Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Mindless Butchery on a colossal scale. Enjoy your meal.
I do agree that it is short sightedness to have people live where the local available water and food production can not sustain them.
Which of course also points to the need for population control.
For a sane world, I think this will need to be the direction for us to head towards.
They'd have to come and get it first Not many people could just up and move here for the water without the skills necessary to survive here, in the event of a zombie apocalypse or something similar, I mean. One simply cannot relocate from LA to northern MN, they'd die of hypothermia before they got to the state line, lol.
There is no other way a grand migration works. Also I might ad that it is impossible to compete with a chinaman that climbs buildings on bamboo when I live in the US. So how do you slow down ships and such? We have to think outside the box and us this beautiful technology to our advantage. or else. I'm deeply grateful for the great Master's passing on what they could
@karasti said:
On a related (kind of) note, with California putting in never before heard of water saving measures, it bothers me that farms are exempt. They use 80% of the water, and if CA is suffering that much, then the farms need to change their ways, too. It's ridiculous that people have to control what they use a very minimal amount of water for, when farms are free to keep using the vast majority of it without having to change methods. The water usage that goes into farming animals, especially beef, is incredible and it is probably the biggest factor in the reductions of meat that I've made.
Thinking about this situation, I'm wondering if giving priority access to the water for farms doesn't make the most sense. Especially for the rest of the country.
Apparently California is producing half of the nation's vegetables, fruits, and nuts. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/
Moving that production closer to a secure water supply would probably not be possible. Where else could it come from that has the sunshine and long growing season and the water?
If drought continues pipelines might have to be built.
Vegetarian lives depend on it.
the concerns are valid, wouldn't the world news inform us that a growing legacy of well off and 5 kids might not be in the worlds best interest. Maybe being close to home and having one child would be a more reasonable solution. Rather than letting a evolved piece of land go to waist maybe just sprinkle a little water on it and see what happens. I'll never be able to sit in peace with the Karma spread out like this
@robot said:
Thinking about this situation, I'm wondering if giving priority access to the water for farms doesn't make the most sense. Especially for the rest of the country.
Moving that production closer to a secure water supply would probably not be possible. Where else could it come from that has the sunshine and long growing season and the water?
If drought continues pipelines might have to be built.
Vegetarian lives depend on it.
We hear a lot about this is Colorado, as well (people forget, much of Colorado, and especially the eastern plains -- 1/3 of the state and where all the agriculture is seim-arid. The farmers bitch about the shortage of water saying that grass lawns are not logical in this climate. But then, when people point out that some of the specific crops they are choosing to grow are also not logical in a semi-arid climate, they get angry.
I think we do need to re-look at the distribution of agriculture. For example, western New York State was once the bread basket of the nation (a smaller nation, of course). But it has gone from a fairly rich agricultural area, to negligible agriculture. It could return as an area of agriculture.
Your pipeline comment is interesting, too. We have a guy on another forum who goes wild if one talks about water pipelines and tells us how impossible it is because of the elevations. But he's all in favor of oil pipelines wherever they may lead.
I do think we as a nation -- not just as a several individual states -- need to bite the bullet and begin large-scale desalinization.
@vinlyn no but they are not guaranteed water to prop them up. It's like giving money to somebody who wastes it. Only California makes so much crops so maybe it would be nice to give them water for farming. How much population is necessary for farms?
My post had absolutely nothing to do with people living where they want
Vinlyn thank you for the research and facts. There will come a time when topics of this nature are global and what will a monk say then. As a layman that has life experience it is my job to make sure the road is cleared for the many that may pass before and after me. Taking a bucket of water to the desert and poring it out in hopes, laying down my ego in a argument or simply talking about a poor chicken in a funny story before I walk away.
I never suggested we move farms or anything. I suggested farms be more responsible with their water use. I never said we should shut them down and let the crops die. Geez. But a HUGE amount of water that goes into farming is completely wasted and runs off (polluted) into rivers and lakes. They can do a much better job as an industry with using less water to accomplish the job. It's not like they are out there with a hose watering the plants. The way farms are irrigated wastes a HUGE amount of water. Therefore, without correcting that large amount of waste, the small effort into telling people to limit their lawn watering is rather pointless. It's like expecting to reverse global warming because you recycling your few pounds of milk jugs and soda bottles without addressing the huge amount of pollution put out by corporations and factories. It's a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done. I know they cannot simply limit what farms can water. But they should be, in exchange for this exemption, working towards more efficient and less wasteful watering practices. It is also a matter of what we value the most for crops and what uses the most water.
A lot of the crops grown in CA use a huge amount of water. Almonds alone use 10% of the water for farming. If we didn't spend so much money to feed and water cattle, we could use the heartland to grow more of the food so it isn't so concentrated in CA. No, we can't grow avocados in Minnesota. But there is farmland all across the midwest and south where the climate is very similar but we cannot use it because we are growing grains there for cattle feed and ethanol/fuel. The areas where all this food from CA came from was a desolate desert not much more than 100 years ago. To expect to change it into lush farm scape when that is not what it's climate is was asking for trouble from the beginning. We need to find other solutions. We cannot keep feeding limited fresh water into a place that wasn't designed to grow crops. We need to better utilize the areas that are already ideal for crop growing.
Then, you also get down to how wasteful we are. SO much edible food is thrown away because it is not in perfect condition for the floor of our grocery stores. God forbid the outside of your orange isn't perfect! For some veggies and fruits, 75% of what is edible is thrown away because it isn't perfect enough to be sold. And then what is sold, 40% of that goes in the trash as it rots in our stuffed fridges because we don't eat it or forgot we had it. So, really, we don't need nearly the land we claim to need to grow all this food that we just waste anyhow.
But instead of addressing those gigantic issues, or at least starting to, we ask households to take fewer/shorter showers and not water their 4x4 foot lawns.
lastly, sure people should be free to live wherever. But just because they want an ocean view doesn't mean that as a country we owe those people who make that choice to provide them with resources that are not practical. The rest of the country (and to a degree even the world) shouldn't suffer because people think CA is nice.
@Jeffrey said:
vinlyn no but they are not guaranteed water to prop them up. It's like giving money to somebody who wastes it. Only California makes so much crops so maybe it would be nice to give them water for farming. How much population is necessary for farms?
My post had absolutely nothing to do with people living where they want
I know that was not your intent, but it would have been a practical result.
And where does that thinking end. What about people who choose to live in Oklahoma where there have been so many severe tornadoes? What about people who live in earthquake prone areas (remember, one of America's largest historical earthquakes was in the Madrid experience in Illinois. What about people who live in blizzard prone regions of the northern mid-West? People who live on flood plains (a huge % of the population). People who live in coastal areas during sea level rise due to global warming. People who live in Florida and other Gulf States where hurricanes are common.
Do we stop being a "united" states where we care for people throughout the country.
And where are you going to move 38 million people in California?
that's interesting with the danger zones. but the difference is the people on the coast are not asking for dirt to fill in the ocean to be sent to them.
i agree the 38 million cannot move. but unlimited access to water would just make the population even more than 38 million or am i totally wrong? as i said it might be similar to giving a son or daughter money for college when they have a track record of buying expensive stuff not related to college. ok probably horrible example. i would be cool with water going there but not if decisions made by billionaires who are just ruled by greed and not compassion without foresight an sensitivity.
The whole state of CA isn't in the same situation. It's the areas that were desert that we falsely believed we could permanently turn into farmland that is the problem. We cannot, and should not, sustain practices that make no sense anymore when we have limited resources. It doesn't mean we stop helping people. We just become more efficient so that MORE people can be helped.
@Pöljä said:> Please, don't eat meat because you really don't need to.
People can survive quite happily on a non-meat diet, but some people are quite attached to eating meat and don't want to give it up. I think that's the truth of the situation.
So the Second Truth tells us that attachment causes suffering. Our attachment, animals suffering.
I understand folks eating meat because of health issues or because eating meat is just that important to them
but saying they eat meat because some meat might not support factory forms is like saying that using a prostitute is OK because some might not be abused by their work.
I understand that someone in a rural setting might have the chance to better assess the living and dying conditions of the meat they eat, if they were motivated to research it....but that is pretty uncommon for most folks today.
Obviously it's better if animals are "produced" in more humane conditions, but at the end of it they are still slaughtered, and most of them still end up neatly packaged on a supermarket shelf.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2015
My grandfather had to slaughter a couple of goats and a pig once.
He refused to let anyone go with him, because he wanted to do it privately and 'with dignity and respect' for his animals.
He was heartbroken. It was after all what the pig, specifically had been reared for, and the goats provided additional nutrition for his own family and that of neighbours in need.
It was AFAIK the one and only time he ever killed an animal, and he never spoke about it.
to him it was like murdering a family member.
In fact, the only time I remember anyone killing an animal for food, was my grandma, and an episode with a chicken, which (I am much ashamed to admit) left two of my cousins and me absolutely doubled up and in stitches with laughter.
It is quite easily done to research the products you buy and to purchase animals from humane sources. If I can find such sources in a town of 3000 then certainly most others can as well.
Honestly, I have hunted and butchered my own animals many, many times. Most often, it is easier to bring it into town to get butchered because it takes so much time and equipment and space. I grew up in a family that hunted, trapped and fish often strictly for survival when my dad was laid off his job. Many people still do the same and rely on their hunting to get them through the winter. If I had the time I would still do it because I prefer it, for many reasons, to buying meat. I still catch and clean my own fish, and on occasion grouse, but it's been a couple years since I was grouse hunting. So yes, I have done it, and I would do it again. I just do not have the time anymore. Most of the hunting here is small game and deer, and our deer population is recovering right now so there are strict hunting limits making it take much more time and still possibly get nothing. The wolves need the deer more than I do, so I leave them to it. I do have relatives that hunt and share what they get, which is nice of them. I'd rather take the responsibility and the karma on myself.
But when I purchase meat or eggs, it comes either from local/regional farms when available, or I purchase meat that is from humane farms, usually I have to order it which gets quite expensive so I prefer to stick to local farms and buy more in bulk when available. Farms close enough I can (and do) visit to see how the animals are treated. Eggs come from a friend down the road who raises chicken and ducks, and we often trade for them.
Edited to add: I could never be a farmer myself. I would too much consider the animals I cared for to be pets and probably could never kill them having that attachment to them. I would like to have a small farm one day but really just for eggs and maybe goat milk. But that's a ways off and then I'll have a million chickens because they like for upwards of a decade and only produce eggs for 4 of those years, so you have to keep replacing them. Most people at that point butcher them but I wouldn't be able to, so I'd have a lot of chickens, lol. We raised chickens when I was growing up.
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
edited April 2015
That was a funny - and poignant story about your grandfather, @Federica.
Well, the funny part about you and your cousins.
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@federica said:You eat meat because you want to. be honest about it.
@SpinyNorman said Exactly what I was trying to say earlier in the thread.
Fwiw, I think about all the things I eat in a matter-of-fact way - it was normal to eat many things growing up, including meat, which I happened to enjoy. My dad especially, loved oyster soup, but I wasn't the only one who couldn't stand the smell when he did indulge in it.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
If it's any comfort, I do love meat. I love the flavour, and I DO miss it like mad.
But I just can't bring myself to eat it, and for a gastronome like me, it's quite a hit....
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@silver said:
That was a funny - and poignant story about your grandfather, Federica.
Well, the funny part about you and your cousins.
Put it this way, it gave a total and literal meaning to 'running around like a headless chicken'....
@karasti
**I would like to have a small farm one day but really just for eggs and maybe goat milk. **
Some limits on producing much product when compassion rules the day.
A monastery I lived in for a while sometimes had older live chickens thrown over the wall because local folks knew they would be cared for. We had lots of chickens but very few eggs.
They also had goats as well ( I think through the gate ) but the kidding process to have them producing milk is as hard and life shortening on goats as it is on women...so...not a lot of milk either.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@how it would be only for our family. We had 6 chickens most of my growing up years and they produced more eggs than our family of 4 could even eat, so we gave them away. I know a couple of people who have goats but it would be something I would investigate in-depth before determining it was the right thing to do.
I was vegetarian for 2 or 3 years. I did it for animals and not health. Probably I was less healthy eating a fatty veggie diet read lasagna. I went back to meat because I spent a week at my dad's with brother and his friends and lots of people. Every day was a meat feast and all I had was a couple bags of apples and potatoes. Eventually I joined in the feast. For me it is black or white, either or, good or bad. I can't eat meat some days and none the rest. I eat meat or I don't. And now I live with my girlfriend and she does not like vegetables (hey we are midwestern and eat sausage like on saturday night live).. So I eat meat even though I still have compassion for animals. Animals should run free based on their instincts. They should be humanely killed.
I had idiot compassion for animals whilst being a veggie for 'spiritual' reasons.
I think that is honest @Jeffrey, our personal situation may mean we eat on the basis of our reality. When living with vegetarians or vegans my diet switches to the household norm. For health reasons I once went on a completely separate different diet to everyone. It was rather time consuming and alienating.
The amazing thing about the human mind is its ability to justify just about anything we do...That's why when it comes to the issue surrounding those who are dying to meat you I think each to their own..."Different strokes for different folks!"
A raft made of wood verses one made of bone ...Whatever floats. ones conscience at the time ...Bearing in mind nothing is permanent (this includes ones dietary habits )
Humans being at the top of the food chain will consume other animals lower down the chain. The responsible way to minimise the deaths of other animals is to go vegetarian or at least cut down the eating of meat as far as possible. You don't have to eat steak or veal everyday.
"How, O monks, should the nutriment edible food be considered? Suppose a couple, husband and wife, have set out on a journey through the desert, carrying only limited provisions. They have with them their only son, dearly beloved by them. Now, while these two traveled through the desert, their limited stock of provisions ran out and came to an end, but there was still a stretch of desert not yet crossed. Then the two thought: 'Our small stock of provisions has run out, it has come to an end; and there is still a stretch of desert that is not yet crossed. Should we not kill our only son, so dearly beloved, prepare dried and roasted meat, and eating our son's flesh, we may cross in that way the remaining part of the desert, lest all three of us perish?'
"What do you think, O monks? Will they eat the food for the pleasure of it, for enjoyment, for comeliness' sake, for (the body's) embellishment?"
Comments
I do agree that it is short sightedness to have people live where the local available water and food production can not sustain them.
Which of course also points to the need for population control.
For a sane world, I think this will need to be the direction for us to head towards.
They'd have to come and get it first
Not many people could just up and move here for the water without the skills necessary to survive here, in the event of a zombie apocalypse or something similar, I mean. One simply cannot relocate from LA to northern MN, they'd die of hypothermia before they got to the state line, lol.
There is no other way a grand migration works. Also I might ad that it is impossible to compete with a chinaman that climbs buildings on bamboo when I live in the US. So how do you slow down ships and such? We have to think outside the box and us this beautiful technology to our advantage. or else. I'm deeply grateful for the great Master's passing on what they could
Thinking about this situation, I'm wondering if giving priority access to the water for farms doesn't make the most sense. Especially for the rest of the country.
Apparently California is producing half of the nation's vegetables, fruits, and nuts. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/
Moving that production closer to a secure water supply would probably not be possible. Where else could it come from that has the sunshine and long growing season and the water?
If drought continues pipelines might have to be built.
Vegetarian lives depend on it.
If southern california is given water it will just continue population growth whereas it shouldn't be growing population in a desert.
the concerns are valid, wouldn't the world news inform us that a growing legacy of well off and 5 kids might not be in the worlds best interest. Maybe being close to home and having one child would be a more reasonable solution. Rather than letting a evolved piece of land go to waist maybe just sprinkle a little water on it and see what happens. I'll never be able to sit in peace with the Karma spread out like this
Apparently California is producing half of the nation's vegetables, fruits, and nuts. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/
Moving that production closer to a secure water supply would probably not be possible. Where else could it come from that has the sunshine and long growing season and the water?
If drought continues pipelines might have to be built.
Vegetarian lives depend on it.
We hear a lot about this is Colorado, as well (people forget, much of Colorado, and especially the eastern plains -- 1/3 of the state and where all the agriculture is seim-arid. The farmers bitch about the shortage of water saying that grass lawns are not logical in this climate. But then, when people point out that some of the specific crops they are choosing to grow are also not logical in a semi-arid climate, they get angry.
I think we do need to re-look at the distribution of agriculture. For example, western New York State was once the bread basket of the nation (a smaller nation, of course). But it has gone from a fairly rich agricultural area, to negligible agriculture. It could return as an area of agriculture.
Your pipeline comment is interesting, too. We have a guy on another forum who goes wild if one talks about water pipelines and tells us how impossible it is because of the elevations. But he's all in favor of oil pipelines wherever they may lead.
I do think we as a nation -- not just as a several individual states -- need to bite the bullet and begin large-scale desalinization.
Are you suggesting Americans should not be free to move to whichever state they want to in this country?
@vinlyn no but they are not guaranteed water to prop them up. It's like giving money to somebody who wastes it. Only California makes so much crops so maybe it would be nice to give them water for farming. How much population is necessary for farms?
My post had absolutely nothing to do with people living where they want
Vinlyn thank you for the research and facts. There will come a time when topics of this nature are global and what will a monk say then. As a layman that has life experience it is my job to make sure the road is cleared for the many that may pass before and after me. Taking a bucket of water to the desert and poring it out in hopes, laying down my ego in a argument or simply talking about a poor chicken in a funny story before I walk away.
I never suggested we move farms or anything. I suggested farms be more responsible with their water use. I never said we should shut them down and let the crops die. Geez. But a HUGE amount of water that goes into farming is completely wasted and runs off (polluted) into rivers and lakes. They can do a much better job as an industry with using less water to accomplish the job. It's not like they are out there with a hose watering the plants. The way farms are irrigated wastes a HUGE amount of water. Therefore, without correcting that large amount of waste, the small effort into telling people to limit their lawn watering is rather pointless. It's like expecting to reverse global warming because you recycling your few pounds of milk jugs and soda bottles without addressing the huge amount of pollution put out by corporations and factories. It's a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done. I know they cannot simply limit what farms can water. But they should be, in exchange for this exemption, working towards more efficient and less wasteful watering practices. It is also a matter of what we value the most for crops and what uses the most water.
A lot of the crops grown in CA use a huge amount of water. Almonds alone use 10% of the water for farming. If we didn't spend so much money to feed and water cattle, we could use the heartland to grow more of the food so it isn't so concentrated in CA. No, we can't grow avocados in Minnesota. But there is farmland all across the midwest and south where the climate is very similar but we cannot use it because we are growing grains there for cattle feed and ethanol/fuel. The areas where all this food from CA came from was a desolate desert not much more than 100 years ago. To expect to change it into lush farm scape when that is not what it's climate is was asking for trouble from the beginning. We need to find other solutions. We cannot keep feeding limited fresh water into a place that wasn't designed to grow crops. We need to better utilize the areas that are already ideal for crop growing.
Then, you also get down to how wasteful we are. SO much edible food is thrown away because it is not in perfect condition for the floor of our grocery stores. God forbid the outside of your orange isn't perfect! For some veggies and fruits, 75% of what is edible is thrown away because it isn't perfect enough to be sold. And then what is sold, 40% of that goes in the trash as it rots in our stuffed fridges because we don't eat it or forgot we had it. So, really, we don't need nearly the land we claim to need to grow all this food that we just waste anyhow.
But instead of addressing those gigantic issues, or at least starting to, we ask households to take fewer/shorter showers and not water their 4x4 foot lawns.
lastly, sure people should be free to live wherever. But just because they want an ocean view doesn't mean that as a country we owe those people who make that choice to provide them with resources that are not practical. The rest of the country (and to a degree even the world) shouldn't suffer because people think CA is nice.
I know that was not your intent, but it would have been a practical result.
And where does that thinking end. What about people who choose to live in Oklahoma where there have been so many severe tornadoes? What about people who live in earthquake prone areas (remember, one of America's largest historical earthquakes was in the Madrid experience in Illinois. What about people who live in blizzard prone regions of the northern mid-West? People who live on flood plains (a huge % of the population). People who live in coastal areas during sea level rise due to global warming. People who live in Florida and other Gulf States where hurricanes are common.
Do we stop being a "united" states where we care for people throughout the country.
And where are you going to move 38 million people in California?
that's interesting with the danger zones. but the difference is the people on the coast are not asking for dirt to fill in the ocean to be sent to them.
i agree the 38 million cannot move. but unlimited access to water would just make the population even more than 38 million or am i totally wrong? as i said it might be similar to giving a son or daughter money for college when they have a track record of buying expensive stuff not related to college. ok probably horrible example. i would be cool with water going there but not if decisions made by billionaires who are just ruled by greed and not compassion without foresight an sensitivity.
The whole state of CA isn't in the same situation. It's the areas that were desert that we falsely believed we could permanently turn into farmland that is the problem. We cannot, and should not, sustain practices that make no sense anymore when we have limited resources. It doesn't mean we stop helping people. We just become more efficient so that MORE people can be helped.
My point was that if we buy meat we expect somebody else to do the slaughtering. I couldn't slaughter an animal, could you?
Exactly what I was trying to say earlier in the thread.
People can survive quite happily on a non-meat diet, but some people are quite attached to eating meat and don't want to give it up. I think that's the truth of the situation.
So the Second Truth tells us that attachment causes suffering. Our attachment, animals suffering.
I understand folks eating meat because of health issues or because eating meat is just that important to them
but saying they eat meat because some meat might not support factory forms is like saying that using a prostitute is OK because some might not be abused by their work.
I understand that someone in a rural setting might have the chance to better assess the living and dying conditions of the meat they eat, if they were motivated to research it....but that is pretty uncommon for most folks today.
Obviously it's better if animals are "produced" in more humane conditions, but at the end of it they are still slaughtered, and most of them still end up neatly packaged on a supermarket shelf.
My grandfather had to slaughter a couple of goats and a pig once.
He refused to let anyone go with him, because he wanted to do it privately and 'with dignity and respect' for his animals.
He was heartbroken. It was after all what the pig, specifically had been reared for, and the goats provided additional nutrition for his own family and that of neighbours in need.
It was AFAIK the one and only time he ever killed an animal, and he never spoke about it.
to him it was like murdering a family member.
In fact, the only time I remember anyone killing an animal for food, was my grandma, and an episode with a chicken, which (I am much ashamed to admit) left two of my cousins and me absolutely doubled up and in stitches with laughter.
How innocent and ignorant we were then....
It is quite easily done to research the products you buy and to purchase animals from humane sources. If I can find such sources in a town of 3000 then certainly most others can as well.
Honestly, I have hunted and butchered my own animals many, many times. Most often, it is easier to bring it into town to get butchered because it takes so much time and equipment and space. I grew up in a family that hunted, trapped and fish often strictly for survival when my dad was laid off his job. Many people still do the same and rely on their hunting to get them through the winter. If I had the time I would still do it because I prefer it, for many reasons, to buying meat. I still catch and clean my own fish, and on occasion grouse, but it's been a couple years since I was grouse hunting. So yes, I have done it, and I would do it again. I just do not have the time anymore. Most of the hunting here is small game and deer, and our deer population is recovering right now so there are strict hunting limits making it take much more time and still possibly get nothing. The wolves need the deer more than I do, so I leave them to it. I do have relatives that hunt and share what they get, which is nice of them. I'd rather take the responsibility and the karma on myself.
But when I purchase meat or eggs, it comes either from local/regional farms when available, or I purchase meat that is from humane farms, usually I have to order it which gets quite expensive so I prefer to stick to local farms and buy more in bulk when available. Farms close enough I can (and do) visit to see how the animals are treated. Eggs come from a friend down the road who raises chicken and ducks, and we often trade for them.
Edited to add: I could never be a farmer myself. I would too much consider the animals I cared for to be pets and probably could never kill them having that attachment to them. I would like to have a small farm one day but really just for eggs and maybe goat milk. But that's a ways off and then I'll have a million chickens because they like for upwards of a decade and only produce eggs for 4 of those years, so you have to keep replacing them. Most people at that point butcher them but I wouldn't be able to, so I'd have a lot of chickens, lol. We raised chickens when I was growing up.
That was a funny - and poignant story about your grandfather, @Federica.
Well, the funny part about you and your cousins.
@federica said:You eat meat because you want to. be honest about it.
Fwiw, I think about all the things I eat in a matter-of-fact way - it was normal to eat many things growing up, including meat, which I happened to enjoy. My dad especially, loved oyster soup, but I wasn't the only one who couldn't stand the smell when he did indulge in it.
If it's any comfort, I do love meat. I love the flavour, and I DO miss it like mad.
But I just can't bring myself to eat it, and for a gastronome like me, it's quite a hit....
Put it this way, it gave a total and literal meaning to 'running around like a headless chicken'....
I feel like a cannibal if I try to eat meat these days....I must have been a cow in a previous life or something.
Bullocks.
I remember them well!
How could you heifer forget....?
Are we milking this joke? Should we steer it in another direction?
I think so... everyone's probably herd them all before anyway....
@karasti
**I would like to have a small farm one day but really just for eggs and maybe goat milk. **
Some limits on producing much product when compassion rules the day.
A monastery I lived in for a while sometimes had older live chickens thrown over the wall because local folks knew they would be cared for. We had lots of chickens but very few eggs.
They also had goats as well ( I think through the gate ) but the kidding process to have them producing milk is as hard and life shortening on goats as it is on women...so...not a lot of milk either.
I'm glad you clarified....
http://www.stopfactoryfarms.org/which-companies-use-humanely-raised-meat/
@how it would be only for our family. We had 6 chickens most of my growing up years and they produced more eggs than our family of 4 could even eat, so we gave them away. I know a couple of people who have goats but it would be something I would investigate in-depth before determining it was the right thing to do.
"You are what you eat!"...some say, well at least I'm not a gluts
along with seeds, fruits and vegetables I'm quite happy being nuts!"
I was vegetarian for 2 or 3 years. I did it for animals and not health. Probably I was less healthy eating a fatty veggie diet read lasagna. I went back to meat because I spent a week at my dad's with brother and his friends and lots of people. Every day was a meat feast and all I had was a couple bags of apples and potatoes. Eventually I joined in the feast. For me it is black or white, either or, good or bad. I can't eat meat some days and none the rest. I eat meat or I don't. And now I live with my girlfriend and she does not like vegetables (hey we are midwestern and eat sausage like on saturday night live).. So I eat meat even though I still have compassion for animals. Animals should run free based on their instincts. They should be humanely killed.
I had idiot compassion for animals whilst being a veggie for 'spiritual' reasons.
I think that is honest @Jeffrey, our personal situation may mean we eat on the basis of our reality. When living with vegetarians or vegans my diet switches to the household norm. For health reasons I once went on a completely separate different diet to everyone. It was rather time consuming and alienating.
The amazing thing about the human mind is its ability to justify just about anything we do...That's why when it comes to the issue surrounding those who are dying to meat you I think each to their own..."Different strokes for different folks!"
A raft made of wood verses one made of bone ...Whatever floats. ones conscience at the time ...Bearing in mind nothing is permanent (this includes ones dietary habits )
Humans being at the top of the food chain will consume other animals lower down the chain. The responsible way to minimise the deaths of other animals is to go vegetarian or at least cut down the eating of meat as far as possible. You don't have to eat steak or veal everyday.