Veganism, genuine questions.

Isn't that what has happened to our appendix?
Did I read somewhere that it used to be much bigger, and was for helping to digest large quantities of meat?

Scotland's uplands are unsuitable for growing any food crops. Grass and heather is all that grows, which can be cropped by cattle and particularly sheep. The soil is a mere two or three inches deep in places and of course the hills are very challenging with rocky, sharp sloping terrain.

The only other alternative use to having stock would be to raise game for shooting.

^choose to be a vegan if you want but don't demonise others'

Just about sums it up.

If we all become vegans will our canine teeth become superfluous to requirements?

www.animalsaustralia.org/issues/mulesing.php

Davidhs well put, imo.

I will eat animal flesh, wear their by products after their death,i.e. leather, also wear wool. The important thing is the quality of life.

When I had my sheep, I took every step to ensure that they enjoyed the highest possible standards of welfare. The lambs that they had were also given a wonderful life until it was time for slaughter, to the point of that we would borrow a suitable vehicle,load them quietly and gently, and take them to the abbatoir, where we had arranged that they would be killed in arrival, rather than be kept in pens for hours waiting their turn.

I say again, it is the quality of life that matters.

There is no logic or reason to the vegan case because it’s an Emotional choice and if anyone does not want to use animal products that’s fine by me

What I object to is being called a bad person because I choose to do what mankind has been doing perfectly legally for millennia and eat a mixed diet, wear leather shoes and woolen clothes.

This is a sensationalist propaganda campaign that tthe media have lapped up, the more extreme the better. They even latched on to the # me to # tag line “ Milk is Rape” because Dairy cows are bred using Artificial Insemination, and had not given consent.

Choose to be a vegan if you want but don’t demonize others.

crystaltipps, How are you going to prevent de-forestation of land for growing crops?

An increase in demand will lead to exploitation. It always does.

But what would Inuits wear?

'still don't get the vegan anti wool thing.'
Has anyone explained it yet? I'm a bit slow on the uptake tonight.
btw sheep wool is one of the best insulating materials for the home, but much more expensive than other types eg fibreglass.

It’s not an oxymoron - food could be grown for humans on land that is currrently used to grow food for livestock. Land used for livestock could be kept for wildlife , as much deforestation is for livestock grazing and industrial farming. A plant based diet is much less demanding of land and water than livestock farming. No one is saying all humans should / could be vegan in every environment. The success of humans is that we have been able to exploit almost every type of environment on the planet. We in the west have more choices - we can live quite healthily without exploiting and harming other creatures. It’s a choice. Some humans don’t have the choices . Inuit have learned to survive in an environment with fewer choices.

the tourist industry who flock (sorry) to admire landscapes that owe their beauty to good stock management.

Many people think they understand husbandry but they only see it from a limited, consumer point of view.

how could an Inuit live a vegan life?
Seaweed?
Do they have seaweed in the Far North?

Sprouts are best eaten after a frost.

I guess they'd be driven out of their environment, phoenix

OK, how about this for one to throw into the mix, how could an Inuit live a vegan life?

Animal consumption is necessary for the management of land which is unsuitable for arable farming.

Without the balance, arable farmers will have to go back to using chemical fertilizers and what about the tourist industry who flock (sorry) to admire landscapes that owe their beauty to good stock management.

Should farms be controlled ? Using more arable land as opposed to pasture ?

Sheep will live and thrive where crops cannot be grown.

Cattle in other countries roam over vast areas but the land does not consist of forests which need to be 'chopped down'.

Hopefully, with environmental, as well as animal welfare concerns, people will eat less meat and more plant based food, so gradually those huge factory farms will become fewer, fewer forests will be chopped down for livestock and more land released for arable farming for human rather than animal consumption.

That is an oxymoron.

You state that fewer forests will be chopped down for livestock yet think it is fine for more land released for arable farming for human rather than animal consumption.

It is 'pie in the sky' and just not feasible.

Of course vegans can see other points of view. Most of us weren’t born vegans and have non vegans in our families. I know meat eating is a culturally ingrained belief/ habit which many people enjoy and aren’t going to change. I suppose I would like people to gradually think about where and how their food is produced and occasionally try food that isn’t based on animal products.

Everyone is not going to become vegan overnight so why wonder what would happen ? Hopefully, with environmental, as well as animal welfare concerns, people will eat less meat and more plant based food, so gradually those huge factory farms will become fewer, fewer forests will be chopped down for livestock and more land released for arable farming for human rather than animal consumption. This is good for both the environment and animals. Gradual change has already started - lots of restaurants and supermarkets offer vegan food and lots of people are happy to eat vegan food without committing to full time vegan eating. Doing the least harm possible should be what we are aiming for. Just because we can’t be perfect all the time shouldn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

I can understand why vegans think as they do (but could argue against it) but what I cannot understand is why they cannot see another point of view but their own.

I too would like to know what material is as good as or better than wool for keeping the wearer weqarm without affecting the environment in either its manufacture or its disposal once if is no longer fit to wear.

Before the invention of manmade fabrics, people wore wool, leather, cotton, linen, and other animal or vegetable fibres. The colder the climate/weather, the more likely it was that clothing was made from animal fibres or skins, which were originally in use to keep warm-blooded animals warm. Plants tend not to need to be kept warm.

Which is why I prefer fur garments to faux fur.

Animal fur is biodegradable whereas faux fur being synthetic takes donkeys years being a by-product of petrochemicals/plastic. Faux fur is adding to what we don't want.

Anything animal is organic so therefore biodegradable and will naturally rot.

My BiL is a sheep farmer in Australia and I have visited on several occasions never seeing the scenarios presented by Crystaltipps. I don’t doubt that mistreatment may go on, but personal experience says it’s the exception rather than the rule.

Well, here are the standards that should be adhered to:
www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/files/2011/01/Sheep-Standards-and-Guidelines-for-Endorsed-Jan-2016-061017.pdf

If PETA found otherwise, let's hope they reported this.

I know Australian farmers who are trying to farm vegetables, fruit, organically but they cannot produce enough to feed increasing populations.

If everyone became vegan today, what would the world be like in , say, 20 years time? (Serious, interested question, not intended to be confrontational)
Well, this may not sound serious but it is. All the methane produced by animals will be produced by humans if we all become vegan.

According to my farmer son-in-law, much of the poorer countryside here in Scotland would be overrun with bramble and weeds and much of the better land would be barren unless copious amounts of chemicals and pesticides were used. He's an arable farmer so doesn't have stock but of course plenty of his fellow farmers do.

I suspect the source from which Crystal copied that description was a teeny bit biased. How on earth could "carving huge chunks of skin and flesh from lambs’ backsides" be expected to prevent fly strike? Flies are attracted to mucky bums and to open sores to lay their eggs in, so carving chunks off an animal would make it more likely that bluebottle maggots would eat at the flesh! Whoever reports witnessing this barbaric practice is more likely to have seen the results of fly strike. Maybe the maggots were being removed!