With logic like Ben Rukle's, I'm surprised he's not advocating Soylent Green:
It's full of nutrients that people need, since it's made from people.
It's environmentally friendly because humans are a renewable resource.
It's ethical cause people these days live comfortable lives, so it's fine to kill them in their teens.


The good old "killing humanely" argument. Yes it's better than factory farming, but killing a human in a nicer way is still murder by law, and so is treating them nicely before killing them.
If ethical living is his goal, then he's failed.

I've also heard his story many times. Eats mainly vegan junk food, which lacks nutrients (as does all processed junk food), and then somehow links that to all vegan food being unhealthy.

This is why I'm always banging on about eating unprocessed whole foods, they are nutrient dense.

You'll also notice that at the end they are eating specifically processed meat - the type proven to cause cancer. (as well as the worlds #1 killer heart-disease).
If he wants healthy food, then he's failed.


When it comes to sustainability, foods like potatoes, rice, and grains give you the most calories output for energy/water/land put in.
There also simply isn't enough land on the planet to farm animals this way and feed everyone.
If he wants sustainable farming, then he's failed.


Also he looks like he's about 2 years late for a heart-attack.

wut? Organic food refers to the process it goes through to receive organic certification - i.e. you were looking at the wrong wikipedia entry.

Try this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

Essentially it's growing food without most of the harmful chemicals, it's therefore a sustainable farming practice. Less spray residue in the food, less toxins in the environment, better for pretty much everyone unless you are a worker at Monsanto or get paid by a political think tank.

Organic certification is not perfect however, some countries (like China) have poor certification protocols, and many countries labelling laws allow some non-organic food in an organic product and it can still be called organic.

@hpqp
Good points, all.
However, the "cognition is sacred" (as opposed to "human life is sacred") viewpoint has a hole in it about the size of human consciousness. (Oh man, tangent time!) Some loudly proclaim the presence of a divine soul or spirit, but there is certainly something else there, aside from the physical form.
Obviously, human (and for that matter animal) experience and behavior is influenced by the physical brain and its processes. Damage to it predictably and reproducibly changes behavior and perception. As much as some of us would like to think otherwise, the physical structure and function of the brain influences who we are and what we do as individuals. I would honestly have no problem accepting that the physical universe as we've modeled it functions precisely as it has, autonomously. (Right down to fruitless debates between individuals on the Internet.) Evolution is a real thing. The brain has developed as yet another beneficial mutation that promotes the propagation of its host organism. Input in, behavior out, feedback loop. Click click click, ding.
But the problem is that we experience this. Somehow this mass of individual cells (and below that individual molecules, atoms, quarks) experiences itself in a unified manner, or rather something experiences this mass of matter in a unified manner. No matter how far down you track it, there's no physical accommodation for consciousness. To give a specific example, the cells in the eye detect light (intensity and wavelength) by electrochemical stimulation. The binary "yes\no" of stimulation is routed through the thalamus in individual axons, physically separated in space, to the visual cortex, where it's propagated and multiplied through a matrix of connections, but all individual cells, and all just ticking on and off based on chemical and electrical thresholds. The visual field is essentially painted as a physical map across a region of the brain, but somehow, the entire image is experienced at once. Cognition is necessarily distinct from consciousness.

What this means, practically, is that we must attribute value to cognition and consciousness separately.
Cognition may not be completely understood, but we can explain it in increasingly specific terms, and it seems that we'll be able to unravel how the brain works within the current model. It absolutely has a value. We consider a person who is "a vegetable" to have little to no current or expected quality of life, and generally are comfortable making the decision to "pull the plug".
Consciousness, however, is what we believe makes us special in the universe, despite being completely empty from a theoretical standpoint. If sensory input, memory, and behavioral responses are strictly a function of the material, then stripped of those our "unified experience" is completely undetectable\untestable. We have no way of knowing if our neighbor is a meaty automaton or a conscious being, but we assume. Which is precisely why it's special. It's obviously extra-physical. Perhaps @gorillaman's tomatobaby (that is, the newborn which he says is without Mind) has a consciousness, but it isn't obvious because the physical structure is insufficient for meaningful manifestation. I have difficulty accepting that consciousness, empty though it is on its own, is without value. "So what," though, right? If you can't detect it in anyone but yourself, what use is it in this discussion? Clearly, there IS something about the structure or function of the brain that's conducive to consciousness. We are only conscious of what the brain is conscious of and what it has conceived of within its bounds. So the brain at least is important, but it's not the whole point.
Anyway, there's that tangent.

The "stream of potential life" argument has its limits. Any given sperm or egg is exceedingly unlikely to develop into a human. For a single fertilized egg, the odds shift dramatically. That's why people seek abortions, because if they don't do something, they're probably going to have a baby. The probability of "brewin' a human" is pretty good once you're actually pregnant. The "potential for human life" is very high, which is why you can even make the quality of life argument.

Obviously, you realize how those on the anti-abortion side of the debate react when someone who is...let's say abortion-tolerant ("pro-abortion" overstates it for just about anyone, I suspect) says that they're considering the "quality of life" of the prospective child in their calculus. They get this mental image: "Your mother and I think you'll both be better off this way, trust me. *sound of a meatball in a blender*"
I appreciate that we're trying to minimize suffering in the world and promote goodness, but I think it's over-reaching to paint every potential abortion (or even most) as a tragic tale of suffering simply because the parent wasn't expecting parenthood. Quality of life is much more nuanced. Many wonderful humans have risen from squalor and suffering and will tell you earnestly they believe that background made them stronger\wiser\more empathetic\special. Many parents who were devastated to learn they were pregnant love their unexpected children. And holy crap, kids with Downs, man. What's the quality of life for them and their parents? Terribly challenging and terribly rewarding.
No, I'm not trying to paint rainbows over economic hardship and child abuse and say that "everything's going to be finnnnneeee", but quality of life is a personal decision and it's unpredictable. Isn't that what "It Gets Better" is all about? "Things may seem grim and terrible now, but don't kill yourself just yet, you're going to miss out on some awesome stuff."

Hrm. Thus far we've really been framing abortion as being about "unready" parents, probably because the discussion started on the "mother can choose to have sex" angle.
You've got to wonder how confused this issue would get if we could detect genetically if a fetus might be homosexual. Would Christians loosen their intolerance for abortion if it meant not having a "gay baby"? (Even if it would fly in the face of their belief that homosexuality is a choice.) Would pro-choicer's take a second look at the availability of abortion? Would it still be "one of those terrible things that happens in a free society"?

On western aid, you're spot on. It's so easy to throw money at a problem and pretend we're helping. Humanitarian aid does nothing if we're not promoting and facilitating self-sufficiency. Some people just need a little help getting by until they're back on their feet, but some communities need a jump-start. As you say, they need practical education. I've only been on handful of humanitarian missions myself, so I give more financially than I do of my sweat, but I'm careful to evaluate HOW the organizations I give to use the funds. Are they just shipping food or are they teaching people how to live for themselves and providing the resources to get started? Sure, some giving is necessary. It's impossible for someone to think about sustainable farming and simple industry if they're dying from cholera or starving to death.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
To extend your metaphor, the expensive steak restaurant down the street decided to shove their low quality steak down your throat and charge you for the prime filet mignon. Sure, you weren't hungry and didn't even ask for the steak, but now you have to pay for it. And they want to write down what you've eaten.

But that's not what happened. You moved to California. You got a dog. You weren't forced to do either of those things.
Metaphorically, that's walking into the steakhouse, and ordering a steak, and now you're refusing to pay the price on the menu.
Your reasoning? You think the decor they chose for the restaurant is more expensive than you think it should've been, the heating/cooling system was too expensive, their waiters have health care benefits that you think are too generous, and you think rather than buying their meat from a sustainable farm, they should buy their meat from some factory farm, and therefore you feel you shouldn't be "forced" to pay for things you didn't personally choose.
Except, you chose to come into the steakhouse, and ordered a steak from them...


No, to extend your metaphor again, you chose to walk down the street and they shoved a crappy piece of steak in your gullet and forced you to swallow. You also chose to be alive on that day, so they fed you. Then you refused to pay filet mignon prices.

See how stupid that line of reasoning sounds? That's how I feel whenever someone says "You chose to live in this country/state" and "if you don't like it, move!". It's like telling blacks to move out if they don't like the burning cross in front of their house. Essentially this is the statist equivalent of Godwin's Law, but way, way, way worse. And ends the discussion for me.

>> ^blankfist:

To extend your metaphor, the expensive steak restaurant down the street decided to shove their low quality steak down your throat and charge you for the prime filet mignon. Sure, you weren't hungry and didn't even ask for the steak, but now you have to pay for it. And they want to write down what you've eaten.


But that's not what happened. You moved to California. You got a dog. You weren't forced to do either of those things.

Metaphorically, that's walking into the steakhouse, and ordering a steak, and now you're refusing to pay the price on the menu.

Your reasoning? You think the decor they chose for the restaurant is more expensive than you think it should've been, the heating/cooling system was too expensive, their waiters have health care benefits that you think are too generous, and you think rather than buying their meat from a sustainable farm, they should buy their meat from some factory farm, and therefore you feel you shouldn't be "forced" to pay for things you didn't personally choose.

Except, you chose to come into the steakhouse, and ordered a steak from them...

In this day and age you think that the their local government or even the international community could set up sustainable farming so that maybe they could have fish when ever they wanted...

He's not talking about the Haber process only, he's also talking about herbicide usage of products like Monsanto's RoundUp and others. This also ties into soil fertility and top soil depletion, it's not just a case of some arbitrary soil input method, there are many many many other contributing factors.

The Haber process may feed one third of the worlds population today, but it's not a sustainable practice, not the way agribusiness has wastefully adopted it and 'augmented' it with imazapyr and glyphosphate based herbicide products. It's not a common sense choice at all.

You have to look at how fossil fuel dependent modern industrial agricultural production is overall. 7-10 calories of energy input for 1 calorie of output? Retarded.

Small, inefficient 3rd world style farming? I was thinking something more along the lines of small to medium scale, efficient and sustainable farming practices where your energy input is smaller than your energy output.

Also, it's ironic to imply that 'third world' farming techniques are inefficient when many competent farmers throughout India and Africa, and I'm sure elsewhere, have taken huge yield hits after adopting 'modern, first world, farming techniques'.

I really can't stand Penn's bias. As ^reed points out, organic and sustainable farming techniques do have their benefits, especially towards the environment, while commercial crop often requires more fertilizer and pesticides often leading towards monocultures. I guess I'd just like to see a more balanced view in regards to this issue.