Quantcast
Animal Liberation Now!!

Forums - Politics Discussion - Animal Liberation Now!!

I understand their sentiment from the ecological side, even if I believe their end goal is totally unrealistic. Then there's a part of this group (I don't know how big) that even tries to get other animals to go vegan, which is even more misguided. I'm all for reducing cardon footprint, I mostly try to stick to chicken or fish which have lesser impacts than beef/pork. But I'd be lying if I said I would ever go vegetarian.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Flilix said:

(...)

Not sure how accurate your source is...

But Brazil is among the biggest productor of both crop and cattle in the world. And here are our official statistics

http://g1.globo.com/mato-grosso-do-sul/noticia/2017/01/vegetacao-nativa-preservada-ocupa-61-da-area-do-brasil-diz-embrapa.html

61% of brazilian area is still original vegetation, breakdown:

11% of country area is preservation of native on rural properties

17% of country area is conservation area of native vegetation

13% of country area is native vegetation in Indian properties

20% of country area is area that isn't used at the moment

So we have 39% of area that isn't native vegetation, breakdown:

8% of country area for Crops and artificial forest (like pine for paper)

19,7% for cattle

11,3% cities, infrastructure, mining, etc.

So our agriculture have 11+19.7+8 = 38.7% of the country area with 1/3 mandatory original vegetation.

So nope, our farmers aren't destroying the environment.

This one https://www.embrapa.br/en/car/sintese have figures that would be easier for someone not brazilian to understand.

Basically shows that about 50% of the rural properties are used for production and the rest is preservation or original.

Cities otherwise are about 0% preservation of nature.

Source is "UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Statistics". Seems pretty trustworthy to me.

Anyways, I don't really see how your post contradicts this source, or how it has anything to do with what I said at all?



Ate a cheesbueger while I watched some guy break down Vegans telling their fans they're meat eaters again because they were getting deathly Ill, then YouTube rolled onto Vegan Cringe and crazy compilations. Man these people are either fucking nuts or the nuts are fucking them, in head.



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.

John2290 said:
A world where everyone is vegan is a world where world war 3 will happen killing many animals in more horrific ways and causing mass extinction and it's not anywhere close to achievable with the shear amount of extra plant based food we would need to grow annually. Fuck these guys, they are better off promoting the use of condoms so we have less mouths to feed. Idealist with only complaints but no plan past their whining.

Actually if most people where vegans a lot less resources would be used by humans.  It takes way more resources to raise meat versus fruits, grains and vegetables.



MrWayne said:
vivster said:

Any scientific proof that a vegan diet is healthier than a balanced diet with meat? I don't think so. I think it's not fair to conflate non vegan diets with bad diets. It's perfectly fine to have a healthy diet that includes meat, eggs and dairy. It's all about balance.

Also, what about plant rights? It seems vegans hate plants with a passion.

Well it depends which vegan you ask, some people are vegan because they don't want animals to suffer, they definitely hate plants more than animals. Other people are vegan because they think eating meat is a huge wast of resources which is true, to get 1 kg of meat, you need 100 times more farmland than for 1 kg of vegetables.

Jumpin said:

It would be a big positive if the world went vegan. Especially at our current population levels.

Food related emissions would drop by 70%.

We would reverse the health issues plaguing the world caused by the meteoric rise in meat and animal product consumption; similar to what's been happening with the decrease in smoking.

Below is an interesting graphic which details the use of land: basically, a very small amount of the world's calories is acquired from animal products, but nearly 80% of the world's food-based farm land is dedicated to it; that means the remaining little bit of farmland used to grow plants for human consumption provides by far the majority of our nutrients. Basically, we would only need to convert 7-9% of our land to plant based food, and we would be able to regain the 68-70% of the world's food producing farmland to be returned to natural habitats. We could reverse the drastic drop in wildlife (the amount of wildlife left in the world is less than 40% of what it was in the 1970s, less than 20% of what it was before the turn of the 20th century).

It makes logical sense from multiple different angles: environmental, ethical, and ecological. The most pressing is obviously the environmental disaster currently in progress. It is occurring slowly relative to our experience, but terrifyingly quickly on a geological scale (currently, about 1 cm every 2 years, which is up from about 1 cm every 9 years in 1900, and 1 cm every 6 years in 1989); the rising economic cost will, unfortunately, only be something that can't be ignored after tremendous and irreversible damage has already been done. If the world went vegan, we would be able to offset this catastrophe by a significant amount. Population growth is a major issue, but we can mitigate the impact (and even reverse some of the current impact) substantially with a global conversion to veganism.

Here's the graphic I promised:

Not sure if efficiency is the right angle to tackle this. Humans do a lot of things that are highly inefficient just for the sake of a slightly more comfortable or happier life. As long as it's sustainable there is nothing wrong with inefficiency. If we go purely by efficiency we'd all eat grey paste pumped with nutrients. Imagine how much energy we would save if we didn't have to ship and sell untouched vegetables instead of just scrambling everything and delivering it to the paste factory.

The things how they are now have evolved to suit the ever growing demands of humans for both quantity and quality. So far we're doing just fine. I don't believe in a coming world wide food crash, if our current consumption of meat becomes unviable it will become so slowly. Slowly enough that we will take the necessary steps to mitigate it. I'd have absolutely no problem with eating fake meat if they can make it authentic enough.

I believe the "problem" we're currently having is neither ecological, economical or ethical. It's a social problem about the perception of vegan values and the glorification of meat and, forgive me for using the term, toxic masculinity. These arbitrary and toxic values are driven by society and big corporations and that's the thing we have to tackle first. We shouldn't vilify meat and instead promote and normalize a vegan diet. Sadly the most militant vegans are doing the opposite and hurting their case. Thanks to them we're now at a point that's hurting both sides and is socially basically impossible to solve it.

Last edited by vivster - on 09 April 2019

If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
Flilix said:
DonFerrari said:

Not sure how accurate your source is...

But Brazil is among the biggest productor of both crop and cattle in the world. And here are our official statistics

http://g1.globo.com/mato-grosso-do-sul/noticia/2017/01/vegetacao-nativa-preservada-ocupa-61-da-area-do-brasil-diz-embrapa.html

61% of brazilian area is still original vegetation, breakdown:

11% of country area is preservation of native on rural properties

17% of country area is conservation area of native vegetation

13% of country area is native vegetation in Indian properties

20% of country area is area that isn't used at the moment

So we have 39% of area that isn't native vegetation, breakdown:

8% of country area for Crops and artificial forest (like pine for paper)

19,7% for cattle

11,3% cities, infrastructure, mining, etc.

So our agriculture have 11+19.7+8 = 38.7% of the country area with 1/3 mandatory original vegetation.

So nope, our farmers aren't destroying the environment.

This one https://www.embrapa.br/en/car/sintese have figures that would be easier for someone not brazilian to understand.

Basically shows that about 50% of the rural properties are used for production and the rest is preservation or original.

Cities otherwise are about 0% preservation of nature.

Source is "UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Statistics". Seems pretty trustworthy to me.

Anyways, I don't really see how your post contradicts this source, or how it has anything to do with what I said at all?

It contradicts the notion of cattle raising is destroying the environment.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363


DonFerrari said:
Flilix said:

Source is "UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Statistics". Seems pretty trustworthy to me.

Anyways, I don't really see how your post contradicts this source, or how it has anything to do with what I said at all?

It contradicts the notion of cattle raising is destroying the environment.

No it doesn't. Less cattle = less fields = more natural vegetation. It's not because they're not destroying everything, that they aren't destroying anything.



I feel pretty liberated and I'm an animal 🙂. I've never understood why some living beings are forbidden to be eaten according to vegans while it's perfectly fine to kill or eat other living beings as long as they are not made up of certain combinations of protein chains and fat. Seems kind of random to me.



Flilix said:
DonFerrari said:

It contradicts the notion of cattle raising is destroying the environment.

No it doesn't. Less cattle = less fields = more natural vegetation. It's not because they're not destroying everything, that they aren't destroying anything.

Not really. cattle can be raised together with natural vegetation and you can feed it with material that is on this natural vegetation usually with other wild animals in the area having a balance of life cycle. While crops need area dedicated to it, chemicals to keep it safe and are ridden with plagues.

Puppyroach said:
I feel pretty liberated and I'm an animal 🙂. I've never understood why some living beings are forbidden to be eaten according to vegans while it's perfectly fine to kill or eat other living beings as long as they are not made up of certain combinations of protein chains and fat. Seems kind of random to me.

Even more when these living beings eat one another.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363


0D0 said:
I'm against animal cruelty, but the idea of animal rights is too much.

Vegan is just anti-natural. Balanced is ok, vegan is just a sort of extremism to me.

Eating the flesh of farmed animals is anti-natural. It's also incredibly damaging to the natural world.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.