"Happy meat" as most people call it, is pretty much a counterproductive movement to the environmental & animal rights cultures and has about the same effect as putting a band aid on a broken bone. It's the same BS argument car manufactures gave us when they introduced Hybrid cars, ignoring that 100% efficient electric car they intentionally took off the market a few years prior to that.
When the ultimate goal to their end of the argument is - don't eat meat, don't produce animals, removing the need for a ranch or farm to begin with, improving the environment ten-fold and then being able to use our crops to feed the humans directly - it's an insult when people start talking about "humane" meat.
And their argument is valid when you think in terms of global population. The amount of space a ranch/animal farm takes up and the lengthy process involved from birthing the animal to slaughtering it. The grain needed to feed the animals while they're alive. The cost in transportation for the live and dead animals, including the cost in production for the grain (same as the grain we are also capable of eating) that goes into feeding them.
The only way to produce enough meat to feed 7 billion people is through factory farming. And most people who know about the factory farming process (even on this thread) wouldn't support, or want to support it. We've simply outgrown the means in which we can humanely raise and then feed meat to the population of the world. You might personally also like to hunt your meat, but the other 6.2 billion people who have no access to a wooded area or weapon to hunt with are still going to need to get their food from somewhere.
It's not like the 7 million people who live in NYC can all pick up a rifle and go hunt a deer on a weekend... and if they did, what do you think would happen to deer populations? So now some industrious person thinks, "well, I can raise deer for hunting". But now you have range land management practices and control measures to account for as well as the time people have available to hunt. Person now thinks, "I can make more money at this if I raised them and also killed them here on my farm, selling the meat." And now we're right back to factory farming.
You see, it is a matter of progress. If we want to continue living and advancing in the way in which we've become accustomed, we need to eat and grow food more efficiently. Meat has nothing in it, the animal's direct diet doesn't also provide. Corn, rice, beans, squash... even the American Indians knew the value in growing and eating some of those crops; the "three sisters" as its called. That food can be easily grown, harvested, dried and shipped without the middleman (meat) and at a fraction of the cost for meat. In the right storage (without the need for refrigeration), it can also last nearly forever too.
Moral and ethical debate aside, I have yet to hear any valid reason people can give for raising and eating meat. It doesn't make sense on the emotional side (as the video points out) but it makes even less sense on the logical and practicle side.
When the ultimate goal to their end of the argument is - don't eat meat, don't produce animals, removing the need for a ranch or farm to begin with, improving the environment ten-fold and then being able to use our crops to feed the humans directly - it's an insult when people start talking about "humane" meat.
And their argument is valid when you think in terms of global population. The amount of space a ranch/animal farm takes up and the lengthy process involved from birthing the animal to slaughtering it. The grain needed to feed the animals while they're alive. The cost in transportation for the live and dead animals, including the cost in production for the grain (same as the grain we are also capable of eating) that goes into feeding them.
The only way to produce enough meat to feed 7 billion people is through factory farming. And most people who know about the factory farming process (even on this thread) wouldn't support, or want to support it. We've simply outgrown the means in which we can humanely raise and then feed meat to the population of the world. You might personally also like to hunt your meat, but the other 6.2 billion people who have no access to a wooded area or weapon to hunt with are still going to need to get their food from somewhere.
It's not like the 7 million people who live in NYC can all pick up a rifle and go hunt a deer on a weekend... and if they did, what do you think would happen to deer populations? So now some industrious person thinks, "well, I can raise deer for hunting". But now you have range land management practices and control measures to account for as well as the time people have available to hunt. Person now thinks, "I can make more money at this if I raised them and also killed them here on my farm, selling the meat." And now we're right back to factory farming.
You see, it is a matter of progress. If we want to continue living and advancing in the way in which we've become accustomed, we need to eat and grow food more efficiently. Meat has nothing in it, the animal's direct diet doesn't also provide. Corn, rice, beans, squash... even the American Indians knew the value in growing and eating some of those crops; the "three sisters" as its called. That food can be easily grown, harvested, dried and shipped without the middleman (meat) and at a fraction of the cost for meat. In the right storage (without the need for refrigeration), it can also last nearly forever too.
Moral and ethical debate aside, I have yet to hear any valid reason people can give for raising and eating meat. It doesn't make sense on the emotional side (as the video points out) but it makes even less sense on the logical and practicle side.
