Questionnaire

[Bones Malone]

Clearing even more animal inhabited lands? More farms? More trucks?

If we moved from animal agriculture to plant agriculture we wouldn't need to feed these billions of animals 9-25 calories to get 1 calorie of meat. We would only need use around 10 times less less land, crops, water and fossil fuels. While considerably decreasing the environmental damage with the greenhouse gasses, deforestation, desertification and water degradation caused by the industry.

(OT: Damage that is not only the leading cause of species extinction, but also making the lives of many people more difficult with the effects on heat waves, food security, nutrition, water safety, other public health risks with diseases such as with malaria, air pollution, etc.. While obviously risking livelihoods of the people relying on the environment with less and less land being available then resulting in further socio-economic problems.)

Appreciate the thumbs up, but there's not really need for it. Doing these small changes is the least they can do.

There's no room for facts in this conversation, Juzmo

 

[Bee Sheriff]

Yes
No

Because food chain

 

[Lurked4Yearz]

Clearing even more animal inhabited lands? More farms? More trucks?

Yes. Right now on top of all the traditional plant and agricultural farms already producing food, you have organic and vegan oriented farms sprouting up. So while your idealistic diatribe about switching completely over sounds promising, until then the vegan trend is actually contributing to destroying more animal landmass to cultivate and adding onto the masses of agricultural equipment and delivery trucks contributing pollution.

Traditional Farms + Vegan/Organic Farms > Traditional Farms

If we moved from animal agriculture to plant agriculture we wouldn't need to feed these billions of animals 9-25 calories to get 1 calorie of meat.

Sure, the amount they have to be fed is a downside. But consider what that this offers us in return is:

• Food security that is otherwise not guaranteed through crops.
• Livestock provide food that is of higher quality, due to the proteins and fats found in meat that is otherwise unavailable in plants alone.

We would only need use around 10 times less less land, crops, water and fossil fuels. While considerably decreasing the environmental damage with the greenhouse gasses, deforestation, desertification and water degradation caused by the industry.

You'll be able to use less land, because a large portion of land allocated to raising livestock is in areas where plant agriculture is inefficient and virtually impossible. Consider that not everyone on the planet lives in fertile regions with suitable farmland and water resources. But **** all those poor people who depend on raising livestock for both income and food around the world, people in developed countries have it so good they need something to complain about.

(OT: Damage that is not only the leading cause of species extinction, but also making the lives of many people more difficult with the effects on heat waves, food security, nutrition, water safety, other public health risks with diseases such as with malaria, air pollution, etc.. While obviously risking livelihoods of the people relying on the environment with less and less land being available then resulting in further socio-economic problems.)

Damage that results from keeping billions of people fed, across hundreds of countries, with differing implementations and no standards. Damage that could be just as easily attributed to the growing world population.

 

[Siamese Dream]

It's an ethical thing, I don't think humans should be treated like this.

[Yt]5Mr-2jb6oNA[/Yt]

 

[LarryFisherman]

@harry

do you know anything about wolly coats?

I want a canada goose but they kill baby coyotes. I need a vegan alternative.

 

[Lurked4Yearz]

@harry

do you know anything about wolly coats?

I want a canada goose but they kill baby coyotes. I need a vegan alternative.

wolly coats

 

[LarryFisherman]

wully

 

[LarryFisherman]

Harry I can't believe you're ignoring my inquiry.

 

[Juzmo]

Yes. Right now on top of all the traditional plant and agricultural farms already producing food, you have organic and vegan oriented farms sprouting up. So while your idealistic diatribe about switching completely over sounds promising, until then the vegan trend is actually contributing to destroying more animal landmass to cultivate and adding onto the masses of agricultural equipment and delivery trucks contributing pollution.

Traditional Farms + Vegan/Organic Farms > Traditional Farms

A portion of non-vegans also eat organic plant products and then also organic animal products, which are even less efficient than the factory farmed animal products when it comes to land use and methane production for example. Rather unsure how these "vegan oriented farms†make growing plants the more complicated, destructive, or/and unsustainable option compared to the current system.

A system in which we are growing all these crops all around the world to then grow all these animals all over the world that. Which would somehow mean less agricultural equipment and transportation even when its a bigger and longer process?

Not to mention transportation is a rather small part of a food product's carbon footprint based on this study explained in this article.

Don’t know much about the amount of agricultural equipment or the impact veganism would eventually have.

But in general there are so many studies out there that make me seriously question your statements:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.short
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/veganism-could-save-world-new-study-argues
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

Sure, the amount they have to be fed is a downside. But consider what that this offers us in return is:

*Food security that is otherwise not guaranteed through crops.

If for some reason animal products are needed to guarantee food security for an area it’s completely understandable for those people to also consume some animal products in order to survive.

But the fact is also that the Earth has only a limited area of viable agricultural land; how this land is used is central to our ability to feed the world. This is particularly important given how desertification and other ecological issues brought on by climate change continue to reduce the quantity and the quality of the world's arable land. So for us, who have food security to sustain ourselves with plant foods should take that opportunity for the benefit of people who can’t make these choices.

*Livestock provide food that is of higher quality, due to the proteins and fats found in meat that is otherwise unavailable in plants alone.

All the major dietetics and health organizations in the world agree that vegan and vegetarian diets are just as healthy as omnivorous diets, and potentially reduce the risks of some illnesses and cancers.

You'll be able to use less land, because a large portion of land allocated to raising livestock is in areas where plant agriculture is inefficient and virtually impossible. Consider that not everyone on the planet lives in fertile regions with suitable farmland and water resources. But **** all those poor people who depend on raising livestock for both income and food around the world, people in developed countries have it so good they need something to complain about.

Obviously if poor people literally don’t have any other options than raising livestock to sustain their well-being because they live in a certain area it’s perfectly understandable for them to continue doing that.

It’s just that when people are living in more developed countries where it’s possible to try transitioning towards veganism with the info, technology and variety of plant foods accessible, they really should. They should use the advantages they have to make real world impacts with these choices that will inconvenience them to some degree, but which will help others. More than likely exactly the people who don’t have these same advantages as we do like I previously mentioned.

Damage that results from keeping billions of people fed, across hundreds of countries, with differing implementations and no standards. Damage that could be just as easily attributed to the growing world population.

With further damage resulting in also keeping tens of billions of animals fed for these people to consume, which is making the population growth an exponentially bigger issue.

 

[Legionnaire]

Yes!

No.

I want to make you cry.

 

[John Price]

teammeat