In a paper published in the journal, PLoS ONE, scientists at Wageningen University in The Netherlands proposed that eating mealworms is a more sensible way of acquiring protein in the diet than eating chicken, pork or cattle. Per the article:

 

Compared to a kilogram of edible protein in meat from cows, chickens or pigs, production of the same amount of mealworm protein emits fewer greenhouse gases and requires much less land to grow. The findings support the argument that environmentally conscious eaters may do well to include beetle larvae in their diets. "This study demonstrates that mealworms should be considered a more sustainable source of edible protein," the team writes in a paper published yesterday in the journal PLoS ONE...Among the things that the worm-like larvae have going for them, they don't emit methane. Also, they are prolific. Depending on the species, females release up to 1,500 eggs over a lifetime. Larvae develop quickly and they convert their food into protein efficiently, at a similar rate to chicken but better than pigs and cattle.

 

http://news.discovery.com/earth/mealworms-beat-beef-as-sustainable-...

Tags: Food, Jubinsky, Mealworms, Protien

Views: 842

Replies to This Discussion

And producing meat for a huge population is going to cause some treatment issues.

Those issues should be taken very seriously. One can be a ravenous meat eater and still take serious exception to the way animals are treated and killed in some slaughter houses. I've seen the video and it is horrific. It isn't necessary to kill animals inhumanely only to eat them. Killing them in an inhumane manner certainly doesn't give them any more food value. Reason is only as valid as the axioms it is founded in. If one freely harbors the axiom that dignity has no worth then all of the reasoning therefrom no matter how valid can be nothing but sociopathic.   

Certainly, we should do what we can to minimize the cruelty, but we've also got to be aware that we're not going to have an idyllic, colonial life for the animals, either.  I'm not saying that the slaughterhouses are free to do whatever they want.  We just can't insist on the other extreme, either.

There's a reason that meat and dairy products from small farms cost more.  I'm willing to pay the higher prices, but not everyone can.

WHY do people think there is a HUMANE way to muder an animal??  They don't "put them down" like a sick dog with a dose of drugs in the vein so they fall asleep peacefully!!!  They shoot them in the head with a "captive bolt gun".  At a rate of speed so fast that a good 30% of them miss.  THOSE animals are still alive when their throats are cut, and may still be alive when they are skinned.  Does anyone think a bolt to the brain is a nice way to die??  On top of that they were held in captivity their entire lives, and then herded into a line, where they get to watch their fellow animals being murdered before it is their turn.  If we did this to humans we would consider it worse than the Holocaust....but when we do it to animals it is suddenly "humane"??!!!  Apparently "humane" is a euphamism for BARBARIC!

 

WHY do people think there is a HUMANE way to muder an animal??

...

If we did this to humans we would consider it worse than the Holocaust....but when we do it to animals it is suddenly "humane"??!!! 

And, that's where my stance diverges completely from the opinions of the folks at PETA.  I think the arguments for ethical veganism are ... suspect, to put it mildly.

They don't "put them down" like a sick dog with a dose of drugs in the vein so they fall asleep peacefully!!!

There's a difference.  We're not going to eat those dogs.  It doesn't matter if we contaminate their meat with lethal drugs.

Does anyone think a bolt to the brain is a nice way to die??

I can think of much, much worse ways to go.

The main reason that PETA loses me is their extremist stance.  We're not going to ban the killing of animals and the eating of their meat.  It's just not going to happen.  PETA won't work in half-steps, to help come up with better, more humane ways to get the job done.

They're not working within the bounds of reality.

I don't know why you are talking about PETA.  I have nothing to do with PETA.  The point is, we have no NEED for animal foods.  Humans are actually healthier without it.  Producing meat and dairy is a waste of resources and damages the environment...a LOT.  On top of that we are killing so many animals a day that the process is now a vile torture chamber of horrors.  and WHY??? There is no logical reason to keep doing it.  There is NO reasonable argument for continiuing this destructive behavior.  We ARE supposed to be rational people here...aren't we??

"Does anyone think a bolt to the brain is a nice way to die??"

"I can think of much, much worse ways to go."

Well, ok...but maybe you'd be part of the 30% who they miss...and just go through the rest of the process alive, but with part of your skull blown out. 

These are animals with the same feelings as humans.  The exact same nervous system.  So why kill them??  Unless you live in one of those few parts of the world where you WOULD starve without theextra calories from eating meat....like a native in the Arctic living a subsistance lifestyle....it is NEEDLESS cruelty.  How can we respect human life if we don't respect the lives of OTHER animals??

I don't know why you are talking about PETA.  I have nothing to do with PETA.

They're the first group that came to mind, when I thought of groups trying to completely stop the killing of animals.  Is there another group I should use as a reference point, instead?

The point is, we have no NEED for animal foods.  Humans are actually healthier without it.

And yet, most people are going to continue eating meat.  If you want to do something to help those cows, come up with a better way to kill them.  That's the only solution that will have a chance of being implemented.

These are animals with the same feelings as humans.  The exact same nervous system.

Now you're reaching.

So why kill them??

Because people find them tasty.  Until you have a sufficiently supported reason against it, the fact that people want to do it is sufficient reason.

How can we respect human life if we don't respect the lives of OTHER animals??

Do you care as much about killing and eating lobsters ... ants?  If not, then you recognize that there's a line.  The difference is where we draw the line.  I draw the line up above cows, so I'm fine with people eating them.

I don't see why you need to reference a group.  I don't belong to any group, so I can't really say much about them.  Most vegans I know have a problem with PETA....but for different reasons than you do.

And yet, most people are going to continue eating meat.  If you want to do something to help those cows, come up with a better way to kill them.  That's the only solution that will have a chance of being implemented.

No.  That would be like saying we need to come up with a healthier cigarette, since people won't stop smoking them.  Eating meat is a cultural habit...a bad one.  No not everyone will stop willingly.  But when people are more aware of how horrible the meat and dairy industries are, more of them become vegan.  Many people think animals aren;t harmed in the prodcusction of milk and eggs.  The industry likes to keep it that way.  As more people become vegan, "supply and demand" will create more vegan alternatives.  Eventually MOST people will be vegan and the few remaining meat eaters will be looked on with pity or disdain...like we look at smokers in modern America.  No one needs to make it illegal....just unfashionable.  And really the bad PR just writes itself!!

These are animals with the same feelings as humans.  The exact same nervous system.

Now you're reaching.

Wow.  I'm assuming you do not have a biology background.  It is patentedly absurd to claim otherwise.  A pig has the EXACT same nervous sytem you do.  The differenceis intellligence.  A pig is about as intelligent as a 3-5 year old child.  But feels all the basic emotions and every BIT as much pain and suffering.  They may not be thinking lofty abstract thoughts....but they feel pain and fear just like we do.

So why kill them??

Because people find them tasty.  Until you have a sufficiently supported reason against it, the fact that people want to do it is sufficient reason.

Yes...I'm sure human children are delicious as well.  "Tasty" is not a defense.  I loved the taste of meat, fish, cheese, eggs, etc.  But as an intelligent person I could look at all the factors involved and decide ingesting these things was BAD for many, many reasons.  I am not a three year old child...I can resist temptaion.

Do you care as much about killing and eating lobsters ... ants?  If not, then you recognize that there's a line.  The difference is where we draw the line.  I draw the line up above cows, so I'm fine with people eating them.

I don't kill any animals if I can help it.  Some of the small ones, like insects, are hard to avoid stepping on.  I'm sure I kill some without knowing it.  I'd feel worse if I accidentally killed a mouse than a grasshopper.  But that is probably irrational.  I'm more attached to other mammals and more sure about what they can feel.  But I'm pretty sure almost all animals feel pain, so I'll continue to avoid hurting any of them.

 

 

No.  That would be like saying we need to come up with a healthier cigarette, since people won't stop smoking them.

Actually ... you haven't noticed electronic cigarettes, huh?  You don't seem to be aware that that's what we're doing, on top of other measures.  Bad example.

So, that's a good example, in my favor.

Eating meat is a cultural habit...a bad one.  No not everyone will stop willingly.  But when people are more aware of how horrible the meat and dairy industries are, more of them become vegan.  Many people think animals aren;t harmed in the prodcusction of milk and eggs.  The industry likes to keep it that way.  As more people become vegan, "supply and demand" will create more vegan alternatives.  Eventually MOST people will be vegan and the few remaining meat eaters will be looked on with pity or disdain...like we look at smokers in modern America.  No one needs to make it illegal....just unfashionable.  And really the bad PR just writes itself!!

You're having the same issue that Wyatt was having with his one argument.  You're saying that most ... over 50% ... of people will become vegan.  You're speculating wildly, and I think you have a rather bad idea of what most people will do.  Vegans are maybe 2% of the population.

Basing arguments on wild, future speculation isn't a very good way to construct arguments.  If you're going to make an argument from popularity, at least make one that actually exists.

Wow.  I'm assuming you do not have a biology background.  It is patentedly absurd to claim otherwise.  A pig has the EXACT same nervous sytem you do.

"Containing homologous structures" does not equal "the exact same nervous system."

Sure, they have some of the same emotional responses, which is why I'm all in favor of improvements in the methods of killing them.

What about chickens?  This argument doesn't even touch eating non-mammals, never mind something as non-intelligent as a lobster or fish.

Yes...I'm sure human children are delicious as well.  "Tasty" is not a defense.  I loved the taste of meat, fish, cheese, eggs, etc.

Tasty is a reason, not a defense.  You don't need a defense, when the opposing side hasn't presented a sufficient argument in favor of making it illegal and restricting the rights of others.

We have a good reason to not eat children or allow others to do so.  That reason does not carry over to other animals.

I don't kill any animals if I can help it.  Some of the small ones, like insects, are hard to avoid stepping on.  I'm sure I kill some without knowing it.  I'd feel worse if I accidentally killed a mouse than a grasshopper.  But that is probably irrational.  I'm more attached to other mammals and more sure about what they can feel.  But I'm pretty sure almost all animals feel pain, so I'll continue to avoid hurting any of them.

That tells me a lot about where you're coming from.  You have a bunch of premises that I don't agree with at all.  You have to justify those, first.

You're making some sort of statement revering all animal life as sacred in some way.  I recognize a huge, sliding scale, with a need to impose arbitrary lines to differentiate those animals we care about and those we don't.

What do you do if you have an ant infestation in your house or apartment?  Don't you wipe them out?

Ok, back from fluville! Let's see...what has fueled social progress in many western democracies has been the demand for greater social equality; in America we can see a growing circle of inclusion of various minority groups. Citizens regardless of sex or ethnicity in America now have the same rights, by law, as white males. Let's just take this as an example of the concept of growing inclusivity. Now obviously animals can not vote, and they can not express themselves through anything we can identify as language
, but do you think there is a case for extending the same protections humans receive to animals; in other words, should we extend the circle of inclusivity to animals, or perhaps specific animals? And if we decide to include only certain animals, what shall our criteria be? I thought of this because there is currently a movement to extend human rights to cetaceans. Sam Harris wrote in the End of Faith that our sense of moral obligation to animals is bound up with our perception of an animal's cognitive capability, i.e. to what degree can we say that an animal's consciousness resembles ours? He claims that as we understand more about animal consciousness we may find it necessary to reconsider the way we use animals. Now all this is speculative yet. But would you say that there are at present good reasons to extend our circle to animals (or certain animals), i.e. to offer them the same protections as humans?

I don't see how we can do that, until we sufficiently extend communications with a species to the point that we can attain acknowledgement of those rights and the societal responsibilities that go along with those rights.  Perhaps some sort of neural implant could get the job done, with cetaceans.  That's the group in which we're likely to find intellectual peers, I think.

But yeah, we can't have any of that, without a social contract.  With the current level of communication, we can't have equal rights for animals, because they can't hold up their end of the bargain.

 Sam Harris wrote in the End of Faith that our sense of moral obligation to animals is bound up with our perception of an animal's cognitive capability, i.e. to what degree can we say that an animal's consciousness resembles ours? He claims that as we understand more about animal consciousness we may find it necessary to reconsider the way we use animals. Now all this is speculative yet. But would you say that there are at present good reasons to extend our circle to animals (or certain animals), i.e. to offer them the same protections as humans?

There isn't really any question that we are not the only sentient beings on the planet.  There is no reason to think that other mammals don't think/feel pretty much the same way we do.  Religious people don't accept that we are animals.  They put humans on some pedastal...as an angel-being seperate from the other animals.  We shouldn't make the same mistake.  We're just brainy apes. 

 Perhaps some sort of neural implant could get the job done, with cetaceans.  That's the group in which we're likely to find intellectual peers, I think.

Well you damned well better be putting that implant in your OWN brain!!  I don't think kidnapping and experimenting on them is a good way to start a discussion!

What about chickens?  This argument doesn't even touch eating non-mammals, never mind something as non-intelligent as a lobster or fish.

Birds are intelligent.  They feel pain.  They have as much right to their lives as we do.  Fish may not be every intelligent, but they still feel pain.  And, bottom line, we don't need any animal products.  If we CAN live happy healthy lives without causing pain and suffering in the world.....why wouldn't we??

Actually ... you haven't noticed electronic cigarettes, huh?  You don't seem to be aware that that's what we're doing, on top of other measures.  Bad example.

I've heard of one...never seen one. Of the 2000 employees in my workplace we have maybe 2 dozen smokers.  You see them huddled out by the street because smoking isn't allowed on public property.  Smoking is not socially acceptable.  Sure people still do it.  Just like there will always be meat eaters. But the social perception will change and it will be seen as a bad thing.  No, the entire populations doesn't have to go vegan.  But most of our food will have to comefrom plant sources.  We can't support the world human population on meat and dairy without destroying the ecosystem.

 You don't need a defense, when the opposing side hasn't presented a sufficient argument in favor of making it illegal and restricting the rights of others.

I never said any such fucking thing.  Don't put words in my mouth. You can't defend meat eating from a moral standpoint, or from a health or environmental standpoint.  Veganism is a superior way of life on all counts.  THAT was my argument.  Sily me, thinking rational people would look at all the evidence and make decisions based on rational thought.

We have a good reason to not eat children or allow others to do so.

Really??  What would that be?  The planet is overcrowded and many children are orphaned and unwanted.  Why not eat them?

What do you do if you have an ant infestation in your house or apartment?  Don't you wipe them out?

Nope.  I spent about a weel with silicone caulk, plugging every crack they could be coming from.  They were very tiny ants and it was hard to scoop them up and get them outside again....a few got killed by accident.  That worked for two years.  Then they were back this summer and we did more caulking and kept the kitchen annoyingly clean.  They only send out a few scouts and if they don't find food the others don't come.  Next year I'll be back at it with the caulk. 

 You have a bunch of premises that I don't agree with at all.  You have to justify those, first.

If you haven't looked into it and don't agree with the fact that is it better for human healht, better for the environment and better for the welfare of animals for people to become vegan....well I can't help you.  All the science and logic is on my side.  All you have argued is that humans are irrational and they won't give up their cheeseburgers!  If people won't accept a better way of life because they are childish, whiny, selfish and hate change....well, what the hell am I supposed to do about it?? I can't help it if our fellow humans are stupid.  We are only animals after all.

I'm a chicken eater. My understanding is that some plants have protein but not complete protein. I'm will be 66 years old next month and exercise with weights so I am concerned that my body is not going to get the protein it needs to recover from the weight training. A chicken would eat me in an inhumane manner at the drop of a hat if it were big enough and had the opportunity. (So would a fish.) Therefore, it doesn't bother me as much to eat chicken as it would to eat other forms of meat. (It wouldn't bother me at all to eat great white sharks nor crocodiles.) Nonetheless, I wouldn't criticize anybody who was coming from where you seem to be coming from. Out of curiosity though, are there some animals such as great white sharks or crocodiles that you don't have a heart for? They are cold bloodedly ruthless and amount to killing machines that inflict inhumane death on victims at least some of which respond positively to love. Personally. in that they have no heart for anything else and feed at least to some extent on animals that do I think the world would be better off without them.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service