Veganism

Post Reply New Topic

As long as vegetarians are in the minority it is sustainable. Imagine how much vegetable matter seven billion humans can eat in a day. Do we have enough land to sustain them?

ruveyn

It takes MORE vegetable matter/land to produce the meat they're eating now....

As a side note, if something isn't done about population growth, we're headed for Malthusian catastrophe.

Soon, we won't have enough of anything to sustain the crush of humanity.

Oh-my this outrageous vegan propaganda doesn't know its limits.

I will answer your question with a question: Which do you think eats more vegetable matter in a given period of time, a human or a cow?

If you're talking about a cow eating nothing but grass, Ruveyn is more correct; if you're talking about a cow being fed corn, mushroo is more correct. Cows, goats, and sheep can be foraged on land that won't produce food crops suitable for humans, but most often in the west they're fed using corn that would feed many more humans than the cow's flesh will.

if my finger touches a hot plate, then the matter is out of my deliberative jurisdiction.
i would experience a reflex pain recoil response. it takes no analysis on my part to know that there is a problem with my finger being on a hot plate. it would hurt, and my autonomous nervous system would take charge of my actions immediately.

chickens who are not scared by a family dog in the yard, but who go beserk with fear when they can even smell a fox in the distance, exhibit a sense of discrimination, and they would only put effort into thinking about what is outside their immediate location if they care about remaining alive.

i mean really. i see it so plainly.

if a chicken really will try so hard to remain alive, then i must not disturb it's ability to remain alive.

i do not feel superior to any chicken.

That is an excellent point LKL. For those who choose to eat beef (I enjoy a juicy burger every now and again, I confess) there is more and more evidence of the health benefits of grass-fed beef compared with factory-farmed. The grass-fed is higher in "good fats." Most of the pubs and higher-end burger joints in my city have added a grass-fed option to the menu, and the cost is negligible ($0.50-1.00 per serving), plus of course you can buy grass-fed, humanely-raised meats straight from the farm or at the farmers market. Michael Polan explores this topic in detail in his book "Omnivore's Dilemma" which is a fun read.

That being said, I still assert that the "vegetarianism will lead to mass starvation" argument is preposterous. Factory farming in the 21st century is a criminal misuse of resources, and reducing meat consumption (I recommend everyone forgo meat at least 1 day a week to reduce global consumption by 1/7) is a sane response we can easily choose as consumers.

The first is true. The second is untrue. The third may be true, but not in the timespan you are thinking of.

I think you are misreading malthus' idea. he said that population increases faster than food production does. That has nothing to do with having no space left.

The cow. But even so, is there enough land to grow veggies for seven billion. We need the fish. They don't take up land and the oceans are going to be there whether we use them or not.

I think substituting fish for beef would go a long way to solving the protein problem.

ruveyn

Yes, there is enough land on the Earth to feed 7 billion vegetarians. It's a myth that people are hungry because we're running out of food. The fact is people are hungry because of poverty, war, disease, drought, politics, etc. In fact in the year 2011, more people die from preventable diseases of over-consumption (heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc.) than from starvation.

Modern commercial fishing is an absolute disaster; it is an ecological nightmare and completely unsustainable. It is my fervent hope that, within my lifetime, the governments of the world join together to limit their fishing within a certain distance of their coastline, and declare the deep oceans an international wilderness and biological preserve.

I will concede that in some distant sci-fi future, once the population gets up to 10 or 20 billion, we may be forced to build giant krill or plankton farms as our main food source. Thankfully, those days are many decades away.

Also don't forget that there are many delicious plants in the sea. It is possible to get food from the ocean and still be vegetarian.

No argument will convince me that ordering mushrooms on my pizza instead of pepperoni is taking food out of the mouths of starving Africans.

Given all agricultural land is used to grow crops I would think there is enough. Lets not forget that the West constantly overeats and there is a lot of unused land+not all of it is even used for food. If only fish was unlimited natural resource, however, then it would have to be resorted to fish farming which is not efficient either and poses numerous problems. Flesh is a privilege of the rich in world of 7 billion. I think that hemp seeds and other undiscovered wonders of nature provide all the protein we might need.



As a side note - I don't know why people do not have compassion for other living things and constantly declare their absolute superiority (and over each other). Being a slave for ones earthly desires is not something to be proud, I think. And I am not talking about asceticism - only about humility, kindness. I find that many people when vegetarianism is brought up become very...angry? I receive so much hostility for being one that it's not even funny. And one more thing, nowadays veggies do taste like nothing they did some years ago. And we ourselves have lost our ability to taste.

I think you're misreading me. I'm not talking about space AT ALL.

I am talking about population growth versus resource production/consumption. As the third world begins to modernize resource consumption will explode.

I eat meat, but I've never been able to understand the hostility that some meat-eaters have towards vegetarianism.

Not talking about all vegetarians, but I've met several who were more than happy to lord their "moral superiority" over me for eating meat.

Personally, I've never understood the idea that one is being "less cruel" by not eating meat, but, at the same time, telling me off for eating meat on their friggen computer while sitting in an air-conditioned house.

Got any idea what industrial farms due to the environment? I don't see how vegetables = less cruel.

First off I find that as with any cases of moral debate, so to speak, both sides try to just destroy each other, there is a lot of hatred involved and other feelings which I cannot easily define. Rarely do I see an open and productive debate (not to mention the lack of knowledge or simply sheer ignorance). I think people should firstly speak about open-mindness and respect and prolly the worst part is that they think they do.. Anyhow. No one is happy when any kind of moral superiority is forced upon them. But this is interesting - could you elaborate on why do you think that breeding animals for consumption is not cruel?

It seems to me that you do some kind of generalization. So you say that if I do one wrong thing, such as buying an ipod and feeding a corporation which exploits chinese children, it somehow justifies my other wrongdoings (from whatever perspective, that is)? Or, why do you think that computers and air-conditioning is bad? Anyhow I trust you know my standart vegan arguments.

Industrial farms are very harmful to the environment but I'm afraid you don't get to pull that card b/c livestock farms are far far worse. Not to mention that more than half of crops farms are used to feed cattle. And just to say that most vegans are for organic produce and organic farming which's pollution is incomparable to that of industrial.

Frankly, I have no interest in "destroying" anyone. The only requirement I have is that people stay out of my face.



I never commented on whether it was or was not cruel.



"Justification" is not my issue. My issue is with the moral "cherry-picking" I see that so often seems to go hand-in-hand with these kinds of debates.



I don't. I just think it's a potential form of waste/destruction/over-consumption/cruelty.



I do get to pull that card. If dumping pesticides into the environment, destruction of natural habitat, creation of "super bugs" and "super weeds," displacing native flora/fauna, further supporting the oil industry and corporations, ect. is not as "bad" in your opinion as livestock production, then that's a subjective value judgement that you can make according to the dictates of your conscience.

You feel it's "not as bad." I do. These are subjective value judgments based on opinions and emotions. Nothing more.



Supporting something in theory and actually DOING it are completely different things. I know many people who voluntarily live on the street because they don't agree with the U.S. American lifestyle of over-consumption. I also know many spoiled, middle-class college kids who lecture me on eating meat, but who are otherwise more than happy to gorge on videogames, french fries, and who will drive anywhere longer than half a mile.

This isn't about "right" or "wrong." It's about respect. I respect the former. I do not respect the latter. I feel the same way about anti-military peacenik tw_ts.