I've not seen the news recently and not sure if this made it but apparently:
"Gulf Livestock 1, carrying more than 40 crew members and nearly 6,000 cattle, foundered off coast of Japan"
formatting link
I don't suppose there were any life rafts for the cattle, not like it looked like the crew faired much better, 5906 total lives lost. ;-(
But hey, it was only ~6 thousand cattle, a drop in the ocean compared with the 2 million (land animals, not counting the fish etc) that are slaughtered every day.
If we did not eat meat and drink milk, how long would cattle exist for as a species, I wonder?Certainly it would make a big impact in co2 emissions globally, I'd imagine. The problem with life rafts for the cattle is how would they get into them? Maybe they should all have had life jackets? Brian
As long as the wild cattle would have existed if we hasn't started mucking about with them. And it is only an existence (not a life) for many that are held in un-natural conditions.
Well, the suggestion is they are responsible for 20% of our current greenhouse gasses, more than all transport worldwide.
Then we have all the pollution caused (and washed out into the rivers and estuaries, chocking them and creating massive dead zones) and all the resources consumed (90% of the B12 produced is fed to livestock and 70% the veg produced by clearing rain forest is fed to and used for grazing livestock).
Well, quite. My point was that the 40 lives that were crewing the ship were (potentially / legally) provided with escape solutions but the other 6000 lives were not.
Well, whilst I understand drowning isn't a nice death (especially in a metal container / cage) it may have been better than any 'life' they may have had in 'breeding' in China.
The article says that New Zealand doesn't live export for slaughter. These cattle,including pregnant cows, were enroute to China for "breeding".
Still I do wonder about the conditions the animals are kept in. The image appears to show a fairly open structure so at least for those above deck ventilation is probably OK. Bit dark in the middle though and what shelter is there for those on the outside exposed to the tropical sun? No doubt these animals are also fairly tightly penned up, space to lie down? If not they have to stand for the duration of the journey, 17 days in this case, Thats for the "lucky" one above decks, what about those below?
6k of cattle will produce a lot of slurry, wonder where that goes, overboard I guess.
I know, I was referring to those that died that day. ;-(
Same here.
I think being in a massive storm might have been a bit more than ventilation! ;-(
That as well. But see, to many, these aren't living creatures but simply 'meat', or 'breeding machines' to treat (as poorly) as they see fit (or can get away with).
Who knows Dave.
Quite.
The whole thing is yet another horror story re how 'we' think we have the right to treat other beings.
Did you see any mention of it on the TV news OOI as I didn't?
Yet a cat being rescued from a drain does get a mention, maybe they simply don't want to raise the issue to the std meat loving and money spending general public ... not a 'happy story' but another one I really think they *should* know about.
No, he/(she) isn't, something you demonstrated with every single post!
Human beings are weak and pathetic and are born when partially developed or we would kill our mothers.
We can't stand on our own two feet for literally *ages* (~1 year) and even they we aren't able to fend for ourselves for many more years.
We can't defend ourselves again many animals that are much smaller than us, we can't do many of the things even the most basic animals can do and the only thing we have done than no other animal has done since the creation of the earth, is try to destroy the earth and everything on it.
This includes one of *the biggest* problems we are causing ourselves, our health, use of resources and pollution and that's the industrial level of 'farming' other sentient and harmless creatures, creatures who simply want and deserve to be left the f*ck alone and certainly not molested, tortured and eaten by the likes of you, simply because you think you have the right to do so.
You don't, it's something you have taken, not been given.
we have the advantage on communication, that has enabled us to do a lot. Outside of that other species beat us in many ways. I recall watching an attempt at an intelligence test with some sort of monkeys versus a human. The monkeys utterly beat him on the various iq subtests, but his ego did not let him acknowlege that. Communication is what makes the difference with us, not intelligence.
Where does this weird political delusion come from? When I look round at what humans have done I see in the great majority of cases it's attempting and mostly succeeding in improving the planet. What strange glasses do you wear to see nothing but destruction? What basic critical thinking ability do you lack to conclude all we do is destroy?
destructive of our health... so the human world would do better without all that meat, egg & dairy? Boy you're confused. At a really basic level.
It's certainly a problem. Of course so is starvation.
Quite ... and including that often, considering what range some animals like elephants and whales can communicate over, or the frequencies like bats or the use of light.
They also beat us *by miles* on visual speed and reaction / memory.
formatting link
Even chickens can recognised 100 others and hence build a 'pecking order'. Put them in greater numbers and they become stressed.
It's a big part that's for sure but if you lead a more 'basic' life you don't need as big a vocabulary.
It's neither political nor a delusion. We have already depleted many of the earths resources, fill the air (we breathe) with pollution and the sea (and the food we eat) with plastics. We pump sewage in the same water we drink and bathe in.
Really? The only 'improvements' I see are only for man? How has that improved the lot of anything else.
Clear ones. ;-(
What part of a general overview do you think can be 'fixed' by a few instances?
In nearly every aspect, 'yes', of course, it's the way it's going already. Every coffee shop now offers cows milk alternatives. Every cafe / restaurant / fast food place offers vegetarian / vegan food and they are doing so because of an increasing demand. Even Ikea are now doing vegan stuff.
Me and all the others who don't drink the lactate of another species you mean, causing it to die 1/5th of it's natural life? A lactate often mixed with pus created by the means we extract it?
Me and all the others that don't eat the embryo of a bird, till we cause it to die 1/5th of it's natural life?
Ah, so at a basic level, how many other animals continue to suckle from their mothers after they have weaned? How many other species suckle from another species? What do you think 'lactose intolerance really means?
It is indeed.
Of course, the irony of which is we are actually *wasting* food processing it though animals in many cases.
70% of the destruction of the Amazon rain forest is to provide food to feed to livestock (mostly soy) that we could easily eat directly ourselves and at a higher level of efficiency.
Or better, not have to use the 'Lungs of the earth' in such a way in the first place, relying on the veg that we already produced that is already enough to feed the entire world population and will be better positioned to feed the population as it grows past where we can support it with meat.
I'd rate even myself with decent modern _human_ _built_ technology against any animal you'd care to name. We are a tool using animal; without our tools we are weak. With our tools we are the number one most dangerous animal on the planet.
The problem isn't human in the singular, it's that there are 9 billion of us. And counting.
Only the Chinese have done anything about it, and they were widely condemned for their approach.
Yeabut that's not the same as our inherent / native abilities.;-)
Quite, pathetically so, for our size. Us versus a chimp for example.
Of course, as we know to our own cost. ;-(
Also with our machine we are the most polluting animal on the planet. We have also consumed the most resources of any animal on the planet.
Quite. When people lived in small remote groups and whilst they behaved themselves they would generally only take from the land what the land could sustainably provide. We are way past that with our current livestock model and why we have to interfere with their reproduction as much as we do. [1]
Yup. ;-(
I believe they have revised the 'and counting' bit a bit now?
Not by us or most sensible people, considering how much their population was exploding. But it did work well, so well I understand that they are now having to take immigrant workers to fill the job vacancies, something they have been very much against for a long time.
Cheers, T i m
[1] On one of the Earthling Ed Youtube thing he was talking of 'a guy' who was caught with his arm up a cows backside and was arrested and treated as a perv / weirdo. Yet, a farmer can do it (or a vet for them) and apparently, that's perfectly ok? I'm not sure if the cow would be ok about either?
All species do. We get to treat the water we drink.
Have you never heard of domesticated cats & dogs? Never heard of vets? Wildlife rescue organisations? Etc etc etc.
that's not even worth answering
??
We have a billion people that can't get enough to eat and you want to get rid of all the meat, egg & dairy produced on unfarmable land, and the fish. I'm just grateful the human species has never elected you leader.
So you're not aware we eat unfertilised eggs.
Indeed. And in some cases it's the only thing the food is fit for, and the only use we can make of the land. 100% vegan is therefore not any answer to the food problem.
whatever that might mean.
The number 1 human problem is food. In some cases changing animal farming to vegetable would help, and in some it's not a viable option. In the latter cases it would only worsen the horrid reality of starvation.
XR and other similar fascists appear to want what T r o l l is apparently advocating here. Involving as it would a massive population reduction worldwide, I'd be interested to now what he proposes to obtain that reduction. Using his lifestyle model, the UK could support more more than perhaps 5 million. Where are the other 65 million to go?
We have a perhaps 15 acre field behind us, and about 25 opposite. From time to time I watch them harvesting, planting, or ploughing. Each of these takes a few hours at most, using of course tractors and other kit. Perhaps T r o l l would like to try that himself by hand and see how he gets on.
In who's view, the other animals we share this would with?
And what would nature do with them if we all vanished?
Ah, that's a nice way to look at it. We have to wait till the sea is
100% plastic before we do something about it?
No, we have been *pumping* raw sewage into the waterways for years now, no animal ever has (at anything like our levels). The real issues of animal waste getting into our waterways and oceans is only really from livestock that we have put there.
And animals have a greater resistance to drinking polluted water because their digestive systems are designed to deal with it (to a higher level).
Some of us have that luxury, yes. But even a so called advanced country like ours still regularly dumps raw sewage and other waste into our rivers and estuaries ... to then eat the shellfish and other marine animals that feed on it.
What? Egg / chicken? We provide healthcare to the animals *we* domesticated? How magnanimous of us?
See above .. and like I said, citing the few positive examples don't go any way near offsetting the negatives, negatives that are already impacting all of us and that have happened over the last few hundred years out of the millions of years we have all been here.
See above. We have probably caused the death and extinction of more animals than we could *ever* do good for. 2 *million* land (alone) animals killed every day for us to eat.
It was the reply your comment deserved. I don't see 'nothing but destruction', I see the bigger picture and se we have done more damage than we have done good ... to_the_world.
formatting link
See, with all our advancements we have come to assume we can walk round in our pants in the winter with the CH on full and that's 'acceptable'. Or that we can have the temperate at different levels either side of our cars? That we can use *drinking water* that has taking energy and resources to transport, clean and purify to then use it to water our lawns, wash our cars or flush our toilets. I wonder what people drinking water out of a dirty puddle would think of us.
You cite that we have vets and think that counters the fact that the air and oceans are now heavily polluted (but that's ok because they aren't 'full up')?
There is sufficient veg at the *current* production levels to feed the entire global population 1.5 times over. The problem isn't production, it's a matter of logistics and the stupidity of having nearly twice as many livestock as *people* on the planet and feeding them food that we could often eat directly or could use the land to grow what we could eat. That's ignoring the land not currently viable for industrial levels of agriculture.
formatting link
Correct, in the main (exception being the very few who don't have the choice).
The human species is already heading in that direction based on common sense and need.
<snip>
Yes, so effectively chicken periods (I was trying to be delicate).
But that's the only bit you take from that, no comment of the fact that the egg laying hens are slaughtered (worst case) 1/5th of their natural life spans because they are physically exhausted and are suffering from calcium deficiency and have bad bones?
A wild chicken would typically lay between 10 and 15 eggs a year, not
300.
A wild chicken would lay a small clutch of eggs (~5) and then sit on them.
A wild chicken would exist in a small flock, would recognise ~100 others and has a 60 word vocabulary.
Denying an inelegant animal all it's natural environment, actions and lifespan is cruelty but none of that has any meaning / value / relevance to you.
If we are such an advances species, don't you think we would have learned not to be torturing and exploiting the other animals by now? <snip>
If we better used the viable lad we have to feed humans and not the other animals, we wouldn't need the unviable land.
It is the answer to the food problem.
Prediction. At some point we will look back at ourselves from today and be disgusted about lots of it, the primary one how we treated the other animals we shared this space with and how we wasted the resources we fed to them that would could have used ourselves.
What it says. There will be a limit how much food we can *waste*, feeding to livestock that we then kill and eat.
The current 'plant protein to animal protein (including pasture animals) has been estimated at 8.3 percent globally'. Do you think that sounds like a good use of resources? Does that sound sustainable to you?
And made a problem because of bogus understanding of the use of the resources and people selfish / blinkered desire to eat animal flesh and secretions.
No, in *most* cases it would help, look at the protein conversion factor!
Of course, with how we are doing it today.
Nope, quite the opposite in fact.
Take a third world country with no water so little vegetation.
Would it be better to feed what little vegetation there is directly to the people than to convert it into animal protein and feed them that instead, when the conversion rate from veg to meat is 8.5% (beef being the worst).
800 gallons of water, loads of pain and suffering (and death of the males) to produce 1 gallon of cow lactate (containing set maximum level of pus) to feed to an animal it was never designed for and may are intolerant to and then killing the exhausted animal 1/5 of it's natural life.
And that's ignoring that any pasture used for grazing dairy herds (not that many ever see grass) could be used for veg, we wouldn't need to apply B12 supplements to them so could use them ourselves, we wouldn't produce so many greenhouse gasses (20% of all of them, higher than all transport combined).
The bottom line is that you are trying to defend the indefensible.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.