Flilix said:
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
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
