If I spent 1/8 of what I earn, eight of me could live on my salary. It's functionally achievable, people live in my country on that amount. But I don't like that, so I spend a bit more. There is no sense in reducing the entire human experience to the lowest common denominator one in order to fit more people on the planet. If that's in your plans, you have a literal fight on your hands.
> reducing the entire human experience to the lowest common denominator Care to clarify what this means, if not a hyperbolic statement about how much you enjoy eating meat?
'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’
51–60 of 71 posts
Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find your take on alternative forms of agriculture a little too optimistic. Even with rotation and biodiversity famines and plagues were common before the use of pesticides. Our technology and knowledge are better now but even with that, I doubt that we could sustain the current population. Not in a way as predictable as now for sure. And for the figure of 75% it is not that simple. A considerable part of the crops…
> I find your take on alternative forms of agriculture a little too optimistic. I've read a lot about alternative agriculture systems and methods. Maybe that's where my optimism comes from. > the figure of 75% it is not that simple I know that 75% is not so simple. But meat industry needs cca 75% of the agriculture land and meat is produced mostly by feeding the animals seeds and vegetable oils, so ... yes, it's a gu…
So if there wasn't a better way you'll do it?
Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just chiming in to add my support for your arguments. I enjoy fast food and drinking beer, and all the moreso when I know that the former is plant-based and that the latter is brewed in an environmentally-friendly manner. I believe that both of those are possible in ways that make better use of existing agricultural land and that are therefore more scalable in terms of provision-of-nutrition -- although transition ca…
> false dichotomies That's why they create throwaways. They know they're wrong.
Collectivism results in a world I and many people I know don't want to live in, so we reject it.
And yeah, we have to resist it quite harshly, because there are a lot of you guys who'll try and impose it on us via force. Good luck.
Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> until we have tens of billions of humans We don't even have enough room to supplement the current population on western version of meat-eating diet. We already use more land for beef production, than we have forests. > until we have tens of billions of humans Agree, we have to abandon our current notions of growth, if we want to preserve life for future generations. On our current path we're going to hell (too many…
>If you can watch it till the end and still have the same opinion about putting meat above your taste buds, please, let me know. You'd be the first. I watched it and it didn't change a thing. I used to behead chickens to help grandma back in the days. Thinking that a video will suddenly make me a soylent chugging vegan is nothing short of religious zealotry.
As a city boy I was chasing my screaming village nephews with a rabbit eye all over the grounds.
I've spent few summers around cowhouse and young calfs, "helping" my aunt take care of them.
I've killed and cleaned few fish for christmas.
The animals I watched killed were living good life and there was no suffering at the end.
So I always had an image in my mind of animals living in green fields, and then miraculously and humanly killed in an instant.
But I've never been around slaughterhouse or in a highly industrialized meat production facility. Even now many people in cities don't know where milk comes from (yes, they know it's from cows, but they don't know that you have to artificially inseminate the cow and take away the calves, and they never heard them crying for days).
The amount of suffering, brutality and aggression of slaughterhouse staff, the supposedly human ways of killing our food, the long, painful and stressful process of killing, the amount of screaming of distressed animals, skinning of alive animals - documented in the Dominion (2018) movie - I was not prepared for that.
But that's not what made me vegan. I've seen it long after I've become vegan.
I'm not advocating for soylent (soylent green is people, anyhow).
But it is an argument for changing our practices, because it shows that propaganda of meat industry (happy cows & meals in burger joints, pictures of cows grazing in the fields on supermarket shelves, etc.) is just a big lie. And that we simply don't know how to kill painlessly.
Few quotes:
If you visit the killing floor of a slaughterhouse, it will brand your soul for life. [Howard Lyman]
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian. [Paul McCartney]
Those who purchase meat, fur, and leather have no right to be shielded from the sights and sounds of the slaughterhouses from which these products were produced. [Peter Singer]
Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
And there will be some way of eating that requires 5% of the land of whatever you suggest, ad infinitum, until we have tens of billions of humans and we end up back at square one. A line in the sand will be drawn somewhere, here's mine. I don't believe in infinite growth, it will result in us all drinking Soylent in cages. The objective for me is to have a high quality of life for a reasonable number of people, not a…
> until we have tens of billions of humans We don't even have enough room to supplement the current population on western version of meat-eating diet. We already use more land for beef production, than we have forests. > until we have tens of billions of humans Agree, we have to abandon our current notions of growth, if we want to preserve life for future generations. On our current path we're going to hell (too many…
Of course if there's zero benefit then we should expend no cost on something. You may as well argue that we don't need literature, art, friends and family, freedom, sex, etc. It's just your brain cells and neurotransmitters, right.
If you don't care about eating meat, that's cool. I'm glad - genuinely - it's scarce, so the more of you there are, the better off I am.
Cheers.
Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't blame them. Food is the mortar between the bricks of society. So if someone questions that it makes a lot of people feel unsecure. It's a completely natural reaction.
Our perception of traditional food is heavily skewed by last 50 years or so. Our ancestors were not used to so much meat and dairy as we are now. Eating plants was much more common then we think. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs - Anthropologist Debunks the Paleo Diet] [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGGoCNI - DAIRY IS SCARY! The industry explained in 5 minutes]
Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please see SEASPIRACY if you have a chance. Eating fish is not sustainable. Overfishing and by-catch is a real problem (already more than 90% of sharks are exterminated), and in near future the seas could be totally devoid of life (except for jellyfish). [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaspiracy ] > The argument for full veganism has to be that animals are people I don't agree. (1) We shouldn’t be cruel to animals,…
I even addressed that argument in advance, you made it anyway... Again: No matter how bad harvesting of sea resources is, it can't be enough to abandon the oceans entirely, any more than the vast land-use impact of agriculture can be used as argument for abandoning agriculture.
I probably don't understand your point (sorry english is not my first or second language).
At this moment we're seriously overfishing our oceans and killing it's population, that's what i have beef with (pun intended).
So your argument is - let's continue fishing?
> any more than the vast land-use impact of agriculture can be used as argument for abandoning agriculture
I'm arguing for changing agriculture (or better land management practices), not its abandonment.
Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I find your take on alternative forms of agriculture a little too optimistic. I've read a lot about alternative agriculture systems and methods. Maybe that's where my optimism comes from. > the figure of 75% it is not that simple I know that 75% is not so simple. But meat industry needs cca 75% of the agriculture land and meat is produced mostly by feeding the animals seeds and vegetable oils, so ... yes, it's a gu…
> No, I would not, because I now know that there is better way So if there wasn't a better way you'll do it?
But I think that human civilizations does not have the right to live to the detriment of wild animals or that we have the right to destroy nature completely, just because we love our current food so much.
Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I even addressed that argument in advance, you made it anyway... Again: No matter how bad harvesting of sea resources is, it can't be enough to abandon the oceans entirely, any more than the vast land-use impact of agriculture can be used as argument for abandoning agriculture.
> No matter how bad harvesting of sea resources is, it can't be enough to abandon the oceans entirely I probably don't understand your point (sorry english is not my first or second language). At this moment we're seriously overfishing our oceans and killing it's population, that's what i have beef with (pun intended). So your argument is - let's continue fishing? > any more than the vast land-use impact of agricultu…
Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No matter how bad harvesting of sea resources is, it can't be enough to abandon the oceans entirely I probably don't understand your point (sorry english is not my first or second language). At this moment we're seriously overfishing our oceans and killing it's population, that's what i have beef with (pun intended). So your argument is - let's continue fishing? > any more than the vast land-use impact of agricultu…
I know you are! But if better land management practices is good enough on land, why can't better fisheries management be good enough at sea?