World Farm Animal Day – Oct 2nd

24 comments on “World Farm Animal Day – Oct 2nd ”

• Comments are now closed

1. fraser 1

   2 October 2009 at 8:53 am

   “To put it simply, you cannot be a socialist, a greenie or any kind of progressive and eat meat.”

   to me that whole argument was poorly worded. As some pointed out many non-meat foods are also unsustainably produced.

   If it was made as an argument against industrialised food production and mono-cropping then they would have me on board.

   But it did bring back something i learned many years ago when i was more of a political rabble rouser.

   We all draw the line somewhere, and we are all hypocrites about something.

   eg: The whole “im a vegan to the point where i dont wear leather” thing falls over when it comes to something like shoes. (glue, rubber etc)

   – does using products built via the petrochemicals industry still make ‘you’ (us, them, me, myself, I ) more of a progressive greenie than someone who wears leather and eats organic meat?

   plastics?
   medicines?
   transport?
   electricity?
   etc
   etc
   • rocky 1.1

     2 October 2009 at 10:00 am

     I suspect being vegan is more environmentally friendly than wearing leather and eating organic meat – simply because half of NZ’s greenhouse gas emissions come dairy farming.

     But your overall point was valid – that things aren’t always that black and white.

     Personally, I’m not vegan for environmental reasons, though that is a nice added bonus. From an environmental perspective I would say if you wear leather or not, if you eat meat or not, consuming less is the way to be more progressive about it. I.e. I’m happy with a couple of pairs of shoes, I don’t need a wardrobe full of them.
     • ieuan 1.1.1

       2 October 2009 at 10:53 am

       But what about the jobs of the people who make shoes? Demand creates jobs.

       There is no reason you can’t make shoes in a sustainable way.
       • rocky 1.1.1.1

         2 October 2009 at 11:00 am

         Like most of the world, I still spend my discretionary income. Like the rest of the world, I spend my money on things I think are important, thereby creating a demand for things I like and creating jobs for things I like. In my case, that’s mostly books and internet services.

         As a consumer item, shoes will never be sustainable. Even if they’re produced sustainably, they’ll still end up in a landfill when they wear out.

         Suggesting that by not buying loads of shoes I am costing people jobs seems a little far-fetched.
         • ieuan 1.1.1.1.1

           2 October 2009 at 11:09 am

           ‘Suggesting that by not buying loads of shoes I am costing people jobs seems a little far-fetched.’

           So the actions of one person makes no difference?
           • rocky 1.1.1.1.1.1

             2 October 2009 at 11:17 am

             Not at all. But by not creating jobs in one area, I’ll be creating them in another. Job-neutral you could say 😉
     • lprent 1.1.2

       2 October 2009 at 11:27 am

       I can testify to that, having helped her move a few times.
       On the other hand moving that damn piano…..
       • rocky 1.1.2.1

         2 October 2009 at 11:33 am

         Yeah well I think you got me back a couple weeks ago when you moved. Those massive box size bags full of crap were awful to move! Boxes and furniture I can handle.
         • lprent 1.1.2.1.1

           2 October 2009 at 1:28 pm

           Yeah Lyn is addicted to those… Now she has the shoe collection…
     • fraser 1.1.3

       2 October 2009 at 11:35 am

       “I suspect being vegan is more environmentally friendly than wearing leather and eating organic meat”

       i suspect your right 🙂

       was really speaking to the “if you claim your X then you have to be Y and Z” equation.

       regardless of the scenario, that sort of reasoning will always fall over as we live in a highly complex world.

       Or to bring it back to the “your not a real greenie…” angle, we can all be green and progressive about many things – but can we be green and progressive about everything? – ie: we all draw the line somewhere.

       PS: i like your methods of persuassion a whole lot more than the previous method of admonishment and coercion.
       • rocky 1.1.3.1

         2 October 2009 at 11:51 am

         Yes I did get your general point. It would be pretty impossible to be pure about everything. I have a pretty big weakness for takeaway coffee when I’m out and about. Of course that’s only one among many things I do that I know I shouldn’t.
2. felix 2

   2 October 2009 at 9:30 am

   Excellent post, Rocky.
3. ieuan 3

   2 October 2009 at 9:34 am

   Good post even if though I disagree.

   I count myself as someone who is fully aware of the reality of how meat is produced in New Zealand and someone who eats meat.

   I’ve worked in a freezing works (holiday job while at University), I saw sheep and cows being slaughtered and visited every part of the factory (I was part of the maintenance team).

   I’ve been to a Tegel factory and seen chickens being slaughtered (that is an eye opener) and visited a pig farm on a number of occasions.

   None of this is ‘nice’ and I’m happy for the slaughtering to be done by others and out of sight but eating meat is my personal choice. I guess if I had to I would kill an animal to eat it but it is not something I would relish.

   I’d like to see better practices at farms and think that animals should be treated with respect while they are alive but I don’t have any moral objection to the killing and eating of animals.
   • fraser 3.1

     2 October 2009 at 11:38 am

     “I guess if I had to I would kill an animal to eat it but it is not something I would relish.”

     as a ex-veg and born again meat eater (born again? – feels weird using that term) i faced the same question.

     But yes, if i want to eat meat, i have to be prepared to do the deed.
4. felix 4

   2 October 2009 at 9:38 am

   Oh and well done everyone involved in making the film, it hits the right notes. Needs to be shown in schools as a catalyst to discussion.
5. phil ure 5

   2 October 2009 at 11:46 am

   good on you for airing/publicising these issues..

   in yr vegetarian day thread i (erroneously) advised you to go vegan..

   (ahem..!..my bad..!..)

   phil(whoar.co.nz)
   • rocky 5.1

     2 October 2009 at 1:01 pm

     Thanks Phil. But the vegetarian day thread was not mine!
6. Sam 6

   2 October 2009 at 2:11 pm

   “eating meat is my personal choice”

   It’s only a personal choice if no-one has been harmed by it. For example, liking one actor more then another actor is a personal choice, because no-one is harmed by it. Eating meat (or dairy, eggs etc.) is not a personal choice because someone is being harmed, the animal who was slaughtered. The same way it is not a ‘personal choice’ to rape someone. Rape, murder etc. are not personal choices because someone is being harmed by those choices. The same applies for animal products, such as meat, dairy and eggs.

   “The whole “im a vegan to the point where i dont wear leather’ thing falls over when it comes to something like shoes. (glue, rubber etc)”

   Rubber comes from a plant, and is therefore vegan. Glues can be both plant based and animal based. There are many places that sell shoes that have no animal products in the glues or anywhere else in the shoe. NZ has an entirely vegan shoe company called Deviate who sell work shoes, trainers, boots, hiking boots, sandals, high heel shoes, belts and more (http://www.deviate.net.nz/index.php) and Vans, Emerica, DC, Circa and ES all sell some vegan skate shoes.

   So no, the argument doesn’t all fall over, it just takes a bit of research.

   “As some pointed out many non-meat foods are also unsustainably produced”

   First of all, envrionmental issues isn’t the main reason for going vegan, just an added bonus. The main reason for going vegan is a belief that it’s wrong to treat animals as commdodities, to torture and kill them simply because we like how they/ their products tatse, look, feel etc. Here are some websites wwith more info on the animal rights reasons to go vegan

   http://www.abolitionistapproach.com
   http://www.nzeggs.webs.com
   http://www.nzdairy.webs.com

   Secondly, of course there are vegan foods that are produced unsustainably. However, I don’t think that any of them are as bad as animal products. It takes 16 kilograms of vegan food to produce just 1 kilogram of non vegan food. So basically eating animal products is like pulling out 16 plates of vegan food, eating one and then chucking the rest away. Not only is this bad for the environment, but it’s obviously horrible for world hunger. If everyone on Earth received 25 percent of his or her calories from animal products, only 3.2 billion people could be nourished. Dropping that figure to 15 percent would mean that 4.2 billion people could be fed. If everyone went vegan, there would be more than enough food to nourish the world’s entire population—more than 6.3 billion people.
   • fraser 6.1

     2 October 2009 at 3:36 pm

     from the link you provided “Other materials include … PU or polyurethane is the most common man-made material ”

     OK – im no chemist – but im guessing that polyurethane is made via an industrialised chemical process 🙂
     (happy to admit error of my knowledge if proven wrong)

     “First of all, envrionmental issues isn’t the main reason for going vegan”

     yep – im down with the concept and i understand the argument as to why being vegan is more environmentally friendly – and i agree

     – But we are talking past each other a bit. Im (off topic – i know) responding to the claim that im not really a greenie progressive because im not vegitarian. – and while my initial example may not stack up in the long run, the argument that we all draw the line somewhere still stands.

     And admonishing others because they dont draw their line in the same place as yours is counter-productive.

     make a reasoned argument as you or rocky has, then great. I will listen with all ears. Tell me off and i will walk away.
     • Sam 6.1.1

       2 October 2009 at 4:41 pm

       I agree that on environmental issues it is very difficult to draw the line. However I would like to put an emphasis on environmental. On moral issues I think lines can be drawn (more or less anyway).

       “Im (off topic i know) responding to the claim that im not really a greenie progressive because im not vegitarian”

       How do you define a greenie though? Is someone who drives a hummer a greenie? What about someone who refuses to recycle? Somone who consumes meat?

       To me, an environmentalist is someone who does their part to help the envrionement (however large or small that may be). So yes, you can be a ;greenie’ who eats meat. However, the point isn’t that you can do X and call yourself Y. The point is that animal products do huge environmental damage, probably far more then any other product. If you want to help the environment one of the best things you can do is to go vegan. That doesn’t neccesarliy mean taht nonvegans aren’t ‘greenies’

       In regards to the shoe thing, yes PU is made through an industrialized chemical process. However, not everything there contains PU. I recently brought a belt from Deivate that didn’t have any chemicals and was made recycled materials.

       Remember that leather has chemicals too. So buying leather shoes instead of vegan shoes with PU would still be worse for the envrionment, because there’s the chemical issue as well as the issues of raising animals for their products.
     • Sam 6.1.2

       2 October 2009 at 4:50 pm

       “And admonishing others because they dont draw their line in the same place as yours is counter-productive”

       From an environmental issue, I agree completely. It’s impossible to draw lines with environmental issues. However as I have said before, the main issue for me is ethics

       In very complicated areas of ethics it’s hard to draw lines (is it OK to kill in self defense, is abortion OK etc.). However, everyday animal-ethics are not complicated. It is wrong to kill simply for reasons of pleasure, convenience or habit. Our only justifications for wearing leather, consuming milk, eating eggs, going to rodeos/ animal circuses etc, is that we derive pleasure from the look of leather, the taste of eggs, the entertainment of the rodeo, it’s convenient to eat animals and it’s habit to exploit animals. This is not a good justification for killing 53 billion animals evey year.
7. Hobbo 7

   2 October 2009 at 2:42 pm

   Too be honest I fail to see what the issue is with killing animals that have been bred for one reason – eating – thats the whole reason that they are bred, born, reared and grown out.

   Have I killed for the table myself?? – Sure. There is something satisfying about growing and slaughtering your own meat rather than the boner cow or mutton that gets sold in Supermarkets.
   • rocky 7.1

     2 October 2009 at 2:58 pm

     Too be honest I fail to see what the issue is with killing animals that have been bred for one reason eating thats the whole reason that they are bred, born, reared and grown out.

     So it would be ok for me to kill and eat a human as long as I breed, rear and grow it myself?
     • Sam 7.1.1

       2 October 2009 at 4:10 pm

       Remember that a similar argument could have been made about keeping slaves. “I don’t see what’s wrong with keeping slaves that have been bred for slavery”

       Just because a being has been bred specifically so that s/he can be slaughtered doesn’t make slaughtering that being OK.

       However, maybe I’m taking this the wrong way. Maybe the emphasis was meant to be on KILLING instead of on BRED FOR.

       There are (unfortunately) many people who think it’s OK to kill animals as long as they’re treated ‘humanely’. These people believe that animals have a right to avoid suffering, but not to avoid slaughter.

       First of all, let’s define what a right actually is. A right is merely a concept designed to protect an interest. For example, I have an interest in not being a slave, so I have a right not to be sold into slavery. Clearly animals have an interest in avoiding pain (they have complex nervous systems, move away from painful stimuli, react to pain in by contorting in agony, ‘screaming’ etc.)

       But do animals have an interest in a continued life? The answer is clearly yes. Watch the video in this link (http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/is-there-anything-that-you-want-to-eat-that-badly/#more-1579)

       Incase you don’t have time to watch the video, it shows two cows waiting in a chute to be led into the abattoir. An employee comes out and uses an electric prod to get the first cow to enter the abattoir. The second cow remains behind the door that has closed. She is clearly terrified. She knows that she is in trouble and this is not simply a matter of “instinct’. She is desperately looking for a way to get out of the chute. She may not have the same sorts of thoughts that beings who, like us, use symbolic communication, but it is clear that she has some equivalent sort of cognition. To say that she does not have a sense of having a life is beyond absurdity.

       The video is from a French slaughterhouse. But it does not really matter. All slaughterhouses are places of hell and unspeakable violence against the vulnerable. The video does not actually show any blood or gore, but it does show that non human animals clearly value their lives and to take their lives simply because we want to eat them/ their products is morally wrong

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS