• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Vegans cause animals to go extinct?

Animals are like machines in that we need them as much as they need us.

Hmmm... nice. I think I'm gonna coin that.
 
Rolfe said:
If more people became vegans, a lot more farmland would be needed to grow their food.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

That post was posted after...

Dessi said:
No, human populations would not fall.

In fact, human rights activists and environmentalists often support vegetarianism because it reduces the use of pasture land and pollution (see here). Around 50% of soy and corn crops go to feed animals, around 8% of useable water is given to food animals, and at least here in Nebraska I observe huge amounts of pasture used to sustain grazing cattle. Animals are remarkably inefficient machines for converting grains into meat, see here for the amount of grain goes into each kg of edible meat. Why is all that food being fed to animals when 1/3rd of the planet is undernourished?

From a resource usage point of view, I don't think you can really make an argument for animal agriculture.
Click to expand...

...that post. Which contains, what appear to me to be, valid citations.
 
It still seems to be an open question as to whether enough of the land currently in use for animal husbandry is suitable to be converted to protein crops.
 
It seems the animal husbandry systems in the USA are so different from the ones in use here that comparisons are impossible. You simply couldn't grow food crops on the land where we grow the beef and mutton.

Rolfe.
 
Sideroxylon said:
I have hunted myself and know people who took particular happiness in killing a feral cat out of knowledge of that they do to native animal populations.
Click to expand...


Those of us dubious about the motivations of hunters can find confirmation for our doubts in this line here.

Finding "happiness in killing" strikes me as perverse and barbaric.

Whatever damage that feral cat was doing to the native animal population pales in comparison to what people do through destruction of habitat, pollutants, road kills and more. Humans even introduced that domestic cat into the native animal population through neglect.

It isn't the cats fault.

So to take particular happiness in killing a cat, (especially without addressing these other issues) confirms my suspicion of hunters: they do it because they like to kill.
 
citizenzen said:
Those of us dubious about the motivations of hunters can find confirmation for our doubts in this line here.

Finding "happiness in killing" strikes me as perverse and barbaric.

Whatever damage that feral cat was doing to the native animal population pales in comparison to what people do through destruction of habitat, pollutants, road kills and more. Humans even introduced that domestic cat into the native animal population through neglect.

It isn't the cats fault.

So to take particular happiness in killing a cat, (especially without addressing these other issues) confirms my suspicion of hunters: they do it because they like to kill.
Click to expand...

I thought over a number of word options there to describe the feeling and I settled with "happy" which is a broad enough term. Do you think you are being fair to me by not highlighting the context here? To conclude from my example that "hunters like to kill" is an emotive misrepresentation. The happiness is about making an effort at preserving unique indigenous species from decimation. No it's not the cat's fault or the fault of any number of introduced species but do you think it is better to do nothing? I will concede that it may be an impossible battle to eradicate some introduced species when you are dealing with populations spread over large territories. There are some examples where islands have had introduced species removed.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
It seems the animal husbandry systems in the USA are so different from the ones in use here that comparisons are impossible. You simply couldn't grow food crops on the land where we grow the beef and mutton.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...



Please substantiate this claim. I agree that there is some amount of land used for pasture that is unsuitable for crops but I doubt that this is true for the majority of pasture in the UK. Its possibly true for Scotland and/or Wales in isolation given how bumpy they are (although it would be nice to see some figures to back this up) but it cannot be generally true across Britain, there are just not enough mountains. Globally it makes no sense.
 
I apologize for confusing vegan and vegetarian. I'm not sure which gets cited the most in the articles and letters I'm talking about.

As far as the animals we're talking about, I don't think most people who say "animals will go extinct if we don't eat them" are talking about deer, crocodile, squirrel, or rabbit. I think they're talking about domesticated animals in large-scale farming operations like cows, sheep, pigs, maybe chickens. I think especially they're talking about larger animals like cows. I have to admit I've never run across a herd of feral cows, so I thought maybe the argument had some merit.

I didn't consider that our factory-farm animals are bred to be more meaty or have a thicker fleece or whatnot. Or that selective breeding for those traits might mean a less fertile population.

So how does this apply to fish, or does it apply at all? Is the argument really mostly addressing land use, as many posters have commented on?
 
bencg said:
Please substantiate this claim. I agree that there is some amount of land used for pasture that is unsuitable for crops but I doubt that this is true for the majority of pasture in the UK. Its possibly true for Scotland and/or Wales in isolation given how bumpy they are (although it would be nice to see some figures to back this up) but it cannot be generally true across Britain, there are just not enough mountains. Globally it makes no sense.
Click to expand...


"Here" is Scotland. It would be difficult to grow crops on a lot of the grazing areas, and impossible on a lot more.

Rolfe.
 
Sideroxylon said:
It still seems to be an open question as to whether enough of the land currently in use for animal husbandry is suitable to be converted to protein crops.
Click to expand...


Clearly large amounts of arable land are currently used for pasture, just look at the beef industry in the USA and South America. I cant really be bothered to go looking for all the numbers but given the (in)efficiencies of animal husbandry lets say 60-70% of all the pasture would have to be non arable for there to be no efficiency savings to be made.

Also I might be wrong about this (please correct me if so) but aren't cows and the like generally also fed with supplemental feed anyway (presumably grown on arable land)?
 
Rolfe said:
"Here" is Scotland. It would be difficult to grow crops on a lot of the grazing areas, and impossible on a lot more.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Sure I know you are talking about Scotland, but the issues here are global not local right?
 
AmandaM said:
I apologize for confusing vegan and vegetarian. I'm not sure which gets cited the most in the articles and letters I'm talking about.

As far as the animals we're talking about, I don't think most people who say "animals will go extinct if we don't eat them" are talking about deer, crocodile, squirrel, or rabbit. I think they're talking about domesticated animals in large-scale farming operations like cows, sheep, pigs, maybe chickens. I think especially they're talking about larger animals like cows. I have to admit I've never run across a herd of feral cows, so I thought maybe the argument had some merit.

I didn't consider that our factory-farm animals are bred to be more meaty or have a thicker fleece or whatnot. Or that selective breeding for those traits might mean a less fertile population.

So how does this apply to fish, or does it apply at all? Is the argument really mostly addressing land use, as many posters have commented on?
Click to expand...


The argument has merit for cows and such, the last really wild cattle are probably extinct (although there are some scary buggers in the scottish highlands I think they are still domesticated). I don't think any fish have been domesticated for food, I could be wrong though.
 
Actually come to think of it, cats and dogs would most likely go feral but would dissapear as pets in a total vegan world. Both are carnivores that NEED meat to survive. Nowadays we feed them the bits of animal left over from a slaughterhouse.

But with no more slaughterhouses we'd either need to keep animals to be killed exclusively for our pets (which I'd assume goes agains vegan ethics) or let them hunt their own food. Cats could do that, but for dogs this is harder.

One thing I've never understood about the vegan diet (but possibly a derail). Why no milk products at all? I can understand not using milk from intensive farms or other farms that go agains a person's ethics. But dairy cattle does need to be milked daily due to how they were bred over millennia. If its treated kindly and given the room it needs, and not fed anything against personal ethics, would a vegan use milk?
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
One thing I've never understood about the vegan diet (but possibly a derail). Why no milk products at all? I can understand not using milk from intensive farms or other farms that go agains a person's ethics. But dairy cattle does need to be milked daily due to how they were bred over millennia. If its treated kindly and given the room it needs, and not fed anything against personal ethics, would a vegan use milk?
Click to expand...
Yes, an ethical vegan would use milk and eggs.

Speaking just for myself, I would probably drink milk or eat eggs if I knew they were happy and weren't raised for slaughter, probably even sheer a sheep if I since it keeps feces and parasites out of their coat. I live in suburbia so I don't really have those options, so in the mean time I'm growing tomatoes and cucumbers in the backyard :)
 
Last edited:
Dessi said:
Yes, an ethical vegan would use milk and eggs.

Pretty much all ethical vegans subscribe to a philosophy that they oppose animal products not because of where they come from, but how they're obtained. I would personally drink milk or eat eggs if I knew they were happy and weren't raised for slaughter.
Click to expand...


I am not sure how you define an ethical vegan, most vegans I have known I doubt would eat dairy even with super ethical husbandry because they define it as exploitation per se. The most 'extreme' I have ever met was a vegan that refused to eat honey, although her (honey eating vegan) partner mocked with this with "bees shouldn't leave it lying around".

I was vegan for about 6 months 20+ years ago, but my ethics gave way to desire and I downgraded to fish eating veggie :D
 
bencg said:
I am not sure how you define an ethical vegan, most vegans I have known I doubt would eat dairy even with super ethical husbandry because they define it as exploitation per se. The most 'extreme' I have ever met was a vegan that refused to eat honey, although her (honey eating vegan) partner mocked with this with "bees shouldn't leave it lying around".
Click to expand...
Oh I'm about as crazy as most animal rights people get :)

I don't really have an objection to honey, but seeing it on labels makes me feel really really uncomfortable, and everytime I think to myself "omg, I'm so stupid". I don't really think the arguments against chickens in battery cages really carries over to insects, but its just a personal comfort thing for me.

I was vegan for about 6 months 20+ years ago, but my ethics gave way to desire and I downgraded to fish eating veggie :D
Click to expand...
*does secret veggie handshake*

Recipes plz :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom