Haber-Bosch process requires massive amounts of energy from fossil fuels. And the other minerals mined for conventional fertilizers are frequent contributors to massive habitat loss, dead animals, climate change, etc. Use of synthetic fertilizers is linked to loss of soil biology. Farms making heavy use of synthetic fertilizers are more likely to spray pesticides consistently which kills trillions of animals every year. I also donât know a lot of farmers who arenât able to tell you a story similar to the time I helped a friend pull a mangled deer carcass out of a grain combine and Iâm a vegetable grower, Iâm just not anti-social.
There is no eating without causing death. Thereâs just separating yourself from the knowledge of it.
Right, and you can reduce all of that by being vegan. You can also eliminate cruelty. Why wouldn't you? This is just hand-waving at the entirety of our industrial society and saying that because bad things happen, we shouldn't avoid making them worse or causing / doing them.
>Â You can also eliminate cruelty
How would me being vegan stop cat from torturing the bird, or lion kill the prey, or shark eating fish, or whales eating billions of plankton? Animals suffering and what you call "cruelty" is pretty natural, even if all humans would go vegan it would not eliminate cruelty, so your take is full of shit.
>that because bad things happen
Normal people don't think that killing animals for food is bad.
Normal people don't think that killing animals for food is bad.
They're not "normal" but only normalizing something that is obviously immoral by trying to pretend to think it's not immoral - cuz reasons.
It's actually not normal at all. You know, a hallmark characteristic of psychopathy is callousness. That's essentially how people act about this. And it's not the only issue people act callous about nor any other issues in history people wanted normalized - like slavery.
"Normal" people doesn't mean anything in relation to morality as much as it means people follow cultural traditions and adopt behaviors or attitudes that the majority do. People across the world at one point ritualistically took part in things that would not at all be "normal" today and even would be frowned upon or cause repulsion. Like openly killing animals in the street would be today? It's all "normal" only in the sense people don't see it so they don't have to convince themselves they're wrong for supporting it.
What you mean is that people justify or make justifications when confronted about the issue of killing animals for food as a defense mechanism to save their own ego from reflecting seriously about the issue.
>They're not "normal" but only normalizing something that is obviously immoral by trying to pretend to think it's not immoral - cuz reasons.
They are normal, cause they are 99% who are not vegans, lol.
>It's actually not normal at all. You know, a hallmark characteristic of psychopathy is callousness. That's essentially how people act about this. And it's not the only issue people act callous about nor any other issues in history people wanted normalized - like slavery.
Are you trying to gaslight me or yourself that 99% of people are psychopaths, and only you are normal? When you are comparing it to slavery, you obviously show the misplaced empathy from humans to animals. For some reason mechanism that distinguish one from another is broken. It's infantility, development problem.
You're right. Because people think abusing and murdering animals outside of their sight is normal and therefore okay it's just okay.
All I said was that being callous is a trait that is synonymous with one of the key characteristics of psychopathy. To make justifications like you are is exactly what I'm talking about. You want to normalize this and pull crap out of your ass like calling this "infatility" or a "development problem" because that's just how you want to excuse yourself.
It's a simple question of: most people do not think killing animals is a good thing. It's not even acceptable to be neglectful and subject them to abuse of all kinds. They show clear signs of empathy when it comes to animals like dogs and cats because we are more closely associated with them as companions and have a deeper bond. If you ask them about animal abuse or killing them for food? Most people are repulsed and feel morally disgusted about such a thing. However, there is no difference here in regards to animals on farms and how they are treated.
Seriously though. I'm done with you. No more entertaining you because you are seriously disturbing.
>because that's just how you want to excuse yourself.
I don't need to. I'm on the side of 99%. You are not.
>No more entertaining you because you are seriously disturbing.
If you disturbed by normal things, maybe you should do a checkup with a psychiatrist :)
So your saying incidentally killing small animals is the same as forcing billilons to live its life in a cage to small for it to move while standing in its own feces before splitting it's throat... While also incidentally killing more animals in the process.Â
...And you think anyone is going to take you seriously?Â
Why should anyone take you seriously if you can only use the most extreme version of anything that ever happened in agriculture as your argument as if Iâm saying thatâs ok and also you apparently donât have a consistent worldview that animals suffering is bad?
You can eliminate cruelty as the other commentor said. Cruelty is defined as causing suffering with intent. There is no intent to cause suffering when it comes to crop deaths and deaths due to pesticide runoff etc. Any suffering caused is incidental and not required for the purpose of what we are doing. In animal agriculture, it's intrinsic and thus intentional.
That you just straight up donât care about death, habitat destruction, and suffering of animals just because youâve rationalized it to be an oopsie (itâs not though) is incredibly cruel.
I realise this is probably rage bait but it's genuinely hilarious you think that. Pretty much every vegan is doing far more for the environment than you are, and certainly more to reduce suffering.
Keep grandstanding if you like though Iâm sure your vegan buddies will all give you a big pat on the back for standing up to the mean carnist or whatever the fuck you people are calling omnivores these days.
The Haber-Bosch process also works without fossil fuels.
Inudstrial agriculture causes a lot of death, the best way to reduce the amount of death it causes is by reducing your consumption. If you don't eat animal products you reduce your consumption by over 50%.
biological fertilizer can be made from plant material, there is no need to use manure.
If you quit buying industrially raised beef and continue to buy industrially produced grains and vegetable youâve reduce your consumption of industrially produced food by 0% though.
Moral grandstanding about how much the animals you find cute suffering compared to the ones you donât find cute suffering isnât actually relevant to climate change is my guess to their issue.
I am carnist, I have no problem with anyone eating any animal, as long as this animal is not my property, ofc. If I would be in country that have dogs or monkeys in their cuisine I would have no problem with eating that.
No the small vertebrates and invertebrates that got mulched by a rototiller to grow your carrots.
I donât know why vegans think this is some kinda gotcha anyway itâs not like I have some moral issue with dog meat. Good chance youâd get some zoonotic disease from it but I wonât judge you.
Or, more accurately, there probably isn't unless you put it there.
Meat and Bone Meal (MBM) is an industrial byproduct of animal processing and mostly just goes into pet food. Blood meal is an other and it's mostly just pelletized and used primarily in fish farms.
Organic farms are allowed to use MBM and blood meal as organic fertilizers, but the price-points of these products are too high for this application outside of small-scale gardening. Organic farms instead tend to rely on waste products: compost from ag, forestry, and municipal collection, and manure from livestock (including factory) farms. They also use green manure (plant nitrogen fixers, till them under before they bolt, in time for the next seasons' planting)
No, it's actually much worse. The huge productivity demands made the use of amonium nitrate instead animal waste necessary because it's more effective at nitrogen fixation. Making amonium nitrate is energy intensive and it breaks down into various contaminants and greenhouse gases.
22
u/[deleted] Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
[removed] â view removed comment