Crime Tyson Foods dumps 87BILLION gallons of toxic waste including cyanide, blood and feces into US rivers and lakes

[blackheart]

Did you consume the whole bottle of black pills? :-/

Yes, and that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. It means I've done a serious analysis of the historical trends, and I take what scientists are saying seriously. My senior thesis paper for my degree was 30 pages on this exact subject.

The ocean's fish-stock is projected to collapse mid century (so in about 25 years). We are actively cutting and burning down the Amazon rainforest to produce beef. 80-90% of the natural world has been exterminated and replaced with humanity's livestock. Something like 80-90% of all life on earth is now domesticated animals. Scientists have sounded the alarm that the 6th mass extinction event of planet earth is happening right now, and its primarily being driven by animal agriculture.

The solution to the fermi paradox and the question "what could the great filter be?" is pretty obvious and you're watching it happen right now. The answer to the reason why we don't see a galaxy full of intelligent life is playing out in front of your eyes - "intelligent" life will consume everything on their planet until their planet can no longer sustain them. Then you have the good little NPCs that have no ability to use meta-awareness/meta-cognition, like you, who will actually rush out to defend the practices that are driving the intelligent life extinct.

It's all relative, I was comparing it directly to grain-fed beef production. Butt. Given that the jury is still out in regards to soil health and carbon sequestration (mostly on account of sheer land use), we can swap sustainability in that sentence for animal welfare and quality of life. Again, relative. I will continue eating beef.

That's wonderful. Continue eating beef at the expense of all other life on this planet. I don't agree with it, but human beings are greedy and selfish to their core.

Listen. I love the cows, man. I find their combined culinary and entertainment value to be absolutely unparalleled in the world. In fact, I've got a glorious bovine called Bodacious amongst my top five Greatest Americans of all-time. He stands proudly alongside George Washington, Josiah Gibbs, Smokey Bear, and Secretariat (top that, @Long Dark Blues). He was the greatest bull, the baddest motherfucker to ever buck.



Nope.

I don't eat living creatures that I love.

You say that I'm "black pilled" and then you just reinforce why that is. You are not abnormal in this regard. You are indicative of 99% of humanity - you will not inconvenience yourself or change your habits one iota for the betterment and prosperity of others. People like you are why I'm black-pilled. Our species is going to go extinct, and we're going to take most of the life on this planet with us because deep-down, we're all soulless, greedy, selfish, murderous little monkeys that only care about short-term pleasure.

 

[Sinister]

I don't believe voting for the corporatist democrats is going to change things very much. As I've already pointed out, Tyson already dumped waste for half of Biden's term.

Sounds like a perfectly good reason to vote to make it worse.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Sounds like a perfectly good reason to vote to make it worse.

I'm pretty sure there are other issues to consider as well, but I'm probably going to vote RFK.

 

[blackheart]

Well, I hope Biden's DOJ hammers them, but I have my doubts considering Tyson is giving his illegals jobs.

I love how you come SO close to getting it, and then still miss. You correctly identified that it is corporation's desires for cheap labor that is creating the demand for migrants to come here, and then you turn around and blame Biden for mass migration

Step 1 - Stop using economic and military policy to destabilize Latin America. Stop actively making the problem worse (isn't it so weird how you never hear right-wingers even mention this when talking about migration? Like actually understanding the root of the problem and deciding we should turn off the faucet that is making it worse? Why are Hispanic migrants coming here? Why are their countries SO bad? Gee I wonder. It must be a mystery and definitely not something we can study to learn about. Let's just mow them down with machine guns at the border instead of holistically and systematically addressing the problem)

Step 2 - Crack the fuck down on corporations

Now step back and watch how the mass migration "problem" suddenly disappears

Step 3 (optional) - Do a Marshall plan for Latin America. Get the Western world together and dump trillions of dollars via low interest loans and direct cash transfers to rebuilding Latin America.

Now step back and watch how the mass migration "problem" suddenly disappears, on turbo mode.

 

[spamking]

Eating beef is probably the single least sustainable action that a human can engage in. Every time you take a bite you are contributing to species extinction, deforestation, resource depletion, and human starvation. This is like an H2 driver convincing themselves that their cartoonishly sized SUV is a fuel-efficient car.

In the US, we're already consuming less beef today than we were 50 years ago.

Do you think that land where cattle are raised would revert to natural grasslands? Depending on the size of the operation and how it's managed cattle can be run on land we can't use for crop farming.

Do you seriously see a section of land being used to raise cattle worse for us than building hundreds of new homes on that same land? Because I can guarantee you that if a rancher sells out developers will snatch up his land and do just that.

When it comes to deforestation, every cattle operation isn't equal to what's going on in the Amazon.

 

[Mr Holmes]

I love how you come SO close to getting it, and then still miss. You correctly identified that it is corporation's desires for cheap labor that is creating the demand for migrants to come here, and then you turn around and blame Biden for mass migration

Step 1 - Stop using economic and military policy to destabilize Latin America. Stop actively making the problem worse (isn't it so weird how you never hear right-wingers even mention this when talking about migration? Like actually understanding the root of the problem and deciding we should turn off the faucet that is making it worse? Why are Hispanic migrants coming here? Why are their countries SO bad? Gee I wonder. It must be a mystery and definitely not something we can study to learn about. Let's just mow them down with machine guns at the border instead of holistically and systematically addressing the problem)

Step 2 - Crack the fuck down on corporations

Now step back and watch how the mass migration "problem" suddenly disappears

Step 3 (optional) - Do a Marshall plan for Latin America. Get the Western world together and dump trillions of dollars via low interest loans and direct cash transfers to rebuilding Latin America.

Now step back and watch how the mass migration "problem" suddenly disappears, on turbo mode.

In typical fashion you ignore the facts of my post and started derping about how the US is the cause of poverty all over the world. Good luck with that, dunce.

 

[emefer]

I'm pretty sure there are other issues to consider as well, but I'm probably going to vote RFK.

You mean the addict who had part of his brain eaten by a worm?

 

[emefer]

"Sustainability" lol. There's absolutely no such thing when it comes to eating beef. The amount of food, water and land it requires to produce beef is absolutely fuckin insane. Millions of people on this planet starve while we pack like 50% of our crop production into the bellies of livestock so we can eat them instead.

Eat whatever you want, I guess, even if it means driving your species extinct. But don't go around convincing yourself and others it's "sustainable" while it's literally sparking a mass extinction event lmfaoo

Lab grown beef may prove to be sustainable but I doubt it.

 

[blackheart]

In the US, we're already consuming less beef today than we were 50 years ago.

While this is true on a per capita basis, it obviously isn't true in a total basis with population growth.

But we have also exported our beef obsession to the developing world. Previously poor countries that are seeing strong economic development see beef consumption as a sign of prosperity, and as a result the per capita beef consumption of a ton of countries is going through the roof.

Back on US per capita beef consumption, while it may have gone down for beef, that was replaced by an increased demand for other forms of meat. Our overall per capita meat consumption has nearly doubled from a century ago -

Other forms of meat are not "sustainable". They are also horrific for the environment. They are just less horrific compared to beef.

Do you think that land where cattle are raised would revert to natural grasslands?

In many instances yes. In many instances no. That's far too complex of a question because of the scope. Currently, if you combine all of the land that we use to raise cattle and grow crops for those cattle, it amounts to an area roughly the size of Africa. The vast majority of that could be reverted to a natural state that is a carbon sink and not a massive GHG emitter

Depending on the size of the operation and how it's managed cattle can be run on land we can't use for crop farming.

Yes, land exists that can neither grow crops nor be turned to a grassland. That would be the most ideal for raising cattle. But you still have to account for the vast and extremely inefficient feed and water inputs required to raise those cattle, as well as the vast GHG outputs from them.

Do you seriously see a section of land being used to raise cattle worse for us than building hundreds of new homes on that same land? Because I can guarantee you that if a rancher sells out developers will snatch up his land and do just that.

When it comes to deforestation, every cattle operation isn't equal to what's going on in the Amazon.

It isn't just deforestation. Obviously most of America's cattle operations aren't in a forest or previously forested areas. They're in grasslands/prairies/valleys.

It's the compounding effects of scale when you have a previously "natural" area, which is capable of absorbing greenhouse gases and sustaining life, full of natural plants, with a natural water table, and a ton of different "natural" species running around on that land - whether you're talking about the diversity of the bug life, the microbiotic life of the soil, or the diversity of the larger fauna running around like fox, deer, coyote, squirrels, birds, etc. - and then you clear cut that land, kill off any animals living there, move in your cattle who eat any remaining plant life and whose feces seeps down into the water table and contaminate it. The soil biota is destroyed, the bugs are all killed off, and the larger fauna are killed or driven off. And now, the entire parcel of land has gone from being able to absorb greenhouse gases and sustain life, to emitting extreme amounts of GHG and being hostile to life.

Now, take the picture I have painted for you and scale it up in your mind to a country wide level. The millions of hectares where this has occurred. The vast grasslands which are now barren cattle ranches.

Now take that mental image and the picture I painted for you, and scale it up to a planetary level. You have yourself an extinction level event. And that is what is happening currently on the planet I am living on.

I know that there is no universe in which a vegan gets dictatorial power over the US or the planet, and outlaws meat consumption/production.

If you ask me what we should do about it, I think we should immediately end any and all subsidies to meat producers. I'm okay with the government subsidizing food to make it cheaper, but not when the food is driving my species and many others extinct. We shouldn't subsidize any part of it. No subsidies for their feed. No subsidies for their equipment. No subsidies for them to comply with environmental regulations and mitigate their operation's horrible environmental impact. There should be a true market cost for any and all animal products. That true market cost would be much, much higher than what meat costs now, which would sharply reduce production and consumption of it.

 

[Mr Holmes]

You mean the addict who had part of his brain eaten by a worm?

And still more cogent than the other 2.

 

[Natural Order]

Which corporations?

Specific industries have clear preferences about which party has their best interests at heart.


Trial lawyers, healthcare companies, telecoms, big tech etc. lean Democratic in donations.

Big polluters tend to support Republicans.

Interest Groups

Our user-friendly database of campaign contributions by industries and interest groups will help you learn how these interests gain political influence in American politics.

www.opensecrets.org

Funny how youd leave out that leftist skew to lobbyists and lawyers….with total contributions more than DOUBLING the amount of money for environment/energy.

Both parties are a joke and the American duopoly will continue this charade.

 

[blackheart]

Lab grown beef may prove to be sustainable but I doubt it.

I'm all for it and not against it in any way. Whatever the scientists need to cook up to stop the omnivores from exterminating most of the life on my planet, I am fully behind it.

 

[CHUTE_BOXE78]

I ate the chicken patties once. I didn't like them at all and never ate any Tyson product before or after. I suppose this planet will go the way of others and be consumed until all life is gone.

 

[Seano]

I remember when the local chicken plant here in my hometown used to dump chicken waste into the bay, the fishing was amazing. Now the bay is full of people's pleasure boats. There's always garbage floating around. The water is green and you can't see the bottom anymore. Somehow making it better made it worse.

 

[blackheart]

In typical fashion you ignore the facts of my post and started derping about how the US is the cause of poverty all over the world. Good luck with that, dunce.

Typical brainlet reactionary one sentence reply to a nuanced and detailed breakdown. Did I say the US is the cause of poverty all over the world? Did I say that Donald Trump is exclusively responsible for Tyson dumping this waste? Why is your reading comprehension such shit? This is twice in one thread. You're a grown ass man but you can't even accurately re-state what other people say to you. Why would anyone even talk to you when you're literally too stupid to even carry a conversation and follow along?

 

[spamking]

While this is true on a per capita basis, it obviously isn't true in a total basis with population growth.

Well sure . . . . roughly 16,271,362,480 lbs. in 1970 vs 18,781,500,000 lbs. in 2020.

But we have also exported our beef obsession to the developing world. Previously poor countries that are seeing strong economic development see beef consumption as a sign of prosperity, and as a result the per capita beef consumption of a ton of countries is going through the roof.

The US does have less than 10% of the world's cattle . . . so this doesn't surprise me.

Back on US per capita beef consumption, while it may have gone down for beef, that was replaced by an increased demand for other forms of meat. Our overall per capita meat consumption has nearly doubled from a century ago -

Other forms of meat are not "sustainable". They are also horrific for the environment. They are just less horrific compared to beef.

Sustainability is a matter of perspective and how that meat is grown/developed. The Tysons of the world are causing more issues than some feedlot in the Texas panhandle, and every cattle operation isn't a feedlot. Methane digestors are probably more common today than before as well.

In many instances yes. In many instances no. That's far too complex of a question because of the scope. Currently, if you combine all of the land that we use to raise cattle and grow crops for those cattle, it amounts to an area roughly the size of Africa. The vast majority of that could be reverted to a natural state that is a carbon sink and not a massive GHG emitter

This is a complex issue as well. The number of acres needed per cow in Texas, Montana, Oklahoma, Michigan, and other states isn't the same. Some places in the West might need several times the number of acres vs the Midwest.

Yes, land exists that can neither grow crops nor be turned to a grassland. That would be the most ideal for raising cattle. But you still have to account for the vast and extremely inefficient feed and water inputs required to raise those cattle, as well as the vast GHG outputs from them.

Land management is better today than it has been in the past. Crop rotation, herd rotation, water retention, have all made advancements. Many farms have natural water sources or they drill a well and use solar-powered windmills to pump the water to the retention trough. As part of that herd rotation, many ranchers cut their own grass for hay. Sure there are those farmers who put way too many cows on a place and eat it slick. Those folks don't last long.

It isn't just deforestation. Obviously most of America's cattle operations aren't in a forest or previously forested areas. They're in grasslands/prairies/valleys.

Those same lands seemed to support large herds of buffalo fine.

It's the compounding effects of scale when you have a previously "natural" area, which is capable of absorbing greenhouse gases and sustaining life, full of natural plants, with a natural water table, and a ton of different "natural" species running around on that land - whether you're talking about the diversity of the bug life, the microbiotic life of the soil, or the diversity of the larger fauna running around like fox, deer, coyote, squirrels, birds, etc. - and then you clear cut that land, kill off any animals living there, move in your cattle who eat any remaining plant life and whose feces seeps down into the water table and contaminate it. The soil biota is destroyed, the bugs are all killed off, and the larger fauna are killed or driven off. And now, the entire parcel of land has gone from being able to absorb greenhouse gases and sustain life, to emitting extreme amounts of GHG and being hostile to life.

Most cattle aren't in forests or previously forested lands, but now ranchers are going scorched earth on land to run cattle?

Everything you just mentioned is completely dependent on how the rancher/farmer approaches things. You're listing all of the negatives and completely ignoring the positives. Cattle can often keep invasive plants in check to allow those native grasses to flourish. If cow manure is managed properly it can be of great benefit to the local soil (to name a few).

Now, take the picture I have painted for you and scale it up in your mind to a country wide level. The millions of hectares where this has occurred. The vast grasslands which are now barren cattle ranches.

Now take that mental image and the picture I painted for you, and scale it up to a planetary level. You have yourself an extinction level event. And that is what is happening currently on the planet I am living on.

I know that there is no universe in which a vegan gets dictatorial power over the US or the planet, and outlaws meat consumption/production.

If you ask me what we should do about it, I think we should immediately end any and all subsidies to meat producers. I'm okay with the government subsidizing food to make it cheaper, but not when the food is driving my species and many others extinct. We shouldn't subsidize any part of it. No subsidies for their feed. No subsidies for their equipment. No subsidies for them to comply with environmental regulations and mitigate their operation's horrible environmental impact. There should be a true market cost for any and all animal products. That true market cost would be much, much higher than what meat costs now, which would sharply reduce production and consumption of it.

Wow.

 

[blackheart]

Sustainability is a matter of perspective and how that meat is grown/developed.

It really isn't though. Something is either sustainable or it is not. Either a certain practice, at a certain scale, can be maintained indefinitely, or it cannot be. At current meat consumption levels, you would need multiple planet earths for it to be sustainable. Once you factor in trends like population growth and rising meat/beef consumption - yeah this shit isn't even remotely sustainable my guy.

The Tysons of the world are causing more issues than some feedlot in the Texas panhandle, and every cattle operation isn't a feedlot. Methane digestors are probably more common today than before as well.

I mean, I guess, sure? In the same way that McDonald's is responsible for more heart attacks than a singular McDonald's location. The Tysons of the world are causing far more issues than some feedlot in texas, because the Tysons of the world own that feedlot in texas, and many many others.

This is a complex issue as well. The number of acres needed per cow in Texas, Montana, Oklahoma, Michigan, and other states isn't the same. Some places in the West might need several times the number of acres vs the Midwest.

I'm aware that different types of land can sustain different volumes of livestock -_- it isn't that complex. I was just pointing out the total magnitude of land that is required to make all of that shit happen. A land mass the size of Africa, is emitting GHGs instead of absorbing GHGs. A land mass the size of Africa, is being used to "produce" food at a ratio of 25 calories in for every 1 calorie you get out, which creates food scarcity around the world.

Land management is better today than it has been in the past. Crop rotation, herd rotation, water retention, have all made advancements.

This isn't out of any sort of beneficence from cattle ranchers. This is because capitalism necessitates this higher degree of control over inputs and outputs in order to maximize profits.

Many farms have natural water sources or they drill a well and use solar-powered windmills to pump the water to the retention trough. As part of that herd rotation, many ranchers cut their own grass for hay. Sure there are those farmers who put way too many cows on a place and eat it slick. Those folks don't last long.

I don't think anything you've mentioned here is done at any kind of scale. You can continue to make appeals to the very best case scenarios where "mom and pop" cattle ranchers do all these nice little sustainability practices and damage mitigation efforts. But the reality is that those things are not and will not be done at any kind of scale. Capitalism necessitates that you maximize profits and minimize costs. Everything you're talking about is costly and will not be done at scale to feed a majority of the population.

Those same lands seemed to support large herds of buffalo fine.

Yeah - isn't it weird how the environment can naturally sustain life? Then it no longer can after we get done with it? Do I really need to point out the differences between mega-herds of Buffalo grazing around the vast, open and unrestricted American prairie vs jamming tons of animals onto one plot of land? Do you really think those two things are comparable?

Most cattle aren't in forests or previously forested lands, but now ranchers are going scorched earth on land to run cattle?

What I pointed out to you is just what happens with cattle ranching. It has nothing to do with cattle ranchers going scorched earth. Dude, wtf are you talking about? Are you literally just completely ignorant as to what happens to biotic diversity on a plot of land from cattle ranching? First - the land has to be clear cut and plowed. Where do all of the animals go that were living there? What happens to the soil after you've stripped the grass off and dumped feces onto it for years?? Do I really need to post a picture of a natural grassland vs a cattle ranch and include little picture graphics like a children's schoolbook that points out the biological characteristics and changes that occur from cattle ranching? Animal agriculture is in and of itself going "scorched earth" on land. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. Are you really completely unaware of the atomic bomb that animal agriculture has dropped on biological diversity? There is a huuuuge amount of scholarship available for you to read on the topic if you'd like to know more about it.

Maybe I do need to create a kid's picture book to explain this as you seem to think that buffalo living on the vast American prairie pre-colonization can be compared to keeping animals on feedlots? You seem to have no understanding of the cycles and processes of nature and the environment and how what we do completely fucks that up.

Everything you just mentioned is completely dependent on how the rancher/farmer approaches things. You're listing all of the negatives and completely ignoring the positives. Cattle can often keep invasive plants in check to allow those native grasses to flourish. If cow manure is managed properly it can be of great benefit to the local soil (to name a few).

I would again just reference what I said previously. You keep mentioning the best-case scenario, when I'm talking about what's actually done at scale to produce the majority of the meat for the majority of people that eat it. Your best-case scenarios aren't done at scale because of the costs.

Wow.

Yes, it is pretty shocking that the American taxpayer is giving/has given billions and billions of dollars to subsidize the profits of an industry that is going to drive the taxpayer's species extinct. It's like a sick, twisted, Lovecraftian cosmic horror-comedy. Imagine a planet that is completely covered in death factories that industrially slaughters tens of billions of living creatures every year. Imagine that it's been scientifically confirmed that this practice is going to drive the life on that planet extinct. Then just imagine, the "intelligent" and "dominant" species of that planet is actually paying a part of their individual salaries/wages to hasten their own extinction with this practice. It's really, really fucking sick.

 

[Natural Order]

It really isn't though. Something is either sustainable or it is not. Either a certain practice, at a certain scale, can be maintained indefinitely, or it cannot be. At current meat consumption levels, you would need multiple planet earths for it to be sustainable. Once you factor in trends like population growth and rising meat/beef consumption - yeah this shit isn't even remotely sustainable my guy.

I mean, I guess, sure? In the same way that McDonald's is responsible for more heart attacks than a singular McDonald's location. The Tysons of the world are causing far more issues than some feedlot in texas, because the Tysons of the world own that feedlot in texas, and many many others.

I'm aware that different types of land can sustain different volumes of livestock -_- it isn't that complex. I was just pointing out the total magnitude of land that is required to make all of that shit happen. A land mass the size of Africa, is emitting GHGs instead of absorbing GHGs. A land mass the size of Africa, is being used to "produce" food at a ratio of 25 calories in for every 1 calorie you get out, which creates food scarcity around the world.

This isn't out of any sort of beneficence from cattle ranchers. This is because capitalism necessitates this higher degree of control over inputs and outputs in order to maximize profits.

I don't think anything you've mentioned here is done at any kind of scale. You can continue to make appeals to the very best case scenarios where "mom and pop" cattle ranchers do all these nice little sustainability practices and damage mitigation efforts. But the reality is that those things are not and will not be done at any kind of scale. Capitalism necessitates that you maximize profits and minimize costs. Everything you're talking about is costly and will not be done at scale to feed a majority of the population.

Yeah - isn't it weird how the environment can naturally sustain life? Then it no longer can after we get done with it? Do I really need to point out the differences between mega-herds of Buffalo grazing around the vast, open and unrestricted American prairie vs jamming tons of animals onto one plot of land? Do you really think those two things are comparable?

What I pointed out to you is just what happens with cattle ranching. It has nothing to do with cattle ranchers going scorched earth. Dude, wtf are you talking about? Are you literally just completely ignorant as to what happens to biotic diversity on a plot of land from cattle ranching? First - the land has to be clear cut and plowed. Where do all of the animals go that were living there? What happens to the soil after you've stripped the grass off and dumped feces onto it for years?? Do I really need to post a picture of a natural grassland vs a cattle ranch and include little picture graphics like a children's schoolbook that points out the biological characteristics and changes that occur from cattle ranching? Animal agriculture is in and of itself going "scorched earth" on land. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. Are you really completely unaware of the atomic bomb that animal agriculture has dropped on biological diversity? There is a huuuuge amount of scholarship available for you to read on the topic if you'd like to know more about it.

Maybe I do need to create a kid's picture book to explain this as you seem to think that buffalo living on the vast American prairie pre-colonization can be compared to keeping animals on feedlots? You seem to have no understanding of the cycles and processes of nature and the environment and how what we do completely fucks that up.

I would again just reference what I said previously. You keep mentioning the best-case scenario, when I'm talking about what's actually done at scale to produce the majority of the meat for the majority of people that eat it. Your best-case scenarios aren't done at scale because of the costs.

Yes, it is pretty shocking that the American taxpayer is giving/has given billions and billions of dollars to subsidize the profits of an industry that is going to drive the taxpayer's species extinct. It's like a sick, twisted, Lovecraftian cosmic horror-comedy. Imagine a planet that is completely covered in death factories that industrially slaughters tens of billions of living creatures every year. Imagine that it's been scientifically confirmed that this practice is going to drive the life on that planet extinct. Then just imagine, the "intelligent" and "dominant" species of that planet is actually paying a part of their individual salaries/wages to hasten their own extinction with this practice. It's really, really fucking sick.

The misanthropy is strong with this one!

You think quite poorly of Mother Nature.

 

[jefferz]

I remember when the local chicken plant here in my hometown used to dump chicken waste into the bay, the fishing was amazing. Now the bay is full of people's pleasure boats. There's always garbage floating around. The water is green and you can't see the bottom anymore. Somehow making it better made it worse.

All those years of dumping shit in the bay contributed to providing an imbalance in the water, causing the green water.

 

[blackheart]

The misanthropy is strong with this one!

You think quite poorly of Mother Nature.

Yeah, the guy who thinks we shouldn't exterminate mother nature and cover our planet in mother nature death factories, is the one who thinks quite poorly of her.