Your first link is some guy’s website misrepresenting what peta’s actual stance on pets is. I already linked to peta’s website why they explain the problem is with manufacturing pets. Because there is such a demand for cute pets there’s an incentive to produce as many as possible and that leds to puppy mills where animals are forced into baby producing factories all while stray dogs get put down because they can’t find a home. They explain this on their website which I linked in the previous comment.

Peta doesn’t have a problem with the concept of having a pet, the problem is how such a reality exists. If people have a demand for pets then that means there needs to be a supply for pets. This is what that quote about the vice president meant. She simply doesn’t envision a world where pets can be manufactured in any ethical way. I do but I also don’t care if she thinks that because what she and peta stand for is treating animals ethically and that’s a good thing.

PETA started a campaign that Milk causes autism based on a couple of week studies, which they’ve since removed from the record

I can’t look at the campaign anymore because they’ve removed it but I found this article which had quotes from their website where it shows they mentioned that more research was needed and that one of the studies only had like 20 kids in it. Of course the media ran with headlines like “Oh peta said milk causes autism!” When they didn’t. They used the autism panic at the time and the “got milk” ad which existed to create a narrative that milk was a necessary part of a healthy diet to shift to a discussion about why we think milk is needed for a healthy lifestyle when the milk industry pumps cows full of hormones and shit that wind up in milk, not to mention the fact that cow milk is obviously for cows whereas human milk is for humans. Milk serves a role in mammals to quickly grow their offspring and yet humans don’t just continue drinking milk but we also drink milk from other animals. They go over all this on their website: https://www.peta.org/features/peta-ad-cows-dairy-products-disease/

I do take issue with how they framed autism with a frowny face as that normalises the notion that autism is a bad thing and I’m glad it’s been taken down. But at the end of the day peta is a charty for treating animals ethically. The way our society treats animals is so evil that holocaust survivors, the event we treat as the ultimate evil, draw parallels to it. There is such an urgency to put an end to this cruelty that I honestly don’t give a fuck if such a charity employs the “any publicity is good publicity” method which sometimes results in campaigns that look too goofy or sometimes go a bit to far.

All they do is ramble about the issues, yet they provide nothing to the table. They are an egotistical organisation that only cares about the issues they seem to acknowledge. Real issues and real solutions are being tucked beneath the carpet.

Why?

This is yet another example of anti-peta misinformation.

Peta has high kill rates in their shelters because they have a no turn away policy. They will take any animal into their shelter and unfortunately many animals typically the older less cute ones are harder to find homes for and rather than keep them locked up in cages for the rest of their lives they settle for the less cruel option which is putting down the animals that aren’t going to find a loving home.

No-kill shelters have a trick up their sleeve where they look good on paper but in reality they turn away animals that aren’t likely to be adopted or even send animals that aren’t likely to get adopted to peta where they are then put down. In other words peta aren’t uniquely evil and bad at their job, the system funnels more animals into their hands because the alternative is leaving animals on the streets or locked up in cages for the rest of their lives.

Lol go troll somewhere else

We produce food in such a vast excess compared to what we need that we feed most of it to animals so we can have beef instead despite being vastly less efficient.

How much energy would have been taken in the time it takes you to draw a poster on a computer?

I would actually be interested in the comparison, how long is a typical model trained for and how much is it used. The actual generation usage is typically a few seconds of a normal gaming PC. Training is more, but its then used by many.

I think you overestimate the difficulty of it, especially for vegetarianism where you can get all you need from eggs and dairy. Anecdotally I have been vegetarian for 2 years and have never taken supplements and am very healthy, just ran a half marathon in 1:40 which wouldn’t be possible if I was anemic from b12 deficiency. An even larger example is the hundreds of millions of Indians who are vegetarians and have been for millennia, long before supplements existed.

You also underestimate the difficulty in a meat based diet. Every diet requires planning and intentionality to make it healthy. Meat based diets require you to pay far more attention to the amount of fiber you’re getting. Because of this many people who eat meat are not getting enough fiber, 95% of Americans, which leads to intestinal issues and cancers, which is why vegetarians tend to have better health outcomes as noted above since their main source of protein, legumes, are also high in fiber.

As for the efficiency and accessibility it takes far less resources to make b12 with bacteria then with cows/chickens. It wouldn’t take any logistical or scientific innovation to do it either, we know how to make it with bacteria, and it is far more shelf stable and transportable than meat. In general meat production is extremely wasteful and destructive putting aside the ethical arguments. Cows are one of the top sources of greenhouse gases and the demand for them is causing vast tracts of the Amazon to be burned to create new pasture land. If you ask any environmentalist worth there salt what’s the best thing you can do for the planet they’ll say eat less/no meat and drive less/not at all.

How is big pharma less trustworthy than big agriculture? The meat industry is extremely consolidated. Also b12 isn’t patented and the methods to produce it are widely available, there’s no reason it could only be produced in the first world.

For the ethical argument it is valid and depends on your own ethics / philosophy of whether plants / fungi suffer and feel pain. Either way though eating meat is still worse because cows , chickens etc. eat plants to produce meat. Due to trophic loss they consume far more calories and nutrients from plants then they produce in meat, thus killing more plants then is necessary to feed a human. If you want to minimize plant suffering then you should be vegan.

For the existing cows, I’m not advocating for, nor entertaining the absurd idea of outlawing meat eating tomorrow and having to deal with current stock. The cows that are already here are for the most part already doomed to a life of suffering, the best we can do is stop breeding them so we don’t bring more suffering into the world. The best way to stop that from happening is lowering meat consumption which will cause meat producers to stop breeding to deal with the lower demand.

I actually stopped taking B12 supplements, because there was already enough in my food that the supplement was an overload, and so I was getting acne breakouts.

Cattle are also given B12 supplements, because pasture land gets depleted of cobalt after enough grazing. Meat eaters usually get their B12 second hand from a cow pill. I get most of mine from nutritional yeast (Great savory stand in for dry cheeses like parmesan).

Calcium is actually the biggest concern for me, because most meat eaters get their calcium from calcium-fortified non-vegan foods. So that’s the one and only supplement pill I take that most meat eaters wouldn’t.

There is in fact a whole array of vitamins and nutrients that are not produced by plants or animals but rather by the microbes living in or around those plants and animals.

You can get vitamin a from carotene which is common in a lot of foods, notably carrots. Even if it wasn’t , same with b12, this is the 21st century, we can synthesize any vitamin , either chemically or with bacteria, without harming animals.