http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/11/in-the-s...
>>> Migrants are among the poorest workers in the United States. The average migrant worker is a twenty-eight-year-old male, born in Mexico, who earns about $5,000 a year for twenty-five weeks of farm work. His life expectancy is forty-nine years. <<<
I'm hoping some things changed since 1995, but as someone used to to construction in California and had to compete against dry-wallers earning $3/hour, I am doubtful.
One would have to be very careful in choosing "ethical food," lest they have tunnel vision in only protecting animals, and by their pure nature of replacing lost calories with more vegetables, they encourage more human slavery in the world, and yes... in America.
In my opinion, slavery is far worse than death. Could you imagine working under a hot sun for 15 hour days only to wake up and do it all over again everyday for the rest of your life? Supposedly, this stuff was banned throughout the whole world but it is still ubiquitous. People and politicians actively encourage it by looking the other way, not caring, or justifying the use of slavery because of a pretty contract.
I do feel some pity for the animals dying for my own health, but in the same token, if I was not dependent on the local super-market, I would end up hunting it myself. For certain, America treats its animals far better than other countries. I won't eat veil, shark fin, or foie gras. There is a huge difference between inflicting outright suffering and growing an animal for the purposes of slaughter.
Can I ask you a favor? If you do truly care about "responsibility" of "improving the world," please stop using exclusively strawman arguments against vegans, a group which adapts their entire lifestyle and existential place in the universe toward positive change. This is far more than most meat eaters. You have a really patronizing tone and make little, subtle suggestions that vegans are just idiots. This crosses the line.
>>>Can I ask you a favor? If you do truly care about "responsibility" of "improving the world," please stop using exclusively strawman arguments against vegans, a group which adapts their entire lifestyle and existential place in the universe toward positive change. This is far more than most meat eaters. You have a really patronizing tone and make little, subtle suggestions that vegans are just idiots. This crosses the line.
It seems to me that you are offended. If you would like to give me some specific examples of what offended you, I would love to read them and potentially change the way that I post comments here.
Disclaimer: The rest of this comment further explains my confusion and desire for specifics, it is not necessary for you to read it. If you choose to read it, note that it is likely written in a tone that will offend you. I ask you to be as civil as you feel you are capable of being, as you are posting this on a public forum, and Poe's Law is in full effect :D(this smiley face is to indicate a lighthearted mood as opposed to some sarcasm that may offend you).
Until you can help me understand what offended you, I can not intentionally stop offending you, since I did not intend to write anything offensive and you have not cited specific examples about what was offensive to you. I honestly don't know what you think needs changing. I would recommend not reading the rest of this comment since it will likely have the same tone, and serves only to offer some academic frameworks designed to explain why we are having conflict.
-------academic communications issues---------
It is interesting that what I meant to say (thingA), what I actually said(thingB) and what jicksta2 voluntarily chose to infer(thingC) are at the very least two completely different things, related only by the pixels that jicksta2 saw on their screen. It is unfortunate that they were not all identical. The relationship between thingA, thingB, and thingC has been studied by many very famous academians, and is often lumped into a field known as "communications", more specifically "linguistics." More specific to the issue at hand is "semiotics", which concerns the relationship between the "signifier" (pixels on a screen) and the signified (what I actually meant).
Obviously the relationship is very complicated and there is another issue about the relationship between what I said and what I meant(thingA & thingB), which opens up a bunch of epistemological, existential, and quite frankly solipsistic waffling that Dagmar :D Descartes famously reduced to 'cogito ergo sum', Latin for "QED - Trust me, this proof proves it :D." Lojban and other engineered languages are attempts at alleviating some of these issues. There is a conversation about Lojban elsewhere in this thread.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
Possibly it's a US/UK thing - but that's pretty much 100% the opposite of my experience.
Note, I expressed that among technologically inclined ethivegs there was universal acceptance of the idea among those that I introduced it to, meaning that their hearts and minds still work...they just aren't hackers or engineers that see a problem and then try to fix it using whatever technology possible, extant or not :D.
RE luddites: there is a vast number of luddite ethivegs that reject any technology that they didn't create themselves - including metal, medicines, making paper, and etc. It can be a brutal life and I imagine it is only possible in some areas of the world. They also acknowledge that they only survive due to law enforcement protecting them with armaments that they do not allow themselves to use. The real crazies do all that and then refuse to use domesticated animals! Fruitarianism, eat your heart out :D.
Interestingly, PETA has heard of the technology and did a little advertising stunt for the research. Anecdotally, none of my NPR listening or PETA supporting acquaintances have ever heard of this stunt (which was on NPR) or the concept of in vitro meat. Happily, every single ethiveg that I have introduced to the concept of in vitro meat has felt very positive and excited about it.
So in my experiences with ethivegs, the consequence of in vitro meat research coming to fruition is this: eating meat will no longer require an animal to be treated unethically. Interestingly, many ethivegs have lamented that currently "unethical meat eaters" will no longer be punished with mad cow disease, high prices, or nutrient imbalances. However, they are generally more concerned with the ethical treatment of animals than they are with punishing humans who currently eat meat.
I find this interesting because some groups are less interested in correcting the sin, and more interested in punishing the sinner: http://i.imgur.com/Irgo2.gif