, and tending to farm animals.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Apr 2009, 17:10
Ummm, localised farming was done before and not so long ago now... with no problems. We don't have to do anything - just buy it, as normal. Local farmers went to sell at market or supplied small shops. Supermarkets have helped bring about the demise of the butcher shop etc.

FrankCSIS
10th Apr 2009, 17:17
Yes, but what percentage of the total meat production do they actually produce?

Our largest chain of bbq restaurant here consumes about 30 000 chickens per day, in a small province like Quebec. That's not counting the supermarkets, and all other chicken joints. I'd have to ask a friend who works for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for the actual numbers, but it's not unrealistic to talk about more than 100 000 chickens per day being consumed in the province. No localised farming could ever produce that much. They simply don't have the land, labour and resources to do it, not at the ridiculously low price chicken is sold. Unless we start hiring slaves, the only way to go about it would be to both diminish our consumption, and do a lot of the labour ourselves, for free.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Apr 2009, 17:53
Sorry, I was thinking of average household consumption, not fast-food chains. My bad.

100 000 chickens per day just in your province! :eek: Yikes, is that whole chickens or just portions?
Never mind, its still a scary figure. I have to admit, I had no idea demand was so high... I don't go to these fast-food outlets.
I guess the only reason this high demand exists is because factory farming allows it. Shame this demand stems from convenience rather than survival. :(

Well, seems like the only solution is to reduce consumption, as you say. As many probably wouldn't want to do that, I guess the sooner vitro-meat happens, the better...

GmanPro
10th Apr 2009, 18:02
How about this,

Who cares about the cows and the chickens? Seriously...

They are going to die eventually, we might as well receive a high amount of nutrition from them first

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Apr 2009, 18:05
I care about all sentient beings. Its just the way I am.
I also care about Mother Earth... all things are connected. ;)

Oh, and you don't need to eat animals or make them suffer to obtain your nutrition.

GmanPro
10th Apr 2009, 18:40
But ... they are going to die. They don't live long at all. We shouldn't just let that food go to waste

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Apr 2009, 18:57
We're all going to die, our lives are short. That doesn't mean we are not entitled to live a natural life as possible.
Being bred for a certain purpose (to be reared as farmed animals like 'machines') doesn't change an animal’s biological capacity to feel fear and pain, or in any way justifies our reasons for not giving thought to the matter. Yes, their lives are short but only because we make it that way. Their suffering is cruel and not necessary to our survival. That is the point I am trying to share. :)

FrankCSIS
10th Apr 2009, 19:18
I've checked the official numbers. Frightening figures indeed. In Quebec, last year, 600 million pounds of chicken meat (transformed) were produced and sold by 760 farms. For the whole of Canada, we're talking about 2,2 billion pounds of chicken last year, with a total of 2806 farms. And we're only the tenth biggest consumer of chicken per capita. I wasn't too far off with my previous estimate.

So yeah, either we come up with synthetic meat, or we cut down on consumption if we wish to ever have a realistic localised farming industry.

GmanPro
10th Apr 2009, 20:53
We're all going to die, our lives are short. That doesn't mean we are not entitled to live a natural life as possible.
Being bred for a certain purpose (to be reared as farmed animals like 'machines') doesn't change an animal’s biological capacity to feel fear and pain, or in any way justifies our reasons for not giving thought to the matter. Yes, their lives are short but only because we make it that way. Their suffering is cruel and not necessary to our survival. That is the point I am trying to share. :)

I could argue that our own lives are just as bad. That we are all born and raised to fit into the mold of society even if we don't want to. But what's the point? "Their suffering is cruel" is a subjective opinion. If we throw them out into the wild, chances are these animals would just starve to death slowly, or get torn apart by other predators. I think I'd rather have a swift death ... but whatever, I'm just arguing here for the sake of argument. I know what you're saying.

K^2
10th Apr 2009, 20:59
Synthetic just about everything is the future. We might use single-celled organisms for synthesis, though. We can already grow muscle fibers from whatever tissue is available. "Vat meat" is a question of profitability right now, not even one of technology.

GmanPro
10th Apr 2009, 21:02
I think synthetic food is good because one could theoretically make it much more healthy, nutritious and even tasty than any natural food. We just need better knowledge of how the tongue/taste buds register taste I suppose. Then we are going to have to figure out what to do with all the farm animals that aren't being eaten anymore...

K^2
10th Apr 2009, 21:14
Tasty, definitely. But the problem with trying to make it more nutritious is that every time in the entire history that somebody came up with a "proper diet" it turned out that it was wrong. Up until very recently, people thought that cholesterol is bad. Now it turns out that you can't survive without cholesterol. It's part of what makes cell membranes elastic. You have to have a certain level of it in foods.

Best bet is to try and grow foods that have nutrition as close to that in nature as possible. Keeping in mind, though, that we've messed up modern food animals pretty badly. Chicken, pork, and beef aren't half as healthy as they should be because of all the drugs and hormones given to the animals. Goal should be to try to get as close to animal in nature as possible. That's what our digestive and metabolic systems have adjusted to over tens of thousands of years.

By the way, we do know pretty well how the taste buds work. It's just that everything we've synthesized so far to stimulate proper sets of them has not been very healthy. But progress is being made in that direction, so I'm sure we'll have good healthy foods with engineered taste soon enough.

Edit: Main reason for vat growing is because vats are stackable. You can have huge farms that take up very little land area. Then it becomes a problem of energetics. We'll need hydrogen fusion soon.

TrickyVein
10th Apr 2009, 21:28
Here's how I see it. Humans, as a species, consume far too much. We take and give nothing back. We only foul and pollute. We cannot continue on our present course. Sure, you can say "I don't care, let's watch the world burn." That is your subjective opinion.

Well, my subjective opinion is that I value life and as far as we know, THIS IS IT for all life in the universe, right here, right now on this third rock from the sun.

I am not against eating meat completely- only eating far less of it. The same goes for all food. The same goes for all energy that we use. Humans consume some 20% of all of the products of photosynthesis planet wide (learned that from my JHU bio professor!) We are not even the most numerous species. To me that is a sickeningly huge number.

GmanPro
10th Apr 2009, 21:36
Ok well where exactly do you draw the line then? Is it wrong that we fell trees to build our homes, or that we bore massive holes into the side of Earth to mine precious rocks and metals? What the hell is the point of life if we are just going to lie down and do nothing? Why don't we just kill off half of the human population then? That's one sure-fire way to reduce our "consumption".

If it ever gets ^^ that bad, trust me, I'd be the first to volunteer to kill myself because that is not a world I want to live in.

K^2
10th Apr 2009, 22:25
Here's how I see it. Humans, as a species, consume far too much. We take and give nothing back. We only foul and pollute. We cannot continue on our present course. Sure, you can say "I don't care, let's watch the world burn." That is your subjective opinion.

Well, my subjective opinion is that I value life and as far as we know, THIS IS IT for all life in the universe, right here, right now on this third rock from the sun.

I am not against eating meat completely- only eating far less of it. The same goes for all food. The same goes for all energy that we use. Humans consume some 20% of all of the products of photosynthesis planet wide (learned that from my JHU bio professor!) We are not even the most numerous species. To me that is a sickeningly huge number.

So? Purpose of life is to replicate and spread. Survival of the species outweighs survival of individual. Survival of life outweighs survival of a species. This planet is doomed to destruction in 5 billion years at the most. There is no way to avoid that. Sun will become a Red Giant and consume this planet.

Human kind is the most adaptable species. It has a chance to leave the planet and spread beyond the Solar System, ensuring survival of Terrestrial life beyond that. This should be our goal, and if we move towards that goal, all other life may burn. As long as Humans survive, we have achieved the reason for our existence, which is to outlast this planet.

GmanPro
11th Apr 2009, 00:00
^^ That's how I feel too. :thumb:

TrickyVein
11th Apr 2009, 00:15
Human kind is the most adaptable species. It has a chance to leave the planet and spread beyond the Solar System, ensuring survival of Terrestrial life beyond that. This should be our goal, and if we move towards that goal, all other life may burn. As long as Humans survive, we have achieved the reason for our existence, which is to outlast this planet.

I wholeheartedly agree. I also think that such goals are currently unattainable at such present rates of consumption of irreplaceable natural resources. What most people like to fall back on is exactly what gman pro said above, "where do we draw the line?" It's a tough and very gray issue that people don't want to have to deal with. Compromise and cutting back is unattractive and dare I say...hard. But it's not a black and white, care/don't care oh god life is pointless kind of argument as many are so quick to point out. Of course our purpose and goal as a civilization/species is to grow and expand and of course this means using and manipulating the environment to our advantage. But not destroying it, not depleting it. That is the difference, in how we choose to manage the resources we have so that we may all live farther into the future.

iWait
11th Apr 2009, 03:46
Yes, seal hunting has its purpose - we are talking about general survival in most cases.
I absolutely agree that there is no excuse that many starve to death on this Earth. We ALL (nations) need to learn to manage resources better than we currently do. Lets face it, we have enough land and intelligence (you'd of thought...) to ensure that nobody needs to go hungry in this world.

So you want a sort of "unified committee" of nations controlling worldwide food supply?


I don't think it is unrealistic for urban habitats/communities - all are surrounded by rural countryside. We just need to de-centralise and go back to local supply. We've since lost the community-based system... but it can return.


Here you want the food to be supplied on a local scale, correct?
So each community would need X amount of farmers producing Y amount of food in relation to the amount of people in the community as a whole?







Of course our purpose and goal as a civilization/species is to grow and expand and of course this means using and manipulating the environment to our advantage. But not destroying it, not depleting it. That is the difference, in how we choose to manage the resources we have so that we may all live farther into the future.

We don't destroy or deplete the planet's resources. If I were to eat every cow on Earth, would that mean that the Earth has no more cows? Yes.
However, it doesn't mean that the cows were destroyed. Their components are still there, just in a different form. Since that is true, Earth lost nothing, except a form of existence for the matter/energy.

Necros
11th Apr 2009, 06:55
First of all: About saving the planet. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw) :thumb: George Carlin speaks the truth, like always. :cool:

It isn't nice, I agree. Not to make it less of an issue, but the number of seals culled in this short hunting season is tiny compared to the amount of factory-farmed animals slaughtered every day. Farmed animals are the most exploited and least protected group of animals in the world. 27 million are killed in the United States alone each day, nearly 19,000 per minute – equating to a tragic total of 10 billion animals per year.
I say again, these animals only exist because of us. If we didn't need them for food, they would not exist. So I don't really care about these numbers. I do care about the way they are killed because making them suffer needlessly is just wrong. But usually they are killed humanely, I think.

But not destroying it, not depleting it. That is the difference, in how we choose to manage the resources we have so that we may all live farther into the future.
There are other resources too, that we could use. The problem is, big companies don't allow researching these because that would mean the end of the usage of oil and gas, maybe even nuclear power. Though in a few years they will have to consider other resources, but I bet they'll try to make profit out of them too, so it will cost us a lot, again.

as far as we know, THIS IS IT for all life in the universe, right here, right now on this third rock from the sun.
:lol: You can not be serious.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
11th Apr 2009, 09:52
Oooh, lots to catch up on! :eek:


I could argue that our own lives are just as bad. That we are all born and raised to fit into the mold of society even if we don't want to. But what's the point? "Their suffering is cruel" is a subjective opinion. If we throw them out into the wild, chances are these animals would just starve to death slowly, or get torn apart by other predators. I think I'd rather have a swift death ... but whatever, I'm just arguing here for the sake of argument. I know what you're saying.

Sure. we are not arguing though... just sharing opinions. :)
Regarding our own lives. If you were contained in a metal crate, unable to exercise, turn around or carry out the most basic experience of 'living', would you consider that a fair molding of society? Short of human-eating aliens invading the Earth, we may never find ourselves in this situation. However, there are many human-beings who suffer under different forms of slavery - they probably have a better idea of what its like, how it 'feels'. This debate isn't just centred around what we eat, but really about freedom and the basic right to live a life as nature intended - AND this debate questions our understanding of the emotions of all sentient beings.

As for the comment about throwing them out into the wild etc, at least they have their freedom and can engage in natural activities, yeah? The fact that they might suffer in the wild is no reason to justify that they suffer in captivity. This isn't the issue anyway... I didn't say we must release them all into the wild - only that we should stop continuing to condemn those animals to factory farms in the first place, treating them like machines is immoral, imo.
Having said that though, I have heard of animals that have been rescued/released and do indeed learn to engage in natural instincts to ensure their survival. Instincts are not lost to them, they are always there. This would explain why many animals in unnatural captivity display emotions of frustration and psychological disorders (zoo/circus animals included). You and I would act exactly the same in such conditions... does that say anything to you?



Here's how I see it. Humans, as a species, consume far too much. We take and give nothing back. We only foul and pollute. We cannot continue on our present course. Sure, you can say "I don't care, let's watch the world burn." That is your subjective opinion.

Well, my subjective opinion is that I value life and as far as we know, THIS IS IT for all life in the universe, right here, right now on this third rock from the sun.

I am not against eating meat completely- only eating far less of it. The same goes for all food. The same goes for all energy that we use. Humans consume some 20% of all of the products of photosynthesis planet wide (learned that from my JHU bio professor!) We are not even the most numerous species. To me that is a sickeningly huge number.

Absolutely. We are extremely greedy and wasteful.
A good compromise is to eat far less meat - ie. a vegetarian/synthetic future. That would mean the demise of factory-farms. Its a good start. :thumb:



Ok well where exactly do you draw the line then? Is it wrong that we fell trees to build our homes, or that we bore massive holes into the side of Earth to mine precious rocks and metals? What the hell is the point of life if we are just going to lie down and do nothing? Why don't we just kill off half of the human population then? That's one sure-fire way to reduce our "consumption".


We draw the line where we can acknowledge that we've gone too far down the wrong road. That makes us more intelligent as a species, to realise that its all about managing things better and to focus on our needs, rather than our wants. To me, the point of life isn't to use and abuse, to take and never give back. It isn't about the materialistic.
To suggest killing off half the human population to reduce consumption is a bit off-track. Do you not consider us intelligent enough to be able to devise better ways of doing things? Your suggestion implies that we cannot. That we must continue on our present course and just hope it all works out in the end? To illustrate about management of resources, in a nutshell (excuse the pun) let me quote George B Shaw: "Think of the fierce energy concentrated in an acorn! You bury it in the ground, and it explodes into an oak! Bury a sheep, and nothing happens but decay."



First of all: About saving the planet. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw) :thumb: George Carlin speaks the truth, like always. :cool:
I say again, these animals only exist because of us. If we didn't need them for food, they would not exist. So I don't really care about these numbers. I do care about the way they are killed because making them suffer needlessly is just wrong. But usually they are killed humanely, I think.

George Carlin is funny and I agree with much of what he says. Its the Gaia Theory - Earth can look after itself, it is US who are in danger. :thumb:

No, animals are not killed humanely. You can read reports online of ex-slaughter house workers. I won't bother to quote...
Still, it isn't how they die that is the main problem - its how they live. :(



So? Purpose of life is to replicate and spread. Survival of the species outweighs survival of individual. Survival of life outweighs survival of a species. This planet is doomed to destruction in 5 billion years at the most. There is no way to avoid that. Sun will become a Red Giant and consume this planet.
Human kind is the most adaptable species. It has a chance to leave the planet and spread beyond the Solar System, ensuring survival of Terrestrial life beyond that. This should be our goal, and if we move towards that goal, all other life may burn. As long as Humans survive, we have achieved the reason for our existence, which is to outlast this planet.

Yes, we know the basic principle is to replicate and spread, survival of the species and everything else you say. However, that suggests nothing more for us, just living and dieing, in an endless cycle. Sure, that would sum up the very basics of living. But I like to think there is more to it all than just birth and death. What about how we think? How we conduct ourselves? The evolution of the'spirit' of what represents the highest ethics of a human being, if you like. We have a brain. I think, therefore I am, etc. Shouldn't we use it? Such things as spirituality are more important to me - it means my life has more meaning to it than what you propose.



I wholeheartedly agree. I also think that such goals are currently unattainable at such present rates of consumption of irreplaceable natural resources. What most people like to fall back on is exactly what gman pro said above, "where do we draw the line?" It's a tough and very gray issue that people don't want to have to deal with. Compromise and cutting back is unattractive and dare I say...hard. But it's not a black and white, care/don't care oh god life is pointless kind of argument as many are so quick to point out. Of course our purpose and goal as a civilization/species is to grow and expand and of course this means using and manipulating the environment to our advantage. But not destroying it, not depleting it. That is the difference, in how we choose to manage the resources we have so that we may all live farther into the future.

Yes, and we shouldn't forget that we rely on this planet to survive, its not the other way around. Einstein said, and I agree: "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." So, while we remain on this planet, we need to ensure that we are doing things right for the benefit of future generations.



So you want a sort of "unified committee" of nations controlling worldwide food supply?
Here you want the food to be supplied on a local scale, correct?
So each community would need X amount of farmers producing Y amount of food in relation to the amount of people in the community as a whole?


I would like to see a 'One World' approach to food supply, yes. There is no excuse that humans starve to death on one side of the planet, yet the other side enjoys utter greed and waste. :(
Ideally, I would like to see a smaller, community based system, yes. Not just for farm produce, but for other commodities like energy.

Necros
11th Apr 2009, 11:58
No, animals are not killed humanely. You can read reports online of ex-slaughter house workers. I won't bother to quote...
I know about those too but that is not the norm, as far as I know.

Still, it isn't how they die that is the main problem - its how they live. :(
Well, they are born for this one purpose and don't know a different life. They are like other chickens, cows and whatever but I just can't feel as sorry for them as the baby seals for example or other hunted animals.

TrickyVein
11th Apr 2009, 14:56
So, why do we not care for the animals that we factory farm - because they aren't cute enough, or aren't higher up on the scale of sentient beings to be worth anything? This is thinking from the Victorian era. It is outdated and flawed. Why we should choose to domesticate dogs/cats and carelessly slaughter pigs/chickens and then justify it by saying "they were born for it" I don't know. This is not good reasoning to me. Furthermore, as has been stated, it's not a matter of whether or not the chicken has a soul or if it thinks. It's a matter of whether or not it suffers.

As is, you recognize the suffering and say, "I don't care", but If you or anyone else had a choice, wouldn't you want to inflict the least amount of suffering on other beings as possible? Perhaps I am wrong. There are nasty, ignorant, and downright spiteful people in the world who would gladly.

Ninjerk
11th Apr 2009, 15:55
cate and spread, survival of the species and everything else you say. However, that suggests nothing more for us, just living and dieing, in an endless cycle. Sure, that would sum up the very basics of living. But I like to think there is more to it all than just birth and death. What about how we think? How we conduct ourselves? The evolution of the'spirit' of what represents the highest ethics of a human being, if you like. We have a brain. I think, therefore I am, etc. Shouldn't we use it? Such things as spirituality are more important to me - it means my life has more meaning to it than what you propose.


The problem you cite sounds more like a personal one. By the time mankind is truly living independently "among the stars" any contribution you or I leave will more than likely be irrelevant.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
11th Apr 2009, 16:51
I know about those too but that is not the norm, as far as I know.

Well, they are born for this one purpose and don't know a different life.

They are like other chickens, cows and whatever but I just can't feel as sorry for them as the baby seals for example or other hunted animals.

As for 'norm', I'm sure the meat-industry will tell you so. 'Humanely killed' is a bit of a paradox - unless, of course, you consider being stunned by electricity humane? It is only paralysis, not instantaneous death. Electrical stimulation is painful, ask any human who has been tortured using such a method. Animals are slaughtered in a standard manner, rapidly via assembly line. The reality is that the majority of animals on this line are skinned and gutted when still alive and conscious. I'm not going to go into further detail, its all out there for anyone who cares to find it... and a lot more besides.

Now there lies the issue for me. Born for this one purpose? I have to disagree... to be a machine? This is such a common response to the situation. :(
If they don't know a different life - that is our doing, not theirs. Animals do not exist for us to abuse them, no.

Well, yes, that's a normal if not common response. Animals that are cute 'n' furry attract our attention and sympathy much more than a cow, a pig or a chicken might. But make no mistake, all animals feel pain and suffering - and also fear and terror, as well as love and affection. Their emotions and senses are the same as ours. If you are a pet-owner, you'll know Know what I'm saying. So, knowing this, do not cows, chickens and pigs deserve equal consideration? Is it their fault that they are not cute and cuddly to look at? Though, in fairness, they are very cute when they are babies... but we forget things like this. They can't speak out in our language and tell you how they suffer - only we can do that for them, through our own compassion and awareness. We have to understand we are not the only beings on this planet with personalities and minds.


The problem you cite sounds more like a personal one. By the time mankind is truly living independently "among the stars" any contribution you or I leave will more than likely be irrelevant.

Not a problem, a personal aspiration, yes. But not just for me, but for my children... and their children. This can never be irrelevant. I'd rather live my life with eyes wide open, and my mind aware. That way, I know that the decisions I make are the right ones for me (and them) right NOW. We are talking about now, after all. As to the future, we shouldn't dismiss it as if it doesn't matter because we won't be alive then, or will be living among the stars, as you say. Will humans be eating animals in that future time in space? I doubt it. The world and our future are interconnected, and it will never change for the better until enough people envision a brighter future, imo.

K^2
11th Apr 2009, 16:53
Purpose of a brain is to predict future. It is there to allow humans a better chance to leave offspring. Since it evolved under pressures of natural selection, that's the only reason for it to be there.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
11th Apr 2009, 17:02
Purpose of a brain is to predict future. It is there to allow humans a better chance to leave offspring. Since it evolved under pressures of natural selection, that's the only reason for it to be there.

Purpose of a brain is to think, no?

So, if it is to predict the future... what do you predict with regard to population and food supply? Is factory-farming still the right answer?

And what of how we conduct our lives? Our morals and ethics? Our spirituality and our philosophy? You seem to just consider only the basic function of the brain with regard to biology and not anything else? I find this perplexing... tell me more please, it is difficult for me to understand on a personal level.

K^2
11th Apr 2009, 17:13
Thought, philosophy, and so on, are just side effects of the way in which the brain works. Its function is still to simply get you to reproduce, as is the function of anything in your body.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
11th Apr 2009, 17:28
Thought, philosophy, and so on, are just side effects of the way in which the brain works. Its function is still to simply get you to reproduce, as is the function of anything in your body.

Sure, but reproduction is only ONE function, surely all the other functions are just as important, if not more? How would we learn and discover/use technology etc if it were not for the importance of analysis of self and our environment? Thought, philosophy, morals etc are not 'side-effects' to me. They make up the main parts of our personality, don't they?

Still, how does all this relate to a meatless future? :)

Spyhopping
11th Apr 2009, 17:37
Reproduction is just what everything rich about our lives 'leads to'. It's the sort of ultimate function, even if it is just one on it's own.
There's pleanty of thinkers out there believe that the size and complexity of our brain was driven by sexual selection, like a peacocks tail.

TrickyVein
11th Apr 2009, 17:48
Thought, philosophy, and so on, are just side effects of the way in which the brain works. Its function is still to simply get you to reproduce, as is the function of anything in your body.

True. This does not mean that we have an obligation to follow it. On a biological level we are no different than any other bag of organic matter passing on genes to the next generation, and the brain's purpose is to maximize our chances of doing just that. Regardless of where our "humanity" has come from, we have it (supposedly), and we can't just ignore it by deeming it a superfluous byproduct of evolution.

Using the products of civilization (language, reason) to argue away civilization always puzzles me.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
11th Apr 2009, 17:50
Reproduction is just what everything rich about our lives 'leads to'. It's the sort of ultimate function, even if it is just one on it's own.
There's pleanty of thinkers out there believe that the size and complexity of our brain was driven by sexual selection, like a peacocks tail.

Yes, of course. I know of the biological history of the brain and our evolution. Its just that the brain has since progressed from its 'ultimate' function of reproduction, no? The complexity of our thoughts are greater now than they were at the start.

Spyhopping
11th Apr 2009, 18:16
Ah sorry I wasn't being clear. What I meant was that the higher functions of our current brains- art, music etc are considered by some to be have been driven by sexual selection. In other words, our large brains are thought to have evolved in order to produce 'ornaments' for display(art, music), like the peacocks tail. To be honest I was never entirely convinced as such evolutionary theories will always be just that- theories. They can't be tested.

But these theorists do put up a compelling argument. One chap in particular wrote about it in 'the mating mind'. Miller, I think his name was.

PlasmaSnake101
11th Apr 2009, 21:16
I think vegetarianism would have been enforced by DX world governments who realised that to feed the world, animal produce was no longer feasible. Animal produce was once good for creating monetary profit, yes, but now no longer beneficial in feeding the world - poor health, famine and hunger negating any profit therein. It is a hard fact that land is more productive when used to grow grain and not to rear animals.


The World Government would be restricting the rights of people to rear animals. I don't see how you can miss the blatant civil rights being compromised there. A man can own land, like a farm, by making said land profitable. A man can own animals by domesticating them. He labored to make the land and animals profitable resources. Now, the man can breed said animals and sell them to other people for sustenance.

These are basic rights to property and I think it would be a great way to show the tyranny of a global government by not allowing people to do what they like. The good of society would be there feigned reason of course. The reason nations go starving is because of civil unrest and foreign aid. Think about it, if you were a farmer would it be profitable to work at making the land useful if other nations are flooding the market with free food? Of course not. Also, could we still use animals for scientific experimentation? Because progress in medicinal healing would come to a halt increasing human suffering. So much for your ethical reasoning.

I personally don’t like the idea of government telling people how to live their lives. And what if the pastoral tribes, will the government make them give up their way of life? The whole think reeks, I love the conspiracies that could come out of this.


Deus Ex is about choices, let us choose if we will eat meat of not. Don't force it on use, or you become nothing more than a tyrant.

K^2
11th Apr 2009, 21:31
Sure, but reproduction is only ONE function, surely all the other functions are just as important, if not more?
No. Reproduction is the only important function of any living organism. All other functions are there only to facilitate it.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
11th Apr 2009, 23:55
The World Government would be restricting the rights of people to rear animals. I don't see how you can miss the blatant civil rights being compromised there. A man can own land, like a farm, by making said land profitable. A man can own animals by domesticating them. He labored to make the land and animals profitable resources. Now, the man can breed said animals and sell them to other people for sustenance.
These are basic rights to property and I think it would be a great way to show the tyranny of a global government by not allowing people to do what they like. The good of society would be there feigned reason of course. The reason nations go starving is because of civil unrest and foreign aid. Think about it, if you were a farmer would it be profitable to work at making the land useful if other nations are flooding the market with free food? Of course not. Also, could we still use animals for scientific experimentation? Because progress in medicinal healing would come to a halt increasing human suffering. So much for your ethical reasoning.

I personally don’t like the idea of government telling people how to live their lives. And what if the pastoral tribes, will the government make them give up their way of life? The whole think reeks, I love the conspiracies that could come out of this.
Deus Ex is about choices, let us choose if we will eat meat of not. Don't force it on use, or you become nothing more than a tyrant.

That is an earlier quote that discusses the hypothetical DX world, in relation to the fact that the main food item in the original game is the humble Soy Pack. But I'm still happy to respond to your comments and the first thing I will answer is the rights to rear animals etc. Obviously, I agree that the (original) reason is to i) provide oneself with meat for food and ii) to obtain profit from selling surplus meat. Ideal on a small-scale, no problems there - just as it used to be, and in the case of pastoral tribes, still is and most likely will remain so.

But the discussion has since progressed and today we have factory-farming which really only profits the mega-corporations and not the common man working his plot of land. In the DX world, I've suggested that we must consider the ecological changes (human population and sustainability of the environment etc) so, with this hypothesis, it isn't a blatant civil rights compromise by a World Government, but more of necessity for human survival. In order to feed the whole world, there is movement away from rearing livestock to growing crops instead. This would make sense today, let alone in the future. As for your reasons why some nations go starving is because of civil unrest and foreign aid - this represents only a small part of the problem. Its really about a combination of environmental factors, poverty, unequal sharing, avoidable waste and growing the wrong crops (cash crops: tobacco, tea and coffee) etc.

Yes, Deus Ex is about choices... but in DX1, you had the Soy Pack and not a piece of flesh, and that suggests to me that there was thought by the dev team along the lines of a vegetarian diet in the future, as thread title suggests/asks.

Oh, and regarding animal experiments... what has this to do with my own ethical reasoning (unless you used 'your' in the plural sense)? You have not heard my comments from me on this matter as it is a another subject which has not been discussed here. Please feel free to make a new thread about it, and I'll join in. :)


No. Reproduction is the only important function of any living organism. All other functions are there only to facilitate it.

I understand your black and white approach to the 'only important' purpose of the brain. But apart from that, it is a complex organ that gives us many other capacities, agree? The capacity for rational thought, language, moral judgements etc is what is relevant to this particular discussion.

PlasmaSnake101
12th Apr 2009, 00:34
But the discussion has since progressed and today we have factory-farming which really only profits the mega-corporations and not the common man working his plot of land. In the DX world, I've suggested that we must consider the ecological changes (human population and sustainability of the environment etc) so, with this hypothesis, it isn't a blatant civil rights compromise by a World Government, but more of necessity for human survival. In order to feed the whole world, there is movement away from rearing livestock to growing crops instead.



You say mega-corporation as if it is a sentient entity, with the sole purpose of screwing the little man to make profits for a select few.

There are still men and women working for this mega-corporation, all these people receive a wage for there work. Also, mass farming, which you seem to have your major gripe against, helps feed poorer people. If there were not so many animals being converted(butchered) into food than the price of meat would sky rocket and only the rich would be able to afford it. This is a massive step backwards.

I do not see "human survival" as a massive risk, nor do I believe it could be increased if we put an end to eating meat. Maybe if there weren't so many government regulations on GE crops we could make some progress.

A while ago the US offered a lot of Genetically Engineered corn to an impoverished nation. Green Peace told the leaders of the nation the food was poisonous and the nation would not take the food.

I think technology could make crop yielding more efficient and if we shared this technology with other nations then they to could have a food surplus.

Lets leave the solution to free market capitalism. They have a good track record for expanding industry, lets just hope they don't create any bubbles(due to an excess of government regulation).

Lady_Of_The_Vine
12th Apr 2009, 09:56
Not "sentient entities", but their sole purpose IS to make profit and, yes, for a select few. That's what factory-farming is all about - more profit and less running costs. The factory farm has not benefitted the little man in any way whatsoever. Sure, a few men and women work in factory farms... but far less than if we were talking a "normal" farm. Everything is automated. A number of small family farmers in counties and states in the US have taken action to stop the spread of factory farms. Nine states passed actually passed LAWS restricting corporate control over farming operations. Nebraska even went so far as to amend their Constitution to prohibit such ownership! Minnesota has instituted pollution standards aimed at factory farms. And more recently in Oregon, citizen pressure led state officials to require public hearings on new factory farms, and make previously secret documents on livestock facilities available to the public. I could go on but I won't - but hopefully you understand that factory farms are not good for animals OR people.

As for your efforts to justify factory farming because it 'feeds poorer people', this is nonsense. Factory farms exist in developed nations, not underdeveloped ones. These farms don't exist to solve a problem of food shortage... but really to keep up with over-demand and to ensure high financial profits for the megacorp. Cue your KFC and burger establishments. As for peoples' wages, as factory farms employ so few, it really isn't a matter of giving lots of people a livelihood.

I am not sure of the particular circumstances you talk about with regard to Greenpeace but I should imagine it is one of genetic pollution. Their overall policy on GE crops is an important one and brought about because of the secrecy behind many current operations. GMOs can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms, contaminating natural environments and future generations in an unforeseeable and uncontrollable way. Rice is particularly at risk. This 'genetic pollution' is a major threat because GMOs cannot be recalled once released into the environment. Because of commercial interests, the public is being denied the right to know about GE ingredients in the food chain, and therefore losing the right to avoid them despite the presence of labelling laws in certain countries. So, in other words, you can't always trust what megacorps would like to do with technology.
Technology might make crop-yielding more efficient, yes. But we need to carry out a lot more testing first.

Irate_Iguana
12th Apr 2009, 14:36
Their overall policy on GE crops is an important one and brought about because of the secrecy behind many current operations.

From the standpoint of the corporations there is a good reason for the secrecy. It is to protect the information regarding certain strains of GE crops. There is no way to actually patent an organism so it is pretty hard to protect your information without total secrecy.


GMOs can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms, contaminating natural environments and future generations in an unforeseeable and uncontrollable way.

They can. There is also considerable work being done on an organism to make sure that the possibility of this happening is as low as possible. There is a plethora of rules, regulations and checks by many government agencies before any type of field experiment is even allowed. Let alone before something is classified as fit for human consumption. There is still an aura of fear when it comes to GMO's. Something most organizations against the use of them in farming foster and perpetuate. Scaring the public is still seen as an effective way of making sure that tests on GE crops will be scrapped.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
12th Apr 2009, 14:47
From the standpoint of the corporations there is a good reason for the secrecy. It is to protect the information regarding certain strains of GE crops. There is no way to actually patent an organism so it is pretty hard to protect your information without total secrecy.

They can. There is also considerable work being done on an organism to make sure that the possibility of this happening is as low as possible. There is a plethora of rules, regulations and checks by many government agencies before any type of field experiment is even allowed. Let alone before something is classified as fit for human consumption. There is still an aura of fear when it comes to GMO's. Something most organizations against the use of them in farming foster and perpetuate. Scaring the public is still seen as an effective way of making sure that tests on GE crops will be scrapped.
Secrecy has its positive and negative sides, true. But they can keep their patent secrets... this isn't what the general public require, its all the other secrets we have a right to know, yes?
It isn't all about scaremongery, its about knowing what is going on and to make sure that the results are conclusive as "100% safe to use". We are being kept in the dark about everything, that is the problem.

crimethinker
17th Apr 2009, 01:30
PlasmaSnake101, from your earlier post, I must assume that you are Rush Limbaugh.

I'll only rebut the points that haven't yet been rebutted:


If there were not so many animals being converted(butchered) into food than the price of meat would sky rocket and only the rich would be able to afford it. This is a massive step backwards.

Er... unless you're trying to make the point that meat is a necessary part of the human diet (in which case, millions of vegetarians will laugh at you), then no backwards steps are being undertaken. To me, it simply looks like economics. Please explain.


Maybe if there weren't so many government regulations on GE crops we could make some progress.

How would you like it if you ate food made from GE crops for ten/twenty years, then discovered that our genetic engineering made the food 'naturally' grow carcinogens? (In case you didn't know, a carcinogen is basically a compound that gives you cancer.) The regulations are there to stop such things from happening. Unfortunately, they also stop many other (perfectly safe) varieties of foods from getting to market, but that's often an acceptable price to pay. Why eat potentially unsafe foodstuffs when you can get totally safe ones for the same price?


Lets leave the solution to free market capitalism. They have a good track record for expanding industry, lets just hope they don't create any bubbles(due to an excess of government regulation).

OMFG!

Firstly, free market capitalism might expand industry, but that isn't necessarily a good thing for anyone but the best capitalists. The workers often end up with bad wages and terrible working conditions, the consumers often end up with piss-poor products, and the lower classes of local (or even foreign!) societies often end up with all the generated pollution on their doorstep.

Secondly, bubbles are not exclusively created by government regulation! I cannot stress this point enough, you rabid American conservative!*

Think of it this way: You're a capitalist, trying to make money on the markets. Suddenly, one industry becomes extremely profitable (for one reason or another). You do what any money-chaser would do, and invest in this industry, in whatever businesses seem best. However, one million other capitalists do exactly the same thing at the same time. Suddenly, there are thousands of well-funded businesses, most of whom are almost identical in operation, and they provide far more business than the consumers could possibly need! So the best of them provide the necessary services/products, and the rest of them go under, despite not being particularly bad businesses.

And THAT is the growth and burst of a bubble. Notice how it absolutely does NOT depend on any government regulation. Such a thing happened with the dot-com boom of the 90s. Quite simply, internet technology was finally getting to be good enough to enable widespread use of instantaneous online money transactions with adequate customer protection; everyone wanted such transactions to be possible, so everyone invested in internet businesses. The rest is history.

I'll attempt to keep my post somewhat on-topic, by saying: I eat meat in at least 2 meals a day, and love it. Not only am I aware of the suffering that animals experience before, during, and (arguably) after death, but I have been the administrator of said suffering, since I have shot and eaten my own food. I've only ever shot rabbits, and since I'm a good shot, I've been very careful to shoot them in the head at all possible occasions. The theory is that if their brains are destroyed, they can't feel pain.

Oh, and MyImmortal: Your vision of people moving away from farming livestock might possibly occur from economic reasons only: Humans supersaturate the planet; capitalists move to create food in the most profit-producing way possible, which is feeding most (NOT all!) people; it becomes too space-consuming to farm cattle, since farming soy on the same tract of land earns more profit; and meat is consigned to being the unheard-of delicacy of the rich...

HOWEVER, FAILING HUMAN SUPERSATURATION, ANYTHING ELSE WOULD EITHER BE AN INFRINGEMENT OF PEOPLE'S RIGHTS TO FARM LIVESTOCK FOR PROFIT, OR WOULD BE AN ARTIFICIAL OBSTACLE TO FREE MARKETS ABOUT AS SUCCESSFUL AS THE PROHIBITION FROM 1919-1933 IN THE USA.

Furthermore:



Ok well where exactly do you draw the line then? Is it wrong that we fell trees to build our homes, or that we bore massive holes into the side of Earth to mine precious rocks and metals? What the hell is the point of life if we are just going to lie down and do nothing? Why don't we just kill off half of the human population then? That's one sure-fire way to reduce our "consumption".
We draw the line where we can acknowledge that we've gone too far down the wrong road.

You, and everyone else, have totally failed to define what 'too far' is. That's the crux, and the interesting part, of this discussion.

*I call you an American conservative not necessarily because you are American, but because you are a froth-mouthed conservative who espouses the rights of rich people over poor people. A cursory glance around the world is enough to see that the most conservative Conservatives in the world are the American Conservatives (aka the Republican Party).

GmanPro
17th Apr 2009, 01:43
^^ Use PM's if you want to discuss politics/economics please. Or make a thread about it.

PlasmaSnake101
17th Apr 2009, 18:43
Not "sentient entities", but their sole purpose IS to make profit and, yes, for a select few. That's what factory-farming is all about - more profit and less running costs. The factory farm has not benefitted the little man in any way whatsoever. Sure, a few men and women work in factory farms... but far less than if we were talking a "normal" farm. Everything is automated. A number of small family farmers in counties and states in the US have taken action to stop the spread of factory farms. Nine states passed actually passed LAWS restricting corporate control over farming operations. Nebraska even went so far as to amend their Constitution to prohibit such ownership! Minnesota has instituted pollution standards aimed at factory farms. And more recently in Oregon, citizen pressure led state officials to require public hearings on new factory farms, and make previously secret documents on livestock facilities available to the public. I could go on but I won't - but hopefully you understand that factory farms are not good for animals OR people.


This is just another example of the problems with democracy, or mob rule. Those states are conflicting with the rights of people to run there business. They won't let group A do something because group B says they ought not to. Personal liberties are being trampled for the sake of the "common good." But think about how many people buy meat from factory farms. These farms make the price of meat cheaper, allowing the poor to get a set amount of protein in there diet. Poor people still live in this developed nation. What undeveloped nations do doesn't really concern me and is not the focus of my response. But if these undeveloped nations began to industrialize then they wouldn't have as many problems as they do now, as far as famine goes, would they?

"That's what factory-farming is all about - more profit and less running costs."
Any real business man will tell you thats what running a business is all about. More profit and less running up costs is just how it's done, you wouldn't stay in business too long if you made no profit and ran up the costs of production.

Factory farming allows the market to be stocked with a surplus of meat, this makes the product abundant and subsequently affordable.

PlasmaSnake101
17th Apr 2009, 19:43
PlasmaSnake101, from your earlier post, I must assume that you are Rush Limbaugh.

OMFG!

Firstly, free market capitalism might expand industry, but that isn't necessarily a good thing for anyone but the best capitalists. The workers often end up with bad wages and terrible working conditions, the consumers often end up with piss-poor products, and the lower classes of local (or even foreign!) societies often end up with all the generated pollution on their doorstep.

Secondly, bubbles are not exclusively created by government regulation! I cannot stress this point enough, you rabid American conservative!*

Think of it this way: You're a capitalist, trying to make money on the markets. Suddenly, one industry becomes extremely profitable (for one reason or another). You do what any money-chaser would do, and invest in this industry, in whatever businesses seem best. However, one million other capitalists do exactly the same thing at the same time. Suddenly, there are thousands of well-funded businesses, most of whom are almost identical in operation, and they provide far more business than the consumers could possibly need! So the best of them provide the necessary services/products, and the rest of them go under, despite not being particularly bad businesses.

*I call you an American conservative not necessarily because you are American, but because you are a froth-mouthed conservative who espouses the rights of rich people over poor people. A cursory glance around the world is enough to see that the most conservative Conservatives in the world are the American Conservatives (aka the Republican Party).

First off you tool, I don't say the rich have more rights than the poor. Everyone has equal rights to do what they want. I won't structure my politics, which are centered on personal liberties, to be disadvantageous to one group of people. Every one has the right to live, own property, make a profit, and prosper. Sounds like you suffer from the "eat the rich" mentality, when its these productive few who direct operations.

For your bubble mentality lets take the auto credit bubble into question, I was referring to an article from http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz124.html I regularly check that site being the LIBERTARIAN I am. Not a republican, they are as pro market as the democrats.

Also, your example is just one of many cases. This on the auto industry

"Auto manufacturing in America has been subject to an ever-tightening noose of government regulation over the past 30 years, the most onerous being “fleet fuel efficiency standards” which require U.S. manufacturers to make a certain percentage of light, less safe, high-gas-mileage vehicles to which buyers give the cold shoulder (and which can’t be sold for enough to cover inflated union “legacy” labor costs, anyway). The industry tried to hang on by making up profits solely on the bigger, heavier vehicles that U.S. consumers love and our masters in Washington love to hate. To sell more, they offered easier and easier credit. That created a bubble"

And as far as capitalism not working well for the workers, lets compare it to socialism, the runner up on most popular economic systems.
And I think I'll let Ludwig von Mises tackle this one for me.

"The only certain fact about Russian affairs under the Soviet regime with regard to which all people agree is: that the standard of living of the Russian masses is much lower than [...] the paragon of capitalism, the United States of America. If we were to regard the Soviet regime as an experiment, we would have to say that the experiment has clearly demonstrated the superiority of capitalism and the inferiority of socialism."

I want all people to have equal rights.

"When ability becomes a public resource, what will distinguish people will be what they do with it. Intention. Dedication. Integrity. The qualities we would choose as the bedrock of the social order."
-Paul Denton

Lady_Of_The_Vine
17th Apr 2009, 21:15
This is just another example of the problems with democracy, or mob rule. Those states are conflicting with the rights of people to run there business. They won't let group A do something because group B says they ought not to. Personal liberties are being trampled for the sake of the "common good." But think about how many people buy meat from factory farms. These farms make the price of meat cheaper, allowing the poor to get a set amount of protein in there diet. Poor people still live in this developed nation. What undeveloped nations do doesn't really concern me and is not the focus of my response. But if these undeveloped nations began to industrialize then they wouldn't have as many problems as they do now, as far as famine goes, would they?

"That's what factory-farming is all about - more profit and less running costs."
Any real business man will tell you thats what running a business is all about. More profit and less running up costs is just how it's done, you wouldn't stay in business too long if you made no profit and ran up the costs of production.

Factory farming allows the market to be stocked with a surplus of meat, this makes the product abundant and subsequently affordable.

It isn't mob rule. It is concern for Humanity as a whole and that we ALL benefit from making wise choices, not just the Fat Cats behind the megacorps.

Sure, you get "cheap meat" - but it isn't as simple as that! How you view it is just an 'illusion' because you are not counting all the costs. The UCS reports that factory-farming comes at a much higher price: sewage, contaminated dust and nearly a fifth of all greenhouse gases, and disease. Taxpayers in the US alone spend $4.1 billion cleaning up livestock sewage leaks and $2.5 billion treating salmonella. The total costs of factory-farming is costing US taxpayers $38 billion a year! :eek: None of these costs are reflected in the retail price of meat. In addition, you get unsanitary conditions which has led to the overuse of antibiotics and to a class of superbugs that are resistant to those same antibiotics. Our health is also a price to pay - corn-based livestock diet makes meat fattier and may have helped some strains of the E.coli bacteria evolve from benign microbe to one of the deadliest pathogens in the food supply. And let us not forget loss of land - another price to pay for your 'cheap meat'. To grow all the grain we now feed our livestock, we've converted much of the US Midwest into a huge corn and soybean plantation.

As said before, it means we just need to cut down on our meat consumption and that isn't something that we cannot do; we just choose not to. :(
Humans are a little selfish and a little slow to understand the wider implications of our actions. When it comes to food, we're beginning to learn that cheaper is not always better.


Any real business man will tell you thats what running a business is all about. More profit and less running up costs is just how it's done, you wouldn't stay in business too long if you made no profit and ran up the costs of production.
As I have explained above, there are other more important costs to consider. A real business man will tell you that you must deduct ALL your costs before you come up with a realistic figure of profit. All I can add is that Humanity won't stay fed too long if we continue to ignore these other costs. We need to work with nature; not against it. In simple terms, when it comes to food, nature provides all we really need.

PlasmaSnake101
17th Apr 2009, 23:05
I'm saying meat consumption won't destroy humanity, you're telling me its about to eliminate mankind. I've read through your posts and it seems like your just a massive environmentalist with a problem with the wealthy. Also, I doubt I'll convert you. But your tax dollar argument is a good point. But once we disestablish the state the companies them selves will be required to ensure they don't pollute(damage the property of others). But I totally agree that the state makes it easier to pollute.

As for your unsanitary condition argument, people say the same thing of agriculture. Agriculture allowed the birth of city life, which led to an increase of disease. Would you go against farming, reduce society to tribes and bands. Industrialized farming has led to a massive boom in population, as I said before, If we were to stop then famine would be rather wide spread.

As for the lose of land, I say who's land. The people who made these massive plantations had turned unproductive land into productive land. They can do what they like, they own it, unless you're against private ownership. Would you slit the throats of those fiends who take food out of starving Ethiopian children's mouths.

Humanity is not at risk, get over it. I can't believe this discussion has reached this point. Sorry if I seem pissed off, but I'm at work and the library is full of bastards.


"It is concern for Humanity as a whole and that we ALL benefit from making wise choices, not just the Fat Cats behind the megacorps. "

We are nothing. Mankind is all. By the grace of our brothers we are allowed our lives. We exist through, by, and for our brothers who are the State. Amen.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
18th Apr 2009, 00:01
Ummm, I think you're straying off topic because you interpret what I say as if there is some dark, political agenda. :(

No, I'm saying that too much meat consumption will eventually cause us problems with food resources, not that it will "eliminate mankind". You also mistake my passion - I am not a massive environmentalist, I just have a common-sense belief that we need to treat the natural world with respect and be intelligent about our decisions, to ensure we all benefit with regard to food supply. Food is a basic need, after all. Neither do I have a problem with the wealthy, you misunderstand again. I have great respect for achievers in life; but I hold more respect for those who wish to 'give back' too.

Your view that factory-farming helps stop famine is incorrect. Firstly, factory farming is a product of richer nations, not poor ones. Livestock production is at the heart of most of the world’s environmental catastrophes, eg. rainforest destruction, global warming, water depletion, spreading desserts, loss of soil fertility, soil erosion, ozone depletion etc. Almost everything that humans currently do is unsustainable. While we send in our money to Ethiopian and other famine appeals, no one makes the case that the west’s "obsession" with meat plays a direct role in starving the world’s poorest people.

Neither am I'm against agriculture in general, I just think it is best 'organic'. The sewerage problem I speak off is because of factory-farming. Animals are contained in warehouse environments and their waste no longer falls on the soil to be dealt with naturally. Instead, you have it retained/collected in huge tanks which must then be 'dumped'. Perhaps you might find this link useful for further information as there is too much information to type up:
http://www.informaction.org/cgi-bin/gPage.pl?menu=menua.txt&main=farmwaste_gen.txt&s=Farm%20Waste

Again, I'm not against private ownership of land at all, I never said I was. And what makes you say that massive plantations growing corn and soybean plantation are from unproductive land? This is not correct, it is productive land. The whole point of me mentioning corn and soybean was to illustrate the fact that this land is used to feed livestock and not people. If it was used to grow crops that feed people, there would be plenty more food for everyone at a much cheaper price than meat is. This is a FACT, and this was what I was trying to explain.


We are nothing. Mankind is all. By the grace of our brothers we are allowed our lives.
We are something. Nature is all and Mankind is connected. By the grace of this Earth we are allowed our lives.

Jerion
18th Apr 2009, 00:25
Ummm, I think you're straying off topic because you interpret what I say as if there is some dark, political agenda. :(


If you think about it, that's not exactly unexpected on this forum of all places. :D

crimethinker
18th Apr 2009, 05:11
First off you tool, I don't say the rich have more rights than the poor. [snipped] Sounds like you suffer from the "eat the rich" mentality, when its these productive few who direct operations.

Er, claim what you want, but the general slant of your posts shows you to be a firm believer in the principle of 'no interference with people's natural ability', which is another way of saying 'the rich and clever will stomp their jackboots on the backs of the poor and stupid, while snorting coke and having sex with trafficked East European prostitutes'.


For your bubble mentality lets take the auto credit bubble into question,

That seems like an excellent example of government regulation THAT HAS GONE HORRIBLY WRONG. It's a 'compromise' between what the environmentalists want (low emissions cars) and what the consumers want (ridiculously oversized cars). If the government was really effective enough to do things properly, they would have either forced all American manufacturers to make only fuel-efficient cars and taxed high-emission imports, or they would have told the environmentalists to bugger off and kept going with high-emission cars. The 'compromise' that has been born out of heavy pressure from both sides of the debate bearing down on the legislature is what has screwed over the industry - not government regulation itself.


And as far as capitalism not working well for the workers, lets compare it to socialism, the runner up on most popular economic systems.

I never said capitalism was even bad, let alone bad enough to warrant replacing it. You just made a classic Straw Man fallacy. In fact, your posts almost read like a list of debating fallacies - accusing MyImmortal of slitting Ethiopeans' throats is the perfect marriage of the argumentum ad misericordiam and ad hominem fallacies.

I honestly can't tell if you're a brainless Republican blowhard, or just a troll. I shall now stop communicating with you.

________

...sorry, I looked for a way to keep my post on-topic, and I simply couldn't find a good way. I guess I could say that, if technology and population growth stay constant for the next fifty years, then reduced land-space will lead to a reduction in meat farming, but otherwise, meat is here to stay, and in a big way.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
18th Apr 2009, 10:35
If you think about it, that's not exactly unexpected on this forum of all places. :D

Of course, dumb me! :mad2: :D

PlasmaSnake101
18th Apr 2009, 18:26
I honestly can't tell if you're a brainless Republican blowhard, or just a troll. I shall now stop communicating with you.


I'm very impressed with you, knowing your fallacies like that, you've proven yourself to be a far too intelligent foe for me to handle.

The "slitting Ethiopeans' throats" is not what I said, which proves your incompetence as a reader. I said slit the throat of factory farmers, but you were right on one thing. That was some old school trolling.

Again, I am NOT a republican, I'm libertarian. You know, anti-state, anti-war, pro-market.

I see nothing wrong with saying "no interference with people's natural ability." I don't know why you would want to limit someones on the basis of their potential, (get ready for the ad hom) perhaps you see yourself as inferior and need the assistance of government to level the playing field. And stop acting like the rich are so bad, I'll admit I'm middle class American but I have no problem with rich folk. If I ever obtain a fortune I hope no one labels me as a monster.

Another thing, all fallacies don't equal bad arguments. If your arguing to stop human suffering and appeal to pity won't really hurt your case.

As for the auto industry, regulations passed by the federal government resulted in a bubble. And action of the government led to an undesirable result. Regulation passed due to environmentalists, but it's the government that enforces these decisions.


Also half serious, half trollin'. But I do put a lot of faith in free market capitalism. And as a reminder, I am not a republican, I'm libertarian.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
18th Apr 2009, 20:38
Also half serious, half trollin'. But I do put a lot of faith in free market capitalism. And as a reminder, I am not a republican, I'm libertarian.

I'm not political at all, so hopefully you can read my opinions in a comfortable manner. :)

Your defence of Capitalism and the free market, especially in the form of "Big Business" (ie factory farms, in this discussion) seems overly simplistic and confused, to me. Capitalism and freedom are not quite the same thing in meaning or in relation to each other. Free markets are a good thing, just as freedom is a good thing - BUT ONLY when it really is free. ;) Factory-farming has destroyed/is still destroying the small landowner and his livelihood. This isn't free-market, its really more like tyranny. Freedom of markets SHOULD mean the freedom of all people, even those of modest means, to operate in that market. Factory farms do not accommodate this ideal; they take over and control. If you are going to extol the virtues of freedom, you should really look further to see if the "free" market has anything of freedom about it.

Factory farms, by their very mechanistic nature, are run by very few people - they are no longer classified as 'farmers', but hired hands. Like the farmed animals themselves, this small pocket of people/ex farmers/landowners have little room (or hope) for movement. This situation is not confined to factory farming either; it is a story repeated in hundreds of businesses. Shopkeepers have been replaced by giant retailers/supermarkets, small manufacturers by vast conglomerates. Every day we see the mergers and mega-mergers and more and more power is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Society is falling into two classes: the "ogliarchs" and the "wage earners", with one class living entirely by the dispensation of the other. We know which one this is. It may be a bountiful dispensation, or not, but it is not freedom. It is a story familiar to many who once worked the soil; the countryside becomes depopulated, its once rich economic and social life gone. The farmer is driven off the land to be piled up in cities. So, yet more examples of how factory-farming is not the Holy Grail of free market values and/or food supply.

PlasmaSnake101
18th Apr 2009, 23:22
People have the freedom to industrialize. Would you stop Ford's assembly line for other primitive means. It's about productivity, who's being the most productive. Those who choose not to industrialize have the right to, but they will eventually be left behind. The entire market cannot cease to function for the few stubborn people who resist developments. The factory farms, who have more consumers, are worth more.

"Free markets are a good thing, just as freedom is a good thing - BUT ONLY when it really is free"

I read this as: Free markets are a good thing, just as freedom is a good thing - BUT ONLY when it is thoroughly regulated by a state, led by men who may or may not have an idea of how the market functions.

It would seem you've mistaken equality for freedom, it's a common mistake. If you have think about it. Equality is not the same thing as freedom.

"Society is falling into two classes: the "ogliarchs" and the "wage earners", with one class living entirely by the dispensation of the other."

Although the oligarchs cannot produce without the wage earners. The oligarchs cannot profit without consumers. Its the consumers who have the final say in the market, and those oligarchs are just as dependent on the wage earners as they are.

Those who over see operations get payed more because there are less people who can do his job. Their actions have the larges effect on the market, this is always going to degenerate down to the pyramid argument. What's important the top or bottom. While the pyramid can not exist without it's base, with out those at top it would be rendered useless until some one could fill the slot.

The rights of all businesses should be respected, even the big ones. Besides government's regulatory burdens usually harm smaller businesses rather then large ones. It's the smaller businesses that cannot bear the weight of these regulatory burdens, but this is off topic.

And you got this wrong: We are something. Nature is all and Mankind is connected. By the grace of this Earth we are allowed our lives.

It should read:
I am something. Mankind is nothing without me. By the grace of my own will I am allowed my life.

The original quote

We are nothing. Mankind is all. By the grace of our brothers we are allowed our lives. We exist through, by, and for our brothers who are the State. Amen.

It's a quote to show the inherent flaws with the "common good" mentality. The "Common good" eventually becomes the good of the state, and in the end undermines individuality.

PlasmaSnake101
18th Apr 2009, 23:30
From the book

Inclined To Liberty: The Futile Attempt to Suppress the Human Spirit

Scroll down a bit to the title above
http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=subject&Id=117


BLAME AND RESENTMENT
BENEATH THIS NOTION OF unfairness and the obligation to right it
are the implications of fault and contempt. There is an unspoken,
but very real, contempt for the rich yacht owner, contempt for the
factory owner, contempt for the executive—in other words, a general
contempt for wealthy people. Today, there is an outpouring of
contempt in the media for the drug companies, the oil companies,
and the Wal-Marts of the world. In a nutshell, each proposition
made at that evening’s dinner painted a picture of a villain, a victim,
and an emancipator—in other words, the rich, the poor, and
the proponent of those propositions (with the help of the State),
respectively.
The message implied in each proposition is not simply that
“the poor are too poor and the rich are too rich.” The very heart
of each of the propositions is that the cause of the poor being too
poor is that the rich are too rich. In one sense, we are told that
the “haves” are at fault for preventing the “have-nots” from gaining
wealth, and, in another sense, that if the “haves” had less, the
“have-nots” would have more by default. The evidence shows
that both these assertions are fallacious.
Expressions such as “filthy rich,” “selfish rich,” and “greedy
rich” exhibit a deeply rooted resentment of the rich. As Robert
Solomon explains, “Through resentment we make it sound as
though we are lucky not to have those things that we want but
don’t have. We feel self-righteous precisely because we are not
rich.” Jean-Paul Sartre said that resentment is an act by which we
escape responsibility for a world that we find too difficult to
accept. Still worse, resentment can give way to schadenfreude—
taking joy in other people’s suffering. This vindictive form of
resentment is revealed in statements such as, “They finally got
what was coming,” relative to the news that someone wealthy has
had a setback.

This is too far off topic so I'll allwo this a few days to set in. Ta-ta.:cool:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
18th Apr 2009, 23:54
This is too far off topic so I'll allwo this a few days to set in. Ta-ta.:cool:

I agree, very off topic again. Ford Motors and all that... :( When you say you read things "like this, or that", it goes off topic because you immediately misinterpret what I am trying to say; instead of just reading what I say.
What I have said has nothing to do with 'stubborn people who resist development'. Simply because not all developments are good ones, you know. When you say that factory farms 'are worth more'... I must ask, worth more to whom?


Although the oligarchs cannot produce without the wage earners. The oligarchs cannot profit without consumers. Its the consumers who have the final say in the market, and those oligarchs are just as dependent on the wage earners as they are.
Factory farms don't thrive solely because of the demand of the "average consumer", they are there to predominantly supply the fast-food chains in the west. Also, oligarchs (factory farm related) are less 'dependent' than the wage earner. More so, as the factory farm becomes further mechanised. The few workers are also easily replaced due to existing high unemployment in the area.

As for your last post about 'resenting the rich' etc, none of it makes sense to me. Very off topic and quite pointless. If you mean my opinions suggest that I have contempt for the wealthy, you are very wrong... and I don't even want to continue discussion about it as it is so irrelevant. You should try to discuss what I have said in relation to factory-farming and not generalise your reply; that way, we could get somewhere.

So, are you for factory-farming and what do you consider are the pros and cons? Do you see future society leaning toward vegetarianism, or not?

PlasmaSnake101
19th Apr 2009, 02:06
I am for rights of private businesses. I won't tell people what they can and cannot do, I have no right to impose my will on others unless through contractual agreement. This is the core of my beliefs, individual property rights. They could run a cleaner operation in my personal opinion, but I won't stop buying a burger for it. I usually avoid fast food anyway, I enjoy cooking, but I digress.

I see vegetarianism as a steady stagnant trend. Unless the prices of meat go up, which they will if we stop factory farming, I don't see any downward trend in the consumption of meat in the foreseeable future. If the State comes in and forces people to live how you see fit then yes, the trend will grow. More vegetarians, I myself would kill and consume a pet in front of the white house for the rights of factory farmers, and be sent to a camp for re-education.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Apr 2009, 09:54
Yes, I think we are all for the rights of private business. But back to factory-farming as all businesses are different and in order to retain a sensible discussion, we need to remain focused on factory-farming.

So, my question is what about the scenario I described to you previously, where megacorps (the factory farms) swallow up small farmers? Please answer this one. I take it from the way you generalise is that you don't mind what goes on? I think your views are somewhat blinkered because I assume you are saying that you support the small farmer/landowner but also megacorps (factory farm bosses), right? But soon it will be all megacorps and no small farmer. Is this acceptable to you, in the name of free enterprise? Let me illustrate with one simple fact: Corporations now produce 98 percent of all poultry... So, does this say anything to you at all? Do you think the 2% of private farmers (so far) remaining is good and wholesome and epitomises your support of private business in relation to agriculture? Also, do you not think it would be better and healthier to get meat from small-scale, localised production systems, even if it means paying a little more? Factory farms provide cheap meat only because the real costs in terms of air and water pollution, terrible conditions for workers and animals and so on are not factored in. I've already mentioned these other costs and you have ignored them. Please explain why you don't comment on these costs... as far as the facts are concerned, there is no such thing as 'cheap meat'. That is the reality of the situation. It is becoming increasingly certain that the water will run out, the land will no longer absorb the torrent of nutrient waste spread upon it, and the over-bred, antibiotic and hormone-injected animals will eventually succumb to their natural limitations.


I see vegetarianism as a steady stagnant trend. Unless the prices of meat go up, which they will if we stop factory farming, I don't see any downward trend in the consumption of meat in the foreseeable future. If the State comes in and forces people to live how you see fit then yes, the trend will grow. More vegetarians, I myself would kill and consume a pet in front of the white house for the rights of factory farmers, and be sent to a camp for re-education.

The State would only come in and force people to eat less meat if ecological circumstances dictate it. You know, like rationing? This has been done before during times of conflict. In the future, it may be done during times of ecological disaster.

Your last statement. Would you kill and consume a pet in front of the White House for the rights of the small landowner? Because this is the choice - you either support an agricultural system that provides a living for MANY; or you support a system that provides a living for the FEW. Don't forget, your decision also relates to the natural environment and the effects of factory-farming upon it. You need to take all of this into account.

El_Bel
19th Apr 2009, 11:23
Megacorps can't exist without government support.

Air and water polution must be handled by the local courts, if the pollution bothers the people who live nearby and the cost is added to the meat.

The working conditions dont bother me at all. If the workers dont like it they can take it up to the boss. The boss has the right to do anything he wants in his business.

Animal rights.. Hmmm, they were rised for dying...

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Apr 2009, 16:18
Megacorps can't exist without government support.

That's true; a case of scratching each others backs, perhaps? ;)


Air and water polution must be handled by the local courts, if the pollution bothers the people who live nearby and the cost is added to the meat.

Cost added to the meat? Ummm, that is neither cure or prevention to the irreversible effects of pollution. :eek:


The working conditions dont bother me at all. If the workers dont like it they can take it up to the boss. The boss has the right to do anything he wants in his business.

Well, according to slaughter-house workers (and residents in the local area) themselves, the conditions are appalling but they need to earn their daily bread, so have to put up with it.
Are you sure it is correct to make such a sweeping statement that the boss has the right to do anything he/she wants? I know what you are saying but in practice this can be abused. Factory-farms abuse the environment and humans, not just animals.


Animal rights.. Hmmm, they were rised for dying...
To you, this is the right way to think. But to me, it isn't.
They wouldn't be there at all if we didn't demand so much meat in our diets. But, most importantly, they are not machines. They are raised in disgusting, unnatural conditions and suffer. I, personally, cannot be in favour of such an atrocious act. None of us need to eat meat. If you disagree, at least you can consider that none of us need to eat so much of it?

PlasmaSnake101
21st Apr 2009, 00:00
So, my question is what about the scenario I described to you previously, where megacorps (the factory farms) swallow up small farmers? Please answer this one. I take it from the way you generalise is that you don't mind what goes on? I think your views are somewhat blinkered because I assume you are saying that you support the small farmer/landowner but also megacorps (factory farm bosses), right? But soon it will be all megacorps and no small farmer. Is this acceptable to you, in the name of free enterprise? Let me illustrate with one simple fact: Corporations now produce 98 percent of all poultry... So, does this say anything to you at all? Do you think the 2% of private farmers (so far) remaining is good and wholesome and epitomises your support of private business in relation to agriculture?

Most of what you just said I have no problem with. Your 98% corporate argument doesn't bother me in the least. It's like saying "Did you know 100% of cars are built in factories on assemble lines! What of those who choose to build cars the old fashion way. Some operations just die out, and I really could care less. I'll bet more people work for corporate farmers then regular farmers. You think only of those in the fields, you forget operation directors, those who handle exchanges, those who market, those who deliver. There is an entire sub industry behind factory farms, one that would take a blow were we to stop. And once more, it's none of my business to tell some guy I don't even know how to do his job.




Also, do you not think it would be better and healthier to get meat from small-scale, localised production systems, even if it means paying a little more?

Absolutely, the meat could potentially be of higher quality. But such a hasty generalization would be a massive flaw in my logic, and I tend to avoid those:thumb:. But the decision of what meat to buy is ultimately made by the consumer. If his purchases result in the loss of small scale farming, so be it.



Factory farms provide cheap meat only because the real costs in terms of air and water pollution, terrible conditions for workers and animals and so on are not factored in. I've already mentioned these other costs and you have ignored them. Please explain why you don't comment on these costs... as far as the facts are concerned, there is no such thing as 'cheap meat'.


I said I would prefer they run a cleaner operation, and if the land, waters, and sewers were privatized those who pollute would have damaged someones property, and be liable to desist and pay for repairs to the area.




That is the reality of the situation. It is becoming increasingly certain that the water will run out, the land will no longer absorb the torrent of nutrient waste spread upon it, and the over-bred, antibiotic and hormone-injected animals will eventually succumb to their natural limitations.


Again, if land is privatized it would be in ones best interest to maintain the land. And if these "abused" animals begin to yield undesired results then the operate will change what he has been doing to maximize efficiency's. Sorry if I seem heartless, but I don't really consider the slaughter of animals inhumane. This is the ways things are done, I've seen the conditions of the factories and I still believe it is the right of the people to run a business as they like. If they do something catastrophic, they will go under, and time will move on.



The State would only come in and force people to eat less meat if ecological circumstances dictate it. You know, like rationing? This has been done before during times of conflict. In the future, it may be done during times of ecological disaster. Your last statement. Would you kill and consume a pet in front of the White House for the rights of the small landowner? Because this is the choice - you either support an agricultural system that provides a living for MANY; or you support a system that provides a living for the FEW. Don't forget, your decision also relates to the natural environment and the effects of factory-farming upon it. You need to take all of this into account.

First off, I'm against government rationing as well. They are usually enacted during wars and I am as anti-war as you can be. It says something about a nation, when they won't let there citizens purchase what they want. The price of items would reflect how scarce they are, this is basic stuff. But since we are bottle fed and cradled by massive centralized governments the talk of functioning on our on is frightening to the weak and simpleminded(not accusing anyone here of being weak or simpleminded, mind you).


And the choice I have, I either support an agricultural system that provides a living for MANY; or you support a system that provides a living for the FEW. Is proof of your inability to grasp my point, I support all. I don't kill spiders or butterflies, I let things take there course, I don't get involved with matters I have no right to be involved with. We, You and I, have no right to force other to act as we think they should.

PlasmaSnake101
21st Apr 2009, 00:09
None of us need to eat meat. If you disagree, at least you can consider that none of us need to eat so much of it?

If I could use anything in my diet it's more meat. Endangered species preferably.

Secondly, for slaughterhouses, who are you to judge the standards of there work environment. I don't see a big problem working there. That's a matter of opinion though, but if I was in the position where I could only find work at a slaughter house I would take the job and not complain for the first three months. We all have undesirable working conditions, some more extreme then others. I myself, at the wee age of 16 was fetching shopping carts hours at a time in 110 degree weather. Did I like it, no. But I kept it up, a job I didn't even need. Why, because I felt my wages justified my labor. I would have loved a raise, promotion, but this work needs to be done. And I did this work willingly and I dare say I even enjoyed it occasionally. If they don't like it, then they should look for another job.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
21st Apr 2009, 21:23
Most of what you just said I have no problem with. Your 98% corporate argument doesn't bother me in the least. It's like saying "Did you know 100% of cars are built in factories on assemble lines! What of those who choose to build cars the old fashion way. Some operations just die out, and I really could care less. I'll bet more people work for corporate farmers then regular farmers. You think only of those in the fields, you forget operation directors, those who handle exchanges, those who market, those who deliver. There is an entire sub industry behind factory farms, one that would take a blow were we to stop. And once more, it's none of my business to tell some guy I don't even know how to do his job.

The point of saying that 98% of chicken meat comes from factory farms was to illustrate how centralised it has become. So you are wrong to think that more people work for corporate farms than regular farmers, its 'mechanised', so it uses far fewer employees. Also, to liken the situation to car assembly lines doesn't address the issue of animal cruelty. Cars are bits of metal, whereas chickens are sentient beings. But I can see that you do not differentiate between the two, so no point continuing with this side of things. :)


Absolutely, the meat could potentially be of higher quality. But such a hasty generalization would be a massive flaw in my logic, and I tend to avoid those. But the decision of what meat to buy is ultimately made by the consumer. If his purchases result in the loss of small scale farming, so be it.
If it is a case of 'so be it', why did you start this debate by saying how important it is for free markets and small landowners to be able to operate? You remarked upon blatant abuse of civil rights and how small landowners wish to make the make the land profitable, laboring to make the land and animals profitable resources etc. This is what has confused me because factory farms (megacorps) take over and destroy small business. I realise you are adamant that you don't wish to "interfere", but if we all held this attitude about things (anything) then I think many forms of injustice would prevail. :(


I said I would prefer they run a cleaner operation, and if the land, waters, and sewers were privatized those who pollute would have damaged someones property, and be liable to desist and pay for repairs to the area.
But this doesn't happen. The megacorps do not pay anything to clean up their pollution; the taxpayer does - YOU do. That is what I mean by there is no such thing as cheap meat. If you don't pay for it directly when buying meat, you are paying for it via your taxes. ;)


Again, if land is privatized it would be in ones best interest to maintain the land. And if these "abused" animals begin to yield undesired results then the operate will change what he has been doing to maximize efficiency's. Sorry if I seem heartless, but I don't really consider the slaughter of animals inhumane. This is the ways things are done, I've seen the conditions of the factories and I still believe it is the right of the people to run a business as they like. If they do something catastrophic, they will go under, and time will move on.
I guess you don't give much thought to the suffering of sentient beings, so not much more I can comment on this one. As I've said previously, it will take human-eating aliens to invade our planet and start factory farming us before you feel the need to question what is going on. I find that a scary thought, lol! :eek:


First off, I'm against government rationing as well. They are usually enacted during wars and I am as anti-war as you can be. It says something about a nation, when they won't let there citizens purchase what they want. The price of items would reflect how scarce they are, this is basic stuff. But since we are bottle fed and cradled by massive centralized governments the talk of functioning on our on is frightening to the weak and simpleminded(not accusing anyone here of being weak or simpleminded, mind you).

I'm sure the majority of people are anti-war but when it happens, rationing is done to ensure the survival of ALL, not just a few. So, I am confused as to why you are against such an idea. Also, nobody is disagreeing that we should do things on our own. That is exactly my point; to take control ourselves and find out everything that is going on, and not just blindly accept things. That is neither weak or simpleminded of anyone. The most inspiring people who have ever lived asked questions and brought about changes for the benefit of all mankind.


And the choice I have, I either support an agricultural system that provides a living for MANY; or you support a system that provides a living for the FEW. Is proof of your inability to grasp my point, I support all. I don't kill spiders or butterflies, I let things take there course, I don't get involved with matters I have no right to be involved with. We, You and I, have no right to force other to act as we think they should.

I grasped your point. You support all, fair enough... but the reality is that factory farms don't support all, so therefore your choice is automatically limited.


If I could use anything in my diet it's more meat. Endangered species preferably.

Secondly, for slaughterhouses, who are you to judge the standards of there work environment. I don't see a big problem working there. That's a matter of opinion though, but if I was in the position where I could only find work at a slaughter house I would take the job and not complain for the first three months. We all have undesirable working conditions, some more extreme then others. I myself, at the wee age of 16 was fetching shopping carts hours at a time in 110 degree weather. Did I like it, no. But I kept it up, a job I didn't even need. Why, because I felt my wages justified my labor. I would have loved a raise, promotion, but this work needs to be done. And I did this work willingly and I dare say I even enjoyed it occasionally. If they don't like it, then they should look for another job.

Umm, you wish to eat endangered species too? Oh well, not much to comment on this one either...

I am not judging the standards, lol. The standards have been judged by the factory-farm workers themselves! Go read "Slaughterhouse" by Gail A Eisnitz. Eisnitz has sworn affidavits from people all across the industry, from plant workers and plant supervisors, USDA Inspectors and USDA Veterinarians, even a letter from the (then) Secretary of Agriculture Edward Madigan documenting that the USDA was breaking the law and stating that inspectors were not allowed near the line. Working conditions are deplorable, with chances of injury or illness six times greater than working in a coalmine. Much more information in the book too.
In the US twenty-five years ago,, slaughterhouses were operated by well paid unionized workers who often spent their entire working lives in the same plant. They did not leave voluntarily. They were driven out and replaced by a shifting population of immigrants (average time on the job today is little more than a year) desperate enough to tolerate bad treatment and dangerous conditions for as little as a third the hourly wage paid under union contract.

I agree that we all have to work in undesirable conditions but its a little more complex than that. Not everyone would enjoy the same choices you were able to make. Slaughterhouses take advantage of immigrant labor, knowing they are too poverty stricken or scared to protest their working conditions. The USDA Veterinarians who oversee the Plant's Inspection Line are mostly Foreigners, who fear for their jobs more than American workers. The situation isn't as cut and dried as you would like to think.

PlasmaSnake101
24th Apr 2009, 20:30
As far as Animal Rights go, I don't have the authority to declare which forms of life besides humans deserve natural rights. Where do we stop, we don't give rights to chickens because they are not rational entities. They are not intelligent entities, and your animal rights case can be extended to all farming institutions, thus forcing people to live how you see fit. Do you see how that would conflict with the free will of others. Also, plenty of animals are killed while farming crops, would we need to go out of our way to ensure they are protected.

As far as big businesses destroying small businesses, I really couldn't care. I see no rights being conflicted. One business failing because of another succeeding happens all the time. And another thing, stop talking about megacorps like they are villains. And, you completely ignored this point, if more land was privately owned then someone could make a claim towards the damaged lands. If they are damaging their own lands then I can't really do much about it.

Your human eating alien example is really cute, but It bears little resemblance to this situation. The consumption of sentient beings is a natural occurrence. I wonder what is more painful, being butchered in a factory or having your spine broken and your flesh torn off by a lion? Should be stop all lions from hunting other animals so they don't suffer. Or are humans just so special that only we must regard the feelings of other beings? If we are, than we are, in my opinion, "better" then some animals. So we can't extend our human rights to lesser beings.

As far as rationing goes, I'll say it again. Market prices reflect how scarce an item is, it is simple supply and demand. And factory farming was a change that benefited mankind, just like industrialization. And again this isn't a case of Either or, you think there is only a set amount of wealth and if one group has a lot the other will, by default, not have said wealth. This is a fallacy and I demand you acknowledge it.

And as far as standards go, those who work there can leave when they please. And if they want higher standards then I suggest they create a business and run it the way they want to, then they can take the profit and losses into account.

But this will never be resolved. You are thinking in a warm hearted, life loving, concerned for all mentality.

I'm thinking in a cool, calculated, logical, market driven frame of mind.

But we can still be friends.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Apr 2009, 20:57
You may require authority to declare a right as an absolute law, but you are still very much free to decide yourself whether or not you consider something to be fundamentally right or wrong. Not all laws are necessarily good or fair, and many have still to be made. Prostitutes, for example, are entitled to rights they currently don't have. Its all about thinking outside the box, being heard and bringing about changes for the common good.

You stop when you are happy that justice has been served, I guess. We all have different views on this obviously, but you go way off track in order to try to redicule a very reasonable point that animals should not be treated like machines. Also, chickens are intelligent, as are all sentient beings. But this point is irrelevant too, as a chicken is good at being a chicken. As a human you may consider us intelligent and 'better', as you put it... whereas I consider us to be both intelligent in some ways and stupid in others - so not 'better'.

My animal rights case is really one of animal welfare, so try not to confuse 'rights' and 'welfare'. Also, your claim is incorrect as my ideals do NOT extend to all farming institiutions, because I have made it clear that I am in favour of natural, organic methods. I discuss only the wrongs of factory-farming and that we do not have the right to treat animals like machines. As for your comment on animals being killed while farming crops - this is a counter-argument that statistically doesn't relate. Perhaps hundreds (?) may be killed during farming of crops, but certainly not billions, as in the case of factory-farming. I prefer to choose the lesser of the two evils in this case... and you? Causing hurt or suffering unintentionally is not the same as causing it intentionally. This is the difference.

Yes, it is the way of commerce to expect larger companies to gain market dominance over smaller business. But we should be wary of monopolies that remove fair choice otherwise it no longer can be viewed as a 'free market' and does not benefit the consumer in real terms. It has nothing to do with treating megacorps like villains, it is about having our eyes open to the situation and the consequences. Each must be judged individually as they are not all the same. I am discussing factory-farm megacorps and not other big business entities.

Of course eating meat may be considered as a natural occurence (there is debate about this too, but I won't digress). However, your scenario regarding being butchered at a factory farm or being torn apart in the wild isn't realistic at all. In the wild, animals live a natural life doing what nature intended them to do and they have equal chance of survival, whereas factory-farmed animals are excluded from this entire process. A lion hunts when it is hungry, in order to survive. We eat far too much meat in our diets out of habit rather than necessity. This is the difference.

Sure, labourers have a choice to leave and many do if they can. But if they are desperate to have enough money just to eat, then they often don't have that choice. It is also over-simplistic to suggest that they should start their own business because doing so requires finance that they obviously don't have and/or cannot obtain; and in relation to farming, this opportunity doesn't exist if megacorps have already taken full control of local land.

There is nothing to resolve, we are not arguing - just participating in healthy discussion, as far as I am aware. I am warm-hearted and concerned, yes, but that doesn't mean I cannot be open-minded to opposite views to mine... hence my interaction with you which has remained polite at all times. Yes, of course we can still be friends. I have meat-eating best friends and family; and I also have very poor and rich friends alike. I make no distinction between the two diets or classes. It is all about sharing views, learning and enriching the mind. :)

facepalm
27th Apr 2009, 11:14
You both seem to have missed the point raised about synthetic meat a few pages back.

While I aknowledge MyImmortal's legitimate concern over the welfare of farm animals, her proposal of returning to obsolete ways of cultivating them (and subsequently cutting back our meat consumption) is not in any way desirable nor even feasible.

The way I see it, factory farming is just a necessary step towards more efficient ways of growing meat. It all boils down to economics, and vat-grown meat is superior to 'traditional' meat in nearly every respect: profitability, ecological footprint etc. Sooner or later factory farming will fade into obsolescence and we should start seeing chicken breast grown in bioreactors become available in the near future, possibly even within the next decade.

If cultivating cells in petri dishes doesn't appeal to your inner mad scientist, one could always engineer the animals to be born without a brain. Precedents already exist in nature: hundreds of babies are born each year with a condition known as anencephaly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly) that inhibits the proper growth of the brain and skull, leaving all the newborn babies in a permanent vegetative state. Animals born with this disorder won't register pain or discomfort at all, in fact they are completely oblivious to the world around them. The only practical hurdle I can foresee with this approach is the fact that most anencephalic babies die within days or even hours of birth, and overcoming the problem could prove to be tricky.

http://www.geocities.com/anencephalygabriel@sbcglobal.net/anencephalicinant.jpg

Lady_Of_The_Vine
27th Apr 2009, 15:45
Yes, the suggestion to grow synthetic flesh/meat was addressed in the first few pages of this thread and I agreed that it would be a good alternative then, and I still do. :) It means that people who enjoy the taste/texture of meat get exactly what they want and people like me who are concerned about the cruelty of factory-farming see the abolition of this practice. PERFECT with a capital P, as far as I am concerned. :thumb:

I disagree that factory-farming is a necessary step towards more efficient ways of 'growing' meat, as it isn't grown in that sense. We are still using a sentient being's body and mind to force unnatural growth via steroids and to survive in diseased conditions using antibiotics. This process should be bypassed altogether and we should move straight to the technology of 'growing flesh' proper.

Your suggestion regarding bodies without a functioning brain does sound macabre, but I would agree with this suggestion too if it is fact that they exist in a totally vegetative state with no awareness. So, as surreal as this sounds, it does appeal to me as another suitable alternative. Whatever the future holds in terms of producing artificial flesh for consumption can only be a good one. At least we are using our brains and our hearts at the same time. Thank you for this one. :)

PlasmaSnake101
1st May 2009, 19:32
I agree with Kant, animals are not rational beings, therefore we can not extend human rights to them. Kant also said to treat people as ends and not means towards your own end.

Free market exchange takes the best of both, you use people for your ends, but they also use you for their ends. Kant said we shouldn't take advantage of people but rather help each other. I think, but Kant can be a bit difficult to understand.

You tend to agree with Mill, that we should increase happiness and decrease sorrow and animals are involved.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st May 2009, 21:59
When discussing Kantian theory, there is often confusion with regard to the term 'rights' and 'welfare'. Of course animals shouldn’t have exactly the same rights as humans (they wouldn't ask for them anyway), but regarding fundamental rights, yes, they deserve the same as us. I am discussing the very basic right of governing one’s own body and having freedom from torture etc, these are rights ALL living sentient beings deserve. Wild animals deserve to be left to be, not caged and enslaved as circus animals; and domesticated pets deserve to be treated kindly and cared for adequately, and farmed animals deserve freedom from suffering and despair and to be allowed to live their lives as nature intended, ie. grazing in fields. Kant himself did not condone animal cruelty/suffering. It is widely believed that our duties towards animals serve as indirect duties towards humanity and Kant clearly states in his views: "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.", and I absolutely agree with him. :thumb:

Also, to quote the term "rational" as criteria for basic rights and living is somewhat selective. This term is mirrored by those who hold the opposite view to Kant and suggests that most of humankind is not eligible simply because we are a mix of both rational and irrational individuals, depending upon our thoughts and actions, and it can be fairly argued that often humans act far worse than animals. As this is quite true, one could say that if human beings deserve full rights then animals deserve at least the basic of rights - especially mammals. I absolutely agree with this view. :)