"Avowedly vegan"

(Mike) said:

Avowedly vegan Some people may view veganism — a term
coined in the 1940s in England — as an unnecessarily
extreme type of vegetarianism.

[...]

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else
does. What vegans try to avoid are products which provide
life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they
would have to avoid the following in order to be
successful:
_________________________________________________________
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, Floor
waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze

aif.orglvstock.htmOpen ↗
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-
performance greases, brake fluid

teachfree.comwow that cow.htmOpen ↗
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines,
Hemostats, sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss,
hairspray, inks, PVC

discover.comfeatcow.htmlOpen ↗
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial
Lubricants, Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents,
Herbicides, Syringes, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips,
Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive
Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling,
Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape,
Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High Grade
Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

sheepusa.orgproducts.shtmlOpen ↗
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do in
any other habitat. They also depend on it for their lives
like the animals in any other habitat. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in
the future. From the life and death of a thousand pound
grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during
his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable
meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of
servings of dairy products. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding
and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based
product is likely to involve more animal deaths than
hundreds of servings derived from grass raised cattle. Grass
raised cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths,
better wildlife habitat, and decent lives for cattle. ·

Quoted message said:

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their
use of wood and paper products, and roads and all types
of buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone
else does.

True to an extent, yes all human activity involve
"collateral damage", i.e. animal death. Even when you walk
down your yard to pluck some raspberries you must kill
thousands of insects. But that has nothing to do with what
veganism is about.

Quoted message said:

What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would
have to avoid the following in order to be successful:

No, we do not "have" to avoid, we just _should_ avoid where
we can when it is practical - being a vegan is not about
being some ideal god-man. I know many vegans who do avoid
many of the things you mention BTW, and would avoid more if
they could.

You are creating a false definition of veganism and then
attempting to discredit it on that basis.

Quoted message said:

From the life and death of a thousand pound grass
raised

8<

This is such a discredited claim, I am surprised you even
raise it. Just about any vegetarian book will tell you why
meat consumption eating isn't sustainable or environmentally
friendly, as will any ecologist. For example, if Asia where
to convert to eating cattle, much more jungle would have to
be cleared to provide the pasture for the cattle. Rice
paddies are not ideal, but they will support more people
than a similar amount of pasture with cattle. Many prairies
in the USA were once forests, cleared for wood to cook, and
now used to raise cattle. They would support more people and
more wildlife if turned over to agroforestry and
vegeculture.

John C

"John Coleman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:44ekc.838$7S2.455@newsfe1-win...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their
use of wood and paper products, and roads and all
types of buildings, and by their own diet just as
everyone else does.

True to an extent, yes all human activity involve
"collateral damage",

i.e.

Quoted message said:

animal death. Even when you walk down your yard to pluck
some raspberries you must kill thousands of insects. But
that has nothing to do with what veganism is about.

=======================
Nice strawman. Nobody here is talking about insects, except
you. But, if you would like to include them in the total
body count for your diet, be my guest. You'll overwhemingly
'win' the blood bath contest. Unless of course somehow you
consider bugs to be mineral or plant...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would
have to avoid the following in order to be successful:

No, we do not "have" to avoid, we just _should_ avoid
where we can when it is practical

======================
Yet you don't do that. You don't even try, killer. That's
the point.

- being a vegan is not about being some ideal god-man. I
know

Quoted message said:

many vegans who do avoid many of the things you mention
BTW, and would

avoid

Quoted message said:

more if they could.

You are creating a false definition of veganism and then
attempting to discredit it on that basis.

=================
Nope. I use the real definition as is was made-up by watson.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From the life and death of a thousand pound grass
raised

8<

This is such a discredited claim, I am surprised you even
raise it. Just about any vegetarian book will tell you why
meat consumption eating isn't sustainable or
environmentally friendly,

=======================
LOL Now those are reliable sources, I'm sure...</sarcasm>
Are you really that stupid? tell me how game meats are
environmentally worse than your mono-cultured crops? You
really are loony-toons.

as will any ecologist. For example,

Quoted message said:

if Asia where to convert to eating cattle, much more
jungle would have to

be

Quoted message said:

cleared to provide the pasture for the cattle. Rice
paddies are not ideal, but they will support more people
than a similar amount of pasture with cattle. Many
prairies in the USA were once forests,

======================
Read what you just wrote stupid. Are you really this
ignorant, or do you work at it? Prairies are not forested
areas. The great prairies were never forests. trees are
growing there now *because* people planted them. Some
homestead land was set aside just for planting trees. That
was only possible because the rest of the prairies were
turned under for croplands, causing an end to the natuarl
fires that swept through to keep the woody plants in check.
Now, if you want to talk about forest being cleared, then
you'd better look at crop lands. Forests and *prairies* were
cut down and torn up just to plant crops. Your crop lands
are the definition of an ecological disaster for an area.

cleared for wood to

Quoted message said:

cook, and now used to raise cattle. They would support
more people and

more

Quoted message said:

wildlife if turned over to agroforestry and vegeculture.

=================
Nope, our forest were cleared for your homes and crop
lands. Your brainwashing is really a site to see. Maybe you
should read some sites that aren't just veg*n propaganda
for a change.

Quoted message said:

John C

John Coleman said:

Quoted message said:

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their
use of wood and paper products, and roads and all types
of buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone
else does.

True to an extent, yes all human activity involve
"collateral damage", i.e. animal death. Even when you walk
down your yard to pluck some raspberries you must kill
thousands of insects. But that has nothing to do with what
veganism is about.

Quoted message said:

What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would
have to avoid the following in order to be successful:

No, we do not "have" to avoid,

You would have to in order to be successful. You're not
successful.

Quoted message said:

we just _should_ avoid where we can when it is practical -
being a vegan is not about being some ideal god-man. I know
many vegans who do avoid many of the things you mention
BTW, and would avoid more if they could.

You are creating a false definition of veganism and then
attempting to discredit it on that basis.

I'm pointing out facts you don't like.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From the life and death of a thousand pound grass
raised

8<

This is such a discredited claim, I am surprised you even
raise it.

It's another fact you don't like.

Quoted message said:

Just about any vegetarian book will tell you why meat
consumption eating isn't sustainable or environmentally
friendly,

Of course, because they don't care about human influence
on animals--like yourself--they only care about
promoting veg*nism. There's another fact you don't like.
But you SHOULD be proud of it, and proudly proclaim that
you will support veg*nism even in cases when it involves
more animal deaths than eating meat. And also that you
will oppose contributing to life for farm animals, even
when it provides them with decent lives.

Quoted message said:

as will any ecologist.

_________________________________________________________
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and
fertilizers, and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990,
an average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion
on Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per
acre was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-
prone land to pasture is a good way to minimize this loss
since perennial pastures have an average soil loss of only
0.8 tons per acre. It also helps in complying with the
nationwide "T by 2000" legislation whose goal is that
erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable limits
("T"😉 by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will
preserve the most fertile soil with higher water holding
capacity for future crop production. It will also protect
our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and
surface waters can cause human, livestock, and wildlife
health problems. Pasturing has several water quality
advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and pesticides
which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy
fish and wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with
nitrogen and phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic
plant growth (leading to low oxygen levels in the water
which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers,
bobolinks, and meadowlarks, have experienced significant
population declines within the past 50 years. Natural
inhabitants of the prairie, these birds thrived in the
extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops
and frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being
disturbed and their populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse
this decline because the rested paddocks can provide
undisturbed nesting habitat. (However, converting existing
under-grazed pasture into an intensive rotational system
where forage is used more efficiently may be detrimental to
wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat.
Game birds, such as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also
benefit from pastures, as do bluebirds whose favorite
nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife benefits of
rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances
where cropland is converted to pasture since grassland,
despite being grazed, provides greater nesting opportunity
than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often
short lived in the environment, some insecticides are toxic
to birds and mammals (including humans). Not only do they
kill the target pest but many kill a wide range of insects,
including predatory insects that could help prevent future
pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill
aquatic invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water
fowl.) Herbicides can also be toxic to animals and may
stunt or kill non-target vegetation which may serve as
wildlife habitat.

forages.css.orst.eduSysOpen ↗
tems/Techniques/MIG/Why.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Quoted message said:

Nice strawman. Nobody here is talking about insects,
except you. But, if you would like to include them in the
total body count for your diet, be

my

Insects do count as vegans do not use honey because of
exploitation of the bees, but note that collateral damage by
_normal human activity_ does not prevent one from being
vegan and thus trying to eliminate needless killing.

Quoted message said:

Yet you don't do that. You don't even try, killer. That's
the point.

Not eating meat is an example. You can opt in or out of
that. If you avoid meat you avoid a lot of death,
exploitation and suffering. It absolutely is not necessary
for all vegans to go back to being wild living humans to be
vegan. Some are choosing this path, others prefer to remain
within the Meatrix and try and do what they can to push it
in a new direction.

Quoted message said:

Nope. I use the real definition as is was made-up by
watson.

You have arrived at your own highly idealistic definition of
veganism that no one else regcognises. Veganism says nothing
about avoiding industrial capitalism, that is an option one
can logically add though, but some do not.

Quoted message said:

LOL Now those are reliable sources, I'm sure...</sarcasm>
Are you really that stupid? tell me how game meats are
environmentally worse than your mono-cultured crops? You
really are loony-toons.

It makes no difference how or where the meat is raised, it
will still not feed as many people as an equivalent area of
land turned over to plant food production. In the UK, before
agriculture, the hunter gatherers required 200km square to
support only 30 humans. Sadly if we reverted to that system
we would need to exterminate millions of humans - maybe they
could eat each other? But seriously, no one is going to opt
for that solution, but that is exactly what you are implying
in your irrational meatarian agenda.

I see as with "usual suspect" and Rick Etter, you have no
more credibility than you do civility.

John C

foodrevolution.orggrassfedbeef.htmOpen ↗

"John Coleman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nice strawman. Nobody here is talking about insects,
except you. But,

if

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you would like to include them in the total body count
for your diet, be

my

Insects do count as vegans do not use honey because of
exploitation of the bees, but note that collateral damage
by _normal human activity_ does not prevent one from being
vegan and thus trying to eliminate needless

killing.
========================
there is no 'need' to consume mono-cultured crops. yet
vegans depend on them, and then claim that meat eaters are
'murderers'.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yet you don't do that. You don't even try, killer.
That's the point.

Not eating meat is an example. You can opt in or out of
that. If you avoid meat you avoid a lot of death,
exploitation and suffering.

=======================
And replace it with even more "death, exploitation and
suffering." Why is it ok to kill 10, 100, 1000 other animals
and leave them to rot just to keep from killing one cow and
eating it?

It absolutely is

Quoted message said:

not necessary for all vegans to go back to being wild
living humans to be vegan. Some are choosing this path,
others prefer to remain within the Meatrix and try and do
what they can to push it in a new direction.

====================
LOL You guys are so good at made up words, aren't you?
The point is that vegans don't even pick and choose among
the foods they do eat which ones cause more/less death
and suffering. They automatically assume that not eating
meat means they are automatically 'doing better'. It's a
false premise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nope. I use the real definition as is was made-up by
watson.

You have arrived at your own highly idealistic definition
of veganism that no one else regcognises.

==================
No, I'm using the one that is the real definition. that
vegans today have had to twist it to fit their wanton
disregard for their killing says more about your supposed
ethics than anything else.

Veganism says nothing about avoiding industrial

Quoted message said:

capitalism, that is an option one can logically add
though, but some do

not.
==============
Then they are not vegan. Anyone here on usenet is not a real
vegan either.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LOL Now those are reliable sources, I'm
sure...</sarcasm> Are you

really

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that stupid? tell me how game meats are environmentally
worse than

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mono-cultured crops? You really are loony-toons.

It makes no difference how or where the meat is raised, it
will still not feed as many people as an equivalent area
of land turned over to plant

food

Quoted message said:

production.

========================
Strawman, stupid. There is no shortage of food. Besides,
you premise is false. There are lands that are not
siuitable for crop production, but will support animals.
Some lands will support crops if enough water and chemicals
are added, but how does that fit your vegan definition,
fool? You really haven't thought this out much beyond your
brainwashing, hae you?

In the UK, before agriculture, the hunter gatherers
required

Quoted message said:

200km square to support only 30 humans. Sadly if we
reverted to that

system

Quoted message said:

we would need to exterminate millions of humans - maybe
they could eat

each

Quoted message said:

other? But seriously, no one is going to opt for that
solution, but that

is

Quoted message said:

exactly what you are implying in your irrational
meatarian agenda.

===============
Again, we are not talking about what 'everyone' needs to do.
Just the very tiny subset of loons that make the claim* that
they care, yet all they do is focus on what they think
others are doing, and ignore their own bloody footprints.

Quoted message said:

I see as with "usual suspect" and Rick Etter, you have no
more credibility than you do civility.

======================
ROTFLMAO And you have no more brains than Ron, the brain-
banned loon..

Where's your credibility fool? You haven't posted anything
to back up some of your stupid remarks.

Quoted message said:

John C

_________________________________________________________
More than 40 bird species breed in Wisconsin's hayfields,
prairies and pastures. From 1960 to 1990, populations of
birds such as meadowlarks, savannah sparrows, upland
sandpipers and bobolinks experienced the steepest decline of
any group of birds in North America. Some of the decline in
the Midwest can be traced to farmers who converted
grasslands to corn and soybean fields. But the recent
widespread adoption of rotational grazing in America's
Dairyland is giving Wisconsin grassland birds a second
chance. With rotational grazing, pastures are divided into
paddocks and graziers let cows graze one paddock at a time
for two days or less before moving them to a fresh paddock.
A team of agronomists and wildlife biologists with the UW-
Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
has evaluated techniques that can favor grassland birds on
these pastures. The researchers have identified bird-
friendly practices that graziers can implement at little or
no expense. The scientists found, for example, that moving
cows from paddock to paddock frequently, leaving more grass
after grazing a paddock or protecting a couple of paddocks
during the birds' nesting season all increase the nesting
success of grassland birds on these pastures.

newswise.comEARTHDY2.UWI.htmlOpen ↗
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Quoted message said:

there is no 'need' to consume mono-cultured crops.

There is no "need", but it is a practical reality for most
people, vegan or not.

Quoted message said:

yet vegans depend on them, and then claim that meat
eaters are 'murderers'.

As I said any human activity kills animals, however
collateral damage like that is not "murder", there was no
intent to kill. There is, if you eat meat, unless you
scavenge it when dead.

Quoted message said:

And replace it with even more "death, exploitation and
suffering." Why is it ok to kill 10, 100, 1000 other
animals and leave them to rot just to

keep

Quoted message said:

from killing one cow and eating it?

I don't think it is okay to kill 100s of animals for
monculture at all. I would prefer a tree based culture
utilising fruit and nut trees. These could be created in
almost all parts of the globe and have high output and
provide homes for many creatures.

Quoted message said:

LOL You guys are so good at made up words, aren't you? The
point is

that

Quoted message said:

vegans don't even pick and choose among the foods they do
eat which ones cause more/less death and suffering.

This is rubbish, I know many compassionate vegans who are
very careful to eat organic produce, and grow as much as
they can themselves or even just live off the land. Many are
stuck in industrial capitalism, but in any __comparable
situation__, they will typically reduce suffering and waste
by opting to eat plant foods instead of animal.

Quoted message said:

They automatically assume that not eating meat means they
are automatically 'doing better'. It's a false premise.

It is perfectly correct. Westernised Vegans living in a city
will not be causing less death than say a wild living
"Aboriginal", or even an ordinary farmer who keeps a few
hens for eggs and grows his own vegetables, but compared to
someone similar to them who eats sausages and so forth, they
have less environemtnal impact and cause less death. And
that IS the point.

Quoted message said:

No, I'm using the one that is the real definition. that
vegans today have

I accept the terminology of the current Vegan Society. What
is your definition and its source?

Quoted message said:

Then they are not vegan. Anyone here on usenet is not a
real vegan

either.

I do not know all the members beliefs.

Quoted message said:

Strawman, stupid. There is no shortage of food.

There would be if meat eating increased as you suggest.

Quoted message said:

false. There are lands that are not siuitable for crop
production, but

will

Quoted message said:

support animals.

These lands can be planted with trees and then reclaimed
progessively.

Quoted message said:

how does that fit your vegan definition, fool? You really
haven't thought this out much beyond your brainwashing,
hae you?

Actually I have, you presume far too much, I educated
myself, there was no brainwashing involved. I grew up
with a meat and dairy eating family, and disliked it even
as a child.

Quoted message said:

focus on what they think others are doing, and ignore
their own bloody footprints.

One does not have to be a perfect god man before one can ask
others to be more caring. I do not call meat eaters muderers
and make protests against them as I don't think that
pursuades people. Rather I prefer to educate. The Vegan
message is aimed largely at the Westerner who consumes so
much animal products it is absurd.

Quoted message said:

Where's your credibility fool? You haven't posted anything
to back up

some

Quoted message said:

of your stupid remarks.

"Global meat consumption is increasing dramatically"

By Colin Tudge

The New Scientist

Vol.# 181, Issue #2438

March 13, 2004; Page 19

Meat is wonderful. Human beings are good omnivores and we
have always been hunters as well as gatherers. Farming is
always more efficient with a few animals on board: ruminants
like cattle and sheep to eat the grass that grows where
staple crops will not, and pigs and poultry to sweep up the
leftovers. In Africa 80 per cent of farmers keep chickens
for just this purpose. In the extreme north and in deserts
meat can be the prime source of calories. For the world as a
whole meat and milk are the guarantors of quality protein,
and a key source of essential structural fats, vitamins, and
minerals including calcium and zinc.

But you can have too much of a good thing. And as a new
report for the campaigning group Compassion in World Farming
will point out next week, we produce and eat so much meat it
is literally killing us and our environment. The world's
output of meat increased fivefold in the second half of the
20th century. We now have 22 billion farm animals, including
15 billion chickens and 1.3 billion cattle. And the industry
is girding its loins for a 50 per cent increase in the next
two decades. By 2050, the world's livestock population will,
on present trends, have grown to the point where the plant
food it consumes could feed an extra 4 billion people, if it
wasn't hived off for meat production.

The environment is already suffering and will suffer further
if the extra beasts continue to be raised intensively in
"factories". Million-head "pig cities" already exist in the
US and are now planned for Poland when it becomes part of
the expanded European Union. Collectively, the world's
livestock produce 10 per cent of all the greenhouse gases,
including 25 per cent of the methane, among the most potent
of all. Then there is water, which is rapidly becoming the
greatest check on overall food productivity. It takes 500
litres to raise a kilo of potatoes; 900 for a kilo of wheat;
nearly 2000 for rice or soya; 3500 for a kilo of chicken;
and a staggering 100,000 litres for a kilo of beef.

Our health is suffering too. According to the US Worldwatch
Institute, 1.1 billion people worldwide are underweight, and
another 1.1 billion too fat. In the US, 23 per cent of
adults are obese, but obesity besets poor countries too,
from Brazil to China. Meat and milk are not the sole cause
but increased fat intake is a prime suspect and most of it,
in the developed world at least, comes from livestock.

With fat come "diseases of affluence". In the UK, 165,000
people a year die from heart disease - which, so one report
suggests, would go down by 40,000 if everyone were
vegetarian. Worldwide, 150 million are now diagnosed with
adult-onset (type 2) diabetes. The World Health Organization
says this will double by 2025. The world's diabetics will
exceed the total population of the US today.

Why is this happening? Why do governments and many
scientific experts encourage the big corporations that
increasingly control the world's food, to spoil our lives
and ruin the planet? There are two prime answers, both of
which boil down to cash.

First, "economic growth" as measured by increase in gross
domestic product is the standard index both of government
success and human well-being. But GDP is deceptive. For
example, heart disease cost the US an estimated $180 billion
in 2001, but the money apparently squandered appears as a
gain - for it adds to the rising star that is the health
industry. Both livestock and medicine are big business, both
flourishing, so both, on paper, seem good for the economy.

Then there's the general problem that besets all farming:
we can only eat so much. Humans need about 1500
kilocalories per day to stay fit. Eat more than twice that
and most of us become obese. Providing enough for everybody
is actually not too difficult - if people stick to
traditional, plant-rich diets.

Meat offers the food industry a way to raise the ceiling on
global consumption of farming output. Simply feed the staple
foods to livestock and sell the meat: roughly 2 kilograms of
feed for each kilogram of chicken, 4 for pork, and 7 or more
for beef. Then the bar can be raised again by throwing most
of the carcass away and selling only the steaks and cutlets
(when did you last try buying tripe at the supermarket?).
This game has a long way to go yet, especially as people in
developing countries presently eat only about a third as
much meat as westerners eat, and most of the increase is in
developing countries.

The myth is that output is raised in response to public
"demand". In truth, meat has been sold and sold again, to
maximise farm output. Corporations seek to maximise profit;
governments see those corporations as the sine qua non; and
scientists cannot or will not see what a cynical commercial
game they have been sucked into. The fundamental question is
why we, humanity, allow the world to be run by people who
have long since lost the plot.

Colin Tudge's latest book, So Shall We Reap, on world food
production, is published by Penguin. The Global Benefits of
Eating Less Meat will be published by Compassion in World
Farming on 15 March.

"John Coleman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there is no 'need' to consume mono-cultured crops.

There is no "need", but it is a practical reality for most
people, vegan

or

Quoted message said:

not.

=====================
The discussion is not about 'most' people. That's a usual
vegan strawman. Turn the discussion to something like, "but
everybody in the world can't live X way". The point is not
about anybody but the vegan making the claim that they care
enough to 'save' animals. But then, all they end up doing to
'save' animals is to follow their simple rule for their
simple mind, 'eat no meat.'

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

yet vegans depend on them, and then claim that meat
eaters are 'murderers'.

As I said any human activity kills animals, however
collateral damage like that is not "murder", there was no
intent to kill. There is, if you eat meat, unless you
scavenge it when dead.

====================
It's still not 'murder', fool. The typical vegan tool,
emotive language. Use it to substitute for a valid
argument, right?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And replace it with even more "death, exploitation and
suffering." Why

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it ok to kill 10, 100, 1000 other animals and leave them
to rot just to

keep

Quoted message said:

from killing one cow and eating it?

I don't think it is okay to kill 100s of animals for
monculture at all.

================
Yet you participate in it, knowing the death and suffering
it entails. All I've done is make a suggestion on how you
can still live your consumer lifestyle, and reduce your
impact on animals and the environment with little change.

I

Quoted message said:

would prefer a tree based culture utilising fruit and nut
trees. These

could

Quoted message said:

be created in almost all parts of the globe and have high
output and

provide

Quoted message said:

homes for many creatures.

Quoted message said:

LOL You guys are so good at made up words, aren't you?
The point is

that

Quoted message said:

vegans don't even pick and choose among the foods they
do eat which ones cause more/less death and suffering.

This is rubbish, I know many compassionate vegans who are
very careful to eat organic produce,

=====================
Another vegan strawman. Organic does not equal cruelty-free.
Large organic operations are still mechanized farming,
depending on the petro-chemical industry. Organic pesticides
in some cases are just as toxic as synthetics.

and grow as much as they can themselves or even just

Quoted message said:

live off the land. Many are stuck in industrial
capitalism, but in any __comparable situation__, they will
typically reduce suffering and waste

by

Quoted message said:

opting to eat plant foods instead of animal.

==================
But you can't automatically make that case.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They automatically assume that not eating meat means
they are automatically 'doing better'. It's a false
premise.

It is perfectly correct. Westernised Vegans living in a
city will not be causing less death than say a wild living
"Aboriginal", or even an

ordinary

Quoted message said:

farmer who keeps a few hens for eggs and grows his own
vegetables, but compared to someone similar to them who
eats sausages and so forth, they have less environemtnal
impact and cause less death.

=====================
Another vegan claim that you cannot support. You cannot
prove that that vegan diet causes less death and suffering
than any meat-included diet.

And that IS the point.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, I'm using the one that is the real definition. that
vegans today

have

Quoted message said:

I accept the terminology of the current Vegan Society.
What is your definition and its source?

====================
I use the one form the guy who made up the word to begin
with, watson.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then they are not vegan. Anyone here on usenet is not a
real vegan

either.

I do not know all the members beliefs.

===============
Don't need to. As long as they are on usenet, they are
not vegan.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Strawman, stupid. There is no shortage of food.

There would be if meat eating increased as you suggest.

==================
Where did I suggest an increase in meat eating on that
scale? I didn't, and you know it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

false. There are lands that are not siuitable for crop
production, but

will

Quoted message said:

support animals.

These lands can be planted with trees and then reclaimed
progessively.

==================
Why? Many of these lands are in their natural state. Why
would you want to force crop production upon them,
destroying even more land than it already has?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

how does that fit your vegan definition, fool? You
really haven't

thought

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this out much beyond your brainwashing, hae you?

Actually I have, you presume far too much, I educated
myself, there was no brainwashing involved. I grew up
with a meat and dairy eating family, and disliked it even
as a child.

Quoted message said:

focus on what they think others are doing, and ignore
their own bloody footprints.

One does not have to be a perfect god man before one can
ask others to be more caring. I do not call meat eaters
muderers and make protests against them as I don't think
that pursuades people. Rather I prefer to educate.

The

Quoted message said:

Vegan message is aimed largely at the Westerner who
consumes so much

animal

Quoted message said:

products it is absurd.

=================
You do realize that this typical western diet you vegans
rant about still includes 3 times more veggies than meat,
don't you? Besides, you too 'consume' animals. In massive
numbers. You don't have to eat them to 'consume' them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Where's your credibility fool? You haven't posted
anything to back up

some

Quoted message said:

of your stupid remarks.

"Global meat consumption is increasing dramatically"

By Colin Tudge

The New Scientist

Vol.# 181, Issue #2438

March 13, 2004; Page 19

Meat is wonderful. Human beings are good omnivores and we
have always been hunters as well as gatherers. Farming is
always more efficient with a few animals on board:
ruminants like cattle and sheep to eat the grass that
grows where staple crops will not, and pigs and poultry to
sweep up the leftovers. In Africa 80 per cent of farmers
keep chickens for just this purpose. In the extreme north
and in deserts meat can be the prime source

of

Quoted message said:

calories. For the world as a whole meat and milk are the
guarantors of quality protein, and a key source of
essential structural fats, vitamins, and minerals
including calcium and zinc.

But you can have too much of a good thing. And as a new
report for the campaigning group Compassion in World
Farming will point out next week, we produce and eat so
much meat it is literally killing us and our

environment.

Quoted message said:

The world's output of meat increased fivefold in the
second half of the

20th

Quoted message said:

century. We now have 22 billion farm animals, including
15 billion

chickens

Quoted message said:

and 1.3 billion cattle. And the industry is girding its
loins for a 50 per cent increase in the next two decades.
By 2050, the world's livestock population will, on present
trends, have grown to the point where the

plant

Quoted message said:

food it consumes could feed an extra 4 billion people, if
it wasn't hived off for meat production.

The environment is already suffering and will suffer
further if the extra beasts continue to be raised
intensively in "factories". Million-head "pig cities"
already exist in the US and are now planned for Poland
when it becomes part of the expanded European Union.
Collectively, the world's livestock produce 10 per cent of
all the greenhouse gases, including 25

per

Quoted message said:

cent of the methane, among the most potent of all. Then
there is water, which is rapidly becoming the greatest
check on overall food productivity. It takes 500 litres to
raise a kilo of potatoes; 900 for a kilo of wheat; nearly
2000 for rice or soya; 3500 for a kilo of chicken; and a
staggering 100,000 litres for a kilo of beef.

Our health is suffering too. According to the US
Worldwatch Institute, 1.1 billion people worldwide are
underweight, and another 1.1 billion too fat. In the US,
23 per cent of adults are obese, but obesity besets poor
countries too, from Brazil to China. Meat and milk are not
the sole cause but increased fat intake is a prime suspect
and most of it, in the

developed

Quoted message said:

world at least, comes from livestock.

With fat come "diseases of affluence". In the UK, 165,000
people a year

die

Quoted message said:

from heart disease - which, so one report suggests, would
go down by

40,000

Quoted message said:

if everyone were vegetarian. Worldwide, 150 million are
now diagnosed with adult-onset (type 2) diabetes. The
World Health Organization says this

will

Quoted message said:

double by 2025. The world's diabetics will exceed the
total population of the US today.

Why is this happening? Why do governments and many
scientific experts encourage the big corporations that
increasingly control the world's food, to spoil our lives
and ruin the planet? There are two prime answers, both

of

Quoted message said:

which boil down to cash.

First, "economic growth" as measured by increase in gross
domestic product is the standard index both of government
success and human well-being. But GDP is deceptive. For
example, heart disease cost the US an estimated $180
billion in 2001, but the money apparently squandered
appears as a gain -

for

Quoted message said:

it adds to the rising star that is the health industry.
Both livestock and medicine are big business, both
flourishing, so both, on paper, seem good for the economy.

Then there's the general problem that besets all farming:
we can only eat

so

Quoted message said:

much. Humans need about 1500 kilocalories per day to stay
fit. Eat more

than

Quoted message said:

twice that and most of us become obese. Providing enough
for everybody is actually not too difficult - if people
stick to traditional, plant-rich diets.

Meat offers the food industry a way to raise the ceiling
on global consumption of farming output. Simply feed the
staple foods to livestock

and

Quoted message said:

sell the meat: roughly 2 kilograms of feed for each
kilogram of chicken, 4 for pork, and 7 or more for beef.
Then the bar can be raised again by throwing most of the
carcass away and selling only the steaks and cutlets (when
did you last try buying tripe at the supermarket?). This
game has a long way to go yet, especially as people in
developing countries presently eat only about a third as
much meat as westerners eat, and most of the increase is
in developing countries.

The myth is that output is raised in response to public
"demand". In

truth,

Quoted message said:

meat has been sold and sold again, to maximise farm
output. Corporations seek to maximise profit; governments
see those corporations as the sine

qua

Quoted message said:

non; and scientists cannot or will not see what a cynical
commercial game they have been sucked into. The
fundamental question is why we, humanity, allow the world
to be run by people who have long since lost the plot.

Colin Tudge's latest book, So Shall We Reap, on world food
production, is published by Penguin. The Global Benefits
of Eating Less Meat will be published by Compassion in
World Farming on 15 March.

It's a retarded discussion, again. Face it, just living is
causing death and destruction. Some think that they can
rationalize it by pointing out that they are saving lives
because there's no dead bodies on the dinner plate, but not
one of us can truthfully say we haven't caused any deaths.
So why not just put down the banner and eat how you want and
share recipes?

Quoted message said:

It's a retarded discussion, again. Face it, just living is
causing death and destruction. Some think that they can
rationalize it by pointing out that they are saving lives
because there's no dead bodies on the dinner plate, but
not one of us can truthfully say we haven't caused any
deaths. So why not just put down the banner and eat how
you want and share

recipes?

Because although not "ideal", there really are more
environmentally and less cruel and exploitative way of
eating.

John C

"John Coleman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:iwnlc.2$XC3.0@newsfe6-win...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's a retarded discussion, again. Face it, just living
is causing

death

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and destruction. Some think that they can rationalize it
by pointing

out

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that they are saving lives because there's no dead
bodies on the dinner plate, but not one of us can
truthfully say we haven't caused any

deaths.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So why not just put down the banner and eat how you want
and share

recipes?

Because although not "ideal", there really are more
environmentally and

less

Quoted message said:

cruel and exploitative way of eating.
=============================

Yes, there are, but vegan isn't automatically one of them.
Too bad for you, eh?

Quoted message said:

John C