Vegan Forum

Question: Is it morally wrong to try and reduce the amount of animals slaughtered around the word while at the same time huge numbers of human beings are starving to death all around the world?

If you're trying to say that because we're reducing slaughtering animals, we're contributing to world hunger, that is very skewed and flawed information.

Not only to we have enough food RIGHT NOW to feed the world many times over, but removing livestock and poultry will not hinder this at all, either. About 70% of grains in the world are used to feed livestock, which are then used to feed us. You can imagine then just how much MORE food we would have if we stopped feeding livestock!

Not only that, but it not a food shortage issue, but rather a food distribution issue. Think of all the food we throw out here. We eat more than we need to, we binge, and we waste carelessly.

^agreed.

Is it only meat that make our stomach full??? I don't think so... There are lots of veggies, fruits and grains that may prevent hunger... Actually grains make us full faster...

CircularMotion wrote:If you're trying to say that because we're reducing slaughtering animals, we're contributing to world hunger, that is very skewed and flawed information.

Not only to we have enough food RIGHT NOW to feed the world many times over, but removing livestock and poultry will not hinder this at all, either. About 70% of grains in the world are used to feed livestock, which are then used to feed us. You can imagine then just how much MORE food we would have if we stopped feeding livestock!

Not only that, but it not a food shortage issue, but rather a food distribution issue. Think of all the food we throw out here. We eat more than we need to, we binge, and we waste carelessly.

Implying that the distribution of food in the world at the moment is going to change any time soon is very naive claim to make Circular. I'm not going to take food off my families plates to feed someone on the other side of the world.

On the other hand, I'm not going to try and campaign for a societal transition to veganism which will inevitably cause starvation in third world countries where it is culturally and practically only feasible to live by eating meat.

AdamD wrote:

CircularMotion wrote:If you're trying to say that because we're reducing slaughtering animals, we're contributing to world hunger, that is very skewed and flawed information.

Not only to we have enough food RIGHT NOW to feed the world many times over, but removing livestock and poultry will not hinder this at all, either. About 70% of grains in the world are used to feed livestock, which are then used to feed us. You can imagine then just how much MORE food we would have if we stopped feeding livestock!

Not only that, but it not a food shortage issue, but rather a food distribution issue. Think of all the food we throw out here. We eat more than we need to, we binge, and we waste carelessly.

Implying that the distribution of food in the world at the moment is going to change any time soon is very naive claim to make Circular. I'm not going to take food off my families plates to feed someone on the other side of the world.

On the other hand, I'm not going to try and campaign for a societal transition to veganism which will inevitably cause starvation in third world countries where it is culturally and practically only feasible to live by eating meat.

First of all, a societal transition where we eat less meat in our diets is by no means going to affect what people in developing countries eat in their diets. However, the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, China, etc. are the countries that eat so much meat. Eating meat is not a regularity for people in developing countries. It's expensive, and they can get much more out of their animals before killing them.

The killing of an animal celebrates a holiday or a special occasion, and certainly does not happen everyday.

Agriculture and Food — Meat Consumption: Per capita
Units: Kilograms per person




2002
Region/Classification
Asia (excluding Middle East) 27.8
Central America & Caribbean 46.9
Europe 74.3
Middle East & North Africa 25.7
North America 123.2
South America 69.7
Sub-Saharan Africa 13.0
Developed Countries 80.0
Developing Countries 28.9



http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_d ... lect_years

Like I said in another threat, until you can instantly remove meat based food infrastructure and replace it with veggy based food infrastructure all of this talk is useless. If you want practical results you need to think in practical terms.

AdamD wrote:Like I said in another threat, until you can instantly remove meat based food infrastructure and replace it with veggy based food infrastructure all of this talk is useless. If you want practical results you need to think in practical terms.

That statement did not make any sense whatsoever. More and more people are switching to vegetarian/vegan diets every day. About ten years ago only 1% of the United States population was vegetarian, and now around 5% are. When fewer people eat meat, there is less of a demand for it. This means that every single person who turns down meat is saving resources.

Also, where do you get the idea that people in poor countries rely on meat? It takes 16 pounds of grains to make one pound of beef. Do you think poverty stricken people can either grow that much grain, or wait around for several years until their few cows eat enough to be slaughtered?

Please try and understand globalization before you post next time.

Heck, not even globalization just trade.

The food supply all around the world is connected in the globalized world because of the enormous amount of trade. Ergo, when meat production slows down somewhere, everyone gets less food.

Also I would like to see where you got that 5% stat from.

philosopher wrote:That statement did not make any sense whatsoever. More and more people are switching to vegetarian/vegan diets every day. About ten years ago only 1% of the United States population was vegetarian, and now around 5% are. When fewer people eat meat, there is less of a demand for it. This means that every single person who turns down meat is saving resources.

Also, where do you get the idea that people in poor countries rely on meat? It takes 16 pounds of grains to make one pound of beef. Do you think poverty stricken people can either grow that much grain, or wait around for several years until their few cows eat enough to be slaughtered?

i agree. this idea of people in poor countries relying upon meat is incorrect.

The idea that taking away meat as a possible source of food will not adversely affect poor people is also not true.

AdamD wrote:The idea that taking away meat as a possible source of food will not adversely affect poor people is also not true.

geeze. i hope you don't really believe at that idiotic propaganda and childish DUMBYist trollspeak that you are spewing here.

It's basic logic dragonfly, allow me to explain.


You have two sources of food: Food A and Food B
A=1
B=1

At the moment you can eat both ergo
Food = A+B
A + B = 2

BUT wait, someone took away food source B
A=1
B=0
Food = A=B
A+B= 1

Simple.

You need to learn physics because you clearly don't know the law of conservation of energy.

Perhaps you could add some substance to your post actually citing some scientific truth rather than asking me to learn "physics".

Of course it's simple, it's not like I'm going to spend a large portion of my time trying to enlighten such a small part of society.

This is the basic logic:
There are two types of food: A and B. You have some food A and you can convert it into food B. Energy conversion efficiency is 10%.

A = 2
B = 0
Food = A+B = 2

If you want to have some food B, you need to convert food A to food B.

A = 2-1 = 1
B = 1*10%/100% = 0.1
Food = A+B = 1.1

So if you feed the food to animals, bigger part of energy will be lost. That means people should stop breeding animals and feeding the food to them.

I see what you're saying, but what you are implying is that people feed animals solely foodstuffs suitable for human consumption.

When you get down to the practical side of things most of the time the food that farm animals eat is not suitable for human consumption i.e.: Grass.

If we fed sheep mushroom soup before we killed them for food you would be right, but we don't. At least not to the degree where it is hugely inefficient.

This is the practical side of things: where the grass grows, plants suitable for direct consumption could be grown and less area would be needed.

AdamD wrote:I see what you're saying, but what you are implying is that people feed animals solely foodstuffs suitable for human consumption.

When you get down to the practical side of things most of the time the food that farm animals eat is not suitable for human consumption i.e.: Grass.

If we fed sheep mushroom soup before we killed them for food you would be right, but we don't. At least not to the degree where it is hugely inefficient.

Except we don't feed farm animals grass anymore, nor are they really farm animals. In animal farming factories, they eat CORN.

Corn, that in its many forms is in almost everything we eat, that we use to drive our cars.

Ah, so you're arguing that because corn is, in some way or another, in almost everything we use it is wrong/wasteful to feed to animals?
A similar strain of thought goes a little something like this, please excuse its slight off topicness:
All of these products come from cattle
From the top!
Brain: Anti-aging cream, Medicines

Hooves/Horns: Adhesives, plastics, pet food, plant food, photo film, shampoo and conditioner, lamination, wallpaper, plywood

Blood: Posta, imitation eggs, cake mixes, dyes and inks, adhesives, minerals, medicines, lab research materials

Bones: Refined sugar, charcoal, fertilizer, glass

Internal organs: Instrumental strings, tennis racquet string, hormones, enzymes, vitamins and other medical materials

Milk: Adhesives, plastics, cosmetics, medicines

Hair: air filters, brushes, felt, insulation, plaster, textiles

Skin: Gelatin, flavorings, sheetrock, wallpaper, adhesives, medicines, candies and confectionary
Manure: fertilizer, nitrogen, phosphorous

Fat: Chewing gum, candles, detergents, fabric softener, deoderant, shaving cream, perfume, petfood, cosmetics, creams and lotions, crayons, paint, oils and lubraicants, biodiesel, plastics, waterproofing agents, cement, chalk, explosives, fireworks, matches, fertilizer, antifreeze, insulation, linoleum, rubber, textiles, medicines

All of these products come from cattle

Wrong. SOME products of all these types come from cattle.

And now look how lame that logic is: should we waste so many resources just because doing so is one (and the most wasteful) of the ways to get the products which you have listed?

CrystalMV wrote:

All of these products come from cattle

Wrong. SOME products of all these types come from cattle.

And now look how lame that logic is: should we waste so many resources just because doing so is one (and the most wasteful) of the ways to get the products which you have listed?

That's a bingo.

Sure, all those products are made from cows or various other animals. That's why you buy the vegan versions of those products. And where there aren't commercial vegan versions, most vegans make their own, or have vegan companies that do so.

OR you follow the mantra of "Do as little harm as possible." If its physically IMPOSSIBLE to get a vegan version (very rare as far as I know), then either don't use it, think of something creative (and we vegans are very creative) or use the product anyway. It exists and we can't stop that and we don't have options on using it we can't stop that either. That doesn't mean in the meantime we cannot figure out alternatives to it.

Your black/white view of the world is rather disconcerting AdamD.

Exactly my point, by creating an unambiguous definition of what a Vegan is based on their values, one can see that it is practically impossible to exist as one due to the immense amount of wastage/ impracticality. This doesn't mean that people can't try to be vegan, but to be a true vegan is bordering on the impossible.

The fact that you assume that I have a black/white view of the entire world based of several forum posts is disconcerting.

Yay I'm fitting right in!

AdamD wrote:Exactly my point, by creating an unambiguous definition of what a Vegan is based on their values, one can see that it is practically impossible to exist as one due to the immense amount of wastage/ impracticality. This doesn't mean that people can't try to be vegan, but to be a true vegan is bordering on the impossible.

The fact that you assume that I have a black/white view of the entire world based of several forum posts is disconcerting.

Yay I'm fitting right in!

A) No one has claimed to be the perfect True Vegan.
B) Why is trying such a condemnable act? Is that like saying, "Well, it's really hard to find cures for disease, so fuck it all, why bother. The people dying probably deserved it anyways. Goodness, nature IS cruel, isn't it?"
C) WHY do you give a shit? Why do you come here, and post on a forum semi-regularly where people are trying to help each other over a commonality, and interject with your random bullshit, just for the sake of being antagonizing? Does this make you feel better about yourself? Is this like intellectual masturbation for you? It's down right annoying for the rest of us, who find it difficult enough to find people with similar view points.
D) Your knowledge is seriously lacking, and is biased based on a depressing, shaded view of the world, and the truth of "nature" and what "naturalness" entails. Yea, part of the world are cruel. Does that mean we can make an effort ourselves? Should we start treating people like shit, too, just because others have done it in the past?

I don't care if this post gets me reported, or banned. I'm sick of your shit. Go pick on some other people.

A) Then why is this website (and the label many 'vegans' give themselves) not 'almost'-vegan? It may not roll of the tongue but it's the truth.

B) You're implying that being a Vegan is an inherently good thing like curing diseases is. It is not. Your comparison is wrong as is the message behind it. Also, while we're all making biased and largely inaccurate comparisons: Please read the below point.

C) You're right, why do I give a shit about something I don't support and make my opinion known about it? For the same reason that some people stood up to the Nazis in Germany, they felt it was wrong (even though the Nazis were just trying to 'help each other over a commonality).

D) Making a sweeping statement like "Your knowledge is lacking" reflects more on yourself than it does on me. As for my view on the world, it's called being a realist. People aren't going to stop eating animals because A: There isn't enough incentive. B: There industry is already set up. and C: They taste damn good. Go ahead and eat what you want, I'm just putting it out there that you'll always be a minority.

As for being sick of my "shit", I'm sorry that you are offended by my arguments but not once have I personally attacked any member of this forum or asked them to leave, I would ask that you extend to me the some courtesy .

AdamD wrote:A) Then why is this website (and the label many 'vegans' give themselves) not 'almost'-vegan? It may not roll of the tongue but it's the truth.

B) You're implying that being a Vegan is an inherently good thing like curing diseases is. It is not. Your comparison is wrong as is the message behind it. Also, while we're all making biased and largely inaccurate comparisons: Please read the below point.

C) You're right, why do I give a shit about something I don't support and make my opinion known about it? For the same reason that some people stood up to the Nazis in Germany, they felt it was wrong (even though the Nazis were just trying to 'help each other over a commonality).

D) Making a sweeping statement like "Your knowledge is lacking" reflects more on yourself than it does on me. As for my view on the world, it's called being a realist. People aren't going to stop eating animals because A: There isn't enough incentive. B: There industry is already set up. and C: They taste damn good. Go ahead and eat what you want, I'm just putting it out there that you'll always be a minority.

As for being sick of my "shit", I'm sorry that you are offended by my arguments but not once have I personally attacked any member of this forum or asked them to leave, I would ask that you extend to me the some courtesy .

Did you seriously just compare veganism to Nazis?

Just highlighting the silliness of making any comparison to Nazism or any directly related events... Like the holocaust.

So yes.