Veganism, genuine questions.

I’m with the eat less meat, but quality, humanly treated, local meat. Tastes better (doesn’t need fancy sauces), cooks better and goes further (doesn’t shrink) and is worth every penny. We don’t eat enormous portions. At school we were told to allow 4 ounces per person!

Neither will there be sheep to eat off sugar beet tops (and produce their own fertiliser) nor to eat the swedes which are not considered fit for human consumption by the supermarkets.

Nor to provide wool so we will have to all use man-made fibres which get into the rivers and oceans and kill sea life, and wear plastic shoes which will never biodegrade.


what then?

www.viva.org.uk/what-we-do/vegan-farming
Vegan argument for anyone interested in the future of farming. Doesn’t involve pesticides, industrial livestock production or slaughterhouse by products.

NFK, a very good point. There is of course the circle of life and the food chain in nature, but also the circle of growing, sowing and fertilsing in the arable sector.

Like anything "alive" soil needs feeding in order to work well.

Seaweed can work to enrich soil (but can't just be applied as a top dresssing) but surely arable farms that are trying to produce sufficient crops to meet current demand, let alone the increased demand that would happen if the world went vegan, could hardly just keep taking seaweed willy nilly.

That article is nothing short of a fairy story.

PS I was specifically responding to NFK's post of 19.26

I cannot understand how vegans can make the arguments they make about human consumption of animal products while quite happily accepting that other animal species predate each other, especially given that they believe that we all have an equality. The human species is just an animal species that has, perhaps, overdeveloped, but is part of the whole animal ecological cycle and as part of that cycle has been an omnivore. I do not see how, if you accept that, that you can argue that the human species should not stay part of that system.

I would no more defend the current industrialisation of animal production or the US excessive consumption of meat, but I believe that the way forward is, certainly a reduction in meat consumption, a return to organic, animal welfare based farming systems, which means that the animals we eat depend mainly on the pasture they are grazed upon for sustenance rather than bought in feed.

As I have said, ad nauseum, I do not understand why the response to every story of problems is to ban whatever it is. As crystal pointed out herself, we do not ban surgery, despite it's appalling history of damage and butchery, is because, on balance it is to our advantage, what we do is put a lot of effort to set standards and monitor. Why does that not apply to other problems?

Jalima1108 by wedded to cheap meat I simply meant that some people would rather have cheap meat often than eat non-meat items.
And if you read back, I've already mentioned those who really have no choice in the matter.
I'm not picking a fight here.
Hope this clarifies.

Yes, fine!

sorry, as well

We have to wear clothes and there is nobody who lives without some pressure upon the environment . There is a movement to buy fewer clothes, to buy second hand or recycled clothes, and to buy from ethical sources. Some textiles such as merino wool and fur are currently beyond the ethical pale.

Similarly with meat and dairy. You are not asked to give it up, just to be sparing . To use pulses, nuts, oat drink, spices, fresh veg in season and so on.

Before I married The Wonderful Man, he was committed to living as sustainably as possible and he informed me that his mantra for life was, 'Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.' So, that's pretty much how we've lived throughout our thirty odd years of marriage. We grow our own fruit and vegetables, our son catches the fish we eat, we buy fresh venison, usually on the day it's shot, that is skinned and butchered by TWM and we eat vegetarian meals more often than we eat meat based ones. We do our bit to preserve a way of life that is healthy for us and good for the planet. This includes making decisions about what clothes we buy, which cleaning products and toiletries we use, how we use transport and how we use our assets.

I admire vegetarians and vegans for their principles, but as has been pointed out on here already, these are issues that are more complex than simply not eating meat or fish; every decision we take affects our planet for good or ill, but some are so nuanced as to need the wisdom of Solomon to tease out the implications.

The main difference between humans and other species is that we have choices to change our behaviour and we have developed cultures. We don’t have to eat meat to survive, so in a highly developed culture with lots of choices we can choose not to harm others creatures in order to live. That’s it - it’s a choice we are fortunate to be able to have. It’s not the same as birds eating slugs - they don’t have culturally developed choices. It is also better environmentally to eat fewer industrially ( I.e. not naturally) produced animal based products. That some like to eat meat and it’s what they are used to is fine, I understand that, but you can’t argue it’s essential for everyone, and you also shouldn’t say that if someone doesn’t want to eat dead animals they are some sort of terrorist/ weirdo/ anyother insult. You can’t live on this planet without doing any harm to anything, but perhaps we should aim to do the least harm, and if I have a choice between eating something which has involved the death of another creature and something which hasn’t I would rather choose the latter.
monica your ad nauseum comments about slugs and surgery and banning things are weak analogies. We do ban lots of things which are harmful if society deems them undesirable, and this can vary from one culture to another. We ban cruel sports like dog fighting and bear baiting, although these were popular, we didn’t just “regulate” them more.

I am sorry to bore you crystaltips but I cannot reconcile someone deliberately putting a living creature where they know there is no protection so that it is almost certain to be eaten by a predator with ...in a highly developed culture with lots of choices we can choose not to harm other creatures in order to live.

But that was an example of ONE person Monica, do you formulate your opinion of ALL people on the behaviour of a single person? I wouldn’t do that btw, so what does that prove?

Oh, I give up, crystaltipps you will do anything to avoid answering the question, even giving a personal opinion. I will draw my own conclusions.

Of course I’ve answered the question Monica! Seems you don’t want to let go of it. You haven’t answered my question btw.

Re "do you formulate your opinion of ALL people on the behaviour of a single person?" I would ask a parallel question, not specifically to Crystaltipps but to all vegetarians/vegans. - "do you formulate your opinion of ALL those engaged in animal husbandry on the behaviour of a few?" If you answer (and I would not argue) that those few are the ones who bring the industry into disrepute and have a high visibility, then remember that paedophile teachers, priests, and youth leaders are not representative of the whole of these occupations.

. . and another question. Given that you acknowledge the right of non-vegetarians to eat what they choose, " How would YOU prevent an agonising death by blowfly strike while still providing meat for millions?" Put aside your personal preference for a short while and regard this as a problem to be solved. Blowflies don't just target Australian sheep, they are an on-going curse to all stock everywhere.
Do you think that mulesing would be chosen as a preventative if it were not effective? In Oz these animals are dispersed over a wide area. Collecting them for a frequent Brazilian trim and a regular spray of insecticide, or whatever the best regular treatment is currently, would be difficult.

The way it is done now is long-lasting treatments for all the things likely to be met in the near future. This must be a shock to the system, so any improvements that fertile brains can suggest would be welcomed, particularly if backed up by practical experience.

A third consecutive post and then I shall go away and do something useful.

If you want to put people OFF vegan/vegetarianism, then the best method is to use such emotional language, describe a mythical meat-free paradise as Shangri-La and vilify stock-keepers so violently that the reader/listener immediately thinks "That isn't true!" and "They are getting hysterical!"

I read the article chrystal. I don’t think it would work. Just ploughing back in green stuff and compost isn’t sufficient to provide a good harvest. The soil needs more if it’s to be productive otherwise, like taking honey from bees, you’re taking out more than gets returned.

There are problems with deer around here and I believe wild boar in some places , so there’s talk of bringing back lynx and wolves but this gets shelved as impractical in a country as crowded as ours. How would these be managed if no one eats them? Or would they be used for cat and dog feed. Is that ok with vegans or is cat pet keeping not acceptable?

Also, rain forests aren’t cut down mainly for grazing land. Not anymore. Think coconut plantations, palm oil plantations, etc.

Like GA I was brought up to wear things until they fall to pieces and not keep buy, buy, buying. And only eat small amounts of good quality meat. Not gorge on it with 16 ounce steaks as are served in our local pub. We used to have our own hens and grow our own veg, but there’s so many small produces around here we no longer have to. We’re very fortunate.

In Oz these animals are dispersed over a wide area.

Some stations are 6,000 to 9,000 square miles.
We have friends with a cattle station, when they go off to check the cattle they are gone for 3 days.

Do you really believe there are no alternatives to mulesing Elegran? Of course there are, that’s why New Zealand banned it ages ago. Do you really think that it’s not just cheaper to use mulesing and that’s why they carry on doing it? And that John Lewis and the Italian clothing industry, amongst others, would really boycott or threaten to boycott the products, and pay a premium for non-mulesed wool if it were not a seriously cruel practice?

There’s reducing cognitive dissonance and then there’s closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and singing la la la as loud as you possibly can. Oh and blaming vegans for getting emotional about cruelty to animals to boot.

Probably going to get a lot of flack for this, but I think meat eaters should be encouraged to eat more venison.

Deer have no natural predators in the UK, they halt replacement of native trees by eating the young saplings, their meat is low cholesterol, and they are usually "farmed" in a way that replicates their natural environment.

Tim helmet time, methinks.

The natural predator on deer is the lynx.