This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to goose299:
Sadly, bacon is merely processed vegetarianism. You can't win
> Best eat more bacon then
Sadly, bacon is merely processed vegetarianism. You can't win
In reply to goose299:
As everyone knows, bacon is the only meat approved by the vegetarian society.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/leave-bacon-out-of-it-health-expe...
As everyone knows, bacon is the only meat approved by the vegetarian society.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/leave-bacon-out-of-it-health-expe...
1
In reply to planetmarshall:
All flesh is grass, as a reasonably decent sci-fi writer suggested. My chefs and I take a poor view of vegetarianism on the whole, but we do still make the best vegetable dishes in town!! No vegetables=No meat. Simple. It's a food chain thang!
All flesh is grass, as a reasonably decent sci-fi writer suggested. My chefs and I take a poor view of vegetarianism on the whole, but we do still make the best vegetable dishes in town!! No vegetables=No meat. Simple. It's a food chain thang!
1
In reply to planetmarshall:
Furthermore, one of our more popular starters is locally produced black pudding wrapped in bacon and topped with a poached egg. My sous chef says 'Why don't we top the egg with some bacon lardons?' Yeah, and then serve it on a bed of slow-roasted belly pork garnished with sausages. It'll still be presented on a bed of wild rocket, so it's suitable for vegetarifascists.
And, we have some great recipes for vegetarians...Take three freshly-culled vegetarians...
Furthermore, one of our more popular starters is locally produced black pudding wrapped in bacon and topped with a poached egg. My sous chef says 'Why don't we top the egg with some bacon lardons?' Yeah, and then serve it on a bed of slow-roasted belly pork garnished with sausages. It'll still be presented on a bed of wild rocket, so it's suitable for vegetarifascists.
And, we have some great recipes for vegetarians...Take three freshly-culled vegetarians...
Post edited at 20:36
2
In reply to DoctorYoghourt:
Well, for someone who works in the food industry, you seem to know squat about how wasteful meat production is (and no, it doesn't matter whether the animal you eat was raised on a massive farm or has supposedly been frolicking freely in green lush hills throughout its (short) life). It's not like farming is one of the most CO2-intensive industries in the world, right? Oh, wait...
Well, for someone who works in the food industry, you seem to know squat about how wasteful meat production is (and no, it doesn't matter whether the animal you eat was raised on a massive farm or has supposedly been frolicking freely in green lush hills throughout its (short) life). It's not like farming is one of the most CO2-intensive industries in the world, right? Oh, wait...
4
1
In reply to Wsdconst:
Might be the odd old bloke about who gave up meat and alcohol and is back climbing as hard as he did in his 20s
> Any vegetarians around ?
> Yeah but there all too weak to type
Might be the odd old bloke about who gave up meat and alcohol and is back climbing as hard as he did in his 20s
3
In reply to Wsdconst:
Remember Ed Moses? Vegan for many many years...possibly has better spelling as well
Im a veggie and also a yoga teacher, mountain biker, and kitesurfer....often all in the same day.
Bags of energy!
> Any vegetarians around ?
> Yeah but there all too weak to type
Remember Ed Moses? Vegan for many many years...possibly has better spelling as well
Im a veggie and also a yoga teacher, mountain biker, and kitesurfer....often all in the same day.
Bags of energy!
3
In reply to Kimono:
Agreed, plenty of examples. Carl Lewis was a vegan when he set his world records - that's a pretty good endorsement IMO. Humans don't need to eat animal stuff.
Funny how some of the people who eat industrially produced meat and dairy without a thought will object to things like fox hunting or kicking cats and the like....can't quite get my head around that one.
Agreed, plenty of examples. Carl Lewis was a vegan when he set his world records - that's a pretty good endorsement IMO. Humans don't need to eat animal stuff.
Funny how some of the people who eat industrially produced meat and dairy without a thought will object to things like fox hunting or kicking cats and the like....can't quite get my head around that one.
4
In reply to Mutl3y:
On the same note, I'm trying to come up with a word that would refer to people who, upon learning you're vegetarian/vegan, feel compelled to ask you about your protein intake, to tell you that proteins are important, that you're going to suffer from deficiencies etc. like they're a nutritionist, even though they have never asked themselves and checked if they eat in a healthy fashion. Something like "mansplaining" but for vegetarians instead of feminists.
Also, Alex Honnold is vegetarian. I hear he's a decent climber!
On the same note, I'm trying to come up with a word that would refer to people who, upon learning you're vegetarian/vegan, feel compelled to ask you about your protein intake, to tell you that proteins are important, that you're going to suffer from deficiencies etc. like they're a nutritionist, even though they have never asked themselves and checked if they eat in a healthy fashion. Something like "mansplaining" but for vegetarians instead of feminists.
Also, Alex Honnold is vegetarian. I hear he's a decent climber!
4
In reply to eivrol:
has there ever been a meat eater bashing thread? No. So f*ck off and stop banging on about vegetarians making a choice about what they want to eat which has no impact on you. It's tiresome and offensive.
has there ever been a meat eater bashing thread? No. So f*ck off and stop banging on about vegetarians making a choice about what they want to eat which has no impact on you. It's tiresome and offensive.
8
In reply to Scarab9:
Yeah, that OP was really banging on about it, like. That three character smiley just wouldn't stop vegetarian bashing, and, well, that was actually all the OP wrote other an a URL....
> has there ever been a meat eater bashing thread? No. So f*ck off and stop banging on about vegetarians making a choice about what they want to eat which has no impact on you. It's tiresome and offensive.
Yeah, that OP was really banging on about it, like. That three character smiley just wouldn't stop vegetarian bashing, and, well, that was actually all the OP wrote other an a URL....
In reply to Adrien:
Actually, I know a great deal about food production. And particularly about meat production. I'm afraid that after eating a premium-quality blue steak, however, I'm not thinking that I could have eaten a plate of lentils and helped to save the planet. The planet's screwed, anyway, although it's not because of people eating meat!
Actually, I know a great deal about food production. And particularly about meat production. I'm afraid that after eating a premium-quality blue steak, however, I'm not thinking that I could have eaten a plate of lentils and helped to save the planet. The planet's screwed, anyway, although it's not because of people eating meat!
2
3
In reply to wintertree:
there;s a thread every few weeks. And it's not the OP I was referring to as the link was of interest, it's the usual replies and general bashing given on the common posts. Many of them get pretty insulting.
> Yeah, that OP was really banging on about it, like. That three character smiley just wouldn't stop vegetarian bashing, and, well, that was actually all the OP wrote other an a URL....
there;s a thread every few weeks. And it's not the OP I was referring to as the link was of interest, it's the usual replies and general bashing given on the common posts. Many of them get pretty insulting.
3
In reply to DoctorYoghourt:
You may know a bit about food production but you don't know a lot about the planet. It's not screwed at all, if we disappeared the planet would carry on perfectly fine. The way humans live is unsustainable and that way of life is screwed. It doesn't have to be of course, there's plenty for everyone but not if we all eat meat.
You may know a bit about food production but you don't know a lot about the planet. It's not screwed at all, if we disappeared the planet would carry on perfectly fine. The way humans live is unsustainable and that way of life is screwed. It doesn't have to be of course, there's plenty for everyone but not if we all eat meat.
4
In reply to Mutl3y:
Me too. I have been vegetarian for 36 years and am an avid supporter of animal rights. I too just can't understand people who make great claims to be animal lovers before going off to the supermarket to buy their Sunday roast.
> Funny how some of the people who eat industrially produced meat and dairy without a thought will object to things like fox hunting or kicking cats and the like....can't quite get my head around that one.
Me too. I have been vegetarian for 36 years and am an avid supporter of animal rights. I too just can't understand people who make great claims to be animal lovers before going off to the supermarket to buy their Sunday roast.
3
In reply to Scarab9:
That's only because the vegetarians are too weak and malnourished to start one...
> has there ever been a meat eater bashing thread? No.
That's only because the vegetarians are too weak and malnourished to start one...
1
1
In reply to NickR:
A lot, actually.
>...but you don't know a lot about the planet. It's not screwed at all, if we disappeared the planet would carry on perfectly fine.
Not so. It's all over for spaceship Earth. When we disappear as a species we'll be taking thousands of other species with us and the planet will be uninhabitable apart from vegetarians and cockroaches. Oh. And vegans. And who'll be to blame? Motherf*ckers who preach religious tolerance, that's who.
So wrong that it defies belief. Thirty years ago the WHO was saying that we could comfortably sustain ten times the then population of the planet. The problem is capitalism.
> You may know a bit about food production...
A lot, actually.
>...but you don't know a lot about the planet. It's not screwed at all, if we disappeared the planet would carry on perfectly fine.
Not so. It's all over for spaceship Earth. When we disappear as a species we'll be taking thousands of other species with us and the planet will be uninhabitable apart from vegetarians and cockroaches. Oh. And vegans. And who'll be to blame? Motherf*ckers who preach religious tolerance, that's who.
> The way humans live is unsustainable and that way of life is screwed. It doesn't have to be of course, there's plenty for everyone but not if we all eat meat.
So wrong that it defies belief. Thirty years ago the WHO was saying that we could comfortably sustain ten times the then population of the planet. The problem is capitalism.
Post edited at 00:25
1
2
In reply to DoctorYoghourt:
Who do you know?
Semi_evolved retards!
Really don't like the word retard. Anyhow... The elephants know more than they're telling.
> None of whom contribute to UKC!!!!
Who do you know?
Semi_evolved retards!
Really don't like the word retard. Anyhow... The elephants know more than they're telling.
1
In reply to DoctorYoghourt:
This is news to me. The WHO were saying that planet earth could comfortably support c50bn people, presumably indefinitely?
Do you have a reference?
> So wrong that it defies belief. Thirty years ago the WHO was saying that we could comfortably sustain ten times the then population of the planet.
This is news to me. The WHO were saying that planet earth could comfortably support c50bn people, presumably indefinitely?
Do you have a reference?
1
In reply to Kimono:
What's wrong with my spelling ??? Is it incorrect use of there instead of their because it is actually spelled correctly but I'll admit it's used in the wrong context.i must apologise but I was eating a big juicy steak and got distracted.
What's wrong with my spelling ??? Is it incorrect use of there instead of their because it is actually spelled correctly but I'll admit it's used in the wrong context.i must apologise but I was eating a big juicy steak and got distracted.
1
In reply to Wsdconst:
Wrong again...how about they're? Step away from the steak...
> What's wrong with my spelling ??? Is it incorrect use of there instead of their because it is actually spelled correctly but I'll admit it's used in the wrong context.i must apologise but I was eating a big juicy steak and got distracted.
Wrong again...how about they're? Step away from the steak...
2
In reply to Kimono:
I'm gonna blame auto correct for that one,English is important,big muscles is importanter and you don't get those from eating grass.
I'm gonna blame auto correct for that one,English is important,big muscles is importanter and you don't get those from eating grass.
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
I am always staggered by vegetarians who claim to be animal rights supporters and yet eat monocropped foods. Monocropping doesn't reduce killing and suffering, it pushes it to where it can't be seen.
When you look out on a ploughed field in Europe or the USA it is basically an industrial landscape devoid of much complexity and heavily managed by various pesticides and chemical fertilisers. These chemicals find their way in to the water course and kill aquatic life through poisoning and eutrophication. By killing bugs that would eat the crops, birds and other small mammals are denied a source of food. Thriving and diverse natural lands need animal and plant life.
The problem is that arable farming competes with wildlife at the base of the good chain. In contrast, herbivores can be grazed upon wild vegatation that is adapted to the local climate. Herbivores allow flora and fauna to flourish which supports biodiversity. The manure of animals supports the vegetation in a feedback mechanism. It is a balanced system based on symbiotic relationships.
Look what 10000 years of settled agriculture has done to the Middle East - turned most of it to desert. In Africa they are already turning desert back to vegetated land by reintroducing herbivores. Once indigenous vegetation returns this brings a host of benefits - not least locking in greater volumes of water to the local hydrological cycle.
> Me too. I have been vegetarian for 36 years and am an avid supporter of animal rights. I too just can't understand people who make great claims to be animal lovers before going off to the supermarket to buy their Sunday roast.
I am always staggered by vegetarians who claim to be animal rights supporters and yet eat monocropped foods. Monocropping doesn't reduce killing and suffering, it pushes it to where it can't be seen.
When you look out on a ploughed field in Europe or the USA it is basically an industrial landscape devoid of much complexity and heavily managed by various pesticides and chemical fertilisers. These chemicals find their way in to the water course and kill aquatic life through poisoning and eutrophication. By killing bugs that would eat the crops, birds and other small mammals are denied a source of food. Thriving and diverse natural lands need animal and plant life.
The problem is that arable farming competes with wildlife at the base of the good chain. In contrast, herbivores can be grazed upon wild vegatation that is adapted to the local climate. Herbivores allow flora and fauna to flourish which supports biodiversity. The manure of animals supports the vegetation in a feedback mechanism. It is a balanced system based on symbiotic relationships.
Look what 10000 years of settled agriculture has done to the Middle East - turned most of it to desert. In Africa they are already turning desert back to vegetated land by reintroducing herbivores. Once indigenous vegetation returns this brings a host of benefits - not least locking in greater volumes of water to the local hydrological cycle.
Post edited at 10:18
4
1
In reply to Shani:
Indeed. Rank hypocrites supporting the gassing of rabbits and hyperbaric bombing of their warrens. There's more biodiversity in a nice upland meadow than a crop field.
Genuinely sustainable feeding of future, larger populations is not going to happen in fields, under the sun. Although many people seem blind to the continuing march of technology, if we want to feed everyone in the world to a high standard and preserve the environment, synthetic or vat grown food is the way forwards, in a largely closed material cycle with waste reprocessing. Lots of the bits of technology for this are poking heads up all over the world at the moment.
> I am always staggered by vegetarians who claim to be animal rights supporters and yet eat monocropped foods. Monocropping doesn't reduce killing and suffering, it pushes it to where it can't be seen.
Indeed. Rank hypocrites supporting the gassing of rabbits and hyperbaric bombing of their warrens. There's more biodiversity in a nice upland meadow than a crop field.
Genuinely sustainable feeding of future, larger populations is not going to happen in fields, under the sun. Although many people seem blind to the continuing march of technology, if we want to feed everyone in the world to a high standard and preserve the environment, synthetic or vat grown food is the way forwards, in a largely closed material cycle with waste reprocessing. Lots of the bits of technology for this are poking heads up all over the world at the moment.
2
1
In reply to wintertree:
I'm aware af a few closed systems abstracted from natural ecosystems - IIRC Nottingham Uni were involved in a project of this type on a farm share in Sheffield. They use plants and fish to drive the cycle.
I'm particularly in favour of an extension to wider ecosystems. Fauna are a necessary component to most successful ecosystems. We need to eat what these produce (widen our dietary palette), or steer the ecosystem towards that which we'd prefer to eat.
> Indeed. Rank hypocrites supporting the gassing of rabbits and hyperbaric bombing of their warrens. There's more biodiversity in a nice upland meadow than a crop field.
> Genuinely sustainable feeding of future, larger populations is not going to happen in fields, under the sun. Although many people seem blind to the continuing march of technology, if we want to feed everyone in the world to a high standard and preserve the environment, synthetic or vat grown food is the way forwards, in a largely closed material cycle with waste reprocessing. Lots of the bits of technology for this are poking heads up all over the world at the moment.
I'm aware af a few closed systems abstracted from natural ecosystems - IIRC Nottingham Uni were involved in a project of this type on a farm share in Sheffield. They use plants and fish to drive the cycle.
I'm particularly in favour of an extension to wider ecosystems. Fauna are a necessary component to most successful ecosystems. We need to eat what these produce (widen our dietary palette), or steer the ecosystem towards that which we'd prefer to eat.
1
In reply to Shani:
First, nobody in this thread has said they eat monocropped foods, so that just came out of the blue. Second, why couldn't you be a vegetarian/support animal rights AND eat from ethical food sources? I am well aware of the harm done by monocultures and agree with some of what you said: they're a disaster in terms of biodiversity. But it's utter nonsense to think that herbivores are the answer. Maybe, in an ideal world, a meadow where cows and sheep would graze freely could foster biodiversity. BUT if all animals were raised this way, they would take up so much more space than at the moment, and land is already extremely scarce (which is why Western, Chinese and Indian agrobusiness companies are seizing everything they can in Africa and South America), which means you just can't have everyone on the planet eat """"""ethically""""""-produced meat, there's just not enough space, unless you find a way to teach cows how to breathe and live underwater.
Also, look at the high country in Iceland, there used to be grass there, but the Vikings had so many sheep graze there that they turned it into a wasteland that will never recover. Sheep just raze everything to the ground.
Furthermore, it is extremely arrogant and anthropocentric to claim that sheep and cows and so on contribue to biodiversity: the fact is that nature DOESN'T NEED US, it doesthe job of regulating itself very well without any external intervention (which is also one of the many reasons why hunting is undefendable). Perhaps some human activities help limit the damage, but overall they don't improve the situation at all. Where nature thrives most is where there is as little human intervention as possible.
First, nobody in this thread has said they eat monocropped foods, so that just came out of the blue. Second, why couldn't you be a vegetarian/support animal rights AND eat from ethical food sources? I am well aware of the harm done by monocultures and agree with some of what you said: they're a disaster in terms of biodiversity. But it's utter nonsense to think that herbivores are the answer. Maybe, in an ideal world, a meadow where cows and sheep would graze freely could foster biodiversity. BUT if all animals were raised this way, they would take up so much more space than at the moment, and land is already extremely scarce (which is why Western, Chinese and Indian agrobusiness companies are seizing everything they can in Africa and South America), which means you just can't have everyone on the planet eat """"""ethically""""""-produced meat, there's just not enough space, unless you find a way to teach cows how to breathe and live underwater.
Also, look at the high country in Iceland, there used to be grass there, but the Vikings had so many sheep graze there that they turned it into a wasteland that will never recover. Sheep just raze everything to the ground.
Furthermore, it is extremely arrogant and anthropocentric to claim that sheep and cows and so on contribue to biodiversity: the fact is that nature DOESN'T NEED US, it doesthe job of regulating itself very well without any external intervention (which is also one of the many reasons why hunting is undefendable). Perhaps some human activities help limit the damage, but overall they don't improve the situation at all. Where nature thrives most is where there is as little human intervention as possible.
2
In reply to Wsdconst:
http://www.planetacurioso.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/toro-sin-miostatin...
> big muscles is importanter and you don't get those from eating grass.
http://www.planetacurioso.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/toro-sin-miostatin...
2
In reply to NickR:
I saw somewhere that there is enough for everyone if we all eat meat, and it's just the quantity of meat which is eaten in modern times which is the problem, in that if people went back to eating just a few helpings a week, or eating a smaller amount per week, there wouldn't be the environmental fall out there currently is.
> You may know a bit about food production but you don't know a lot about the planet. It's not screwed at all, if we disappeared the planet would carry on perfectly fine. The way humans live is unsustainable and that way of life is screwed. It doesn't have to be of course, there's plenty for everyone but not if we all eat meat.
I saw somewhere that there is enough for everyone if we all eat meat, and it's just the quantity of meat which is eaten in modern times which is the problem, in that if people went back to eating just a few helpings a week, or eating a smaller amount per week, there wouldn't be the environmental fall out there currently is.
Post edited at 15:26
1
In reply to eivrol:
I was a vegetarian for 20 years or so, I can assure you that nothing could make you appreciate the taste of meat more than this! Bacon sarnies - the downfall of so many vegetarians.
I was a vegetarian for 20 years or so, I can assure you that nothing could make you appreciate the taste of meat more than this! Bacon sarnies - the downfall of so many vegetarians.
1
In reply to Timmd:
I believe that to be true, although if the world's population got bigger meat eating would become less and less sustainable. Clearly there's a lot more to living sustainably than not eating meat but it is something we should all think about. For what it's worth I describe myself as a non-meat eater rather than a vegetarian, I have enjoyed eating meat in the past and do miss it, I just choose not to eat it anymore. I understand that's not necessarily something everyone would want to do, and I think that's fine, but we should all think about eating a lot less.
I believe that to be true, although if the world's population got bigger meat eating would become less and less sustainable. Clearly there's a lot more to living sustainably than not eating meat but it is something we should all think about. For what it's worth I describe myself as a non-meat eater rather than a vegetarian, I have enjoyed eating meat in the past and do miss it, I just choose not to eat it anymore. I understand that's not necessarily something everyone would want to do, and I think that's fine, but we should all think about eating a lot less.
1
In reply to Adrien:
What are these vegetarian ethical food sources that don't result in animal suffering at some level and can feed a planet?
Your logic around hunting and anthropecentrism is bizarre. Pretty much everything that cannot subsist on plants could be considered a hunter, looking for either a host or prey. Hunting or grazing are the two natural feeding states for mammals, if not a combination of the two.
> First, nobody in this thread has said they eat monocropped foods, so that just came out of the blue. Second, why couldn't you be a vegetarian/support animal rights AND eat from ethical food sources?
What are these vegetarian ethical food sources that don't result in animal suffering at some level and can feed a planet?
> Furthermore, it is extremely arrogant and anthropocentric to claim that sheep and cows and so on contribue to biodiversity: the fact is that nature DOESN'T NEED US, it doesthe job of regulating itself very well without any external intervention (which is also one of the many reasons why hunting is undefendable). Perhaps some human activities help limit the damage, but overall they don't improve the situation at all. Where nature thrives most is where there is as little human intervention as possible.
Your logic around hunting and anthropecentrism is bizarre. Pretty much everything that cannot subsist on plants could be considered a hunter, looking for either a host or prey. Hunting or grazing are the two natural feeding states for mammals, if not a combination of the two.
In reply to Shani:
Who the hell do you think you are to glibly pass judgement on me like that. You know nothing about me or my dietary habits and in particular you know absolutely nothing about the lengths I go to to support animal welfare and prevent any animal suffering taking place on my behalf. For the record I haven't eaten any mono cropped food for over 20 years.
> I am always staggered by vegetarians who claim to be animal rights supporters and yet eat monocropped foods. Monocropping doesn't reduce killing and suffering, it pushes it to where it can't be seen.
Who the hell do you think you are to glibly pass judgement on me like that. You know nothing about me or my dietary habits and in particular you know absolutely nothing about the lengths I go to to support animal welfare and prevent any animal suffering taking place on my behalf. For the record I haven't eaten any mono cropped food for over 20 years.
4
In reply to Scarab9:
what is your problem?? I just posted an article I tought was funny. you eat what you want, who gives a f*ck. do you know what I eat? do you really care? have a mice day :-D
what is your problem?? I just posted an article I tought was funny. you eat what you want, who gives a f*ck. do you know what I eat? do you really care? have a mice day :-D
2
1
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
The irony here is that I took your language (" I too just can't understand people who make great claims to be animal lovers before going off to the supermarket to buy their Sunday roast"), and pointed it at back at vegetarians ("I am always staggered by vegetarians who claim to be animal rights supporters and yet eat monocropped foods").
Now you can personalise it, but the truth is I didn't aim it at *you*. So please dry your eyes when you've climbed back in to your pram. Your vegetarianism has done little to thin your skin.
My wider point was aimed at "vegetarians who claim to be animal rights supporters and yet eat monocropped foods" under some assumption that this reduces suffering. There is no evidence that it does. Whether or not you are one of these vegetarians (you claim not to be), is immaterial for my observation to stand. EVERY vegetarian I know is - and as an ex-vegetarian myself, beleive me when I say I know lots.
If we put our handbags to one side for a minute, I am curious as to how you follow a vegetarian lifestyle that avoids monocropped food. I'm genuinely interested to know how this works (I eat meat and am also interested in animal welfare and environmental sustainability). Would you mind taking a moment to elaborate?
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> [...]
>
> Who the hell do you think you are to glibly pass judgement on me like that. You know nothing about me or my dietary habits and in particular you know absolutely nothing about the lengths I go to to support animal welfare and prevent any animal suffering taking place on my behalf. For the record I haven't eaten any mono cropped food for over 20 years.
>
> [...]
>
> Who the hell do you think you are to glibly pass judgement on me like that. You know nothing about me or my dietary habits and in particular you know absolutely nothing about the lengths I go to to support animal welfare and prevent any animal suffering taking place on my behalf. For the record I haven't eaten any mono cropped food for over 20 years.
The irony here is that I took your language (" I too just can't understand people who make great claims to be animal lovers before going off to the supermarket to buy their Sunday roast"), and pointed it at back at vegetarians ("I am always staggered by vegetarians who claim to be animal rights supporters and yet eat monocropped foods").
Now you can personalise it, but the truth is I didn't aim it at *you*. So please dry your eyes when you've climbed back in to your pram. Your vegetarianism has done little to thin your skin.
My wider point was aimed at "vegetarians who claim to be animal rights supporters and yet eat monocropped foods" under some assumption that this reduces suffering. There is no evidence that it does. Whether or not you are one of these vegetarians (you claim not to be), is immaterial for my observation to stand. EVERY vegetarian I know is - and as an ex-vegetarian myself, beleive me when I say I know lots.
If we put our handbags to one side for a minute, I am curious as to how you follow a vegetarian lifestyle that avoids monocropped food. I'm genuinely interested to know how this works (I eat meat and am also interested in animal welfare and environmental sustainability). Would you mind taking a moment to elaborate?
Post edited at 09:16
1
In reply to Adrien:
clearly any agricultural system (or food gathering system) can be implemented badly and cause excessive damage.
I think that meat production can be done in an ethical way from a welfare perspective, and in a better way environmentally - but both will increase the cost of the average burger. Similarly arable can be done better - at greater expense.
In essence this means paying more for meat and probably eating a bit less, but I don't think meat eating needs to be eliminated and in the right environment (UK uplands?) meat production might be all the land can be used for productively.
clearly any agricultural system (or food gathering system) can be implemented badly and cause excessive damage.
I think that meat production can be done in an ethical way from a welfare perspective, and in a better way environmentally - but both will increase the cost of the average burger. Similarly arable can be done better - at greater expense.
In essence this means paying more for meat and probably eating a bit less, but I don't think meat eating needs to be eliminated and in the right environment (UK uplands?) meat production might be all the land can be used for productively.
In reply to eivrol:
Makes you wonder what something really really really offensife would to to him.......
Boggy
> what is your problem?? I just posted an article I tought was funny. you eat what you want, who gives a f*ck. do you know what I eat? do you really care? have a mice day :-D
Makes you wonder what something really really really offensife would to to him.......
Boggy
1
In reply to Shani:
You do use pretty confrontational language though Shani *dry your eyes* and did direct your rather random (IMO) objection to vegetarianism directly at Gerry. Comes across as fairly aggressive to me, just saying.
On this mono cropping objection....does a field of corn or rice (which could support a given human population) *really* cause more suffering than an industrial feedlot or slaughterhouse operation delivering the same comparable food requirement? Really? I find it hard to believe, what is your source for this claim?
I agree, there are holes in most world views but surely there are bigger ones among the meat-eating-animal-welfare-advocates of the world, surely?
Cheers
You do use pretty confrontational language though Shani *dry your eyes* and did direct your rather random (IMO) objection to vegetarianism directly at Gerry. Comes across as fairly aggressive to me, just saying.
On this mono cropping objection....does a field of corn or rice (which could support a given human population) *really* cause more suffering than an industrial feedlot or slaughterhouse operation delivering the same comparable food requirement? Really? I find it hard to believe, what is your source for this claim?
I agree, there are holes in most world views but surely there are bigger ones among the meat-eating-animal-welfare-advocates of the world, surely?
Cheers
1
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Yes, better eating habits imply paying more for food - paying the right price actually, and this applies to all foodstuffs (where I live dairy farmers regularly dump thousands of liters of milk to protest against extremely low prices that barely allow them to make ends meet). But paying more for meat wouldn't solve the problem, because again land is becoming a rare commodity, and producing meat is just a huge waste of space. But even if we had enough space to fit all those cows and sheep and chickens, there would still be the problem of CO2 and methane emissions related to meat production. Climate change is undeniably happening and sadly there's little we can do as individuals, since big business controls the governments and prevents them from moving away from fossil fuels. But one thing we can all do is change the way we live, and this means among others changing how we eat. Of course vegetarianism is not enough, you also need to buy seasonal and locally-grown foods, but it is still part of the answer.
In reply to Shani:
>What are these vegetarian ethical food sources that don't result in animal suffering at some level and can feed a planet?
I don't follow, please elaborate on how, when I buy potatoes (or something else) from my local farmer it results in animal suffering in some way? And why couldn't food... feed the planet? I mean you do realize that you have to feed something to animals, they don't just live off grass, so that's space that could be used for other crops. But anyway my main point was that you assumed that you can't be vegetarian and eat ethically (??), and I don't see how they incompatible?
>Your logic around hunting and anthropecentrism is bizarre. Pretty much everything that cannot subsist on plants could be considered a hunter, looking for either a host or prey. Hunting or grazing are the two natural feeding states for mammals, if not a combination of the two.
Again, what message are you trying to convey? I said hunting (by humans) is inherently useless because while hunters claim their role is to regulate nature, it's actually very good at doing it itself, if there's too many deer then wolves will eat them, if there's too many wolves because they were fed so well then they'll starve and their numbers will decrease, thus creating a natural equilibrium. Ask any environmentalist or biologist and they'll tell you the same.
On a more general note, I am appalled that non-vegetarians systematically tell vegetarians that they're hypocrites and not perfect because they still eat from unethical food sources and blablabla. What do you think is better, doing a little to help the environment and the animal cause, or doing absolutely nothing and slamming down those who are making an effort?
Yes, better eating habits imply paying more for food - paying the right price actually, and this applies to all foodstuffs (where I live dairy farmers regularly dump thousands of liters of milk to protest against extremely low prices that barely allow them to make ends meet). But paying more for meat wouldn't solve the problem, because again land is becoming a rare commodity, and producing meat is just a huge waste of space. But even if we had enough space to fit all those cows and sheep and chickens, there would still be the problem of CO2 and methane emissions related to meat production. Climate change is undeniably happening and sadly there's little we can do as individuals, since big business controls the governments and prevents them from moving away from fossil fuels. But one thing we can all do is change the way we live, and this means among others changing how we eat. Of course vegetarianism is not enough, you also need to buy seasonal and locally-grown foods, but it is still part of the answer.
In reply to Shani:
>What are these vegetarian ethical food sources that don't result in animal suffering at some level and can feed a planet?
I don't follow, please elaborate on how, when I buy potatoes (or something else) from my local farmer it results in animal suffering in some way? And why couldn't food... feed the planet? I mean you do realize that you have to feed something to animals, they don't just live off grass, so that's space that could be used for other crops. But anyway my main point was that you assumed that you can't be vegetarian and eat ethically (??), and I don't see how they incompatible?
>Your logic around hunting and anthropecentrism is bizarre. Pretty much everything that cannot subsist on plants could be considered a hunter, looking for either a host or prey. Hunting or grazing are the two natural feeding states for mammals, if not a combination of the two.
Again, what message are you trying to convey? I said hunting (by humans) is inherently useless because while hunters claim their role is to regulate nature, it's actually very good at doing it itself, if there's too many deer then wolves will eat them, if there's too many wolves because they were fed so well then they'll starve and their numbers will decrease, thus creating a natural equilibrium. Ask any environmentalist or biologist and they'll tell you the same.
On a more general note, I am appalled that non-vegetarians systematically tell vegetarians that they're hypocrites and not perfect because they still eat from unethical food sources and blablabla. What do you think is better, doing a little to help the environment and the animal cause, or doing absolutely nothing and slamming down those who are making an effort?
2
In reply to Mutl3y:
My language ("dry your eyes"), is gently mocking and was in RESPONSE to Gerry's patently aggressive opener, "Who the hell do you think you are....". Seriously, which do you think is , more aggressive in tone?
> You do use pretty confrontational language though Shani *dry your eyes* and did direct your rather random (IMO) objection to vegetarianism directly at Gerry. Comes across as fairly aggressive to me, just saying.
My language ("dry your eyes"), is gently mocking and was in RESPONSE to Gerry's patently aggressive opener, "Who the hell do you think you are....". Seriously, which do you think is , more aggressive in tone?
In reply to Shani:
I can see your point, but you did sort of call him a mono cropper first. Hence the who the hell comment.
Must admit I'm biased as I didn't understand the mono cropper argument, still interested how they do more harm than raising animals when it comes to feeding lots of people.
I can see your point, but you did sort of call him a mono cropper first. Hence the who the hell comment.
Must admit I'm biased as I didn't understand the mono cropper argument, still interested how they do more harm than raising animals when it comes to feeding lots of people.
1
In reply to Mutl3y:
I'm tickled by the insult "You mono-cropper"! It sounds funny when you say it like that.
WRT mono-cropping, a mono-cropped field is quite a sterile environment. It lacks the biodiversity of pasture and by its nature, facilitates swarming of insects that must be controlled through poison. It is every bit an industrial landscape forced into being by brute force of the plough and a cocktail of chemicals to kill bug life and restore fertility that the fauna and flora would otherwise provide.
Vegetarianism no more removes suffering than meat-eating necessitates it. We're just talking about different sized animal life.
> I can see your point, but you did sort of call him a mono cropper first. Hence the who the hell comment.
I'm tickled by the insult "You mono-cropper"! It sounds funny when you say it like that.
> Must admit I'm biased as I didn't understand the mono cropper argument, still interested how they do more harm than raising animals when it comes to feeding lots of people.
WRT mono-cropping, a mono-cropped field is quite a sterile environment. It lacks the biodiversity of pasture and by its nature, facilitates swarming of insects that must be controlled through poison. It is every bit an industrial landscape forced into being by brute force of the plough and a cocktail of chemicals to kill bug life and restore fertility that the fauna and flora would otherwise provide.
Vegetarianism no more removes suffering than meat-eating necessitates it. We're just talking about different sized animal life.
In reply to eivrol:
The elephant in the room is that there is simply too many people. The only logical solution is to stop having so many babies or start on a program of ecologically friendly, mass genocide.
Whilst you losers are arguing the toss, I'm off to solve this god damn problem - lock and load people, cos I ain't giving up shagging for no one!
The elephant in the room is that there is simply too many people. The only logical solution is to stop having so many babies or start on a program of ecologically friendly, mass genocide.
Whilst you losers are arguing the toss, I'm off to solve this god damn problem - lock and load people, cos I ain't giving up shagging for no one!
In reply to Shani:
It is a funny insult.
I'd argue that If you eat the mono crop direct, rather than multiple amounts of it indirect through eating the cows, pigs etc. then you are causing less harm etc.
It is a funny insult.
I'd argue that If you eat the mono crop direct, rather than multiple amounts of it indirect through eating the cows, pigs etc. then you are causing less harm etc.
In reply to Adrien:
You can rear red meat on grass, we choose not to mostly currently.
You skipped past my point about parts of land that will not sustain crops - should we write off the UK uplands?
You can rear red meat on grass, we choose not to mostly currently.
You skipped past my point about parts of land that will not sustain crops - should we write off the UK uplands?
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I suppose you can, but intensive grazing depletes the land of its nutrients, which can be irreversible (Iceland again). And to do so, you need more land than if you fed grain to your herd, but like I said land is a commodity that is becoming scarcer and scarcer as farming competes with urbanization. And no matter how you feed meat-producing animals, you'll still need tremendous amounts of water, much more so than crops require. Not to mention that these animals emit an awful lot of methane (which pollutes much more than CO2) by farting, regardless of how they're raised.
Regarding the UK uplands, I suppose you mean the Scottish highlands and similar areas? I suggest perhaps pulling out of these areas to allow them to regenerate. We in Europe marvel at vast expanses of wild land like the Masai Mara where you'll come across awe-inspring animals. What if we had (as Monbiot suggested) our own Masai Mara on our doorsteps, with wolves and lynxes and bears rather than sheep as far as the eye can see?
I suppose you can, but intensive grazing depletes the land of its nutrients, which can be irreversible (Iceland again). And to do so, you need more land than if you fed grain to your herd, but like I said land is a commodity that is becoming scarcer and scarcer as farming competes with urbanization. And no matter how you feed meat-producing animals, you'll still need tremendous amounts of water, much more so than crops require. Not to mention that these animals emit an awful lot of methane (which pollutes much more than CO2) by farting, regardless of how they're raised.
Regarding the UK uplands, I suppose you mean the Scottish highlands and similar areas? I suggest perhaps pulling out of these areas to allow them to regenerate. We in Europe marvel at vast expanses of wild land like the Masai Mara where you'll come across awe-inspring animals. What if we had (as Monbiot suggested) our own Masai Mara on our doorsteps, with wolves and lynxes and bears rather than sheep as far as the eye can see?
1
In reply to Adrien:
Cropping competes with life at the 'base' of the ecological heirarchy. In contrast pastoral land can do everything fron hosting lots of other diverse life through to recreational pursuits - so you tick more boxes.
Pastoral land does not require a homogenous ecosystem the way we force crop land to be (aimed at maximising the habitat suitable for that single crop).
Denudation of pastoral land most frequently occurs from removing apex predators or introducing non-native herbivores.
The work of Allen Savoury shows how the reintroduction of indigenous hebivores can restore habitats as he has done in Africa.
Cropping competes with life at the 'base' of the ecological heirarchy. In contrast pastoral land can do everything fron hosting lots of other diverse life through to recreational pursuits - so you tick more boxes.
Pastoral land does not require a homogenous ecosystem the way we force crop land to be (aimed at maximising the habitat suitable for that single crop).
Denudation of pastoral land most frequently occurs from removing apex predators or introducing non-native herbivores.
The work of Allen Savoury shows how the reintroduction of indigenous hebivores can restore habitats as he has done in Africa.
In reply to Adrien:
"Livestock farming is the dominant enterprise of the uplands using 70 per cent of the land and underpinning rural economies [4]. The uplands are home to 44 per cent of breeding ewes and 40 per cent of beef cows in England, 85 per cent of beef cows and 75 per cent of breeding ewes in Wales and produce a quarter of England’s and Wales’ milk " (source NFU)
You could of course re-wild that land, I'd like to see some of the uplands managed in that way, good for hunting, foraging, wood production and tourism - but you are chucking away a lot of food production (mostly done or doable on grass and other herbage) in the process. I'd also argue that the hill and upland farmers have the potential to produce meat with very high welfare standards.
> I suppose you can, but .......
As I said, you can do any style of food production badly. And it rains in the UK uplands, a lot, is your point about water use serious?> Regarding the UK uplands, I suppose you mean the Scottish highlands and similar areas?
I mean 80% of Wales and 17% of England - dont have figures to hand for Scotland."Livestock farming is the dominant enterprise of the uplands using 70 per cent of the land and underpinning rural economies [4]. The uplands are home to 44 per cent of breeding ewes and 40 per cent of beef cows in England, 85 per cent of beef cows and 75 per cent of breeding ewes in Wales and produce a quarter of England’s and Wales’ milk " (source NFU)
You could of course re-wild that land, I'd like to see some of the uplands managed in that way, good for hunting, foraging, wood production and tourism - but you are chucking away a lot of food production (mostly done or doable on grass and other herbage) in the process. I'd also argue that the hill and upland farmers have the potential to produce meat with very high welfare standards.
Post edited at 08:48
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...