the older i get, i find things tend to get in my mind, and i cant get shut of them.
one of these things is, what will happen to all the animals bred for the food chain if we all stop eating meat ?
quite often on here and on fb and other places, people push the vegan thing, or the talk of farming animals adding to the climate problem. all understandable.
but if we stopped eating meat would it make a difference ?
all the animals would have to be released, as it is cruel to keep em locked up. would this make the vegan people happy ?
if we released them all, where would they all go ? would they just eat all vegetation causing a bigger problem to the climate ?
would they all breed freely once released, causing a even bigger problem for the environment ?
or would we just have to slaughter them all, causing immense grief to the vegan folk, and also wasting all the good food, and then also the problem of getting rid of all the bodies.
seriously what is the answer ?
You'd leave a small wild population, eat the rest then chuck it.
They'd stop breeding more of the animals used for meat production and they'd go extinct. Unlikely to be a hard stop with millions of animals let loose to scavenge out of urban bins.
In that scenario, we'd eat the ones currently alive and just not breed any more. There are wild cows, sheep, goats, pigs etc so we'd not want to release the domestic versions. I'd probably sneak a few of each away for a private smallholding providing clandestine meat for carnivorous needs. In fact there'd likely be an entire bootleg meat economy.
Not a very hard problem to solve. Just eat the ones we have, and don't breed any more.
It's not going to be banned overnight is it?
We could put them in a really boring zoo. Or have museums of farming to teach children what monsters we once were.
If they stopped breeding them for food at the rate they do, the population would plummet pretty quickly. I'm a life long meat eater though married to a vegetarian for 36 years. I am eating far less meat than I used to. I don't think there is intrinsically anything immoral about one animal eating another. I do however have an issue with the way a lot of meat is produced. Intensive farming and poor welfare in particular. There are good farming practices in this country and we are better than many, but there are still some awful practices too. Broiler chickens, intensive pig production and Frankenstein dairy cows with unnaturally huge udders having their unwanted male calves killed soon after birth. I'm not slagging farmers off, they are just meeting consumer demand. Not enough people bother to think about where their food comes from though.
I try to make sure the meat I eat is as ethically sourced as possible. Sometimes that means a local butcher I trust who can show provenance of where it comes from. Sometimes it means shooting and preparing my own. Sometimes a local farmer I know who keeps a handful of well looked after pigs kills one and sells us sausages and pork joints.
I absolutely get that those aren't options for everyone, especially people feeding their families on a low income. But if you buy (for example) cheap chicken in a supermarket, I think you have to be honest with yourself that there is considerable suffering involved with your purchasing choice.
Sorry Ton, went off on a tangent there, I know you weren't necessarily wanting a debate about the rights and wrongs of meat eating!
As demand reduces so will breeding, will take decades, not an overnight thing. There are wild sheep, cattle, pigs, poultry already, domesticated ones are just selectively bred to extremes for certain charactistics so the genomes won't be lost plus a few will get kept for wool, eggs and schizzle. Don't sweat it.
There is no scenario where every person who currently eats meat would stop on the same day. If it were to happen (it won't) it would take decades. The market would just get smaller and the numbers of animals bred for eating would dwindle according to market forces.
Also, I hate to break it to you but the animals you see in fields and sheds are not very old. Cows - less than 2 years old, pigs - 7 months, sheep - less than 6 months, chickens-50 odd days old. If the government passed a law saying all you animal eaters would have to go vegan as soon as the current stock ran out, you'd only have a few months of meat eating left before they had all gone. It's a very short term problem.
More interesting (possibly) is what would happen to all that land that's currently used exclusively for farm animals.
Build more house? Re-wild it? Or turn it over to plant based food production?
Some sheep farms in Australia, for instance, can be measured in the size of a small country but what else could the land be used for?
We could tarmac over it so people don't need to park on pavements.
Build more house? Re-wild it? Or turn it over to plant based food production?
Currently we need land for growing animal feed and land for grazing. Given that it's very inefficient to get calories from meat there would be loads of spare land.
More interesting (possibly) is what would happen to all that land that’s currently used exclusively for farm animals.
Globally way more land is used for growing feed for animals, than is used for animals to stand in.
Once you've grown more crops for humans to eat to replace the calories currently consumed in meat, you'd have oodles of land to rewild, plant up to reduce greenhouse impact - all the good stuff.
would this make the vegan people happy ?
Seems unlikely.
all the animals would have to be released, as it is cruel to keep em locked up. would this make the vegan people happy ?
I’m not a vegan (and if I was I wouldn’t be representative of ‘the vegan people’, because that would be ridiculous). I live with one (and eat approx 90% plant-based diet myself) so feel qualified to ask:
Do you really believe that there is or would be any kind of scenario where the entire planet would adopt a plant-based diet overnight, leading to billions of ‘released” livestock? Or even, say, in 12 months time? (ie the most profitable age for cattle to be slaughtered for food)
I can’t work out how someone would think that could happen at all let alone within 12 months. Chickens are slaughtered at six weeks. You think if the world went plant-based diet overnight that they would still breed more chickens after six weeks are up?
Right now, the Doomsday Clock is what? 100 seconds to midnight?
Also right now:
I asked Mrs P (vegan people, see) to read your question. She just rolled her eyes. Has to be asked, OP - was it a real question or are you just looking to make vegans look like silly sausages? or…
An interesting side question would be what happens to the animals which are farmed for more than just meat? Wool requires less energy than most synthetic fibres, so it may still be sustainable to keep sheep. In that case, I assume we'd keep them alive longer, but then do we kill them or leave them to die, and if we kill them do we bin the meat or eat it (yes, it would be mutton not lamb but still edible).
I think the Canadian Inuit ask a similar question (but the other way round) as they are allowed to hunt for meat, but now not allowed to sell the skins, so they are wasted. Apologies if that's not 100% correct.
Do you really believe that there is or would be any kind of scenario where the entire planet would adopt a plant-based diet overnight, leading to billions of ‘released” livestock?
a few years ago, i would of answered you with 'no i dont believe it'.
but in the recent years we have had, Trump as president, Boris as pm, a world shutdown through a virus, and now the whole of the world standing by watching a maniac trying to erase another country.
so my answer is probably, or possibly. who knows.
* edit (I never learn to read replies before answering). Convert probably said it better.
@ton viruses/pandemics are not new or unexpected. Neither are maniacal/narcissistic/populist leaders.
**Edit
Actually, re-reading the OP there is no way that it’s ‘serious’.
#caughtnapping
#bingo
Wool requires less energy than most synthetic fibres, so it may still be sustainable to keep sheep.
Plus the fells are inconvenient for either housing or car parking.
If we banned smoking, where would all the cigarettes go?
If it's a serious question, I'm happy to give you a serious answer. Though I'm rather with Mrs P7 at this point, you rather appear to be playing Lazy Stereotype Bingo with a side order of It's Been At Least Two Hours Since We Last Had A Pop At The Vegans.
If you're being genuine then let me know and I'll come back to this thread in a bit.
Given that it’s very inefficient to get calories from meat there would be loads of spare land.
Not all of it suitable for growing vegetables on though. Have a look at where sheep and cows often live and then think about what else you'd have to grow there if you weren't eating meat.
Once you’ve grown more crops for humans to eat to replace the calories currently consumed in meat, you’d have oodles of land to rewild, plant up to reduce greenhouse impact – all the good stuff.
Or build houses on. Loads of arable land being sold off for housing in our area.
Haven’t noticed any fields being replaced yet though.
Not all of it suitable for growing vegetables on though. Have a look at where sheep and cows often live and then think about what else you’d have to grow there if you weren’t eating meat.
True. but.......something daft like 70% of agricultural land in europe is used to grow crops to feed livestock. You could not use a single acre currently trodden on by an animal and you'd be at least as food secure as we are now.
Well clearly the OP is sharpening up some sort of straw man for use on the next militant vegan they encounter, but why not play along.
Pragmatically a removal of animal products from human consumption would have to be a staged thing. Gradually retiring various products from sale and compensating farmers to taper meat production down to zero and then adapt their land and operations to growing crops, not a simple or fast, and highly likely to be resisted. Ultimately Farmers are just business people who produce a thing that there is demand for, if that demand were to go down due to (pretty massive) changes in culture and/or legislation then those Welly wearing free-marketeers will have to adapt or go bust... But they're not going to welcome having their business model torpedoed for something as frivolous as ethics, climate change or public health.
In the even more improbable situation that the consumption of meat and animal products were banned globally at short notice then I reckon there would have to be be one big "mega-cull" of 95%+ of all farmed livestock, perhaps one final feast for all the soon to be ex-meat eaters and we'd keep a few examples of, now largely useless, bovines, ovines and poultry knocking about as pets/zoo animals for educational purposes only...
In both situations soy/cotton/flax/bamboo/hemp/etc production would probably have to ramp up, to be used to make various clothing materials, cause us humans will still want shoes, belts, shiny jackets and lederhosen made of something, and presumably Moo and Baa skins will be out... Right?
pigs – 7 months
In their dreams, modern pigs are 3 to 5 months old when slaughtered to meet the supermarket requirements for lean produce.Traditional breeds are 7 months or older as they grow slower and are fattier and tastier. (The older ones will have been reared over winter outside and these burn more food to keep warm rather than gain weight).
Next to rare breed pigs the modern ones look like babies when sent away, upsetting to see for those of us breeding and rearing the older, rarer breeds.
some sort of straw man for
use on the next militant vegan they encounterthe purpose of ridiculing/stereotyping people who choose not to eat meat
FTFY 😉
NB I’m sure most people know this already but by far the largest proportion of non-meat-eaters comprise of Hindus, vegetarians, fad-dieters, plant-based dieters for Climate/Ecology/Extinction issues, other types of dieters ie fitness fanatics, food-intolerance sufferers etc etc. Not ‘vegans’, who form a small portion (see chart, which is actually an overestimation as many self-described ‘vegans’ are simply plant-based dieters)
True. but…….something daft like 70% of agricultural land in europe is used to grow crops to feed livestock.
It’s not quite as simple as that when you dig down into it. Crop rotation, milk production and other things come into it to significantly reduce the figure.
FTFY
"Vegan" was the term used by the OP, surely we're not allowed to deviate from the nomenclature set out in the founding post, otherwise these sorts of threads would become a load of chaotic, nonsensical bollocks... And that just never happens on STW.
😉
Cows will roam free on our roads.
Vegan” was the term used by the OP, surely we’re not allowed to deviate from the nomenclature set out in the founding post, otherwise these sorts of threads would become a load of chaotic, nonsensical bollocks
Por supuesto 😉
Which precisely describes the ‘founding post’. Even if it wasn't (or was) trollery/ a wind-up, then of course it’s still every bit as ‘serious’ as, say:
the older i get, i find things tend to get in my mind, and i cant get shut of them. one of these things is, what will happen to all the cars made for the roads if we all stop driving cars ?
quite often on here and on fb and other places, people push the cyclist thing, or the talk of cars adding to the climate problem. all understandable. but if we stopped driving cars would it make a difference ?
all the cars would have to be left in the street, as it is expensive to tow them all away. would this make the cyclist people happy ?
And if we left them all, what would they do ? would they just corrode and pollute all the pavements causing a bigger problem to the climate ?
would they all be stolen and restored to life on the black market, causing an even bigger problem for the environment ?
or would we just have to burn them all on cycle paths, causing immense grief to the cyclist environment folk, and also wasting all the good cars, and then also the problem of getting rid of all the melted oily bits?seriously what is the answer ?
(uncredited post, probably from the Top Gear forum 😉)
something daft like 70% of agricultural land in europe is used to grow crops to feed livestock
Ok but what crops are they? We can only eat so much corn. Human vegans want chickpeas, edamame beans, puy lentils, quinoa, cashew nuts and the rest of it. Animals seem to be able to eat endless corn along with things like mangel-wurzels and given the chance quite a lot of grass.
Having driven through France a lot I seem to remember mostly wheat, sunflowers and grapes. Sunflowers yeah maybe for animal food but not sure they're being fed on baguettes and Pinot Grigio 🙂
Seriously though, I think a lot of those numbers are massaged because everyone seems to have a vested interest on one side or the other. The numbers are heavily skewed by US articles because they grow lots of corn and soy to intensively farm beef which is by far the worst way to raise meat. I have seen articles that touch on the above and say that the best way to maximise agricultural output is to produce some meat but much less than currently.
Cull the animals that are being kept for their offspring or milk. Slaughter the ones kept for their own meat as usual. That is, if you wanted it finished up asap.
having their unwanted male calves killed soon after birth
Consequence of separate selective breeding efforts for beef and dairy cows. There is semen science being used to increase the chance of having a female calf in the first place.
Some sheep farms in Australia, for instance, can be measured in the size of a small country but what else could the land be used for?
Lots of land with no productive agricultural use other than keeping livestock. There are other ways in which it could be used for some benefit though.
Not all of it suitable for growing vegetables on though. Have a look at where sheep and cows often live and then think about what else you’d have to grow there if you weren’t eating meat.
Obviously. But you wouldn't need to grow food there because meat production is so inefficient. We could even do something sensible like restore upland catchments.
A serious question about plants:
What if everyone just stopped eating vegetables? There are far less vegetarians than there are meat-eaters (over 3/4 less?), so it’s obviously likely that they will (as a group) be able give up vegetables long before before meat eaters give up meat? And in most countries meat consumption is today on the rise so… they could probably give it up overnight?
These serious questions keep me up all night. Like what if everyone wakes up tomorrow and decides instead to eat insects? Would that mean that pollinators would be eaten and so could not pollinate? But would that matter anyway because when people only eat insects and not vegetables then we have no need for vegetables we could just let the insects eat their natural diet or even their own colonies? So what happens if the world decides instead to only eat cannibalistic insects and pollinators? Would the cyclists Jainist people feel immense grief because then their lovely fluffy vegetarian animals (that they so lovingly spared from their plates) would have no vegetables to eat, and so would die in front of the hypocritical crying Jainist faces? Serious question! 😉
In reality, it wouldn't be a hard stop to meat eating. It would be a decline over decades. This is because most people in democracies eat meat and would not vote for it being banned. If artificial meat became competitive (maybe "when" is a better word), the herds of beef cattle, sheep, etc. will be reduced as raising meat becomes less profitable. Wool and dairy products will still be profitable though. Problem is that half the calves and born are male and they can't produce milk. If real meat was priced out of the market by cheap artificial meat, the economics of raising these would change and they would probably be slaughtered at a much younger age (farmers just do the maths on how much food is required to raise animals to different weights and then work out the most profitable weight to slaughter them at). This would alter the economics of dairy farming too and dairy prices would rise because marginal farms would be switched to raising other crops.
If you actually banned any use of animals for food, all male animals would be castrated and the domesticated breeds would become extinct in a decade or so. If you banned castration, farmers would just separate bulls and cows to the same effect. If you just cut down all the fences and let them roam free, you would have an unsustainable ecosystem and most of them would starve unless you had predators to keep the numbers in check. Domesticated sheep, especially, cannot survive in the wild. They would suffer horrible deaths.
In reality, it wouldn’t be a hard stop to meat eating. It would be a decline over decades
Is this a hypothetifact? Or a hypothetifiction? Or would the ‘decline’ be over centuries? Millennia?
@molgrips (I’m sure you’ll agree) you did a bit of a galloping gish upthread responding to ‘something daft like (sic):70% of agricultural land in europe is used to grow crops to feed livestock’
You asked
Ok but what crops are they?
Greenpeace report: ‘The percentage of arable land dedicated to animal feed had to be calculated using data on cereals, oilseeds and sugar beet production. These data were provided by the European Commission via email on 14 December 2018.52 These data are part of the report EU Agricultural outlook for markets and income 2018 - 203053 and the latest Short-term outlook for EU agricultural markets.54 This information was then used to calculate the percentage of each product destined for animal feed.’
Probably easier to read straight from their source: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/plants-and-plant-products/plant-products/cereals_en
We can only eat so much corn.
Thankfully, much arable land is used (and could be utilised) to grow other edible crops than maize?
Human vegans want chickpeas
Chickpea production in Europe is increasing (from 58 thousand tonnes in 2014 to 216 thousand tonnes in 2018)
Spain, Bulgaria and Italy are responsible for over 90% of the production in the European Union. Based on the growing imports and production, consumption has likely doubled over five years, and is expected to further increase.
edamame beans
Most soy is currently grown used for animal feed. The rest for oil. Vegans therefore currently eat a tiny, tiny percentage of the world’s soy beans. Meat-eaters consume the vast (and increasing) majority.
puy lentils
Puy lentils may currently have a protected geographical designation (France), but other green lentils (and legumes) are available and grown.
quinoa, cashew nuts and the rest of it
I think you’ve nailed them down with that. If we banned cashew nuts then vegans (and those lactose-intolerant, dairy-free/aks) would expire/disappear?
Seriously though, I do all of the shopping for my pet vegan and buy a bag of mixed nuts every two weeks and a ‘quinoa jambalaya’ about twice in my lifetime. I do though buy all of those other imported things that myself (and other omnivores) seem to enjoy. You know, bananas, coconut milk, oats, kiwi fruits, non-seasonal apples, peanut butter, walnuts, peanuts, wheat, olive oil, etc etc
Animals seem to be able to eat endless corn along with things like mangel-wurzels and given the chance quite a lot of grass.
Animals vary. As do farming methods.
Seriously though, I think a lot of those numbers are massaged because everyone seems to have a vested interest on one side or the other.
I can’t speak for the ‘70%’ figure but the 2019 Greenpeace Report states 71.2% of agricultural land is used for fodder production, while 63 % of arable land in Europe is dedicated to the production of crops for animal feed (which is, roughly, cereal crops and oilseed)
You claim:
The numbers are heavily skewed by US articles because they grow lots of corn and soy*
I can’t/wouldn’t speak for the numbers you have studied, but the Greenpeace report I linked list their research methodology and sources in full:
Data on the amount of agricultural land present in each EU member state and on the specific use of that land have been sourced from the European Commission’s directorate-general for agriculture and rural development (DG AGRI) and Eurostat. These institutions also provided data on the proportions of crops for human consumption, the livestock sector and industry. These data allowed us to calculate the amount of agricultural land in each country dedicated to feeding livestock.
Data on the ‘utilised agricultural area’ for each EU member state were downloaded from Eurostat.51 Eurostat divides utilised agricultural area into four categories: 1. arable land, 2. permanent grassland, 3. permanent crops and 4. kitchen gardens. Calculations were then made as to what percentage of utilised agricultural area in each of the four categories is used for the production of fodder for livestock.
Permanent grasslands are considered as fully dedicated to animal fodder while permanent crops and kitchen gardens are regarded as producing no animal feed.
The percentage of arable land dedicated to animal feed had to be calculated using data on cereals, oilseeds and sugar beet production. These data were provided by the European Commission via email on 14 December 2018.52 These data are part of the report EU Agricultural outlook for markets and income 2018 - 203053 and the latest Short-term outlook for EU agricultural markets.54 This information was then used to calculate the percentage of each product destined for animal feed.
Too much information?
I have seen articles that touch on the above and say that the best way to maximise agricultural output is to produce some meat but much less than currently.
Which is, nonethless, almost* the same conclusion of a report whose figures you caution as being ‘massaged’ 😉
*Agricultural reforms are (required to now be) about much, much more than maximised output. In fact we waste unfathomable amounts of food already.
Ok that’s enough coffee for me.
Ok but what crops are they? We can only eat so much corn. Human vegans want chickpeas, edamame beans, puy lentils, quinoa, cashew nuts and the rest of it. Animals seem to be able to eat endless corn along with things like mangel-wurzels and given the chance quite a lot of grass.
p7eavan says it with the eloquence that I don't have time to type, but did/do you really think that land currently used for crops that we select to eat via a stocked animal could not be used for something else we would choose to eat when cutting out the middleman (cow/pig/sheep) if demands changed?
Clearly feeding the planet is a hugely complex and nuanced issue that is done a significant disservice when simplified into a few throwaway comments on a forum by a bunch of non experts but it's fair to say human intransigence to think beyond their own immediate needs and preparedness to challenge current practice because it's not what we are used to will be our global undoing.
Is this a hypothetifact? Or a hypothetifiction? Or would the ‘decline’ be over centuries? Millennia?
I couldn't agree more.
fair to say human intransigence to think beyond their own immediate needs* and preparedness to challenge current practice because it’s not what we are used to will be our global undoing.
Agreed.
Then and now: Maximise output and profit and damn the future.
The future: Maximise crop diversity, food security and environmental health for a sustainable future.
One is a reality, while the other is trivially** possible yet vanishingly likely.
* I don’t need intensively-farmed meat. I may want it. The distinction is key.
** By ‘trivially’ I mean ‘agriculturally’. Politically it is anything but trivial. Decreasing (in most cases heavily subsidised) availability of inexpensively-purchased intensively-farmed meat will drive a ‘haves/have-nots’ narrative and most likely fuel a(nother) ‘culture war’. ‘Meat for the elitez?! Maize for the gayz?’ ‘Real (sic) food for the rich, fake (sic) food for the poor?’ Etc. Etc.
I can see it now: “ Qu'ils mangent de la lentilles vertes!”
Not a very hard problem to solve. Just eat the ones we have, and don’t breed any more.
This. It's really not hard. Meat animals only exist because we breed them. The world would be a much better place without billions of chickens, sheep, cows and pigs.
I missed this (and probably lots more)
Chickpea production in Europe is increasing (from 58 thousand tonnes in 2014 to 216 thousand tonnes in 2018)
Obviously many more people than (sic) ‘human vegans’ consume chickpeas/chickpea products.
I've not read the thread properly, but in case anyone has not said it already
But bacon......
Also, I hate to break it to you but the animals you see in fields and sheds are not very old. Cows – less than 2 years old, pigs – 7 months, sheep – less than 6 months, chickens-50 odd days old. If the government passed a law saying all you animal eaters would have to go vegan as soon as the current stock ran out, you’d only have a few months of meat eating left before they had all gone. It’s a very short term problem.
Your point is right but I think your details might be out. Sheep only lamb once a year, usually in spring so right now the youngest "sheep" in fields are 9+ months old. I don't think they normally get shorn the first year so if its living long enough to make wool it will be 15 months old? And obviously, at least some sheep are kept for breeding.
On the other hand we typically eat chickens reared for meat at <42 days in the UK, so the average age of chickens "running around" for meat production will be far less. But egg producing birds will typically be kept much longer (18-24 months is common, can be 36 months in some cases) which skews your stats a lot.
But dairy cows are all more than 2 years old (they don't make milk until the calve and that makes them about 2). I believe you'd be disappointed to get rid of a dairy cow before getting 2 years of production out of it, and probably hope for 4.
I've no idea if the OP was being serious, whilst the question could probably be better written I do think that there is a legitimate question about who wrote the vegan rule book and decided what was "right" and "wrong" and how they feel about mass produced "plant based" food... the things that have never made sense to me are the official vegan position on honey, and eating eggs reared in your own garden under conditions you control.
there is a legitimate question about who wrote the vegan rule book
There is no vegan rule book. TBH anyone who thinks following 'the rules' is what's most important doesn't really understand veganism.
official vegan position
See above. Veganism is a means to an end not a religion.
I’ve no idea if the OP was being serious, whilst the question could probably be better written
The OP was (objectively by any standard) just a massive self-generating strawman ‘question’, whether trolling or not. The urgency of certain populations (ie Europe, US, China etc) to begin moving towards a more plant-based diet is not largely being driven by ‘vegans’ at all. It’s being driven (variously) by objective scientific research, governments, environmental think tanks, biologists, economists, agriculturalists, sustainable food-producers, the United Nations, etc etc. ie Not Mrs P on some imaginary vegan committee,
do think that there is a legitimate question about who wrote the vegan rule book and decided what was “right” and “wrong”
Likewise, a strawman (albeit concealed within what I detect to be a genuine curiousness)
Most vegans (like cyclists) AFAIK are individual people and (like most individual people) they make their own choices as to what they feel comfortable exploiting (or riding, or driving), and how, and to what degree.
For instance (I only have one vegan to hand to interrogate) Mrs P chooses to buy and eat eggs from our neighbours and friends chickens. She doesn’t get into fights with ‘The Vegan Overseers’ over it. Not on technicalities. I assume such a body must exist? Probably some FB group somewhere there are twelve self-identifying vegan humans bashing into each other over their neighbour’s eggs. Or was that ‘The Buddhist Overseers’? OMbudsman
Everyone seems to think so. I checked the Vegan Society for a definition of veganism and nowhere did I find The Commandments per se but they do say that excluding eggs and honey’ is ‘something that all vegans have in common’, however in practical terms you will find that ‘veganism’ is a wider term defined briefly as
a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose
I checked the Ombudsman for a second opinion. It made (IME) important point about how we can use language to either provoke or reduce conflict.
ie this style of language is currently in vogue
All those who are committed to [x] are on the wrong path.
All those who are not committed to [x] are on the right path.
Whereas this style of language is not:
Being committed to [x] brings about suffering and is the wrong path.
Not being committed to [x] does not bring about suffering and is the right path.
The point is a simple and timeless one. There are all sorts of beliefs, opinions, practices, and behaviors that lead to harm, and many others that lead to well-being. By all means, let’s be clear about which is which, and share with others what we understand about this. But when we do this by disparaging people for their views, it will only trigger their existential defense mechanisms—and likely bring out their worst side.
I think ‘veggan’ is a term I’ve heard for Mrs P’s choices, but it’s easier when buying food elsewhere to assume that the neighbour’s eggs aren’t being used and so ‘vegan’ is a less confusing term. The term ‘vegan’ (much like ‘cyclist’) tends to annoy a lot of certain people anyway, so ‘veggan’ would be just ‘asking for’ further derision/confusion/eye-rolling.
Labels are often better used on food (or transport systems) than on people, I find.
while 63 % of arable land in Europe is dedicated to the production of crops for animal feed (which is, roughly, cereal crops and oilseed)
Right, but my question is how much of that land could actually be used to grow crops people want to eat directly? This is a serious question, I don't know.
Would there be the unpleasant side effect of then producing more people. The last thing we need as the world problems are created by people. We need 10% (random very low number) or so of the current population not more.
@p7eaven you seem to think i was having a go at vegan people. i wasnt so relax a bit.
i was curious just to what would or could happen if we all went down the no meat road.
and the replies have been interesting, even yours.
Right, but my question is how much of that land could actually be used to grow crops people want to eat directly? This is a serious question,
Well it has a passing resemblance to a ‘serious’ question, but scratch the surface and it must be built on any number of (as yet undeclared) presuppositions, each positioned at a various unspecified point along multiple long pieces of string?
Well it has a passing resemblance to a ‘serious’ question, but scratch the surface and it must be built on any number of (as yet undeclared) presuppositions, each positioned at a various unspecified point along multiple long pieces of string?
Ok then put me right?
I'm not anti-vegan by the way. I'd be vegan tomorrow if I felt I could handle it.
But I think my question is a valid one, isn't it? I don't want to just wave stats and headlines around, I really am curious about the agricultural potential.
i was curious just to what would or could happen if we all went down the no meat road.
You could turn the same question right around, "what if everyone suddenly ate nothing but meat, where would we get all the animals from?"
The meat industry, like most other industries, is supply and demand. If demand dwindled, so too would production. And obviously vice versa, if demand soared then so too would production wherever possible.
what will happen to all the animals bred for the food chain if we all stop eating meat ?
A sudden global shift in diet would cause a shock to the system of course, but that's about as realistic a proposition as wondering what would happen if all the cows were abducted by aliens. We're never going to be sitting here going "well, everyone's vegan now, so WTF are we going to do with all these sheep?" - we simply wouldn't have bred as many in the first place.
all the animals would have to be released, as it is cruel to keep em locked up. would this make the vegan people happy ?
if we released them all, where would they all go ?
You're conflating "the vegan people" (whatever that even means, they're not a hive mind) with extremist shitwits like PETA. PETA has form for releasing bred-in-captivity animals into to wild, most of those animals likely wouldn't last the night. They're not expecting natural predators, they're waiting for the nice man in the white coat with the food and the lipstick and the really good drugs. It's a well-meaning death sentence.
The reason you're getting the frankly less robust than I was expecting replies is because your 'serious question' is one of a wholly hypothetical scenario of your own devising. Moreover, as others have already suggested, it's one which has oft been used as a lazy stick to beat v*gans with on a slow news day. If your question was genuine then be aware that it comes with baggage.
Right, but my question is how much of that land could actually be used to grow crops people want to eat directly? This is a serious question, I don’t know.
I read an article in New Scientist a few years ago (so cannot evidence my source and I've no idea now how reliable it was) which claimed that if the world went vegetarian there wasn't sufficient farmable land mass on the planet to feed everyone. Grass > cows > Big Mac is a more efficient food chain than growing crops to be consumed directly.
Ok then put me right?
I’m not saying you’re ‘wrong’ (or that you are ‘right’), I’m politely (if maybe too vaguely) suggesting that you’d first need to provide any number of presuppositions/assumptions/boundaries for such an open/vague question to not be (effectively, granted unintended) a ‘strawman’ question?
ie
- Are you asking on the assumption/outlandish/magical hypothesis (as per OP) that the entire population will not only voluntarily quit buying and eating meat entirely, but will also quit eating all of that meat overnight?
- and if so, is it assumed that they will be looking for ‘meat analogues’ or will they be eating more of the same dishes they normally eat, just minus the meat?
- and if so, is it assumed that each state/country must also instead be food self-sufficient and not to import meats/crops/foodstuffs from other countries or neighbouring states?
- Would we assume food waste remain at the same levels as of now?
-Are we presuming that ‘arable land’ currently used to grow livestock fodder is also unsuitable (now or in the future) to grow human fodder?
-or that humans dont already eat the same crops as livestock (ie soy, etc)
Are we presuming that all arable land can grow useful crops for human consumption?
-Are we assuming that crop biodiversity is more useful/less harmful and that crop monocultures are less useful/more harmful?
And on, and on.
Like I say, too many pieces of string and all hinge on presuppositions/hypotheticals that as yet haven’t been provided.
I’m not anti-vegan by the way. I’d be vegan tomorrow if I felt could handle it.
Wasn’t assumed. Me neither BTW. But I suppose again that would depend on your definition of ‘vegan’? Veganism is a personal philosophy about animals, while ‘vegan diet’ is really becoming just a shortcut term for ‘someone on/a plant-based diet’. You can be one without the other (or both)
As I say, global moves towards a more plant-based diet/agri-economy are not principally being driven by ‘veganism’ at all, but via objective scientific research and by governments, environmental think-tanks, NGOs, biologists, economists, environmentalists, agriculturalists, sustainable food-producers, the United Nations, WHO, etc etc as a response to real catastrophic crisis/existing real-world problem
ie moving towards a *more plant-based diet/reducing meat consumption* is not largely being driven by ‘vegans’ at all. It’s being driven (variously) by objective scientific research, governments, environmental think tanks, biologists, economists, agriculturalists, sustainable food-producers, the United Nations, WHO, etc
Vegans/veganism are (ideally) very useful allies in that direction (not to mention a huge depository of recipes! See also Hindus and Jains
No my question is much more specific than that.
Given the current protein foods favoured in vegan or even vegetarian cooking, such as lentils, beans, nuts and so on - how much of that could we produce? And how much would need to be imported if the majority were vegan?
Are we presuming that ‘arable land’ currently used to grow livestock fodder is also unsuitable (now or in the future) to grow human fodder?
Well this is the question. What conditions do lentils and beans need to grow, and are they suitable crops for the land that we have?
EDIT apparently quite difficult to grow lentils in UK climate generally but it's being worked on, in Suffolk
I've asked the same question a few times, the real answer is "it depends". But I think that if Humans all decided to stop eating meat and products produced by animals (milk, honey etc) now, as in today. Tomorrow, the vast majority of the 70 billion farm animals on earth would be dead unless farmers were compensated for keeping them as 'pets'. Farmers do really seem to care about their livestock, but it doesn't extend to keeping them alive and fed for a moment longer than they have to, if they're born the wrong gender or stop producing etc.
I've always considered it an inconvenient truth for Vegetarians and Vegans that decide to stop consuming animal products on behalf of those animals, that they're only alive in the first place because of human consumption.
I’ve always considered it an inconvenient truth for Vegetarians and Vegans that decide to stop consuming animal products on behalf of those animals, that they’re only alive in the first place because of human consumption.
Not that inconvenient. Preventing an animal being born isn't a hardship, if we just let the ones we have get eaten up without breeding, or even if it took a decade to reduce meat production I don't see that many animal rights motivated vegans would complain.
Again: this is simply supply and demand. They may well be "only alive in the first place because of human consumption" but that breeding programme is scaled and tailored to what they can sell. There isn't a cow sat in the back of a farm somewhere all forlorn because those pesky vegans haven't eaten it.
Well this is the question. What conditions do lentils and beans need to grow, and are they suitable crops for the land that we have?
What sir needs is an agriculture expert, not an internet argument!
Seriously - the best anyone on here is going to do is a bit of googling and link to an article written by someone who proports to know what they are talking about. Why don't you cut out the middle man and do the googling yourself?
I’ve always considered it an inconvenient truth for Vegetarians and Vegans that decide to stop consuming animal products on behalf of those animals, that they’re only alive in the first place because of human consumption.
I'd say your ignorance is in the assumption that anyone would be that naïve that they were not hugely aware of the conundrums and hypocrisy that surrounds the very act of existing and simultaneously having morally conscious. I'd say moderating your diet for environment reasons is not about taking a moral high ground to beat others with or to live some sort of sin free whiter than white existence, beyond all reproach. The very best any of us can do (who want to continue living) is to mitigate our impact from this point forward, conscious in the knowledge that we do still have a negative impact - albeit a reduced one. The fact that the recalcitrant dinosaurs amongst us want to berate those at least doing something with a bit of petty point scoring always confuses. I'm not sure why they feel the need to - but I've always thought it said more about them than it does about those they criticise. Like the old comedogen grumpily sat in a burning building, arms folded, criticising those trying to put the fire out because their buckets of water are not always very well aimed.
"I’ve always considered it an inconvenient truth for Vegetarians and Vegans that decide to stop consuming animal products on behalf of those animals, that they’re only alive in the first place because of human consumption."
What kind of life and death do you think these animals get? Try having a look at a flock of sheep and you'll almost certainly see some with foot rot. Limping because they can't walk properly, never mind run, but they have to because they are being chased by a sheep dog. They live the most boring lives stuck out in a field, charged with eating and producing more lambs. They have been selectively bred to provide as much high price meat as possible. They often have no shelter. The lambs are sometimes born too early and are in danger of freezing to death overnight.
And sheep are not the worst treated of farm animals. I think an intensively raised pig would thank you very much for sparing it the life they get.
Sheep, pigs, cows, or their more natural cousins, are capable of living so much more rich lives. Try watching The Secret Life of Cows I think it was called on BBC iPlayer. The difference between the lives of those animals and the poor milk and beef producers we call cows is stark.
If you really think by eating meat you are giving animals a life, you're not being honest with yourself imo.
I've a vegan and I'm much the same as Mrs P7eaven. I bought some free range, ex-battery, had-to-drive-carefully-so-I-didn't-hit-the-hens eggs a few months ago. I had no problem about the ethics of eating them. I just don't like eggs. It's a shame as they would have been a good source of protein but not for me. "It's like eating the unborn child." I heard that on the TV the other day. Made me laugh.
They live the most boring lives stuck out in a field, charged with eating and producing more lambs
Holy anthropomorphisation Batman!
I'm not sure sheep really ask for that much in general.
They live the most boring lives stuck out in a field
As opposed to what? Are they longing for a game of Canasta? Bit of a kickabout before Eastenders starts?
anthropomorphisation Batman
Please tell me that juxtaposition was intentional.
I’ve always considered it an inconvenient truth for Vegetarians and Vegans that decide to stop consuming animal products on behalf of those animals, that they’re only alive in the first place because of human consumption
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not an inconvenient truth, it's a simple truth that all veggies/vegans motivated by animal rights/welfare accept. If no one eats them, they won't exist. That's exactly what we want!
I don’t see that many animal rights motivated vegans would complain.
Of course we/they wouldn't. Why the hell would we complain that a cow didn't exist because it had never been bred by a farmer for the sole purpose of selling it to be killed for meat? Honestly this thread is ridiculous. Use your brains FFS!
@p-jay - so you think a chicken would prefer a short life of misery in a factory farm, being force fed, until someone fancies a rank old bit of meat dipped in the kernels secret recipe, than to not be born at all?
I'm not so sure.
If only we could ask them!
Not that inconvenient. Preventing an animal being born isn’t a hardship, if we just let the ones we have get eaten up without breeding, or even if it took a decade to reduce meat production I don’t see that many animal rights motivated vegans would complain.
Not to us, but that's kind of the point. Some people are so concerned that animals are being killed for food, they'd rather they'd never been born at all, or are deny them the right to reproduce.
I think a valid question to ask is, is a shorter life, free from hunger or becoming prey etc, really worse than no life at all?
Another one is - do people really care about the lives of animals, the ones they'd rather never lived at all, or do they just find the idea of killing them unpleasant? We seem to be pretty unique in that, the other animals on Earth aren't bound by our moralities, predators will tear apart their prey with ruthless efficiency and whilst it's very rare, Cows will kill humans and go about their normal day afterwards.
I'm not looking for an argument, or upset anyone, but it's been on my mind a lot. I can't eat dairy and we're having a few 'veggie days' a week at home, which by default makes them Vegan days for me, but I wonder why I'm driven to stop eating something I enjoy. Is it health reasons, environmental, financial or moral?
Some people are so concerned that animals are being killed for food, they’d rather they’d never been born at all
Err, yeah! That's kind of the point. 🙄
do people really care about the lives of animals, the ones they’d rather never lived at all
Why would anyone care about an animal (or human for that matter) which never existed? This is a really odd line of argument. If I don't impregnate Mrs Daz tonight does that mean I'm abusing my unborn child by denying them the right to life? I'm really confused.
Re the sheep comments above - sorry quoting never works for me - the sheep we see in field have been engineered to provide us with meat and wool.
A more natural sheep-like animal would have a far more interesting life. For instance, they would travel to different grazing grounds. They wouldn't have to shit where they eat and live. They would seek shelter. They would have some sort of society. They wouldn't need pumping full of drugs to keep them from getting sick...
I find it utterly arrogant to think we know what animals need and what they don't need. I'm not meaning to have a go at any one poster, I'm talking about the arrogance of the human race.
but I wonder why I’m driven to stop eating something I enjoy. Is it health reasons, environmental, financial or moral?
Who is driving you? You or are you talking about feeling some sort of public pressure? If the former - you need to answer that for yourself.
p.s. I liked meat. The taste and texture that is. But living without it is no biggie. The world is so full of amazing experiences (activities, sights, sounds - the whole caboodle) that fixating on just reducing your eating by one food group being a profound life altering deprivation seems to me to be an indication that you need to get out more.
Please tell me that juxtaposition was intentional.
That juxtaposition was intentional.
You got two wishes left.
A more natural sheep-like animal would have a far more interesting life.
Starving over winter, becoming fatally injured in mating contests, being ripped apart by wolves.
May you live in interesting times.
I find it utterly arrogant to think we know what animals need and what they don’t need.
I genuinely can't move for irony.
That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. It’s not an inconvenient truth, it’s a simple truth that all veggies/vegans motivated by animal rights/welfare accept. If no one eats them, they won’t exist. That’s exactly what we want!
fair enough, perhaps a bit harsh but I can handle it, you're probably a big hangry (that really is a joke, please don't hate me).
But can I ask a really honest question, I'm not baiting I promise. Do you ever question the idea that denying a life of an animal raised in the very best hypothetical welfare standards is in some ways the same as killing them, only they never get to experience life at all?
But can I ask a really honest question, I’m not baiting I promise. Do you ever question the idea that denying a life of an animal raised in the very best hypothetical welfare standards is in some ways the same as killing them, only they never get to experience life at all?
Nope, never. Can I spin it for you - do you mourn the non lives of wild living beings that would/could live in rewilded areas if the land was not being used for intensive farming?
Fair point with regards the irony monkfinger.
But at least it is a life not imposed on them by us.
Nature is not necessarily kind but it's more kind than human beings.
The wolf has to live too and with regards mating, it's survival of the fittest. Not great for the individual but good for the species. Human beings could learn something there.
That's a big bag of ethical and moral considerations for sure. All of us humans have a life imposed on us, in many respects, too. And not all of those lives good. Would we be better off living like Neanderthals? And survival of the fittest as applied to humans? There are always selection pressures present. Drifting off topic with that one though.
As a hypothetical unborn sheep contemplating life in a drizzly field in England or never existing, I'll take the latter.
Has ton got all the serious answers he was seriously looking for?
I think the planet and many of its plants and species, including many of those that are now extinct, would be better off if we lived like Neanderthals or preferably further back than that.
Nope, never. Can I spin it for you – do you mourn the non lives of wild living beings that would/could live in rewilded areas if the land was not being used for intensive farming?
Not mourn no, but I do think about not only intensive farming, but Human population growth a lot.
I suppose the thing is that, Humans are animals, we're just the cleverest ones on this planet, we share a spectrum of morality that is unique to Humans. At least the Veggies and Vegans who have answered me, believe the best thing to do for the animals we've domesticated for food, is to deny them the chance to reproduce, one of the most basic and powerful emotions animals have and assuming Farmers could be persuaded, forced or paid to keep the existing ones fed and looked after, within 15-20 years, there would be around 50 billion fewer animals on Earth which would bring some serious environmental benefits.
As we've seen in the past with China for example, denying People the right to reproduce is considered a grave infringement of their human rights and caused all sorts of pain in many terrible way.
So, is it really fair to deny animals something we consider a fundamental human right?
Or, due to their lessor intelligence, morality and comprehension of their world, do we say that denying them that right is the best thing for them on their behalf? and If so, are we really making a moral decision not to kill them, if they don't and can't share that morality themselves?
It seems to me, it's incredibly likely that if that if they had the choice, as all other animals do in the wild, rather than deciding to stop reproducing to save their unborn children the chance of life and an early death, they'd evolve to reproduce as quickly as possible to out-pace the predators.
Would perhaps the most moral thing to do is remove our care and allow them the chance to be wild again? They'd die in their billions, but eventually they find an equilibrium with their environment.
I admit, I've gone down a rabbit hole now.
