Why have kids if you intend to be selfish into old age?

*promote

I am blase about Christmas in my old age.

This thing though? TOO MUCH FUN.

My first thought too! Then when it popped out "Old Age" I knew what was coming next.

I have to strongly disagree with the suggestion that animals are killed and tortured for my "taste preferences" and "pleasure".

It gives me no pleasure that an animal has to die for me to eat. My pleasure in the consumption of that animal is a fleeting, automatic chemical reaction triggered in my body. In an evolutionary sense, i only receive this pleasure because it prolongs the survival of my species to feel it.

Most of these arguments reek of over simplification and ignorance to the reality of the society westerners live in.

In ideal conditions, i would eat meat from animals that i tended, who died of natural causes (mostly old age i assume) which i would personally butcher. In reality, it is not possible and even if it were possible for one person, it would not be possible for every person - we have limited space, limited resources, limits placed by law, limits on our time. As well as the cost of the land, I would have to hope enough animals died naturally to sell enough humane meat to pay taxes on the land and maintain my farming equipment, buy grain for the animals and so on. Or maybe i could grow my own grain and use primitive DIY tools, but then i'd probably need help for all the farming i'd have to do every day and now i'd need enough animals to die to feed three, so more land, more grain... Oops, it looks like this is getting complicated doesn't it. Shall we keep going until we reach a society of 70 odd million people, or should we consider that the problem is far more complicated than comments here would care to acknowledge?

Furthermore gluten is often the primary protein source for vegans, but i have a disease that requires me to avoid that protein in entirety. The smug, holier-than-thou field radiating from certain commenters here will i'm sure extend far enough to condescendingly say "ah, but you can be a vegan and avoid gluten, you poor, uneducated, smiling murderer!" Yes, and you could live your life without ever being touched by the sun's rays, or sail a small sailboat without ever getting wet, not even a droplet. And how can we know what effect gluten-free-veganism may have on public health when it is extended to a population of 7 billion? What a dangerous experiment to salivate over - reckless and potentially harmful in a way that a butcher could never hope to be.

It would be wonderful if the world was ideal. I wouldn't have this disease, and all people of the world could enjoy their own 10 acre farm and eat only those animals whose time had come. Unfortunately when i am abroad, away from home, the only source of protein that i can entirely trust might perhaps be a roast chicken. And i will eat it, the only true pleasure from which i take is that i will not spend the next three days doubled up in bed.

There are people worse off than me, but i don't know enough about their situation to use it as a point in this discussion. To people like me, the language used by some people here makes me think of someone dancing around at a diabetics convention shouting "I can't believe you losers have to use insulin! I hope you all realise that drug addicts use needles!"

I reject any notion that these people have a moral advantage over me. Have any of them ever heard of walking a mile in another man's shoes, or does their narrow mind only reach as far as "ME"?

By the way, plants are also alive. Or is this about sentient life? Shall we move on to abortion then, if non-sentient life is ok to end? Shall we have the philosophical discussion about degrees of sentience and types of sentience and whether we can even know if a plant has its own brand of sentience? If yes, let's try to at least do it without you being smug and in return without me being sarcastic.

Worrying about how people treat vegans? How about the language used to describe people who have no choice in the matter, lest that choice be never leave your own house and eat only this very small list of things which you may or may not find too disgusting to stomach? Am i to live in misery and squander my life so that a chicken could have an extra 2 years to run in circles? This issue is not fucking black and white despite the attempts to paint it so.

OK, it was poorly said, and yes Bill's getting hyperbolic in his old age, but I think the sentiment is correct.
Every time you coddle a child (at the expense of the public) and make it think the world revolves around it and other people don't matter, you take a step towards creating a narcissist with no empathy like Drumpf. That's bad for them and us.
One instance of non-parenting does not a Trump make, but a consistent pattern can.
I actually took an interest in food at about 4years old when my parents sent me to jr cooking class. Pigs in a blanket, crepes, and cherry tarts, so simplistic cooking, but it got my interest in food started.
I also constantly questioned my teachers, but I did it because I wanted to know the why of what they just said, not because I thought I knew better than they did....usually.

True, most meat doesn't come from ethical farms. That problem can be solved with one's wallet fairly simply by not buying factory meat.
You misunderstood. She doesn't eat the cows that died from old age, she kills older, but not elderly cows, but many of her herd die of old age and I'm not certain what she does with those.
Yes, but eating meat is far from kicking dogs. If people raised and butchered their own meat, it would be closer. Hiding from the horror that created your food is normal practice for most, you won't change that, so realize people are imperfect and work with what you've got to do the best you can, don't insist on perfection and nothing but, and you'll get more done.
My reason, I like meat. I consider the implications of my actions and try to minimize the damage they cause, but as I said, I did my part for the eco system, so I have a 'get out of morality jail free' card on the ecological implications, and try to not have others abuse animals in my name, but my idea of abuse differs from yours.
I think meat (EDIT: good meat, not processed or hormone/antibiotic rich factory meat) is healthy in moderation. I've read many papers that agree with that, as did my doctor.
If animals aren't 'exploited', they won't get to live....so....
Sounds like reasons to not have children, not reasons to not eat meat. I did that, so I get to have chicken. You had kids, no meat for you. Fair?
A good reason to eat meat....it tastes good in my food hole. That's all I need. ;-)

I'm not disagreeing with you that there are farms where the animals are treated well in comparison. But the majority of food does not come from these farms. Like you said these are usually small scale operations like your aunt. We're talking 50-60 billion animals a year. Millions of animals per hour in the US alone. They simply need to kill them as young as possible to even meet the demand, through industrialized means. They call it factory farming for a reason.
And no factory farmers don't care about the well-being of animals. Any minor growth benefits of happy animals are easily outweighed by a few hormone injections. It's cheaper and faster. If they cared: They wouldn't rip piglets balls off with their bare hands to neuter them. They wouldn't keep "cage less" chickens in the dark to save on electricity. They wouldn't hold a chickens head to a sander or iron to de-beak them. They wouldn't grind up baby male chickens in a blender alive. They wouldn't cut off pigs tales without anesthetic. So on and So on. Your food might comes from some nice farm like your aunts, but for most of people it does not.

You're right that eating animals that died of old age is probably the only truly ethical way you could eat them. Though they'd have to have reproduced naturally too.

I'm not a fan of the eat less concept because of the morality aspect. It might work for some people, and it's probably not a bad short term stepping stone to get to people thinking about the consequences. But it just doesn't add up to me ethically: I wouldn't go from kicking a dog 10 times a week to just 3 times a week, because it means I'm kicking 7 less dogs. It's still a terrible thing to do, so why even be part of that cycle.

Because most people are raised as meat eaters, I think their perspective is completely wrong, as was mine. When they talk to vegans they always give reasons to not give up animal products. But to me the question really is: What is the reason TO eat any animal products at all?


Health wise it's a no-brainer there are a ton of good books about nutrition, like "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger, or any book by Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, or Dr. John McDougall. ( all their work is based on thousands of peer reviewed and published research papers ).

Animal compassion wise it's a no-brainer. Animals want to live and be happy period. Everything else is just an excuse to keep exploiting them.

With documentaries like Cowspiracy and Earthlings coming out, it's people are becoming aware that we're all on one planet and if people went vegan overnight, that's 1/2 of the global warming gone. That's 1 football field a second of rainforest (and all of the animals and unique species ) being destroyed. That's the fish not going extinct in the next 10 years. That's GMO's not killing the pollinating bees and earthworms (which are necessary part of the ecosystem, we'll die without them).

So what reason is really left to eat any animal products?

Taste. People don't want to become vegan because they think they are giving up something and it's not true. It's more like trading a bad habit for something truly great. And it's free. And it has the potential to change the world.

I'm yet to hear a good reason to eat any animal product.(from anyone I mean)

Are farm animals purchased (or bred) with the intention of making money. Yes. Does that mean their well being and happiness is not a concern? Absolutely not. Even factory farmers would admit that happier, healthier animals are more productive (grow faster) and are better quality. It does take more money and effort to farm that way, and is not scalable, so corporate farms go for the quicker dollar at the expense of the animal, usually. That doesn't mean all farms operate that way, with profit being the first and only concern.
And no, it's not 100% certain farmed animals will die young or be abused. For instance, when we raised cattle, we allowed the herd to roam and breed naturally, took good care of them, and many died of old age before we sold off the herd. My aunt still raises her own beef with I think <10 cows, and they often die of old age because she can't eat all she raises, they live happy lives. In factory farms, you're likely correct.
My point is, if you really want to make a difference in reducing animal suffering, I think you would have more success trying to convince people to buy free range, non hormone meats from good smaller local farms with good reputations for proper animal treatment over attempting to convince them to give up meat completely. It's a matter of how much people are willing to change, and getting the best outcome possible for the animals, right? I think convincing meat eaters to go vegan is a non starter 99% of the time at best.

And to answer the above morality question, would it be immoral for you to do that to my dog? Yes. Would it be immoral for ME to do it to my dog? I guess that depends on many things, like if he's used completely as part of the early termination (eaten, worn, etc.), is he euthanized painlessly and without fear, etc. ...but I liked Logan's Run, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask those kinds of morality questions. ;-)

Sorry, I've tasted vegetarian bacon and it simply doesn't measure up. Even the seitan fake bacon, which is close, lacks the proper crispness and flavor.

I fully support anyone's choice to make the sacrifice to their lifestyle by skipping animal products, but even the best fake meat alternatives do not completely measure up to the real ones in taste and texture.

Everything dies and, outside of the 'civilized' food chain, most every creature dies from old age or by being eaten (sometimes while still alive). If I were to go into a cage full of lions, I don't think they would have a crisis of conscience over my level of sentience in deciding whether or not to eat me.

I dunno, the whole DC Synderverse leaves me cold. It's just so try hard. I feel like I'd be all over this if I was 13, am I just too cynical in my old age?

I'm definitely a DC fan more than a Marvel fan, but Marvel are just so much better in the movies.

Umm.... I apparently upvoted this and haven't even been here from the time it was posted to now... unless I accidentally clicked up before clicking to watch the video... I'd have upvoted anyhow, but don't go thinking what I'll like or not Sifty... I probably accidentally clicked up though. I wonder what else I've upvoted/downvoted before knowing I did?

Oh... yeah, now I remember voting for it... never mind me. Old age friends, avoid it.

New, just released ocean temperature data has shown a dramatic increase in temperatures in the Northern Pacific, and a dramatic decrease in surface temperatures in the Northern Atlantic. As I understand it, those readings are not consistent with normal 'El Nino' patterns. Could this be the beginning of the end of thermohaline circulation? If that happens we'll be facing unavoidable, unpredictable, worldwide, disastrous climate change in short order.
Without the current created by the thermohaline circulations, the oceans die. Equatorial waters become much hotter...fast...and arctic and Antarctic waters become much colder...fast. Ocean organisms can't live through that kind of change, not in any sizeable way anyway. Without the oceans, the entire food web dissolves and we die.
On top of that, without the currents bringing oxygen to the lower oceans, they become anoxic. The bacteria that live in those deep waters will feed on the dead sea life and create toxic gases (hydrogen sulfide) which have, in the past, completed the extinction events by wiping out nearly all life. Once that starts, it's unstoppable and is the end. Let's hope these readings are just an over active El Nino.

What we do today has little to no effect for 50-100 years. That makes us at least 50 years too late to solve this problem, and we are still exacerbating it rather than solving it to this day.
We're hosed.
If you plan on having children in this climate, you are a child abuser IMO, and are adding to the problem with that one action more than almost any other action normal people perform. Your children will most likely not survive to old age, and absolutely won't experience the same quality of life you have.

So it's capitalism that makes grandpa manipulative and his children too wrapped up in their own daily lives to visit him?
The message this ad is sending is 'It's ok to fabricate drama to get your relatives' attention'. What the admakers want to communicate is that 'Edeka is a part of your home, your family life'. They're not really successful at it, the ad doesn't work as good as it could've. It would've been better if the children made grandpa believe that this year, again, they won't make it home for christmas but then, surpise, they show up anyways. With products bought at Edeka.
The loneliness of old age is a good theme for advertising but you have to get it right or you'll appear cynical and manipulative. Like grandpa.

Exxon's executives will die of old age before we can make the proper changes to see that they get their just deserts. It'll take decades to change American law and society enough to prosecute these greedy murderers.