Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True vegan produce will not use animal based fertilizers aka manure. That leaves primarily chemical fertilizers which are pound for pound far more destructive in their ecological footprint.
The problem is people are looking for simple answers aka vegan good animal bad for complex problems. Making good choices requires taking the time to dedicate to learning about where your food comes from.
I do not know any vegans that check to see how their produce is fertilized. You are completely missing the point of land and resource use in which I stated it is the LEAST impactful. Not perfect, but the best option. Taking the time to learn about where your food comes from includes not ignoring basic factual evidence because it proves doing something you like (eating meat) can be destructive.
Globally sourced Vegan diet is as damaging as cafo meat based diet and it just give mighty twisted ideas about life and humanity in general. Humans co evolved with meats, fire and cooking, there would be no humanity as we know it without meat eating. Low density meat raising is probably the least damaging agricultural practice much unlike agribiz growing vegan stuff around the world. Besides, it is my personal opinion, but veganism doesnt make pleasant people. Vegans are annoying in their edgy irritability disguised as shaky moral crusade, some are almost psychotic, which points at doubt. I bet vegans lack some crucial nutrients despite their best efforts, eating meat would greatly improve their demeanor.
Oh here we go. This is riddled with inaccuracies and generalizations. The claim that a vegan diet is as damaging as a meat based one is completely false. Anyone with a few minutes to do some research can figure that out.
However, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone that claims I may be psychotic and lack nutrients. If you would like to actually ask questions and debate without the name calling and generalizations I'm all for it. The people who are annoying and irritable are not usually vegans, but the people who prickle at the mere mention of the word and go off on rants about people they don't know.
For anyone actually interested in learning about the sustainability issue with certain farming practices here is a link to an article on the UN report back from 2010 which urged people to eat less meat and dairy, within the article is a link to the actual report which is over 100 pages long.
what do you mean by suicidal? do you mean like the only way to as green living as possible is to suicide?i guess it makes sense, we drive cars which hurt the environment, we step on ants, agriculture,etc
so basically living green is not something that you do full time so to speak, isnt it hypocritical if you live green but in other areas of your life you dont act as green as possible.
if everyone cared abut nature thatd be great but since only a few people live green the difference made is probably so small its not worth it? not worth living green, and if you want to be green i guess we should all die and leave the planet to animals to do as they please?
I don't f-ing care if you think I'm hypocritical or not. I'm not trying to make an impression on you sweetie.
So you're not interested in living green, but why come in here to troll those of us that find the idea interesting, worthwhile or enjoyable?
I feel the exact opposite. I think that farming has preserved large amounts of land worldwide, and provided habitat for many animals. Most managed rangeland in the U.S. is actually left untouched. No trees are cleared. The plains states, where most ranching activity is located, were large grass plains going back thousands of years. Placing a low barbwire fence on the property doesn't hinder the wildlife at all. Here in Montana, herds of elk, deer, wolves, cougars, all roam freely and get around the fences easy enough. The exception to this is Bison, who carry a large amount of disease and must be carefully managed. This is the reason that most in the state DO NOT want free range Bison to return. Many diseases Bison carry are transferrable to humans and pets.
In a perfect world, produce would be grown in warehouses that are cut off from the outside world, where perpetual water recycling is used. This is what will be needed in the future to feed the planet. The upfront costs are enormous, but there are companies working with this set up, notably one in Japan. A couple of sky scrapers could produce tons of produce locally within a city, and eliminate pesticides entirely. Electricity will have to be allot cheaper though for this to work. That is the only reason it isn't widespread, yet. The sun is free.
If you look at the history of farming, cattle were not chosen because they were the best animal. They were chosen because they were naturally docile, they can't jump so they are easy to keep in place, and they have a good meat to feed ratio. In the future, other animals can be used that don't require as much food, water, or space. Meat doesn't have to be bad for the environment. I actually prefer Rabbits, the chicken nugget of the animal world. Almost every predator on this planet eats rodents of some type, they evolved knowing that they would be eaten quickly, which is why they breed like crazy. They don't require any special nutrition, give them hay and water, they keep producing. They don't have the methane problem because they have very efficient digestion. Just my .2 cent.
Unfortunately your two cents and feelings on the subject are inaccurate. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of rainforest destruction and wildlife extinction and it does not "preserve" habitats, it destroys them completely. It'd be nice to believe your rosy view of the subject but that's not the reality.
Unfortunately your two cents and feelings on the subject are inaccurate. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of rainforest destruction and wildlife extinction and it does not "preserve" habitats, it destroys them completely. It'd be nice to believe your rosy view of the subject but that's not the reality.
Compared to what? Jungle soy bean fields deliver absolute destruction. We cannot assume that people would leave jungle alone in no beef world.
You do realize the vast majority of our crops, including soy, are grown to feed the cattle we consume right? The information is all over the place. This is a green living forum, eating meat is not a "green" activity, I'm sorry that's so hard to grasp. I posted a link above with the entire UN report which is just one of many reports out there you can take a look at for yourself.
You do realize the vast majority of our crops, including soy, are grown to feed the cattle we consume right? The information is all over the place. This is a green living forum, eating meat is not a "green" activity, I'm sorry that's so hard to grasp. I posted a link above with the entire UN report which is just one of many reports out there you can take a look at for yourself.
I do not see how NA veganism, relying on the global supply network and 3rd world monocropping, is more green than meat eating. Cattle consumes the least amount of grains. And if not meat then what? Just imagine meat eating is no more. Can 3rd world feed 330 millions of the North American vegans?
Last edited by RememberMee; 12-10-2016 at 10:17 AM..
I do not see how NA veganism, relying on the global supply network and 3rd world monocropping, is more green than meat eating. Cattle consumes the least amount of grains. And if not meat then what? Just imagine meat eating is no more. Can 3rd world feed 330 millions of the North American vegans?
I understand you "do not see" the reality of the situation, which is why I have suggested checking out the UN report and other resources. Vegans do not get all of their food from monocrops or far away sources, some *gasp* source locally. REGARDLESS of that point you keep harping on, animals we raise for food currently eat the majority of the crops we grow by FAR. We'd have much more food for people if we reduced meat consumption, one of the points stressed by the UN and other organizations, as our population is growing and we will need to make some decisions we may not want to in order to ensure there's enough food to go around. Also water use, land use, methane and carbon pollution, overfishing, etc. Try researching the subject. Really, just try it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
