Re: Re:
Seems a strange sentence, were you aware of the mouse plagues in Australia? Also, Australia is the second largest beef exporter in the world, behind India. It seems a fair place to focus for looking into something like this.
Not sure why you posted this, it really has very little to do with the links I posted, mainly because the paper SS posted has nothing to do with veganism or even vegetarianism. I'd never dispute these facts.
Veganism isn't about a balance though, I've never heard a vegan say that the death of lots of animals who live free is better than the long term suffering of a few caged animals. I posted it as it highlights one of my biggest problems with veganism and that is that almost every vegan I've ever met only ever considers primary animal suffering (meat, dairy, fur, leather etc.). Vegan shoes for example necessarily use plastics instead of leather, supporting the petrochemical industry that kills and interferes with untold numbers of animals. But that's OK because it isn't leather. Vegans don't eat honey (which baffles me to be honest) but large scale crop production kills billions of insects a year and destroys habitats of and kills larger animals (whereas pasturelands and the cattle there actually help support other life), yet these deaths are tolerated. I have a vegan friend who replaces their mobile phone at least twice a year and who buys computer parts and consoles like they'll be currency when the bombs drop. Production of these things increases our demand for rare earth elements, the mining of which (yes, you guessed it) destroys huge swathes of natural habitats. None of these things are necessary, so he is causing harm for his own pleasure.
If veganism is truly about least harm then these articles highlight an uncomfortable truth many vegans will refuse to discuss. That is that, obviously depending on farming methods, eating some meat might actually cause the least harm to animals overall.
Again, this doesn't seem relevant to the discussion, I think we're thinking along different lines. I fully accept that current farming methods are extremely poor, both for crops and animals, but that's not really the point I was alluding to posting those articles and as far as I'm aware, that isn't veganism.
Merckx index said:The situation in Australia is not necessarily representative of what exists elsewhere, e.g., I’m not aware that mouse plagues are common in other areas,
Seems a strange sentence, were you aware of the mouse plagues in Australia? Also, Australia is the second largest beef exporter in the world, behind India. It seems a fair place to focus for looking into something like this.
but:
1) As the link by SS notes, a significant decrease in energy/resource use could be achieved if people simply lowered their caloric input. Most people overeat, and the figures in the linked article on Australia don’t challenge this.
Not sure why you posted this, it really has very little to do with the links I posted, mainly because the paper SS posted has nothing to do with veganism or even vegetarianism. I'd never dispute these facts.
2) The article contrasts the slow, painful death of poisoned mice (and again, I don’t know that mouse plagues are a general problem with plant cultivation in other parts of the world) with the instant death of cattle. But in many feedlots, the animals are severely confined, resulting in suffering most of their lives, and while death at the slaughter house may be quicker than by poisoning, it isn’t instantaneous nor without suffering.
Veganism isn't about a balance though, I've never heard a vegan say that the death of lots of animals who live free is better than the long term suffering of a few caged animals. I posted it as it highlights one of my biggest problems with veganism and that is that almost every vegan I've ever met only ever considers primary animal suffering (meat, dairy, fur, leather etc.). Vegan shoes for example necessarily use plastics instead of leather, supporting the petrochemical industry that kills and interferes with untold numbers of animals. But that's OK because it isn't leather. Vegans don't eat honey (which baffles me to be honest) but large scale crop production kills billions of insects a year and destroys habitats of and kills larger animals (whereas pasturelands and the cattle there actually help support other life), yet these deaths are tolerated. I have a vegan friend who replaces their mobile phone at least twice a year and who buys computer parts and consoles like they'll be currency when the bombs drop. Production of these things increases our demand for rare earth elements, the mining of which (yes, you guessed it) destroys huge swathes of natural habitats. None of these things are necessary, so he is causing harm for his own pleasure.
If veganism is truly about least harm then these articles highlight an uncomfortable truth many vegans will refuse to discuss. That is that, obviously depending on farming methods, eating some meat might actually cause the least harm to animals overall.
3) As what I said above, arguments in this article are really more an indictment of large-scale agribusiness than plant cultivation per se.
Again, this doesn't seem relevant to the discussion, I think we're thinking along different lines. I fully accept that current farming methods are extremely poor, both for crops and animals, but that's not really the point I was alluding to posting those articles and as far as I'm aware, that isn't veganism.