This is horrifying...

135678

Replies

  • MrsCon40
    MrsCon40 Posts: 2,351 Member
    How is that worse than breeding turkeys with breasts so large that they cannot stand up under their own weight?
  • Laura_Ivy
    Laura_Ivy Posts: 555 Member
    This article made me sad. I'm not a vegetarian, but own a few chickens. Life should be respected. Even if it isn't human life. You can eat meat and still be respectful of the animal it came from. Basically, the designer is trying to take the life out of the birds to produce the meat. I don't know if it's more humane, but anyone can look at it and see it's not natural. Zombie chicken vines.

    Zombie chicken vines.:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:
  • Sl1ghtly
    Sl1ghtly Posts: 855 Member
    I am not horrified.
  • Phrak
    Phrak Posts: 353 Member
    as long as the chicken breast ends up on my plate and eventually in my stomach, i dont care how it got there.
  • paulamarsden
    paulamarsden Posts: 483 Member
    This article made me sad. I'm not a vegetarian, but own a few chickens. Life should be respected. Even if it isn't human life. You can eat meat and still be respectful of the animal it came from. Basically, the designer is trying to take the life out of the birds to produce the meat. I don't know if it's more humane, but anyone can look at it and see it's not natural. Zombie chicken vines.

    Zombie chicken vines.:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

    matrixmovie.jpg
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    my dreams are coming true
  • LilRedRooster
    LilRedRooster Posts: 1,421 Member
    That is not "humane" treatment at all. It's tampering with the natural order in a gruesome way, and justifying it in the name of human consumption. We eat meat, but we grow our own cows on pasture, and they live happy, healthy lives with other cows. I would never consider depriving them of that pleasure just so I would feel less guilty growing them in a way that isn't beneficial to them.

    How much humanity are people willing to give up in their pursuit of selfish gains? There are better ways than creating brainless chickens for human consumption.
  • delilah47
    delilah47 Posts: 1,658

    First, I'm not anti-vegan. But, what if the whole world's population decided to go vegan? Would there be enough space to raise veggies for 100% of the world's food? How much space *would* be required? Something to think about. Would we have to kill off all the cows and other animals we use for food, directly or indirectly?

    It takes maybe an acre to raise a cow, right? That will give you several hundred pounds of meat (protein and fat) and nothing else (vitamins, minerals, carbs). You could feed a family of four by farming that same area and provide a balanced diet. Raising animals for food is less efficient, not more efficient (I'm not a vegetarian, btw). The most efficient way would be to raise the animals for the other things they can give us (milk, eggs, wool, etc.) and then eat them when their useful life is over. That, and goats can be raised on areas that aren't good for farming.

    Thanks for "doing the math" so to speak. This topic just got me thinking and I just threw out a few things that popped into my mind. I did look up and found a site that estimated, right now, there are about 2.59 acres of arable land per person on earth. Not sure if "arable land" means land that is already built on or just land in a climate that would support agriculture.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    But more horrifying than the current situation?
    You decide...
    http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/02/headless-chicken-solution
    How else are you going to feed a population of 6 billion and counting?

    nonsense...

    this is why i'm a vegetarian.. facts are, we dont feed 6billion (the number is closer to 7billion btw) people of the world. nearly 15% of the population is considered starving. i am not sure how many are considered mal nourished..there is a difference. many people in the US are malnourished yet overweight. facts are, animal farms, feed lots etc contribute to much of our pollution, clear cutting forests, erosion problems, poor soil quality. Facts are, a vegetarian diet is more sustainable for populations as well as the Earth. humans dont NEED meat to survive. in fact, vegetarian diets (if properly done) are overall healthier than one that incorporates meat.
    6 billion, 7 billion, 8 billion, it doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that huge population requires protein and yes the best protein comes from meat. It took millions of evolution that involved us being primarily meat eaters. Show me one study stating that "vegetarian diets (if properly done) are overall healthier than one that incorporates meat."

    I will wait.

    Ha ha, yes, especially since there has never been a vegan or vegetarian society.......................However, there are societies that live almost completely off of animal sources because vegetation does not grow.

    Most vegetarians and vegans are so misguided. SMH

    Also, another thing to add is that growing all this subsidized corn, wheat, soy is what causes poor soil quality, not animals.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Soylent Green. That is all.

    :-)

    Thanks. Never actually watched the movie.

    And to the person who thinks there are no vitamins or minerals in beef ... Really???

    I'm a vegetarian simply because I can no longer stomach the idea of eating an animal that has been killed. But I can still admit there is nutritional value to meat. I also freely accept that human being evolved to be omnivores and there's nothing inherantly wrong with eating meat. It's my personal choice not to.
  • IronmanPanda
    IronmanPanda Posts: 2,083 Member
    More chicken for me!
  • dance_fit
    dance_fit Posts: 53 Member
    Show me one study stating that "vegetarian diets (if properly done) are overall healthier than one that incorporates meat."
    I will wait.

    How about 3 that I found in a very simple database search through my local library?

    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/2/7/770/ (Open source document)
    Nutritional Status of Flemish Vegetarians Compared with Non-Vegetarians: A Matched Samples Study
    Peter Deriemaeker, Katrien Alewaeters, Marcel Hebbelinck,1Johan Lefevre,2 Renaat Philippaerts, and Peter Clarys

    "Our results clearly indicate that a vegetarian diet can be adequate to sustain the nutritional demands to at least the same degree as that of omnivores. The intakes of the V subjects were closer to the recommendations for a healthy diet when compared to a group of well matched NV subjects."

    Physical fitness and health-related parameters in vegetarian and omnivorous students
    Clarys, P; Deriemaeker, P; Hebbelinck, M. Nutrition and Food Science30. 5 (2000): 243-249.

    "We can conclude that, within the limits of our experimental population, a vegetarian food pattern can be considered as complete with intake of all required nutrients in sufficient amounts. Moreover, the vegetarian food pattern is closer to a healthy diet compared to the non-vegetarian diet. We found equally that the vegetarian subjects had similar physical performances compared to the non-vegetarian subjects. Finally, it was found that for some nutrients great discrepancies exist between food intake and blood concentrations, indicating that nutrient intake is not always directly linked with nutrient absorption."


    Blood pressure and blood lipids among vegetarian, semivegetarian, and nonvegetarian African Americans
    Melby, Christopher L; Toohey, M Lynn; Cebrick, Joan. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition59. 1 (Jan 1994): 103.

    "Blood pressure and serum lipids were compared among three dietary groups of Seventh-day Adventist African American adults: vegetarians, semivegetarians and nonvegetarians. A vegetarian diet was associated with lower cardiovascular disease risk factors than was an omnivorous diet."

    "In summary, despite considerable dietary homogeneity among black Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians exhibited lower WHRs, less HT, and lower concentrations of STC, LDL-C, triglycerides, STC/HDL-C, and LDL-C/HDL-C compared with nonvegetarians. Semivegetarians, who consumed one to three servings of flesh food per week, had blood lipid values intermediate to the vegetarians and nonvegetarians. The lower values for these CVD risk indicators in the vegetarians were related to less central-body-fat patterning, lower saturated fat intake, and a higher P-S ratio. These data indicate that the vegetarian diet is associated with lower values for important CVD risk factors among black Americans, and may afford some protection against development of premature CVD."
  • Nopedotjpeg
    Nopedotjpeg Posts: 1,805 Member
    How is it horrifying if these 'animals' have no sensory part to their brain? If they feel no pain, why would this be considered inhumane?

    Sure, and if this works... let's put some humans on the line too. We could use them for surrogates for our babies and we could all have beautiful bodies! And then we could put some cows on there so they wouldn't have to graze the pastures. And then..... there's a moral boundary here somewhere.

    Moral according to who? Also, a human brain is much more complex than a cow's or a chicken's. Not to mention there's already a large percentage of the population that's starving. Making a surrogate to have even more offspring seems counterproductive to what the goal of the original "headless chicken" experiment is.

    Everything is greed and appearances. I'm not saying MORE humans. I'm saying women wouldn't have to take time off to have a baby or, in some cases, wreck the appearance of their body. And if someone actually came up with that technology, they would get rich. And.. what difference is it how complicated a brain is.. if it is removed? Just throwing in my 2 cents. Most people who are not psychopaths have a moral boundary.. somewhere.

    You're treating morals as if they're objective though. Your morals are not everyone's morals. And the complexity of the brain matters because the more simple the brain of a creature is, the more certainty that they won't be feeling pain (as far as the contexts of this situation goes).
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    We dont NEED families of 7-15 kids, why is it still allowed? i say there should be a limit on offspring, and also stop trying to solve aids in africa and start trying to educate the people to not have multiple babies one after another.

    sorry if this is very right wing, but thats just who i am.

    People like you frighten me.

    And that's not right wing. That's Chinese law and China is leftist.
  • Ashmeistar
    Ashmeistar Posts: 27

    First, I'm not anti-vegan. But, what if the whole world's population decided to go vegan? Would there be enough space to raise veggies for 100% of the world's food? How much space *would* be required? Something to think about. Would we have to kill off all the cows and other animals we use for food, directly or indirectly?

    It takes maybe an acre to raise a cow, right? That will give you several hundred pounds of meat (protein and fat) and nothing else (vitamins, minerals, carbs). You could feed a family of four by farming that same area and provide a balanced diet. Raising animals for food is less efficient, not more efficient (I'm not a vegetarian, btw). The most efficient way would be to raise the animals for the other things they can give us (milk, eggs, wool, etc.) and then eat them when their useful life is over. That, and goats can be raised on areas that aren't good for farming.

    I'd also like to add, if we wern't eating meat, we wouldn't be breeding animals at such a high rate. We wouldn't need to slaughter loads of them.
  • Nopedotjpeg
    Nopedotjpeg Posts: 1,805 Member
    I don't see why this is turning into a meat vs. no meat debate. That isn't what this is about. This is about whether this particular case is inhumane or not. People will always be eating meat. Deal with it.
  • acbeck
    acbeck Posts: 3
    It's easy to cry out against the plight of the chickens and pledge to eat vegetarian or only well-treated, happy, free-range chickens. At least, it is when you're living in the first world and can afford to make that decision. If it was our babies who were starving or malnourished because we don't have the money or resources for an organic diet, our tune would change.

    People have always been resistant to scientifically-induced change. The reality is, we have a lot of people on this planet, and we just can't live the way we did 100 years ago. We can't raise our own chickens, pigs and cows because we've been urbanized. We can't universally farm organic because it takes fertile space that just isn't available. It's all well and dandy to make efforts to buy organic, but that is a privilege reserved for the wealthy few. It's unfair for that few to make the decisions for the whole world.
  • dinosnopro
    dinosnopro Posts: 2,177 Member
    great now I want a McChicken sandwich. Thanks O.P.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    This is disgusting, that is what it is.

    I am all for meat consumption, but it has to be from local farm raised sources. There is NO way in hell that I will ever eat chicken that has been massed produced like some boxed macaroni and cheese. And there is NO way that I will ever eat that cloned meat they are working on right now.

    Cloned ground beef is supposed to be released in October or some time this year.

    GROSS
  • dinosnopro
    dinosnopro Posts: 2,177 Member

    First, I'm not anti-vegan. But, what if the whole world's population decided to go vegan? Would there be enough space to raise veggies for 100% of the world's food? How much space *would* be required? Something to think about. Would we have to kill off all the cows and other animals we use for food, directly or indirectly?

    It takes maybe an acre to raise a cow, right? That will give you several hundred pounds of meat (protein and fat) and nothing else (vitamins, minerals, carbs). You could feed a family of four by farming that same area and provide a balanced diet. Raising animals for food is less efficient, not more efficient (I'm not a vegetarian, btw). The most efficient way would be to raise the animals for the other things they can give us (milk, eggs, wool, etc.) and then eat them when their useful life is over. That, and goats can be raised on areas that aren't good for farming.

    I'd also like to add, if we wern't eating meat, we wouldn't be breeding animals at such a high rate. We wouldn't need to slaughter loads of them.


    maybe people should stop breeding at such a high rate? just sayin

Categories