Food Inc

Micha Jules · 11-04-2009, 10:07 PM

I just finished watching the documentary Food Inc.. The film further solidified my distaste for major corporations, my vegetarianism, my compassion for animals, and my verve for the success of the underdog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Inc.

You should watch the film, guys. One of my biggest concerns is the strategy of the corporation to sue even though they know they'll lose. The idea is to rack up legal bills so that the little guy cannot keep up, and thus he won't cross the corporation's wishes. I'm also afraid of the meddling between government officials, judges and corporations. It's profoundly difficult to change the corporation through the system when the corporation has implemented the system.

Some other concerns that I have is the lack of respect given to animals. I believe that animals are quasi-right holders and that we have a prima facie obligation not to kill them. You might not agree with me on this point, and that's unfortunate. However, I think that we should be able to agree that the current treatment of animals is in no way satisfactory. Billions of animals are raised with no quality of life. These animals are crowded together in close spaces, treated as objects rather than sentient beings, injected with hormones to the extent that their bodies cannot manage their growth, subjected to unhealthy conditions and slaughtered. How any morally responsible and reflective person can eat meat from such conditions is befuddling.

Watch the flick.

Micha Jules · 11-04-2009, 10:39 PM

tough crowd.

Dolomite · 11-04-2009, 10:57 PM

I've been meaning to get around to watching this.

A hippy at work actually bought a copy of this at the local uber-cool organic grocer's.

$25 is what he shelled out for it - & I was all like; "DUDE!"

trollzors · 11-04-2009, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micha Jules

I just finished watching the documentary Food Inc.. The film further solidified my distaste for major corporations, my vegetarianism, my compassion for animals, and my verve for the success of the underdog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Inc.

You should watch the film, guys. One of my biggest concerns is the strategy of the corporation to sue even though they know they'll lose. The idea is to rack up legal bills so that the little guy cannot keep up, and thus he won't cross the corporation's wishes. I'm also afraid of the meddling between government officials, judges and corporations. It's profoundly difficult to change the corporation through the system when the corporation has implemented the system.

Some other concerns that I have is the lack of respect given to animals. I believe that animals are quasi-right holders and that we have a prima facie obligation not to kill them. You might not agree with me on this point, and that's unfortunate. However, I think that we should be able to agree that the current treatment of animals is in no way satisfactory. Billions of animals are raised with no quality of life. These animals are crowded together in close spaces, treated as objects rather than sentient beings, injected with hormones to the extent that their bodies cannot manage their growth, subjected to unhealthy conditions and slaughtered. How any morally responsible and reflective person can eat meat from such conditions is befuddling.

Watch the flick.

I agree with almost everything written here, except our obligation not to kill animals. Meat is a part of our evolved diet. I do think we should treat them far better, though. I have no problem with meat being more expensive as a consequence.

Micha Jules · 11-04-2009, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trollzors

Meat is a part of our evolved diet. .

What does this mean and why is it morally relevant?

trollzors · 11-04-2009, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micha Jules

What does this mean and why is it morally relevant?

It means we evolved supplementing out diet with meat. It's natural. It's healthy. Nothing wrong with it. That said, we should treat what we eat better.

And from a strictly evolutionary standpoint, it's been a good trade off for the domesticated animals we eat: how many cows are there world wide as compared to say bison? How many chickens and pigs compared to their wild cousins?

Micha Jules · 11-05-2009, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trollzors

It means we evolved supplementing out diet with meat. It's natural. It's healthy. Nothing wrong with it.

I can agree with your first three sentences but you pulled the 4th sentence out of no where, dude. It reeks of social darwinism, too.

trollzors · 11-05-2009, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micha Jules

I can agree with your first three sentences but you pulled the 4th sentence out of no where, dude. It reeks of social darwinism, too.

We'll have to disagree.

ocean size · 11-05-2009, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trollzors

It means we evolved supplementing out diet with meat. It's natural. It's healthy. Nothing wrong with it. That said, we should treat what we eat better.

And from a strictly evolutionary standpoint, it's been a good trade off for the domesticated animals we eat: how many cows are there world wide as compared to say bison? How many chickens and pigs compared to their wild cousins?

I've heard the first part before- humans used to get about 80% calories from plants and 20% from meat- most cultures of early humans anyway. The meat was lean, wild game- I almost think it is more 'of our nature' to eat mostly leafy greens and other plants and beans than it is the modern western fast food, superfatted cows, etc.

But anyway if I had a steady supply of local wild game I'd eat it. Problem is getting some once a month will just leave me sick and plugged up for a month.

As for the second part, are you saying its a good trade off because there are a lot more of them, so evolutionarily they are winning? Interesting but by domesticating them and taking the wild cousins' habitat for agriculture/ranching land, you are reducing genetic diversity in the species and creating animals through artifical selection than probably couldn't make it in the wild if they were put back in it. Something to think about

as far as Bison vs Cattle, the great plains carrying capacity is said to have been 30 million bison and there are 94 million cattle at any one point in the US as of the mid 90's. Since they are harvested young it ends up being a shitload more animals.

ocean size · 11-05-2009, 06:36 AM

I'd recommend the film, lets just say you can find it on one of those websites that has links to movies on the internet for free as a DVD rip.

If you are interested in the subject than the movie was largely based off of two recent books the Omnivore's dillema by Micheal Pollan and Fast Food Nation.