Cognitive Dissonance

auspicious

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190206-what-the-meat-paradox-reveals-about-moral-decision-making

davidjtaylor

Cue the usual suspects…

:D:D




The last line resonates most with me:

Identifying and addressing even just a few of your guilt-ridden ethical inconsistencies is likely to make you a happier person, and the planet a better place.

Well said, it's very true.

gozunda

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Cue the usual suspects…:D:D:D The last line resonates most with me:Well said, it's very true.

Why the ongoing personal attack and criticism of any discussion? Its seems to be a common theme here with just a small number who want no comment or holding anything up to scrutiny.

And then the endless bashing of anyone who might have a different opinion. Why is that? Certainly we have had societal movements in the past that also attacked questioning or holding of other opinion. They never worked out too well imo.

As to the article above I find its logic to be poor at best. It makes many assumptions and then attempts to build on those assumptions as though they were fact. But there you go.

Here's another article on psychology that looks at vegan moral hypocrisy

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pop-psych/201311/curious-case-vegan-moral-hypocrisy

Interesting article

_Brian

gozunda wrote: »

Why the ongoing personal attack and criticism of any discussion? Its seems to be a common theme here with just a small number who want no comment or holding anything up to scrutiny.

And then the endless bashing of anyone who might have a different opinion. Why is that? Certainly we have had societal movements in the past that also attacked questioning or holding of other opinion. They never worked out too well imo.

As to the article above I find its logic to be poor at best. It makes many assumptions and then attempts to build on those assumptions as though they were fact. But there you go.

Here's another article on psychology that looks at vegan moral hypocrisy

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pop-psych/201311/curious-case-vegan-moral-hypocrisy

Interesting article

Speaking of hypocrisy.

Total collapse of insects is predicted.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature?CMP=share_btn_tw

The extraordinary slaughter of insects through pesticides and nematodes has to be recognised in this collapse.

Nothing, and I mean not one action on our beef farm is dorected towards the killing of any insect, yet vegan food production is based on routine elimination of insects and small mammals to produce it.

s7ryf3925pivug

_Brian wrote: »

Speaking of hypocrisy.

Total collapse of insects is predicted.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature?CMP=share_btn_tw

The extraordinary slaughter of insects through pesticides and nematodes has to be recognised in this collapse.

Nothing, and I mean not one action on our beef farm is dorected towards the killing of any insect, yet vegan food production is based on routine elimination of insects and small mammals to produce it.

Far more insects and small mammals are killed in meat production. Because far more vegetables are grown to produce feed for livestock than to produce the equivalent amount of food for humans. And that feed is imported, so the "local produce" thing is misleading.

There are exceptions where farmers only feed their animals what is produced on their farm and maybe don't need to use pesticides to produce it. It would be impossible for that sort of low intensity farming to satisfy global meat consumption at the current levels though. There is not enough space.

Meat should only be produced in such low intensity environments. It should be more expensive and generally consumed in smaller amounts.

gozunda

Valentina Green Thunder wrote: »

Far more insects and small mammals are killed in meat production. Because far more vegetables are grown to produce feed for livestock than to produce the equivalent amount of food for humans. And that feed is imported, so the "local produce" thing is misleading.There are exceptions where farmers only feed their animals what is produced on their farm and maybe don't need to use pesticides to produce it. It would be impossible for that sort of low intensity farming to satisfy global meat consumption at the current levels though. There is not enough space.Meat should only be produced in such low intensity environments. It should be more expensive and generally consumed in smaller amounts.

Blergh - mostly incorrect. A lot of what is fed to animals as animal feed is the waste and by-products of the human food industry. Then there is the forage from grassland systems where bugger all will grow due to climatic and topographical conditions - this includes much of Ireland. Then there are the crops which do not meet human grade standards which also make up much of what is fed - this is common in Irish agriculture and is referred to as wholecrop which are ensiled for winter feeding. So no not all feed is imported by any stretch of the imagination.

Btw most domestic animals don't eat 'vegetables'. Forage is the single biggest foodstuff for livestock such as cattle in Ireland.
And it is for this reason Ireland produces some of the most efficient livestock and dairy produce in Europe. Hence we are able to produce enough to export.

In the US feedlot systems are much more prevalent and there the most common feedstuffs are alfalfa (a type of grass) and soya meal foodstuffs etc. Soya meal which of interest comes from the process of the extraction of soya oil for human consumption from the soybean. The US is also largely self sufficient in producing its own soybeans and does not need to rely on soybeans grown in ecologically sensitive areas such as South America etc.

So Brian is correct far far more invertebrates and other animals are killed in arable and horticultural systems. Cultivation and harvesting coupled with routine use of pesticides and the eradication of pests and vermin means that the tally from such systems is very high. This is what is being ignored. And it matters not to the rabbit, vole or frog that routinely get wiped out that there death was intentional or otherwise. These types of death and destruction are known about and whilst certain practices can help reduce the numbers killed - nothing will ever eliminate this.

_Brian

Valentina Green Thunder wrote: »

Far more insects and small mammals are killed in meat production. Because far more vegetables are grown to produce feed for livestock than to produce the equivalent amount of food for humans. And that feed is imported, so the "local produce" thing is misleading.

There are exceptions where farmers only feed their animals what is produced on their farm and maybe don't need to use pesticides to produce it. It would be impossible for that sort of low intensity farming to satisfy global meat consumption at the current levels though. There is not enough space.

Meat should only be produced in such low intensity environments. It should be more expensive and generally consumed in smaller amounts.

The important factor is we acknowledge that reasonable use of pesticides is necessary for our food production, we work through greening measures to combat this impact.

On the other hand Vegans seem to beleive they occupy the higher moral ground, but where is the recognition that vast numbers of insects and small mammals are slaughtered to produce their fruit and vegetables. How can someone who believes their lifestyle avoids the farming and slaughter of animals reconcile this situation. It’s a complete contradiction.
We’re not talking accidental or negligible killing such as microbes, this is systematically intentionally killing these insects and mammals.

_Brian

https://youtu.be/k38atXE3Tlg

This video gives a great insight into nematode destroying insects and invertebrates, I can honestly say it’s s slow lingering death likely with great suffering and distress inflicted.

s7ryf3925pivug

3.5 million tonnes of animal feed imported a year. More than neighbours. Lots of it is GM soy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/farming/we-depend-two-times-more-on-imported-animal-feed-than-our-neighbours-832683.html

_Brian

Valentina Green Thunder wrote: »

3.5 million tonnes of animal feed imported a year. More than neighbours. Lots of it is GM soy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/farming/we-depend-two-times-more-on-imported-animal-feed-than-our-neighbours-832683.html

Maybe don’t misrepresent what the article says.
Not more than our neighbors, but a higher proportion of feedstuf is imported compared to what is grown here.

That point actually supports what beef farmers constantly have to tell vegan groups over and over. A common argument is that beef farmers can be eliminated and crops grown on their farms. But the truth is that most Irish soils ls are incapable of growing crops, with grass being their only option. This we have a very prominent beef and dairy industry.

Now, personally I would love to see more beef production move back to traditional breeds for which their finishing period can be primarily grass fed. Hereford, Angus, shorthorn, Irish Moiled would henexamples. That’s where we’re moving on our farm.

gozunda

Valentina Green Thunder wrote: »

3.5 million tonnes of animal feed imported a year. More than neighbours. Lots of it is GM soy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/farming/we-depend-two-times-more-on-imported-animal-feed-than-our-neighbours-832683.html

And again a lot of what is fed to animals as animal feed is the waste and by-products of the human food industry or crops deemed not deemed to meet human food standards. Soy meal for example is the by product of soy oil extraction for human use and is the number one oil by quantity used worldwide.

s7ryf3925pivug

Suitable for forestry though, and we're supposed to have more forests. What would happen to your income if you transitioned to forestry in place of beef farming? How big a factor would subsidies be in each case?

The fact is that beef farming has a huge carbon footprint. The most often trotted out line that it is local produce while your beans are imported is debunked when you see that the animals consume huge amounts of feed that is imported.

The consequences of unarrested global warming would be cataclysmic, but for some reason I find people more responsive to reducing things to simple money. We will be fined a huge amount of money very soon if our emissions aren't cut drastically. Beef farming is a major contributor to that. Therefore incentivising transition to forestry is the logical thing to do. The fact they have headed in the other direction points to business influence on government policy.

_Brian

Valentina Green Thunder wrote: »

Suitable for forestry though, and we're supposed to have more forests. What would happen to your income if you transitioned to forestry in place of beef farming? How big a factor would subsidies be in each case?

The fact is that beef farming has a huge carbon footprint. The most often trotted out line that it is local produce while your beans are imported is debunked when you see that the animals consume huge amounts of feed that is imported.

The consequences of unarrested global warming would be cataclysmic, but for some reason I find people more responsive to reducing things to simple money. We will be fined a huge amount of money very soon if our emissions aren't cut drastically. Beef farming is a major contributor to that. Therefore incentivising transition to forestry is the logical thing to do. The fact they have headed in the other direction points to business influence on government policy.

Some of it is definitely suitable for forestry, I myself would be open to exploring options for native species forestry, however the commitment on farmer side is that the land is lost to conventional farming forever, 15 years of modest oyments will not sell me on that change. I think there has to be an option for longer term payments to manage forestry perhaps with concessions on public acess to facilitate nature walks etc.

There has to be a balance between the huge long term picture and short term living. I’m very interested in long term solutions to current issues, but I’m equally interested in living now with my kids, now. So I see the need for balance where both interests need to be addressed.

s7ryf3925pivug

_Brian wrote: »

Some of it is definitely suitable for forestry, I myself would be open to exploring options for native species forestry, however the commitment on farmer side is that the land is lost to conventional farming forever, 15 years of modest oyments will not sell me on that change. I think there has to be an option for longer term payments to manage forestry perhaps with concessions on public acess to facilitate nature walks etc.

There has to be a balance between the huge long term picture and short term living. I’m very interested in long term solutions to current issues, but I’m equally interested in living now with my kids, now. So I see the need for balance where both interests need to be addressed.

I’m not interested in “my beef Vs your beams” argument, Family farming is both an living and a way of life, a way that is happy to coexist with other viewpoints. It’s not something that can be said for veganism, I can quote as many pitfalls to vegan lifestyle as you can against beef farming up to and including the international horrific slaughter of living creatures to provide your food.
. It would be much more constructive if all efforts were put towards environmental sustainability of both lifestyles rather than one fighting to eliminate the other. Having constant propaganda spread against your way of life, having every good farmer tarred with the brush of the worse possible cases, that’s underhand and frankly demeans the whole vegan movement. Yes poor farming practice is disgusting, it disgusts good farmers, I amd I’m sure many other farmers have reported neighbors for poor practice, it’s unacceptable, but it’s not everyone, that’s just a lie.

I'm not a vegan btw, not even vegetarian since 18 months ago. My experience is that most vegans aren't remotely like what you're describing though, and the absence of replies frim veg*ns in a veg*n forum illustrates that. Far more common to see attacks on veganism/vegetarianism than the other way around.

My own feelings of hypocrisy arose when I recently felt horrible about killing a mouse. It shouldn't bother me to get my own hands dirty if I'm eating dead animals. Illustrates how effective the sanitisation of what happens to produce food compared to what we interact with to get it is.

_Brian

Valentina Green Thunder wrote: »

I'm not a vegan btw, not even vegetarian since 18 months ago. My experience is that most vegans aren't remotely like what you're describing though, and the absence of replies frim veg*ns in a veg*n forum illustrates that. Fqr more common to see attacks on veganism/vegetarianism than the other way around.

My own feelings of hypocrisy arose when I recently felt horrible about killing a mouse. It shouldn't bother me to get my own hands dirty if I'm eating dead animals. Illustrates how effective the sanitisation of what happens to produce food compared to what we interact with to get it is.

I can understand that is an issue, we’ve become too removed from food to respect it’s intrinsic value, and I’m not meaning financial value.

_Brian

BTW, the constant posting of propaganda against good farm practice IS an attack on our way of life.

As is the likes of the intimidation protest outside an Irish butcher shop last week by masked vegan protesters.

gozunda

Valentina Green Thunder wrote: »

...Far more common to see attacks on veganism/vegetarianism than the other way around...

_Brian wrote: »

BTW, the constant posting of propaganda against good farm practice IS an attack on our way of life.

As is the likes of the intimidation protest outside an Irish butcher shop last week by masked vegan protesters.

^^ This. There have been many threads here whose main topic was to paint food production and farming in the worst possible way possible. Even a number of AH threads discussing for example someone killing a farmers sheep in a field ended up as a diatribe against farming by a small number of self declared vegans.

As I have an interest in food production and especially the environment, I often reply to these threads especially where I believe the discussion involves misinformation about farming or the environment. Of note a number of threads on a number of high profile multinational interests have also stirred up debate with threads such as "The war against meat" and "vegetarian" etc etc in AH.

Within these threads any one who does not label themselves as 'vegan' are generally accused of being anti vegan (sic) when they make any comment and irrespective of the type of comment made. It is open to these individuals to report any post that does not meet boards tcs but no the standard appears to be to go straight for the jugular.

I personally started just one thread in AH about a multinational corporation funding a donation to Pope to 'go vegan' for lent. When I pointed out its was pure commercial smooze - I was descended from on high by a small number of irate commentators who didn't bother entering the debate but choose to go on a personal attack with personal comments and how I was 'obsessed'. Well I'm sorry if my interests conflict with someones moral ideas - but if you wont or cant debate the topic in hand then dont bother trying to attack those who do.

auspicious

Crying Pig Farmer

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sJVuGliq1GE

s7ryf3925pivug

auspicious wrote: »

Crying Pig Farmer

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sJVuGliq1GE

Can you give a TLDW summary?

auspicious

Valentina Green Thunder wrote: »

Can you give a TLDW summary?

There's no way I can put it as eloquently as Ed. The images are an aside. Just turn up the volume or pop your headphones on and listen while you're pottering about the house.

s7ryf3925pivug

auspicious wrote: »

There's no way I can put it as eloquently as Ed does. The images are an aside. Just turn up the volume or pop your headphones on and listen while you're pottering about the house.

Nah. I assume he's saying that the pig farmer crying makes no sense because he sends the pigs off to slaughter anyway. I assume he is not an animal farmer and does not have any particular insight into what it is like to be a pig farmer.

I agree with the notion of reducing animal farming and of widespread vegetarianism. But I don't see how personally attacking an arbitrary farmer would achieve either of those things. I do think there is a contradiction when someone identifies as an animal lover but eats factory farmed meat. But I don't think there necessarily is a contradiction if someone is upset because they have kill animals they take care of, even if the eventual destination of those animals is the slaughterhouse.

Farming is the main part of both the livelihood and identity of many farmers and that should be respected regardless of your politics.

auspicious

He's not attacking the farmer. He's highlighting the cognitive dissonance. The detachment. The fact some people don't see the wood for the trees.

auspicious

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vBx7MGIZ1fU