Tax meat until it’s too expensive to eat, new UN report suggests

a reply to: peck420

Well, I hope it continues that trend. I still think we have too many people on certain areas of the planet. I just don't think we need this many people.

originally posted by: blueman12
The main reason why I started replying to this thread was the issue of factory farming.
Less people = less demand and more land for free-range farming.

There exists plenty of land now. We barely have a footprint on available land now.

Enforcing animal cruelty laws, which can be legislated if they are not adequate, is a better route than forced limits to the number of children in a family, mimicking China's cruelty.

Unfortunately, like in real life, most people could care less about the suffering of a non-human.

That's not even remotely fair. We can be meat eaters and against forced population control and still be for humane treatment of animals and protecting the environment in reasonable ways.

a reply to: blueman12

Unfortunately, like in real life, most people could care less about the suffering of a non-human.

I will own up to it, its not that I do not care, I just have to accept it in order for low priced meat. I don't want the guys collecting them to stomp on a chicken or smack them against each other like pillow fight. Those incidents are not as widespread as some would have us believe, and usually get prosecuted and terminated from the job.

But we have to accept some compromise if we going to keep the food affordable. People come first, and then non-human animals. ( I consider whales and dolphins and elephants as human) We should really start in the pet industry though. No more puppy mills.

originally posted by: blueman12
Well, I hope it continues that trend. I still think we have too many people on certain areas of the planet. I just don't think we need this many people.

It's a trend that has been fairly continuous throughout humanities existence, so I doubt it is ending anytime soon.

As for what you think, well, we all have different thoughts on just about everything.

a reply to: Indigent
I think there's an Old Twilight Zone Movie to that Effect.
People were given a Book and Found out it Was a Cook Book for
HUMANS.

LMAO

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't think all extraterrestrials are peaceful. I'm saying that the only chance we have of communicating with peaceful ones who are aware of us, or yet to be aware of us is by evolving our species.

The violent extraterrestrials are irrelevant. They will do what they wish to us.. Just like we would do to animals.

Personally, I believe there is a good chance that higher intelligences from other dimensions and/or galaxies (far far away

are visiting or aware of us.

Why would they ever communicate with such a race like ours?

So the peaceful aliens are going to hide and let us become prey to the violent aliens without out ever raising a finger to help and guide us? Maybe there is a reason why we don't hear from peaceful aliens. If they didn't take a stand against violence, maybe they were silenced by violence.

a reply to: neutronflux

oh well would you look at that then. They would thusly be exactly the same as humans. I don't trust any of those aliens one bit. Behind any feigned good deeds of a higher moral authority there will be the same motives of self interests . No good deed goes unpunished?? Or perhaps no back left unscratched.

a reply to: blueman12

So black and white. I don't think there are good aliens and bad aliens. From what I've observed in nature the more intelligent and sentient something evolves to be, the more not less varied individuals are in personality.

As such I posit that alien individuals will be incredibly diverse to the point where a super peaceful or purely violent species is damn near non existent, and like us will run the gamut of morality in each individual species.

I always found it odd the way we treat each alien in sci-fi like their entire species was the equivalent of a single human culture without the real world variety we'd find in that culture.

Oh and on point I just ate a giant steak cause I saved 3.38 on it, yum. My cats wouldn't eat any though... worries me, hope I don't die or something.

a reply to: blueman12

Unbelievable!
So the ones who think overpopulation is a problem can just end themself and the problem has been solved!
If you don´t like to eat meat it´s your decision. What most of vegetarians and vegans make me dislike them is them forcing their opinion down the throat of others. Not all but the overall part does.

It´s so pathetic.

a reply to: verschickter

Yea.. I never said we should all become vegetarian or vegans. I'm against the mistreatment of animals.

Secondly, has there ever been a less original response to depopulation? I was arguing for democratic population control, and even stated that it would probably never work.

The only unbelievable thing here is your post that rests on blind knee-jerk reaction.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Well, I am mainly talking about how animals are treated legally. Often times they live in miserable, hell-like conditions. We are basically eating tortured animals.

What is the difference between puppy mills and other legally-owned animal farms that have really bad coniditons?

Animals feel pain and emotion. You've mentioned puppy mills, so I'm sure you've noticed the range of emotions and feeling a dog can exhibit. So can pigs, cows and other animals. If anything, some farm animals are smarter than dogs.

I know you're just eating what meat you can afford, and so do i sometimes, but we have no moral high ground here. We are indirectly supporting these torture factories.

The only reason why i was suggesting population reduction was because that would be the most simple way to help create a society that treats animals fair.

Otherwise, the demand for meat will rise and so will the mistreatment of animals. I know it's just my opinion, but I don't see why we need to have a bigger and bigger population when we know it is creating problems.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Well, I know my solution was extreme and maybe creating better animal cruelty laws while opening up more farm land is a better solution.

Also, I do agree that we can be meat eaters, be against forced population control, and have good treatement of animals. I just feel like most people don't really care.

People barely care about human mistreatement, yet alone animals. Hopefully our race grows up a bit.

a reply to: blueman12
It´s not a blind knee jerk reaction. It´s like I wrote it.
There are things that can´t be decided by others.
I can´t tell you to not have kids, just as you can´t tell me to not make more.

Like I said, the idealistic scenario for population reduction would be that in which a majority of society agrees upon it. What, you don't like society making decisions for you? Well, guess what, that is how democracy works. If you don't like it, then don't participate in society

No, this is not how democracy works. Not when it comes to basic human rights. And even in those other cases, only in direct democracy. This is the idealistic scenario for you. Because that´s the least for you needed to justify it.

"Because people decided".

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: AmericanRealist

The only reason why i was suggesting population reduction was because that would be the most simple way to help create a society that treats animals fair.

Well it is certainly the most direct way to achieve that goal, but in no way is it a simple task. Just hear the reactions you are getting to the very idea of it. I got 5 kids myself, not going to be an easy sell. However that does not mean it will be impossible.

We just need to figure out how to sell the message with a feeling of happiness greater than the propaganda that sells the encouragement of an increase birth rate. Part of that effort would require the De-sexualization of a significant part of the marketing industry.

Everything from cars to hamburgers, cell phones, clothes, video games, even time shares and especially cosmetics and weight loss is sold with a sexual image. Beautiful provocative women eating, driving, using the phone an the allure of drawing them in for the viewer by purchasing and owning those products, services or lifestyles is not only designed to make it easier to sell what is being marketed. There is also another underlying theme that goes with that, and that is an increased birth rate.

Our brains have already been studied by the wealthiest with hundreds of billions over the decades, so marketing know exactly what images and words elicit the responses they are looking for. What it takes now, is concerned citizens and organizations, taking that same data, and flipping the switch. that is probably the most realistic approach that would effectively lead to the fulfillment of the goal of a reduced birth rate and population reduction.

Your main factor will be, how much money can you raise to pay for this marketing across various industries? The other being, that population reduction does not bode well for the current system of Capitalism. The very concept is to continue growth indefinitely. That does not work if the population goes down, because so will consumption.

So although it would benefit the animals with a reduction of meat, there will be a economically apocalyptic reduction in consumer goods and industry contraction as well.

However, with the sheer volume of humans joining the hive mind today and going into the future, it is clear that these types of efforts could in fact already be demonstrating success with the new generations who are much likelier to succumb to propaganda with less resistance.

It will be a multi-generational endeavor across all industries, but it always starts with one, and the others who jump on board. As long as one person or group are making these efforts in their city/county/state/or nation, others will eventually agree and follow through themselves.

The biggest thing to consider is to not get frustrated because it didn't happen yesterday, or is going on fact enough today. Real progress happens gradually over time, a single step at a time. Best thing as a consumer, is to research the companies/products/and services which fit your goals and objectives in line with their mission statements within your budget and educate others. The ones trying to change their methods can only continue to do so when they measure positive results. That can only happen as conscientious consumers switch to their model.

So while I always look at the realistic variables involved with such grand goals, I am always on board to research ways to achieve them.

Curbside recycling is much more prevalent in the US now than it was 20 and 30 years ago. Electronics and appliance recycling is now a thriving industry compared to even ten years ago. These are all positive steps.

Hormones are not being added to our milk anymore, the Organic food industry is growing every year. It just takes time to switch because progress has to be made when one human at a time makes the choice to change, and that $$ speaks to the business involved.

We could go the China route, but in lands that have grown with freedom and liberty as their core values, it would end up costing drastically through civil unrest and outright war. This country is only about two more presidential terms away from going full throttle in a more socialistic way of conducting business and policy, so you should see some measurable gains. Unfortunately it is always going to go hand in hand with violent resistance, and I won't blame anyone for it.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
I got 5 kids myself, not going to be an easy sell.

You only had sex 5 times?

a reply to: daskakik

yea, sure, if thats what you read. Do you have 212 kids?

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Guess you couldn't read between the lines because it was a one-liner.

If having sex doesn't always equal a child then what difference does it make if sex is used in marketing?

a reply to: daskakik

Well because having sex by default increases your chances of having children. The more people that are having lots more sex, the more babies WILL be born.

Just like the more people in a country that take brain altering SSRI drugs there are, the more people will fulfill that tenth of a percent of individuals who will exhibit violent and /or hostile behavior towards others.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Maybe if everyone is having sex without protection.

Also, people were having sex long before modern marketing. The idea of having a large family had more to do with economics than sexy ads. Even with tons more sexy ads, first world countries are having less babies so, you correlation might be off.

a reply to: daskakik

of course it leveled off, because in reality we are making progress. The biggest point in our countries growth and Europe's for population was following WW2, when TV ended up in everybody homes. Maybe the correlation is off, the point I am making is marketing works, and societal behavior can be modified using propaganda/marketing.

These are the solutions that could work in the developing world where the majority of population growth is occurring. This allows us to make efforts to manage growth without destroying the capitalist system. If we went the China policy, lots of civil strife and clashing of opinions with violent consequences.