/ Animals and Sustainability

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Shani - on 05 Mar 2013
V*ganism pushes the killing to where it can't be seen. Petsticides, herbicides, run off all kill to support the v*gan palate. Monocropping facilitates swarms of pests.

Successful farming is predicated on natural systems. Natural systems are complex mixes of flora and fauna. Using this approach derstification has been reversed in <a href="http://bit.ly/XOjjM9">parts of Africa</a>.
Scarab9 - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:

wow, now that's some bullshit rant if ever I've seen one. Go back under your bridge.
toad - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani: Erm, has your account been hacked?
The New NickB - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to toad:
> (In reply to Shani) Erm, has your account been hacked?

He has history with this sort of stuff.
Shani - on 05 Mar 2013
I recommend you watch the vid. It is very interesting.

(Also, if anyone can point me to how a v*gan diet avoids 'killing' I'd love to know.)
Scarab9 - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> I recommend you watch the vid. It is very interesting.
>
> (Also, if anyone can point me to how a v*gan diet avoids 'killing' I'd love to know.)

see here's where you've gone wrong. The aim of those trying to live ethically (by their personal ethics, I'm not saying those who don't eat vegan less ethical here) try to minimize their impact on the environment. It doesn't mean zero, and it doesn't mean instant. But by personal choice trying to minimize your impact and support the better options builds consumer awareness and hopefully pushes producers to choose different methods to meet demand, while also just as importantly meeting your own personal requirements to be the best you can.

This whole argument that because a vegan has by a complex chain of events caused suffering means their whole outlook is void and they should drop all their ethical beliefs is idiocy.
puppythedog on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Scarab9: Very nice considered Reply there Scarab, I like it.
Alyson - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> V*ganism

As soon as you do this it becomes hard to see past the chip on your shoulder.

I'm not a vegan, it's merely an observation.
Liam M - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani: I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you conflating veganism with industrial scale monoculture whilst suggesting the alternative omnivorism is necessarily subsistent?
tony on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> V*ganism pushes the killing to where it can't be seen. Petsticides, herbicides, run off all kill to support the v*gan palate. Monocropping facilitates swarms of pests.

What about pesticides and herbicides used on crops eaten by omnivores? And pesticides and herbicides used on crops eaten by cattle and sheep and pigs and chicken? What about the fungicides used in fish farms?

F*cking gibberish.
Shani - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Alyson:
> (In reply to Shani)
> [...]
>
> As soon as you do this it becomes hard to see past the chip on your shoulder.
>
> I'm not a vegan, it's merely an observation.

It is simply a 'wildcard' used to cover 'veganism' and 'vegetarianism' rather than having to write them both out so I wouldn't read too much in to it.
Shani - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Scarab9:
> (In reply to Shani)
> [...]
>
> see here's where you've gone wrong. The aim of those trying to live ethically (by their personal ethics, I'm not saying those who don't eat vegan less ethical here) try to minimize their impact on the environment. It doesn't mean zero, and it doesn't mean instant. But by personal choice trying to minimize your impact and support the better options builds consumer awareness and hopefully pushes producers to choose different methods to meet demand, while also just as importantly meeting your own personal requirements to be the best you can.
>
> This whole argument that because a vegan has by a complex chain of events caused suffering means their whole outlook is void and they should drop all their ethical beliefs is idiocy.

So here is where you've gone wrong. I am not claiming that anyone should drop all their ethical beliefs. What I am saying is that not eating meat doesn't necessarily translate to minimising impact on the environment.
Sir Chasm - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani: If you took a representative sample of vegans, vegetarians and omnivores, which group's food choices do you think would have the lowest impact on the environment?
toad - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> (In reply to Alyson)
> [...]
>
> It is simply a 'wildcard' used to cover 'veganism' and 'vegetarianism' rather than having to write them both out

I hate to be a bore, but if it's C&P, you didn't have to write them out at all (I'm marking, so at the moment I assume everyone is plagiarising and search pretty much anything I read). Reference your material in future!
Shani - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Shani) If you took a representative sample of vegans, vegetarians and omnivores, which group's food choices do you think would have the lowest impact on the environment?

I'd like to see some research to quantify it. I certainly know that in the West, comfy middle-class lifestyles seem to be disproportionately represented amongst v*ganism. (I see plenty of airmiles for their out-of-season fruit and veg. I see oil dependence supporting the crops they eat.)

If you look at the video above you will see a rich, complex, 'ecologically balanced' environment underpinned by animals that can (and need) to be hunted to stop overpopulation. Are you suggesting that that land would be better served by turning it over to cropping?
Sir Chasm - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani: I'm suggesting that, per head, vegans and vegetarians probably have a lower environmental impact - unless it's only them having their kiwi fruit and green beans flown in.
I'd also suggest that your idea that we're going to be able to feed 7billion people on prime cuts of meat from animals raised in a rich, complex, ecologically balanced environment is very funny.
Alyson - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani: Yes farming can be - and usually is - very environmentally damaging. It would be lovely if we could all live off the land, taking only what we need, living sustainably and leaving nothing but footprints. I think that's a great thing to aim for. If your problem is with farming methods then it's with farming methods, why use it to start a fight with veganism or vegetarianism? Almost all food is currently intensively farmed and pesticides aren't only applied to crops destined for the stomachs of non-meat-eaters.
tony on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
> I'd like to see some research to quantify it. I certainly know that in the West, comfy middle-class lifestyles seem to be disproportionately represented amongst v*ganism. (I see plenty of airmiles for their out-of-season fruit and veg. I see oil dependence supporting the crops they eat.)
>
You know that? So omnivores don't expend airmiles or oil dependence with their own out-of-season veg, or their imported meat and seafood - New Zealand lamb anyone? And there's no pesticide and herbicide and fertiliser expenditure in the grain used to feed cattle?

You're making plenty of assertions, with no substance to support any of them.
Al Evans on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Alyson: Veganism is ridiculous on most grounds except possibly extreme philosophical or health grounds.
Human beings are omnivores, it is possible to get round it nutritionally but I don't think it is desirable. Humane farming of meat crops is the obvious humanitarian answer. Taken to extreme do we kill all species of carnivore? Lions? Tigers? etc.
Of course not, we need to philosophically accept that some species need to eat meat and human beings are one of the species that do and can do something about it and make it as humane as possible. Veganism is un-natural but just about workable, I'm not sure however that it is at all desirable.
Shani - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Shani) I'm suggesting that, per head, vegans and vegetarians probably have a lower environmental impact - unless it's only them having their kiwi fruit and green beans flown in.
> I'd also suggest that your idea that we're going to be able to feed 7billion people on prime cuts of meat from animals raised in a rich, complex, ecologically balanced environment is very funny.

When you look at the video above, you'll note that they simply added animals to restore the land to its former sustainable biodiversity. No synthetic fertilisers or pesticides. Here is the interesting point - you need to manage the herbivores otherwise they overgraze - and that is where meat eaters/apex predators come in to it.

Would this land be better served being turned over to satisfy a v*gan diet? Would it be as 'light touch', as biodiverse, as sustainable?
tony on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

> Veganism is un-natural but just about workable, I'm not sure however that it is at all desirable.

But for all those vegans who are perfectly happy being vegans, what you think really doesn't matter. I never quite understand why omnivores feel the need to have such strident opinions about vegans and vegetarians.
thomasadixon - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:

I watched it. It is very interesting, good reasoning and decent evidence for what he's saying. Incredible results. Your OP wasn't great though, bound to annoy!

To all - watch it, it's worth looking at.
aln - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
>> Would this land be better served being turned over to satisfy a v*gan diet?

Is there much chance of that happening anywhere?
aln - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> [...]
>
>I never quite understand why omnivores feel the need to have such strident opinions about vegans and vegetarians.

I know what you're talking about. I was a veggie for 17 years. I was a "low key" veggie. Not militant or strident about it at all. It was just what I ate. Yet the whole time, meat eaters constantly demanded that I defended and explained my dietary choice. And also kept demanding to know why I thought they shouldn't eat meat.
Sir Chasm - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani: I'll watch the video later, hopefully it explains why billions of Indians and Chinese aren't already applying this method.
Shani - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Shani) I'll watch the video later, hopefully it explains why billions of Indians and Chinese aren't already applying this method.

A succinct answer would fall between the Imperial past ('Guns, Germs and Steel' explores this) and the Western capitalist model at present.

Alternative sustainable approaches to farming are being developed in Asia. I recommend you read 'Power of Duck'.
aln - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: Are you a real person with opinions or a canon lawyer appointed by Church authorities to argue against the canonization of a candidate?
Sir Chasm - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to aln: That would be an ecumenical matter.
Al Evans on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> [...]
>
> But for all those vegans who are perfectly happy being vegans, what you think really doesn't matter. I never quite understand why omnivores feel the need to have such strident opinions about vegans and vegetarians.

They don't, except that I just wonder what the more extreme of the genre would like to do about Lions, Tigers etc?
Sir Chasm - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to Al Evans: Same as cows and chickens, they wouldn't eat them.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Shani - on 06 Mar 2013
So have any of the deluded 'meat is murder' crowd watched the video?
nufkin - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> So have any of the deluded 'meat is murder' crowd watched the video?

Can't at the moment - any chance of a summary?

Isn't veganism more to do with not causing suffering unecessarily, rather than avoiding the death of any living thing? Obviously there's different definitions of 'suffering' and 'necessary', so really it's always just a question of choosing where to draw the line.

Shani - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to nufkin:
> (In reply to Shani)
> [...]
>
> Can't at the moment - any chance of a summary?

Desertification follows modern farming techniques and 1/3 or the worlds arable land has become desert in the last century or so because of aggressive settled agriculture. In parts of Africa herbivores have been reintroduced to desert areas with no other nourishement nor fertiliser on the land in an attempt to restore the ecosystem. Within a few years the land has been restored to a level of fecundity and vibrancy. The restored foliage also traps water and so water courses are sustained for much longer over the year.

> Isn't veganism more to do with not causing suffering unecessarily, rather than avoiding the death of any living thing? Obviously there's different definitions of 'suffering' and 'necessary', so really it's always just a question of choosing where to draw the line.

Probably. But meat eating does not mandate 'causing suffering unecessarily' just as most western vegetarians and vegans source their food from industrial farming processes that do cause egregious environmental damage and so suffering. It is also unsustainable note least for its oil dependency.

vegetarians and vegans compete with other life at the root of the food chain and so you lose biodiversity. Pastoral systems exist where 'natural' models are imitated leading to sustainable, biodiverse farming with little external input. In such systems meat eating is a requirement to stop over grazing.
aln - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Al Evans:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
>
> They don't, except that I just wonder what the more extreme of the genre would like to do about Lions, Tigers etc?

In my experience omnivores do behave in that way. From my post above -
"I know what you're talking about. I was a veggie for 17 years. I was a "low key" veggie. Not militant or strident about it at all. It was just what I ate. Yet the whole time, meat eaters constantly demanded that I defended and explained my dietary choice. And also kept demanding to know why I thought they shouldn't eat meat."
aln - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani: I've been a veggie, bordering on veganism, now I eat meat again. So I've been on both sides of the fence. You seem to be saying vegans are killing the planet. This is bollocks. How many out of the 7 billion or whatever humans on this planet are vegan? How much farm land is devoted to that practice? You are deluded and this and previous posts show that you have some kind of mission about this subject.
Sir Chasm - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> So have any of the deluded 'meat is murder' crowd watched the video?

I watched it (even though I'm partial to eating animals), it was interesting. He did fail to explain what the herd ate while vegetation was establishing, when there "wasn't a blade of grass for miles". Still, I look forward to seeing herds of wildebees majestically roaming across Kinder.
aln - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: Woah there, that's verging on expressing an opinion Sir canon lawyer appointed by Church authorities to argue against the canonization of a candidate
Shani - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to aln:
> (In reply to Shani) I've been a veggie, bordering on veganism, now I eat meat again. So I've been on both sides of the fence. You seem to be saying vegans are killing the planet. This is bollocks. How many out of the 7 billion or whatever humans on this planet are vegan? How much farm land is devoted to that practice? You are deluded and this and previous posts show that you have some kind of mission about this subject.

Your claim that "[I] seem to be saying vegans are killing the planet." is indeed bollock becuase I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is modern industrial farming is damaging, unsustainable and a source of a source of unneccessary suffering. Vegans and vegetarians have posited that meat eating is most damaging compared to their dietary ways. It is THIS simplistic idea I contend with.

I DO have a mission and that is to point people towards sustainable approaches to farming that reduce environmental damage and reduce unneccessary suffering; this approach is not to 'go vegan'. Education is the first step and once farmers see what is possible, hopefully consumers can use their purchasing power to drive farming in that direction.

You cannot watch that video and fail to be scared by the desertification resulting from settled agriculture, and be amazed by the turnaround of introducing grazing animals.
aln - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> (In reply to aln)
> [...]
>
>What I am saying is modern industrial farming is damaging, unsustainable and a source of a source of unneccessary suffering.

Isn't most "modern industrial farming" geared towards meat production?
Shani - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to aln:
> (In reply to Shani)
> [...]
> >What I am saying is modern industrial farming is damaging, unsustainable and a source of a source of unneccessary suffering.
>
> Isn't most "modern industrial farming" geared towards meat production?

Not sure on the proportions, but the biggest industrial crops are soy, wheat, corn/maize, sugar and rice. Cereals, sugar and soy in particular are grown because of 'added value' - they can split each crop down and sell some of it to food producers for human consumption, and the remainder chuck in to animal feed.

It is all intertwined and hard (for me at least) to tease out whether meat production is geared over animal feed production. The principle gearing is profit.
aln - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> (In reply to aln)
> [...]
>
>> It is all intertwined and hard (for me at least) to tease out whether meat production is geared over animal feed production. The principle gearing is profit.

You seem to be back pedalling a bit.

The New NickB - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:

There are about 1.3 billion cattle, 1.2 billion sheep and 8 billion chickens in the world, that will tell you quite a bit about the arable resources that they consume.
Shani - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to aln:
> (In reply to Shani)
> [...]
> >> It is all intertwined and hard (for me at least) to tease out whether meat production is geared over animal feed production. The principle gearing is profit.
>
> You seem to be back pedalling a bit.

No. My position is consistent. The problem is modern industrial farming. The solution is not going vegan or vegetarian.

Modern industrial farming unerpins much of the Western veg*nism (because it is integrated with those veg*n foods also enjoyed by omnivores). It is this model we need to change.
Shani - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> There are about 1.3 billion cattle, 1.2 billion sheep and 8 billion chickens in the world, that will tell you quite a bit about the arable resources that they consume.

It's almost as if you haven't watched that video. If you have, then you seem to have missed the bit about the cause of desertification and a solution to it.
aln - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani: How many vegans are there in the world?
Shani - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to aln:
> (In reply to Shani) How many vegans are there in the world?

Tell me.
Alyson - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> (In reply to aln)
> The problem is modern industrial farming. The solution is not going vegan or vegetarian.

By the same token the solution isn't 'being an omnivore' either. Eating meat is no more of an answer because the meat comes from the same industrial farming model.

Would the sustainable farming solution require every single person to eat meat? Because unless it would and we're all doomed to desertification as soon as one person chooses not to, it still looks like you're picking a fight for the sake of it.
The New NickB - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:

I haven't watched the video, but I wasn't commenting on the video, I was commenting on how much arable production goes in to animal feed.

I take it we can agree that industrialised farming, is the the problem not veganism and that most meat is a product of industrialised farming and with meat production being a disproportionate user of arable crops, is a disproportionate part of the problem.

Meat eaters can avoid industrialised products to a certain extent, but funnily enough so can vegans, veggies, or people who choose to eat a bit less meat.

I am sure there are benefits to none intensive meat production, but that requires less people eating meat, so the vegan is your friend.
Shani - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Alyson:
> (In reply to Shani)
> [...]
>
> By the same token the solution isn't 'being an omnivore' either. Eating meat is no more of an answer because the meat comes from the same industrial farming model.
>
> Would the sustainable farming solution require every single person to eat meat? Because unless it would and we're all doomed to desertification as soon as one person chooses not to, it still looks like you're picking a fight for the sake of it.


You missing the point. Change the model. The sustainable model illustrated in the video leads to a problem of potential overgrazing by herbivores. They have to be managed through hunting. This is where we can enjoy meat in our diet. You don't HAVE to eat the meat, but we certainly can do so in a sustainable way.
The New NickB - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> (In reply to Alyson)
> [...]
>
>
> You missing the point. Change the model. The sustainable model illustrated in the video leads to a problem of potential overgrazing by herbivores. They have to be managed through hunting. This is where we can enjoy meat in our diet. You don't HAVE to eat the meat, but we certainly can do so in a sustainable way.

So a sustainable meat source for a minority. Sustainable meat means less meat for all. Why the anger at vegans?
MeMeMe - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:

> You missing the point. Change the model. The sustainable model illustrated in the video leads to a problem of potential overgrazing by herbivores. They have to be managed through hunting. This is where we can enjoy meat in our diet. You don't HAVE to eat the meat, but we certainly can do so in a sustainable way.


I don't think anyone is missing the point, we're just all confused why you are attacking veg*ns when they are no more or less part of the problem than anyone else.

You think if the model was changed to the one illustrated we'd be over-run with animals because the veg*ns won't eat their share? If so then that's a pretty hilarious view-point.
The New NickB - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to MeMeMe:

You have got to remember that the OP thinks that we should all be following a paleo diet and that the answer to sourcing food is essentially apeing paleo hunter gathering, forgetting of course that the paleolithic population peaked at less than 0.01% of the current global population.
Shani - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to MeMeMe:
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> [...]
>
>
> I don't think anyone is missing the point, we're just all confused why you are attacking veg*ns when they are no more or less part of the problem than anyone else.

Well done on speaking for 'all'. I'd broadly agree with you that 'they are no more or less part of the problem than anyone else'.

> You think if the model was changed to the one illustrated we'd be over-run with animals because the veg*ns won't eat their share? If so then that's a pretty hilarious view-point.

It would be hilarious and is definitely not my view-point.
Shani - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to MeMeMe)
>
> You have got to remember that the OP thinks that we should all be following a paleo diet and that the answer to sourcing food is essentially apeing paleo hunter gathering, forgetting of course that the paleolithic population peaked at less than 0.01% of the current global population.

"apeing paleo hunter gathering"? A foolish suggestion. The paleo idea is a logical framework applied to modern humans, not a historical re-enactment. This is well documented on paleo forums.
The New NickB - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
>
> "apeing paleo hunter gathering"? A foolish suggestion. The paleo idea is a logical framework applied to modern humans, not a historical re-enactment. This is well documented on paleo forums.

Go on then apply it to 7bn people.
happy_c - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani: I think the only way you can be 'sustainable' is to dig a whole and climb in it! :D

In all seriousness, were humans that trash the place or eat it, then expect these silly animals to get away from us and stay of our roads!

I had a mini arguement with a vegan friend, because he interupted my slightly awesome bacon butty, after hes row against eating meat, i pointed out that all the clothing he wears probably has animal products in, or made in a factory that resulted in the death of some animals, the car he drives comes from materials dug out the ground resulting in loss of habitats etc and the roads he drives on result in thousands of animals death each year, never mind the loss of habitat and natural movement etc

I dont think there is a right way to live, its just doing what you can without practicallity to yourself? Where all typing away, using energy that pollutes after all?
Shani - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Shani)
> [...]
>
> Go on then apply it to 7bn people.

I can see you're getting your pants in a twist. There is no ONE paleo diet. Some people live on high carb diets (like the Kitava), some on high meat/fat diets (like the Inuit).

The broad idea would be basically avoiding highly processed foods (seed oils, cereals and HFCS). Eat the whole animal (inc. organ meats), make bone broths (for minerals) and so on.

I don't think that is bad dietary advice, do you?
The New NickB - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
> I can see you're getting your pants in a twist.

I think you might be projecting.

> There is no ONE paleo diet. Some people live on high carb diets (like the Kitava), some on high meat/fat diets (like the Inuit).

No problem with that.
>
> The broad idea would be basically avoiding highly processed foods (seed oils, cereals and HFCS). Eat the whole animal (inc. organ meats), make bone broths (for minerals) and so on.

OK, sounds fine.
>
> I don't think that is bad dietary advice, do you?

I don't have any real problem with it, but......



Where is the loaves and fishes bit, how do we stretch that to feed the 5000, or rather 7bn.
Shani - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Shani)

> OK, sounds fine.

Kind of begs a question of your previous comment about the 'OP' and 'paleo'

> Where is the loaves and fishes bit, how do we stretch that to feed the 5000, or rather 7bn.

This is a question you could also direct at current industrial farming. A good start would be to use animals to reverse the problem of global desertification as per the video in the OP don't you think?
The New NickB - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
> Kind of begs a question of your previous comment about the 'OP' and 'paleo'
>
If you want to eat in a certain way, I have no problem with that. If you think that is part of the solution to global food production great, but you need to justify it.

> This is a question you could also direct at current industrial farming. A good start would be to use animals to reverse the problem of global desertification as per the video in the OP don't you think?

Well there is currently enough food globally, so whilst I would agree there is a problem potentially in the future, you have not presented a solution, as much as you think you might have.
thomasadixon - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to The New NickB:

You should watch the video! If there's enough food at the moment then all we have to do really is keep the situation stable. If you stop desertification then you keep the situation stable, if you don't it keeps getting worse. I can't imagine that the way you have to farm the animals is cheap (lots of man hours) or will produce more food per area of land (fewer cattle per area) but if you can make desert land useful again then you've got extra land (worldwide) so that doesn't matter and total food produce increases. It's a solution to desertification (assuming it works, and he seems to have shown it does) and will help with food production.

There's nothing in the video about vegans or vegetarians by the way, he says that plenty of land is perfectly suitable for farming crops because it rains so much. Some won't support crops though, and there you have to have grazing animals.

Sir Chasm - he said that in areas where there's nothing then they did have to be fed at the start.
Sir Chasm - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to thomasadixon: No, he says the only time they had to feed animals was when they put them on mine reclamation.
purplemonkeyelephant - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:

Whenever I see posts like this I always laugh about how vegans get called preachy...
thomasadixon - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Right. Where the land was 100% bare the animals had to be fed. Where the land was so bad that there was no grass left, not no plants, they hadn't needed to.
Sir Chasm - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to thomasadixon: Yes, not a blade of grass within a hundred miles, have you seen how much ungulates eat? So with no grass what were they eating?
thomasadixon - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Other plants I expect. Bushes, shrubs, etc. Cows don't just eat grasses.
Sir Chasm - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to thomasadixon: Cows (non lactating) eat about 2% (dry weight) of their bodyweight per day. That's a lot of "other plants" to find in a desert.
nufkin - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to happy_c:
> (In reply to Shani) I think the only way you can be 'sustainable' is to dig a whole and climb in it! :D
>
> In all seriousness, were humans that trash the place or eat it, then expect these silly animals to get away from us and stay of our roads!
>
> I had a mini arguement with a vegan friend, because he interupted my slightly awesome bacon butty, after hes row against eating meat, i pointed out that all the clothing he wears probably has animal products in, or made in a factory that resulted in the death of some animals, the car he drives comes from materials dug out the ground resulting in loss of habitats etc and the roads he drives on result in thousands of animals death each year, never mind the loss of habitat and natural movement etc
>

I've had roughly the same arguements with vegetarians and vegans - I think what irks most as much as anything is that meat-eating folk either aren't aware of what's involved in producing the meat, be it in terms of suffering or resources, or simply don't care.
There is some hypocracy in claiming the moral high ground, and as Shani (I think) is suggesting, a non-animal diet isn't necessarily an improvement in the grand scheme of things, but if people are making some effort to try to reduce their impact, even if it's overwhelmed by the apathy of the masses, that should deserve some applause at least .
Shani - on 07 Mar 2013
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Shani)
> [...]
> If you want to eat in a certain way, I have no problem with that. If you think that is part of the solution to global food production great, but you need to justify it.

You are the one who brought 'paleo' in to this thread.

> Well there is currently enough food globally, so whilst I would agree there is a problem potentially in the future, you have not presented a solution, as much as you think you might have.

Current farming methods are unsustainable and are leading to environmental degradation. The problem is NOW and will become more accute in the future. We need to act now rather than dithering. The guy in the video has presented a solution which you might not think much of, but it is supported with practical evidence. If you have a superior approach please let us know about it.
The New NickB - on 07 Mar 2013
In reply to Shani:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
>
> You are the one who brought 'paleo' in to this thread.
>
Let's never talk about it again, please!
>
> Current farming methods are unsustainable and are leading to environmental degradation. The problem is NOW and will become more accute in the future. We need to act now rather than dithering. The guy in the video has presented a solution which you might not think much of, but it is supported with practical evidence. If you have a superior approach please let us know about it.

Or you could just rant about vegans, sorry v*gans.
Shani - on 07 Mar 2013
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Shani)
> [...]
> Let's never talk about it again, please!
> [...]

If you stop bringing it to threads, or contributing to any of my threads where it is discussed, your wish will be granted.


> Or you could just rant about vegans, sorry v*gans.

There has been no rant. Abstaining from meat is continually put forward as a solution to the environmental impact of industrial farming. It is not that simple.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.