Practical Alternatives to Factory Farming

[thalestral]

Veganism is not considered a luxury by the many, many people in South India, it is simply the norm. Good job too given how much I love their recipes!

Also, veganism is not extreme, it is quite natural in fact

I would recommend reading some of the links posted throughout this thread as they go into the human population and arable land problems. Or at least I had no problems finding such information when I went searching for it a while back, but it's not a subject that I as an individual have as much knowledge in compared to other areas.

[Susan9608]

Hunger and poverty would have to be eliminated.

Yes, well, one step towards doing this would be to take all the grain used to feed the animals raised for food and fed them to people.

70% of the grain we grow is used to feed the animals that, in turn, feed people. And the most ironic thing is that these animals use most of the calories from that food just to stay alive, not to grow. So only a very small part of that food - the grain - is ever used to feed people.

What a colossal waste. Hunger and poverty indeed.

Not to mention the waste of land and water ....

If we could save the land and water wasted ... not to mention the money and the food ... we could probably afford to ship non-meat foods into climates that don't readily support the growing of non-animal flesh foods.

[steve_and_pigs]

I meant luxury in the sense that the choice is available. Some people eat what they eat because that is all that they have. I hoped that was expressed with my eat-your-neighbor comment. Do you think the lower castes in south India are vegans?

I agree that human cultures are very diverse. Some promote veganism. Some live on fish. What is extreme is certainly relative. Go to Vietnam and tell folks to give up their chickens and ducks. I'm sure they will consider it a moderate suggestion.

human population: is this referring to the fact that supplying meat to the growing human population is at the very least, unsustainable. I agree with that. I don't see how that related to veganism. I'm not going t destroy the planet because I keep a few bees in my backyard, a couple of chickens, or grow some worms. In this case it can be argued that applying veganism as the solution is extreme.

Does the arable land problems refer to lands destroyed by large scale livestock raising/feed growing, or does it refer to lands that do not support growing human edible foods?

I'll do some reading before making any more comments. Thanks for the pointers and suggestions.

[steve_and_pigs]

Yes. The arguments concerning the inefficiency/waste of growing meat are very compelling. I agree with them. It is not sustainable. We grow too much meat.

I need to do more research. I just don't see how this related to veganism.

If I have too much sugar in my diet, more than my body can handle, it doesn't mean that I can't eat any sugar ever. It just means that I need to eat an appropriate amount of sugar.

Analogy:
suger -> meat
me -> earth

I've gotten way off topic with this thread. I'll read the vegan forums, and maybe debate it there.

[Susan9608]

There is land that is not suitable to growing crops; that's true. The desert, certainly. Of course, the desert is really not a suitable environment for raising farm animals either, but I suppose that's beside the point.

and this argument isn't beside the point of vegetarianism - it's very germane to vegetarianism.

There is a finite amount of resources available on this earth. That's a fact. There is a finite amount of space, water, useable land, etc. etc. etc.

A great deal of our land are used to grow crops to feed livestock. Those crops could go to feed people and would stretch farther than the meat obtained from that livestock, thus stretching those resources, saving land, saving money, and providing more food, more water, etc. for more people. Instead, that land is wasted on crops for livestock animals.

And the US is not alone in laying waste to land for livestock animal use. Brazil and China are other countries who have bulldozed their precious land in order to satisfy the world's appetite for animal flesh. 7 football fields of land is bulldozed every single minute to make more room to grow more crops to feed more animals.

Doesn't that seem wasteful? Do you not see the logic towards vegetarianism there? If less people ate meat ... hence, were vegetarian ... the demand for meat would be less ... less livestock would be raised, less grain would be needed to feed the livestock, less land would be needed to grow grain crops to feed the livestock, and less resources would be used on the livestocks' behalf. Doesn't that make sense?

It takes 16 pounds of grain to create 1 pound of animal flesh. Suppose people need 1 pound of food to live. (Not accurate, but hypothetical to make the point.) The grain used to create the animal flesh could feed sixteen different people ... instead, it's used to feed 1 animal which in turn will feed 1 human being.

1.4 billion - BILLION - people could be fed with the amount of grain and soybeans used to feed the US cattle alone. Cattle. US cattle. Alone.

If that's not a cause for vegetarianism right there, then I don't know what is. Even if you can look past all the torture and abuse animals endure just to become food on your plate, how can you look past the sheer waste and destruction causes the whole world?

[steve_and_pigs]

Originally Posted by Susan9608

There is land that is not suitable to growing crops; that's true. The desert, certainly. Of course, the desert is really not a suitable environment for raising farm animals either, but I suppose that's beside the point.

Well, there are some lands that will only really grow plants that are edible by herbivores, but not humans. But I agree, it's a waste of time to focus on fringe cases when discussing the issue on a global context. If some extreme climate natives eat some animals, I don't think anybody cares. They are not going to kill the planet.

Originally Posted by Susan9608

and this argument isn't beside the point of vegetarianism - it's very germane to vegetarianism.

I agree. And I agree with the other statistical information that you provided. These are all great reasons to become a vegetarian. I just don't see how it relates to vegan. Vegan seems entirely based on the idea that it is unethical to use animals. While I think this is quite noble, I don't see it as having anything to do with global sustainability issues, except for that if you are vegan, you also happen to be vegetarian.

I get really confused by vegans. I guess the issue is that vegans are vegetarians+. So when they talk about their reasons, the vegetarian and vegan reasons all get mixed together, and it gets really confusing. It seems to me like most of the global-food-environment-sustainability issues are addressed by basic vegetarianism. Even mostly-vegetarian would do it.

From a save-the-planet (including saving humans) perspective, vegan seems like marginal additional benefit.

I do understand the value of being vegan for ethical reasons, or just out of sheer protest for the current state of affairs.

[Stephanae]

Originally Posted by stephenlawrence

Farm animals fade away. That's really an amazing vision. It's probably like 1000 years before it's time, but an interesting ideal.

I agree. Thanks to both of you, Susan and thalestral, for sharing your ideal. I'd love to hear from some animal welfare folks, too.

I was thinking it might be good to share my own vision of what I wish the world were like, and answer my second question, since I've been bombarding you guys with these questions, and it's probably not very fair. But then, after an exchange with Susan in another thread, I was thinking it would probably be better for me to just shut up and only talk about things we all agree about. So if you want me to share, let me know. Otherwise, I'll just follow the second (probably wiser) path.

[HowietheGreat]

I say post away as long as (and I believe you would) support it with logic and fact. Be prepared for people to disagree, but as long as you have a well thought out reason for your beliefs, and can accept that many will counter argue you, then I'm interested. Have you read any of Micahel's lectures yet? He has his own website and discusses everything from factory farming to circus animals.

[HowietheGreat]

Animal Bill of Rights
Deep and Shallow Vegetarianism and Animal Rights



Techno-Utopia or Peaceable Kingdom: Where Are We Going?
I found both of these very enlightening and I urge everyone to read. I think some very good discussions could come from it.

[HowietheGreat]

My response to global veganism is in direct line with Dr. Fox. One cannot say that everyone should be a vegan without first educating themselves on the biological, cultural, and economical factors that influnence various nations. It would be naive to do so without first understanding how that nation works and processes. Once more, what about a government (like Hati) where the government continues to supress it's people? I remember a former thread where VJ stated (sorry to bring your name into this VJ, I hope you do not mind) that while she would never eat a cavy (guinea pig) she could not tell a indigenious person of Peru who is impoverished to let his or her child starve when guinea pigs are available for food. Many of us come from wealthy nations where we have the CHOICE to choose what we eat. What about other cultures like Hati where there is no choice and meat is scarce, and fresh, edible vegatables or fruit even more rare? It is such a complicated topic. My goal has always been to advocate a decrease in animal suffering. I've said many times that it takes baby steps. Here is Michael W Fox, a fellow vegatarian and animal lover. I think he speaks with eloquence on this topic, though I think some will disagree with a few of his points. I also believe that his goal is to also eliminate suffering in a realistic and currently achievable way. As a side note, it was eye opening to me to have him speak on the topic of vegan pets. People personify their pets everyday and it was interesting to me to think that we may to it to the extent that we are hurting our dogs and cats. I'm still horrified that other animals suffer so that my dog can eat, and it is my hope that we create a better way. Soy dog food? Would there be enough protein? Just a random thought.

[steve_and_pigs]

Hey Howie.

Thanks for the pointers. I've read this essay, but I need to study it more. He seems to argue against the "any use of animals is unethical" dogma in various ways. Basically, he sums it up as counterproductive in making global progress on animal welfare and environmental sustainability issues.

Of course to some, "humane use of animals" is an oxymoron. He argues that this is a fundamentalist perspective, and that for choices to truly be ethical, they must consider the context (cultural, economical, environmental, etc).

It is interesting. You could use this reasoning to say that promoting veganism within certain cultures is ethically appropriate. For instance, if you were in a culture where there was no way to get most animal products without assurance that the animals where treated humanely, then ethically, you should be vegan (perhaps this is pseudo-vegan, I don't know).

[HowietheGreat]

Yes, his works are not a five minute read. I have read them several times and take away something new each time. I should have forwarned everyone. I believe he would say it is acurate if it correspondes with that cultures beliefs, economy and sustainabilty. He is a vegatarian. There is no reason beyond personal choice that Americans are continuing to eat meat. We are the wealthiest nation in the world. Given what Susan said about land and it's use to raise crops for human consumption as opposed to animal (livestock) feed, we could eliminate starvation in this country. Then again he also lectures that we should forgive and not judge others for still eating meat. Just because a person eats meat does not make them evil. Selfish in a country like ours? Maybe but everyone has to choose their level of advocacy.

[Jennicat]

Originally Posted by Susan9608

70% of the grain we grow is used to feed the animals that, in turn, feed people. And the most ironic thing is that these animals use most of the calories from that food just to stay alive, not to grow. So only a very small part of that food - the grain - is ever used to feed people.

Just a side point -- many of the grains fed to livestock are lower quality than what humans eat. They're not fit for human consumption under current standards, though they certainly are edible by a starving population.

For example, livestock corn (commonly called dent corn) is a far cry from what humans eat (popularly termed "sweet corn"). Livestock corn is much lower in sugar, much easier to grow, and requires a lot less nutrient input since it's storing less sugar in it's fruit. It can be ground into flour after excessive processing, though many parts (espeecially the excessively thick outer skin) is generally recycled into animal feed.

Just a sidenote.

[thalestral]

Originally Posted by stephenlawrence

I meant luxury in the sense that the choice is available. Some people eat what they eat because that is all that they have. I hoped that was expressed with my eat-your-neighbor comment. Do you think the lower castes in south India are vegans?

As far as I am aware they are yes.

As for vegans being the same as vegetarians, egg and dairy production is rife with death and suffering. Many are vegan for purely animal welfare reasons. Not to mention the many that started out vegan for their health.

You seem very anti-vegan

[Susan9608]

I'm not saying that we have to take the exact same grains we feed live stock and feed them to people ... I'm saying we could put the land currently used to raise feed for livestock to better use. That land could be used to raise food to feed people directly, instead of indirectly, by first feeding the cow or pig or whatever will feed.

Of course this is a very complex issue. There's lots to consider beyond just the ethics of raising other animals for slaughter or destroying the planet to do so. Of course you have to consider what is sustainable in other countries, particularly in 3rd world countries which lack many natural resources, economic stability, and the proper political climate to totally change the eating habits of their populations.

I just think the world would be much better served if we - the countries with so much wealth and abundance - turned our financial recourses away from creating more and more 99 cent Big Macs and towards the creation of a food supply that would feed more than just our own population. Then we could turn our considerable resources towards delivering that food supply where it needs to go.

In this day and age, where you can get around the globe in 24 hours (give or take) it seems like it should be a simple matter of shipping the food where it needs to be. Naturally, I realize that this is anything but simple, given the political nature of such a venture ... but in theory, the idea is right.

If I had to choose between the system we have now and global vegetarianism (vs. global veganism) naturally I'd choose the global vegetarianism, because some improvement is better than no improvement. But veganism, especially widespread, would ensure that no land is wasted raising animals for food because no animals would ever be used in food. And no water supplies would ever be damaged by tanneries, because no leather would be made.

I don't understand how you see the vegetarianism helps protect the environment and promotes better food supplies, but veganism doesn't?

[steve_and_pigs]

Anti-vegan? I though I listed things about vegan that I find I see as admirable. Perhaps most of that was on the other thread.

I'm just continually confused by some of the vegan reasoning because of the reference to things that may be satisfied by basic vegetarian, or examples that are not necessarily vegan.

If I choose to not eat eggs because of battery cages, I am not vegan. To be vegan, I am committed to not eat the eggs even if the hens are treated with up-most care. Any use of the animal will involve harming it in some way, so as a vegan I would opt to eat something else.

I'm also not sure that removing yourself from the market is the best way to promote change. If I want the egg industry to improve, and I have the option of buying a more humane egg, I think I should buy it. Why would the industry switch to a more humane egg if the consumers complaining are not going to buy eggs anyway.

Perhaps I'm confused about what vegan is.

[steve_and_pigs]

Originally Posted by Susan9608

But veganism, especially widespread, would ensure that no land is wasted raising animals for food because no animals would ever be used in food. And no water supplies would ever be damaged by tanneries, because no leather would be made.

We could still farm various animals, (poultry, bees, worms) and reach very similar ends.

I've been thinking about this more. To some degree, vegan is a safe simple answer that does address many problems. It also helps in a world where the consequences of many choices are not obvious, and there is deliberate mis-information (like free-range eggs). While it can be argued that vegan is "overkill", when measuring it as an effective choice in addressing particular issues, I could see making an aggregate argument for vegan as a practical choice given the complexities involved, and the choices available.

Still, "vegan as a practical choice in a complex world" is different from "I envision and desire a future world of global veganism". Or maybe they are more similar than is obvious. I'd have to think about that more.

Originally Posted by Susan9608

I don't understand how you see the vegetarianism helps protect the environment and promotes better food supplies, but veganism doesn't?

I said that veganism does not offer a significant additional benefit over vegetarianism with regards to the global environment/food supply. To put it the other way, veganism offers similar benefits to vegetarianism in this regard. As a crude analogy, both a hand hammer and a sledge hammer will drive a nail through a board.

I agree with your other points.

[thalestral]

Dairy farms are hugely polluting as are intensive egg farms so I'm not sure how you can say that veganism doesn't achieve much over vegetarianism from that angle. Added to that the fact that the dairy and egg industries are rife with death, I'm not sure what is hard to understand about veganism.

The essence of veganism is to not exploit animals. That's it. Any other reasoning is personal to each individual who chooses to be vegan, from animal welfare concerns, environmentalism, humanitarian reasons, religion, health reasons to animal rights issues.

I do not believe humans have the right to use animals for their own ends, especially when it is not necessary.

If you are confused what "vegan" is I suggest you look at some of the sites posted, particularly the Vegan Society as this is after all a Vegetarian support board as opposed to a Vegan/AR discussion board. If you want to talk about this with a cross section of vegans it would be wise to seek out somewhere where there are more of them! Here most people are veg for animal welfare reasons or animal rights but in the case of the latter especially in my case it is not often something fun to talk about in what leisure time you might spend on a guinea pig forum! I prefer to stick to the AR boards of veg*n forums for that

[steve_and_pigs]

Originally Posted by thalestral

Dairy farms are hugely polluting as are intensive egg farms so I'm not sure how you can say that veganism doesn't achieve much over vegetarianism from that angle. Added to that the fact that the dairy and egg industries are rife with death, I'm not sure what is hard to understand about veganism.

If we all demanded better dairy farming, this would be fixed. If we all stopped consuming dairy, this would be fixed too. I agree that no dairy farming would pollute and harm animals less then responsible dairy farming. Thanks for that point.

Originally Posted by thalestral

The essence of veganism is to not exploit animals. That's it. Any other reasoning is personal to each individual who chooses to be vegan, from animal welfare concerns, environmentalism, humanitarian reasons, religion, health reasons to animal rights issues.

Thanks, and thanks for all your comments. I still have some questions about the basic need of animals for the sustainable cultivation of plants. I'll ask those somewhere else!

[Susan9608]

I said that veganism does not offer a significant additional benefit over vegetarianism with regards to the global environment/food supply.

Sorry - I misunderstood what you were saying.