More thoughts on meat eating....

I think more and more we are like that frog in the pot of cool water that is placed on a slow burner and lets himself get cooked to death because he never was conscious of how hot the water was. He just got used to very small changes even though the water was soon boiling.


But the more conscious I personally become, the more I become aware of truths that reflect how we live today--not some traditional and mythic driven bull crap of some perceived forgotten blissful time in the past where life is thought to have been simpler and we keep trying to drag that into today's world .....as if it were to be so much better than today. We need to face things.

I thought this TED talk was quite poignant..
It's about more problems with eating meat, or at least wayyyyy toooo much meat...
I grew up every night myself eating meat at dinner. It was great and mom was good at cooking, but at that time, I had no awareness or consciousness of anything outside of the sphere around my dinner plate. I suppose as long as people remain blissfully ignorant like I was as a child of little beyond what they want, the problem will never find a solution.

But check it out...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=8 ... 1422579428



Old habits and perceived truths are hard to overcome I know...just ask the frog.


Paul

1.  Interesting video Paul, and of course, I do agree with your theme.

I see the meat eating from this perspective and another one too.  I shut the video off when Mr. Bittman showed the number.  What was it?…..10 billion animals?  I want no part of the killing.   It is insane and something that we should talk about but do not.

Our lust for meat is no more than a habit.  I think you agree with that Paul.  And I found it to be a habit that is quite easily broken.   My self image tells me that I have an "addictive personality" (if there is such a thing).  However, I stopped eating meat on the first attempt, some years ago….probably over 10 years now.  I do drink milk and eat cheeses.  And I love fish.  I eat no beef, pork or chicken….none at all.  I personally boycotted the fast food burger joints, for life.    

2.  Let me ask the readers a question?  We all know how intelligent dogs are.  Most of us probably do not know that pigs are more intelligent than dogs.  Or I think that most scientists believe so.  

Can you picture a line in an abattoir for slaughtering dogs?  How do you think pigs feel when they realize what is about to happen?  I refuse to be responsible for any of it at all.  Not just for my eating pleasure.

3.  You wrote:  "We need to face things."

My response is:  Ha!  Good luck having that happening.  But on second thought, I would guess that Americans are very slowly trending away from meats.  Anyone know the stats related to this ?  

4.  Dentitions:  It seems to me that our dentition was not made for eating meat.  When I make such a statement the person usually tells me that we do have canine teeth.  Well, I am not sure what the dental profession calls the two canines that we have, but they sure are not anything near the shape of the ones that other mammalians have that are categorized as carnivores.  Now I suspect someone here might dig up references that tend to refute what I am writing here.  But no, we do not have "true" canine teeth.   We are omnivores.  And if we did evolve, and if we could witness human evolution, we would find our ancestors eating much more vegetation than fresh meat.  That seems irrefuteable when we look at our teeth.  

Thanks for bringing this up Paul.  It is related to us as nature photographers.  It's all about all of nature.  Or at least it should be.

Robert King
http://itsaboutnature.net

Santa Fe Joe and I got into a discussion on the canine tooth debate a while back did you catch it? I challenged him to eat a pound of hamburger-raw and get back to us. The facts are, we are not carnivores and really only omnivores cause we can COOK our food. Cooking made human beings and our whole civilization possible. It made grains edible too. Spices and flavorings made bland foods palatable. But huge is what it did for raw meat.

You should finish the whole video Robert. One of the facts that he brings up is also a drum I have been beating...70% of the worlds agricultural land is used directly and indirectly for the raising of animals for consumption. 3% is only needed for human vegetable consumptive needs!!!!

Habit is the problem, you hit the nail on the head. We are habitually addicted to eating too much meat. It's drummed into us and is part of our culture. But having gotten off that merry go round myself, the spell has been broken, at least for me. I have no meat cravings at all anymore. None. Seriously. And my awareness of those slaughterhouses mentally is so repulsive, it's a forced act for me when I occasionally do have to eat meat. It's never now an enjoyable experience like it was when I was growing up and where I had like zero thought on where that meat came from. It's animal abuse and misuse alright.. But the general populace just doesn't have the consciousness of what they are doing. But it is habit like you say. Smokers can't hardly imagine not smoking, yet those that quit can't imagine going back. Religions are at each others throats because their habits clash and none will give it up... We drive the same routes, we watch the same things, we go through the day on the same routines. I think it's all a resultant of our insecurities and inferiorities. Change is scary. The future is an unknown... comfort is pacifying.

But awareness is a key. Like when it became known as a fact that cigarettes kill people, people started to give them up. Climate change is now a fact and people are going to become more aware of it's consequences and have to de-habituate themselves into a new way of living .....and they will be fine. But all those animals creating 1/5 of the greenhouse gases causing that warming? More than all the cars because methane is more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2????
The video made me a substantial amount more aware of the problem than I was before, so I posted it so others could catch it.

And for better or worse the more people that believe in something the more others will believe it then too. Maybe this is an extension of the herding mentality, but numbers create validity. If everyone was a vegetarian chances are you would be too. Most are meat eaters so others figure it must be alright for them too. The fact that most don't seem to empathize with the slaughtered animal they are eating is an extension of this principle. Billions served translates into "go ahead...it's OK!" The problem for the individual is that they never become their own true selves. And if one wants to figure out why all the unhappy, angry people in today's world, looking at the fact that few are truly living their own lives any more, but are being dictated to not by a few, but by the many,will yield some answers. Makes us crazy nuts...

Hitler once said if I can get 3000 people to believe in the Nazi way, I can get the rest of Germany then also....

I believe awareness is the key that opens the door to consciousness. If folks all really saw what goes on and didn't rely on others who also just fell in line as their cue for right and wrong, and be willing to get out of their comfort zone, change can be made. The thing as I see it that stifles that process is bias, or a fear of being wrong or corrected. We can't handle the humiliation, the undermining of what our past belief systems have been, The inconvenience of having to change and start over, whether that be physical or mental. Everybody's right...so everybody's wrong.

The main problem with that whole phenomenon as I see it is that life is continually evolving. From economic and social structures to religious and philosophical beliefs. That's why I rather laugh when a sport hunter pulls out the "Tradition" card. They are living in a fantasy. A delusion that we can go back to those days. The truth is those days are gone and we need to look around at today cause THAT is reality and IS something we can grab a hold of. Not some past whimsical idea of a life better than today. When hunting was this "tradition" it was a job for food.. Nothing more. It was arduous, time consuming, at times desperate, and no more thrilling than any day to day job. But oh how some fantasize. But we all are doing this is what I'm getting at, not just hunters. If one needs proof just look at our art, like the movies. It's clear we want fantasy.  We all believe in this "better" time, or world, or life. We need to accept reality and embrace the struggle and learn to love it. Thank God there are a lot of people out there who do...

For those who eat eggs-
You know only hens lay eggs and that female chicks are kept for that reason at the breeders, so what happens to all those baby boy chicks that pop out of the eggs???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_culling

Reality sure sucks....don't it??

Paul

I haven't eaten meat of any kind since 1995 but I'm not sure why we are discussing it on a photography forum?

E.J. Peiker wrote:I haven't eaten meat of any kind since 1995 but I'm not sure why we are discussing it on a photography forum?

Not to be glib, but simply put, how we live our lives is detrimental on whether or not there is something at all to photograph.

Don't disagree but I haven't seen any of it tied to photography in this thread.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Don't disagree but I haven't seen any of it tied to photography in this thread.

I thought this was an "Environment, Conservation and Ethics" forum. Does this thread not fall under that category?
Here is another take on a related topic.
http://www.straight.com/news/818136/gwy ... everything

Forum titles are short and can't express the full intent. But if one reads the guidelines we've posted for each forum, usually it's quite clear. For the Environment, Conservation and Ethics forum, the guidelines are here:
http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/view ... 37&t=35092

Excerpt:

Many photographers have expressed a deep interest in becoming more aware of their environment, conservation concerns, and ethical issues. We have provided this forum for discussion of these issues as they relate directly to nature and nature photography. [...]

These topics are often emotionally charged, but we ask that that NatureScapes.Net guidelines be adhered to. Our site is for the discussion of nature photography issues in a friendly and civil manner. Posts outside the guidelines will be moderated. [...]

Please help maintain this forum by engaging in reasonable, lively discussions on the topics as they pertain to nature photography.

Thank you, Royce.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Don't disagree but I haven't seen any of it tied to photography in this thread.

I see.

Well I have in the past, established factual references to the inconvenient truths that the numbers of raised livestock for eating meat and production of other animal products is decimating the earth in ways which not only directly affect whats left to the natural world environments, but also, once more again, affect  what there is to photograph. Most that want to photograph something nowadays have to go to a refuge or similar. True there is still wildlife in other places, but by what reference?? Not like 300 years ago or even 100 years ago..... and where is it going in the furture? And that does not relate to photography??  Really? A person may have all the bells and whistles when it comes to equipment,have all  the maps out and the hotel and airline reservations made, but where does he or she go from there? Most likely to a photo hot spot. Again not saying there's any absolutes in all this, but generally it's true. Those hotspots are islands of what's left, and are only really there because someone, or someones, had the foresight to see them protected.

So why would eating meat be important to a nature photographer??

Because, 70% of the agricultural land in use in the world today is used for livestock and animal products, and agricultural land is the single greatest use of land.

Because, in the US(except Alaska) anyways, we only need 3% of that agricultural land to supply all the vegetables we eat.

Because, in the US(except Alaska), [font=Arial]Some 788 million acres, or 41.4 percent of the U. S. excluding Alaska, are grazed by livestock.

Because, in the US(except Alaska), [/font][font=Arial]About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops. This is the equivalent of about four states the size  of     Montana. Four crops -- feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa hay (61 million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of total crop acreage. [/font]All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock.

EJ  These points have been made before and I find it rather incredulous you are not recognizing the major loss of lands that could be used to support wildlife and are not, and this is in turn of no, or of little, relative effect  and concern on us photographers? I thought we as photographers for the most part are doing so because we are concerned, no alarmed, at the losses, and want very much through our photography to help stop the devastation?


Wouldn't the US and world's wildlife and natural environments all benefit from less land plowed, drained, reshaped, and lakes and rivers less drained for their water for irrigation, all done in support of raising animals for their meat??  Wouldn't we also, as so called ambassadors for nature and wildlife, all be better at that responsibility if we demonstrated consciously to others through action and restraint, by eating no, or at least a lot less meat??  Isn't the meat merry go round just an addiction in this country?? Like drug dealers people make a lot of money off it NO?? You bet they do.. And if there is money to be made, there will people that will do anything to make it. They are marketing it like is our birthright and absolutely necessary for any kind of health..but we all know this is wrong..

You know people respect you EJ. They respect your knowledge, your intelligence, your willingness to help others, and your love and passion for the very same things they do--namely wildlife and nature. And you don't think, or know, that by being a vegetarian, this has not affected them?  I'm sure it has got many a person saying to themselves, "Well if EJ is a vegetarian there must be a good reason! Perhaps I should think about it more".  If a greater preponderance of nature photographers made example and fielded questions with awareness from others who are curious about nature and photography about and what eating too much meat is doing to the environment, don't you feel this will affect those people too? Like having an extra arrow in one's quiver???

Photographer or not, we all have responsibilities as inhabitants of the planet. But more so as self proclaimed artists and documentors of that natural world I would say. If it doesn't it should.

Lenses? Sensors? Tripods? More important then having land for nature?? I don't see this philosophy as a healthy one. I have to disagree with any photographer at this point that says eating meat is not the photographers problem. Or relates to his photography. That thought is dead wrong...

It is not only a huge problem , nothing else compares. Not that the other problems don't count now. Not what I am saying.  But freeing up millions of acres for conversion back to the wild would be huge and seems to me falls in line with the very philosophical goals of the nature and wildlife photographer in the first place.

There's an old saying....You are not what you say....You are what you do.....

It's not difficult to see the hypocrisy of someone who claims to love animals as they wolf down triple whopper with cheese or a two pound steak. A better example set by not eating meat, or limiting consumption of meat, would go miles and miles towards creating better ambassadors of nature and wildlife photographers. And like I said before isn't that our goal? I find it hard to believe we are all just a pack of egoists only in it for the strokes derived from a great image...

Let's talk here....people for the most part are not aware on the connected facts to overeating animals, and are in disconnect to the realities of it. How many people really know how much of our land is used for eating meat??? Like maybe 1% of the population. I say let's change that. Also with a little imagination there would be other benefits for freed up land use too besides just wildlife. Less fertilizer run off and weed and insect killers. Wouldn't that help too??

So meat eating NOT important to the nature photographer?? Not a worthy subject?? Not important enough?? Not related??  Really??  Am I hanging around the wrong crowd??

I say eating meat is not only an issue of paramount proportions and I mean today, but I also will state with clear mind that is more important than anything else a nature photographer can do NOW! 

What do you think about that??


Do check out this short overview of our land use for your reference. Everyone please do this..
 
https://www.westernwatersheds.org/watme ... ticle6.htm

I'm not going to insult your intelligence EJ as I know you know everything I have said. You probably agree also. So why the disconnect???

I mean sure it's your football and if you want to deflate it and end the game for others, I guess you can go right ahead and do that. Maybe you guys only want the site to be for pics and equipment. Well that's OK, but put that fact on the front page then,  and eliminate the forums where God forbid someone would bring up inconvenient truths.

Paul

EGrav wrote:Thank you, Royce.

Thanks for what???

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:Don't disagree but I haven't seen any of it tied to photography in this thread.

I thought this was an "Environment, Conservation and Ethics" forum. Does this thread not fall under that category?
Here is another take on a related topic.
http://www.straight.com/news/818136/gwy ... everything

Sobering..

pleverington wrote:

EGrav wrote:Thank you, Royce.

Thanks for what???

For trying (though unsuccessfully) to get this forum back on track. 

EGrav wrote:

pleverington wrote:

EGrav wrote:Thank you, Royce.

Thanks for what???

For trying (though unsuccessfully) to get this forum back on track. 

Why does that concern you? If we want to talk about relevance, then how about the two active posts on baiting owls? Hasn't that topic been beaten to death enough? It comes around every year with the same answers. 
How could someone not consider Paul's topic "relevant?" The degradation of ecosystems and so on has a DIRECT impact on photography. I guess the problem is that it is an evolving process, and doesn't affect our photography right this second...or so we think?
A few decades ago in University, I took an environmental chemistry course. The prof was deeply concerned about the environment, so much so that he allowed a student to take up half of a lecture to talk about the very same topic Paul is discussing. Since that time about 25% of land animals have disappeared(50% since 1972). 
Not relevant to nature photography? I don't think so, and besides, if you don't care about the topic, don't participate!

Royce Howland wrote:Forum titles are short and can't express the full intent. But if one reads the guidelines we've posted for each forum, usually it's quite clear. For the Environment, Conservation and Ethics forum, the guidelines are here:
http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/view ... 37&t=35092

Excerpt:

Many photographers have expressed a deep interest in becoming more aware of their environment, conservation concerns, and ethical issues. We have provided this forum for discussion of these issues as they relate directly to nature and nature photography. [...]

These topics are often emotionally charged, but we ask that that NatureScapes.Net guidelines be adhered to. Our site is for the discussion of nature photography issues in a friendly and civil manner. Posts outside the guidelines will be moderated. [...]

Please help maintain this forum by engaging in reasonable, lively discussions on the topics as they pertain to nature photography.

Thanks for the post, however, browsing the threads in this forum reveals many that would seem to violate your rulebook.

pleverington wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:Don't disagree but I haven't seen any of it tied to photography in this thread.

EJ  These points have been made before and I find it rather incredulous you are not recognizing the major loss of lands that could be used to support wildlife and are not, and this is in turn of no, or of little, relative effect  and concern on us photographers? I thought we as photographers for the most part are doing so because we are concerned, no alarmed, at the losses, and want very much through our photography to help stop the devastation?

You know people respect you EJ. They respect your knowledge, your intelligence, your willingness to help others, and your love and passion for the very same things they do--namely wildlife and nature. And you don't think, or know, that by being a vegetarian, this has not affected them?  I'm sure it has got many a person saying to themselves, "Well if EJ is a vegetarian there must be a good reason! Perhaps I should think about it more".  If a greater preponderance of nature photographers made example and fielded questions with awareness from others who are curious about nature and photography about and what eating too much meat is doing to the environment, don't you feel this will affect those people too? Like having an extra arrow in one's quiver???

I'm not going to insult your intelligence EJ as I know you know everything I have said. You probably agree also. So why the disconnect???

I mean sure it's your football and if you want to deflate it and end the game for others, I guess you can go right ahead and do that. Maybe you guys only want the site to be for pics and equipment. Well that's OK, but put that fact on the front page then,  and eliminate the forums where God forbid someone would bring up inconvenient truths.

Paul

Whoa, my whole point was that up to the point where I wrote it, nothing in the thread had been tied to photography and this is a photography forum as per the guidelines that Royce quoted...

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

Royce Howland wrote:Forum titles are short and can't express the full intent. But if one reads the guidelines we've posted for each forum, usually it's quite clear. For the Environment, Conservation and Ethics forum, the guidelines are here:
http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/view ... 37&t=35092

Thanks for the post, however, browsing the threads in this forum reveals many that would seem to violate your rulebook.

That's true. And the editorial & mod team has been discussing for some time whether to let some of the more off-topic stuff continue to go on, attempt to moderate it which almost always provokes negative reactions from a vocal minority, or take some other action. The fact is we all have a lot on our plates and for the most part rely on people reading and following guidelines in a self-directed fashion. We don't jump for joy at having to come in and moderate situations, and we haven't yet reached a conclusion on this forum.

For now I simply request that everyone concentrate on EC&E topics as they relate to nature photography. This is not the place for posting anything and everything that could be construed as relating to nature, the environment, etc.

Royce Howland wrote:We don't jump for joy at having to come in and moderate situations, and we haven't yet reached a conclusion on this forum.

For now I simply request that everyone concentrate on EC&E topics as they relate to nature photography. This is not the place for posting anything and everything that could be construed as relating to nature, the environment, etc.

Why the heavy hand and bothering to moderate it? You have many people in this community here with a concern for the environment and photography that choose to discuss topics of their choice. What's the harm in that? 
I can understand the need to moderate or close threads if they degenerate in to name calling and such. But really, are these topics that big a deal? They do concern the natural world in some aspect and since a nature photographers goal is photograph the natural world, I don't see why the need to interfere with polite conversation.
If that is the stance at NSN concerning topics such as these, then may be a simple solution would be to delete the entire forum? That will save moderators from having to debate such contentious issues as to whether or not something is directly related to photography.

Well, name a topic that can't be connected to "the natural world" by at least some tenuous thread of logic. If that's the criteria for what should be allowable, then the entire realm of human knowledge and experience should be allowed, since everything exists in some form of relation to the natural world.

It's not a "heavy hand", it's "a hand". The policy for this forum has been established for at least 10 years, and there were reasons why it was established in the first place. Among other things, it relates to NSN having a mission which is primarily nature photography and not primarily activist within environmental or other areas. Plus the potential difficulty is that many of these topics are controversial and relate to types of personal beliefs (whether supported by evidence or not) that can be difficult for people to discuss without their passion getting the better of them. Hence we're looking to keep the focus on things relevant to nature photography as a way of somewhat limiting the scope to areas that are core the NSN mission and hopefully not almost automatically controversial, while still providing a way for nature photographers who (as you say) are passionate about various kinds of EC&E topics to have a venue to discuss them here.

It's hardly "heavy handed" to require that topics be relevant to nature photography, on a nature photography site. Nor should that requirement lead to the simplistic conclusion that if people can't discuss whatever they want, then the entire forum might as well be deleted...

Well, name a topic that can't be connected to "the natural world" by at least some tenuous thread of logic. If that's the criteria for what should be allowable, then the entire realm of human knowledge and experience should be allowed, since everything exists in some form of relation to the natural world.

It's not a "heavy hand", it's "a hand". The policy for this forum has been established for at least 10 years, and there were reasons why it was established in the first place. Among other things, it relates to NSN having a mission which is primarily nature photography and not primarily activist within environmental or other areas. Plus the potential difficulty is that many of these topics are controversial and relate to types of personal beliefs (whether supported by evidence or not) that can be difficult for people to discuss without their passion getting the better of them. Hence we're looking to keep the focus on things relevant to nature photography as a way of somewhat limiting the scope to areas that are core the NSN mission and hopefully not almost automatically controversial, while still providing a way for nature photographers who (as you say) are passionate about various kinds of EC&E topics to have a venue to discuss them here.

It's hardly "heavy handed" to require that topics be relevant to nature photography, on a nature photography site. Nor should that requirement lead to the simplistic conclusion that if people can't discuss whatever they want, then the entire forum might as well be deleted...

I understand your intent Royce but don't you think you exaggerating and trying to deflect??  Firstly this is not some "tenuous thread of logic" remotelty related to us nature photographers. I feel that statement is thoughtless and intended to minimize the content of the subject and therefore dismiss it as being too whacked out.  It's something real, it really is affecting all of us greatly, and most important is something all of us can do something about. It's not something that goes nowhere because we might feel helpless about. It is my view that these guidelines your trying to define and enforce need to be looked at in a different light. One can't see it all if one does not illuminate.




EJ, Royce, with all respect, the both of you should realize or remember that giving birth to something, even an idea or a website for example, will eventually produce a child so to speak, that grows up and becomes something very different than was first imagined. If you don't allow that, your stifling evolution of that first idea and inspiration. Instead of figuring out if you should censor, and in what way, you both I feel should be nurturing. Nobody is being rude, vulgar, condescending, insulting, combative, or out of line in any way so what exactly is the problem??

A subject about something that would help save the things we are trying to save with our photography..... and you guys don't get it?? Guess I don't get that. What are you two taking pictures for then?? Like I said, it's your football technically, but make it clear you don't want discussions on the environmental issues we all face. Then maybe the "Vocal minority" such as myself, SantaFe Joe, and Blck-shouldered Kite might just go away. Maybe yours and everyone's problem is NOT the "Vocal Minority" (Jeeeez Royce), but instead is the "Silent Majority". Did you ever think of it that way????

OK EJ you didn't see the value of the discussion as far as it pertaining to the nature photographer up to a certain point in the discussion, I heard that. How about now? You see my points now, do you see any value to photographers eating less meat and spreading the word to others who have like at best some national geographic concept of nature? Do you see now that we all as nature photographers, as a united force might indeed have an impact on the extensive and detrimental loss of habitat due to the overuse of land for meat?? This is what's more important, not lenses and sensors. Although they  are important too. Define your personal priorities then for us. 

EJ I guess I had assumed you had read other past posts of mine, they covered these things already so I don't know how you can claim ignorance of the substance of the post. But maybe you missed them. Or didn't bother reading them. No problem for that, but big problem for what we both love dearly. I'm not some radical environmentalist here. I rather fancy myself to be a conservative actually. But a conservative on the side of nature and wildlife for it's sake.


Royce do you really want or need another long dragged out nothing gained discussion about digital manipulation, or baiting, or anything else that yields mostly just opinions without any tangible real ground being gained?? I'm posting and bringing up REAL issues, REAL things we can all actually do something pragmatically about, something that many others who are very in touch and tuned to the problems we now face with land loss to animal products are also actively sounding off about.

How does it not relate to photography anyhow?? Please do tell everyone why then are you two taking pictures?? The both of you need to stop thinking censorship and let the site grow and evolve. It could very well be a very powerful force down the road for us,much more than it is now.

Paul