I don't think sheep want as much as people do. Their main concerns in the wild would be good to eat and safety from predators. They get both of those. I'm not sure they are suffering the same existential angst when deprived of the survival challenge as humans do. That's just a guess though.
Different story for battery chickens though.
Human population growth
I'm not convinced breeding ought to be an undeniable fundamental human right. It's almost like we'll have to deny humans the right to reproduce at some point... if we don't want to Easter Island the whole place up.
We already know what we do to farmed animals when the expected slaughterhouse > butchery > table route is removed, because it's happened a couple of times in relatively recent years - the foot and mouth outbreak 20 years ago and the post-Brexit slaughterhouse issues more recently. We kill them and burn them.
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.
Part of me agrees with you, but few people like the idea in reality.
Consider Covid for example, and please this is just idle thoughts, not a plan. about 18 months ago, there was a thread about Covid (there's a surprise) considering the positives and not in a rose tinted wasn't lockdown 1 lovely because the roads were quiet and it was sunny kind of way, but more fundamental that that.
I suggested that we humans have massively out populated the earth and we're simply incapable, thanks to our nature to a) stop reproducing b) meaningfully reduce our consumption of well everything to fix that. More specifically the Population in the West had grown old, kept alive longer and longer due to our comfortable lives and medical science.
I suggested that a plague was the only real way 'Mother Nature' could correct that and perhaps lockdowns and such were against nature trying to correct. I was called a Monster for it, and it was only a thought! If we lived like Animals and by a code of 'survival of the fittest' Covid would have killed multiples of the terrible number of people it did kill, and continues to kill, mostly it would have killed older people and the sick, reducing our population to more manageable numbers and improving the average health of the remaining population.
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?
No of course I don't. Why on earth would I worry about the rights of something that never existed? To try and equate this with killing a living animal is ridiculous. I'm not having a go, it's just a plainly stupid idea. It would be like forcing people to have kids on the basis that it's wrong to deny the unconceived the right to life.
A more natural sheep-like animal would have a far more interesting life. For instance, they would travel to different grazing grounds.
Would they though?
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…
Would they?
Blast, nine minutes! Sorry.
Well they are not going to stay in a place where there is no food, are they? All grazing animals roam.
Agree with a lot of your last post P-Jay.
I don't think sheep would be as bored as humans being stuck in a field. But I do think they are bored. I don't know how clever they are compared with dogs but look at all the stimulation dogs get from their owners. I mean toys, walks, playing etc.
Obviously dogs are predators but look at horses. Stuck in a field all day. Compare them to the Mustang hoses of North America.
I also don't think farm animals care if they are killed and burned or killed and eaten. Only humans worry about that.
Sheep dog here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06yp1mb
Tell me this, cougar and slowoldman: why would they not do any of those things? And shouldn't animals be given the chance to if they want?
Wouldn't work in the world we live in obviously but in a better world.
A quick read of this thread just confirms that most people have as much of a clue about rearing livestock as they do about war-zone management and infectious diseases. And likewise, it is such a divisive subject, in which peoples views become so entrenched, it isn't even worth coming in and countering those opinions.
So carry on. As you were.
PS if anyone would like to come and visit a working farm and see how sheep are actually kept in most of the UK feel free. I would be happy to show you.
But not on Tuesdays.
I like to spend my Tuesdays pumping them full of antibiotics and stuff.
Tell me this, cougar and slowoldman: why would they not do any of those things?
I've no idea. You're the one who seems to confidently be the ovine behavioural specialist, you tell us.
Sheep aren't dogs (or humans). They've got an IQ slightly above that of a glass of warm water. Hypothetical or actual wild sheep may be different, again I don't know. Care to share your working?
Ok, so it's cows not sheep but have a look here 26mins in:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7zp2y2
Sheep aren't cows either.
I've already got that series set to record, I'll watch the whole thing soon. Not just now though.
No my question is much more specific than that.
On the contrary, I’d contend that your question actually waves away most of the specifics that would lend it some sense!
For example:
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?
Thanks at least for providing a hypothetical ie ‘if the majority (of population?) were (sic) vegan (assuming you mean eating a plant-based diet, as opposed to vegans/veganism?)
Your other (unstated?) hypothetical/assumption is that current plant-based diets are 1. monolithic in nature and also 2. focused around ‘protein foods’ (in the style of meat analogues?) and that would be partly true at this moment in history, given the trends for current trends for meat analogues.
Prior to the current (sic) ‘plant-meat’ trend most veggies and vegans would just eat a range of vegetables prepped in different ways, e beans, some vital wheat gluten (seitan)
Our meat-obsessed culture is also a (albeit misguided) protein-obsessed culture and so these ‘weaning’ type meat analogues get a lot of press and give the impression that quitting meat means that you need to replace it with ‘meatalike’ foodstuffs. ie Quorn (micoprotein) soy burgers, pea-protein sausages/burgers/jackfruit/etc etc. some more exotic than others, some really pedestrian. As I said, mostvsoy is grown for animal feed. It could just as easily feed humans directly.
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
The (unstated)/assumptions here are that the UK needs to convert to 1. a self-sufficient agronomy with a majority of the population being ‘vegan’ and also eat lots of lentils and beans?
How many tins of baked beans are currently sold in the UK? How many are wasted? How many haricot beans are grown in the UK? You see, your ‘question’ is an unfurling morass of string based (now) upon the assumption that the UK is to be not only majority ‘vegan’, but a majority protein-obsessed ‘vegan’ and also beans and lentils.
Let me just give an example why all of this is confusing to me. As I say I’m around 90% plant based (although dairy cheese has gotten me/crept in of late) and Mrs P 99% with the neighbours hen’s egg (2 a week max?)
So all I really have to go by is my shopping list. Obviously there is no meat on it, or fish. So what ‘crops’ do we buy a lot of? On average, potatoes, green peas, haricot beans (baked beans), kale/cabbage (different types), apples, carrots, swedes, parsnips, leeks, onions (different types), garlic, chicory, radishes, broccoli, cauliflower, mixed beans, tomatoes, bananas, oranges, kiwi fruits, rolled oats (also oat milk), mushrooms (cultivated and ‘wild’), preserved fruits, pearly barley, buckwheat grits, wheat (bread, pasta, etc), spelt bread, rye bread, lentils (green, puy, brown, red split) , rice.
That’s the majority of our shop/larder at any one time. We occasionally buy soy or pea-based burgers and sausages. And sometimes Quorn cocktail sausages. Recently tried a mushroom linguine.
If you were to bring in your hypothetical self-sustaining ‘no imports’ UK agronomy I’ll let you work out what foods I (and you) would have to miss out on!
And I’ll leave it up to you to work out whether or not your hypothetical scenario is sensible.
Of course we don't know, welshfarmer. Just trying to see them as animals rather than meat and wool machines
Same for you Cougar. I'm not a specialist. What I do know is that your pettiness, stupid comments and argumentative nature can really get quite tiresome.
Well they are not going to stay in a place where there is no food, are they? All grazing animals roam.
But if there is plenty of food where they are? Like on a fell side? I'm sure welshfarmer could confirm or otherwise.
There is no vegan rule book. TBH anyone who thinks following ‘the rules’ is what’s most important doesn’t really understand veganism.
Or, is it anyone who isn't strict about the rules isn't really vegan? Perhaps that's a philosophical point, but my understanding is that the terms "veganism" and the word "vegan" were invented by a group of six people led by one man, Donald Watson, in 1944, who founded the Vegan Society and over the years have codified what being a vegan means.
Their website is full of phrases like "vegans avoid" and "vegans choose not to" - I think its fair to say that the Vegan Society certainly believe they are the arbiters of what vegans do and don't do.
At first it was non-diary vegetarian but they made conscious decision to extend the scope to eggs and honey and then in the 50's defined it as all animal exploitation.
See above. Veganism is a means to an end not a religion.
Mmm... but the Vegan society has brought court action and won that veganism is a philosophical belief system which should have similar legal protections to a religion. I think what you may be saying is that not everyone who doesn't eat animals or dairy products is technically a vegan, perhaps they use the term because its easier when shopping or communicating with others, and I can understand that. I've no issue with anyone making decisions about when they will or won't eat/use/wear based on ethical, environmental or any other grounds. I do find it a bit odd that someone else sets the criteria for people on what those beliefs should be but I can see how either blindly following or roughly following but labelling yourself can help others understand your position.
I still find it odd that the vegan society seem to have no issue with people keeping pet cats and dogs (preferably fed on a meat free diet), but don't think its ok to keep pet chickens, or for me to eat the honey my friend harvests from her one beehive.
I like to spend my Tuesdays pumping them full of antibiotics and stuff.
I am from Aberdeen and I cannot let this one pass uncommented upon... especially from someone called welshfarmer...🤪
I live pretty much in the middle of a sheep farm (not unusual to see sheeps on 70% of my perimeter). You should hear their opinion of stwers...
Your other (unstated?) hypothetical/assumption is that current plant-based diets are 1. monolithic in nature
Umm no?
and also 2. focused around ‘protein foods’
Well we need protein.
I am not sure why you are typing so much at me. Food security is a thing, and we need a certain amount of it. And we don't have the best climate for growing beans and lentils. But we can produce plenty of meat. So, your personal shopping list aside, the question remains - how would a large increase in plant based eating affect food security and indigenous food production?
Donald Watson, in 1944, who founded the Vegan Society and over the years have codified what being a vegan means.
Factual.
Their website is full of phrases like “vegans avoid” and “vegans choose not to” – I think its fair to say that the Vegan Society certainly believe they are the arbiters of what vegans do and don’t do.
Semi-factual but ‘arbiters’ sounds a bit weird and loaded. Any philosophy needs some guidelines. Presumedly any society that invented a phrase to describe a philosophy/lifestyle would require some kind of actual philosophy.
Mmm… but the Vegan society has brought court action and won that veganism is a philosophical belief system which should have similar legal protections to a religion.
Factual snippet. But, why not instead simply quite and link to the full article/facts?
https://www.vegansociety.com/news/blog/landmark-case-will-argue-veganism-protected-belief
I think what you may be saying is that not everyone who doesn’t eat animals or dairy products is technically a vegan
It’s confusing for many and understandably so.
Two different things, although part of veganism (philosophy/belief) is a vegan diet, while a vegan diet doesn’t always point to veganism (philosophy/belief).
I still find it odd that the vegan society seem to have no issue with people keeping pet cats and dogs (preferably fed on a meat free diet)
AFAIK the Vegan Society refer to companion animals as ‘companion animals’ and (obviously ) have issues with ‘pet breeders’. Also not all of their articles/words on their website are the views of the Vegan Society
Again, wouldn’t it be simpler to just link to the Vegan Society and their statements, rather than giving your (misinformed/misinforming) ‘version’? https://www.vegansociety.com/news/blog/veganism-and-companion-animals
The future for companion animals
We can be hopeful that in the future, all animals will live in freedom and without the restraints of humans. This includes companion animals, who have lived under the ownership of humans for so long that it seems normal for us to control every aspect of their lives. Until that day comes, we should make an effort to educate others about the consequences of the animal trade and breeding industries, and instead rescue unwanted animals who have become victims of domestication. This will eventually break the cycle which continues every time a purchase is made from a breeder or store owner and we can move towards a more positive future.The views expressed by our bloggers are not necessarily the views of The Vegan Society
Again, maybe that last sentence is worth taking onboard?
Soylent Green was set in 2022...
A quick read of this thread just confirms that most people have as much of a clue about rearing livestock as they do about war-zone management and infectious diseases.
@welshfarmer you have made my day mate.
here was dumb old me thinking the blokes answering my simple question were all experts on the subject....... brilliant mate.
Like Ton inferred, there appears to be only one single person on here who’s remotely qualified on the subject of tearing livestock, & that’s Welshfarmer.
There’s very few experts on anything on here. Loads of opinions though.
here was dumb old me thinking the blokes answering my simple question were all experts on the subject……. brilliant mate.
That’s a wholly dishonest framing of the thread.
And surely you’re referring to one uninformed comment from one poster?
The bored sheep comment made me cringe. But so does your hugging that one comment to your chest in glee as if it somehow vindicates the entire facade of the OP and destroys all of the more thoughtful responses.
I worked as a shepherd and cow-hand on a ‘high welfare’ (supplying a certain upmarket supermarket) for three years with 240 head of ewe lambs and 90 acres of dairy and beef cattle. But only with two farmers and on two sites. I wasn’t happy at all with abuse/violence I witnessed on a number of occasions when farmers and labourers have been in bad moods or rushed etc, but I’ve kept my responses here away from animal welfare and sentience as it’s generally taboo/hotbed of ridicule/misinformation/bad jokes. On the whole, I’d say that of the least worst of commercial animal farming I’ve witnessed is low-yield sheep-farming .
It’s interesting to note how a ‘(sic)serious question about meat’ from the OP hasn’t provoked much discussion about either meat, or intensive farming or its effects on the planet, on the environment, on future food security, the climate, etc.
But again this has nothing at all to do with the OP which was (IIRC) a complete science-fiction strawman, ie:
‘what will happen to all of the livestock if the whole world stops eating meat overnight - and will it make the vegan people happy’
I initially suspected this thread was bait to hook in just such a comment about animal welfare as was given (re ‘bored sheep’), before being hastily declared as a triumph against those clueless/stupid ‘vegans’.
I wasn’t wrong.
What I do know is that your pettiness, stupid comments and argumentative nature can really get quite tiresome.
Does it perhaps offset a tendency to present unsubstantiated bollocks as fact in the hope that no-one would notice? I note that for all your hostile backlash you haven't actually tried to back up your claims.
I'll take 'tiresome' if it gives someone pause to think before they assume. Be tired, stop talking mince.
I am not sure why you are typing so much at me
Well it was you asked rather a massive ‘serious’ question and I thought it would be interesting to explore, but without fleshing out the framework of your hypothetical scenario it would be a basically meaningless exploration?
So, your personal shopping list aside
But if I put that aside then I don’t even have a starting to point from which to join in with the unfurling hypothetical scenarios about what would European people grow and eat ‘instead’ if not farming many animals?
(PS I forgot a bag of mixed nuts, and spinach, nutritional yeast, also some salad things like peppers etc) also unnecessary luxuries such as coffee, dark chocolate and grapes and wine beer. Wait, beer is not a luxury 😬)
the question remains – how would a large increase in plant based eating affect food security and indigenous food production?
Now that’s a different goalpost. Food security is a massive and complex issue/topic and currently extends beyond national and regional borders. Is national self-suffiency part of your hypothetical?
Most people think Britain only imports about 50% of its food. But the reality is that 80% of food is imported, including basics such as carrots and tea.
So for the UK to be self-sufficient and food-secure and eating only/mainly indigenous crops are you wanting to reduce that 80% of currently imported foods?
Do you see a future UK as more ‘food secure’ if we rely on our own produce all year round? Is that even possible? With current levels of food waste? It’s not a simple or even focused question is it?
Your other (unstated?) hypothetical/assumption is that current plant-based diets are 1. monolithic in nature
Umm no?
vs
And we don’t have the best climate for growing beans and lentils.
As it stands we (speaking literally for myself and other half) get easily enough complete protein and nutrients from a wide and diverse variety of produce. Is a wide variety of plant foodstuffs more ‘food secure’ and healthy than relying on an intensive meat-production based upon soy meal? Or is it a false comparison either way? I do believe that (per average) we in the EU/UK/US are obsessed with meat yet meanwhile are getting more than enough protein with or without it. Of course it’s entirely possible (and common) to find people who eat unhealthily (often to the point of it killing them) via either a meat or non-meat diet. Different question.
But that’s another reason I gave my shopping list. Otherwise you may be forgiven for believing that non meat-eaters get most of our protein from one or two foodstuffs (‘beans and lentils’, - ie a ‘monolithic’ hypothetical diet.)
“if you follow a vegetarian or vegan diet and rely heavily on beans to meet your protein intake, you’ll need to have some other type of plant-based protein during the day. You don’t have to worry about pairing proteins at the same meal. Just have another plant protein, such as nuts, brown rice, oatmeal or a whole-grain pita, at some point during the day.”
The vast majority of UK meat is currently produced by feeding soy to chickens and to pigs and farmed fish. According to DEFRA soy meal use in dairy cow feed in the UK also accounts for 8-15%
The poultry sector alone sector uses up two-thirds of soy imported to the UK. Would we be more ‘food secure’ if we stopped importing soy? Or more secure if we instead used the soy to make chicken-less nuggets and edamame beans?
Or instead feed all those intensively farmed chickens on something else?
In order to answer your question (properly) you or I or someone would need to provide rather a lot of qualifying data including what ‘can and can’t/shouldn’t’ be imported, what can and can’t be grown, how much protein is useful/necessary for the average person per day/week etc.
It’s not an easy thing.
If everyone in the world shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.
Whether one might think that would make Europe less or more ‘food secure’ depends a lot on how one defines and views ‘food security’ - including whether or not one would factor in the effects on climate, biodiversity, loss, flooding, droughts, etc etc etc and resultant, mass migration on our current projection
Also a working definition of ‘self-sufficiency’ , waste levels, as well as agreed requirements for nutrition would be other minimum data points include in calculations.
I remain convinced that we aren’t as a species going to turn anything around any time soon, especially not in my lifetime or in the UK. I just expect to see more mega farms for intensively-raised livestock, poultry, fish, etc and a continuation of frankly suicidal global trends for increased meat consumption. I am pretty depressed about (by and large) what we do to animals and the environment in order to feed our greed/tastes.
These feelings have grown the more I have lived and worked around/with animals.
My feelings about intensive farming (and climate change/habitat loss etc etc) are also shared by some compassionate (usually small-concern) old school farmers (I imagine much like welshfarmer) to whom I’ve spoken over the years.
Semi-factual but ‘arbiters’ sounds a bit weird and loaded. Any philosophy needs some guidelines. Presumedly any society that invented a phrase to describe a philosophy/lifestyle would require some kind of actual philosophy.
Yes - I was replying to @dazh who said there was no rule book. There clearly are some strongly established principles. I'm not sure why you think its loaded that the body that invented veganism as a specific concept/philosophy are the ones who decide what is or is not permitted. That seems entirely logical to me.
Factual snippet. But, why not instead simply quite and link to the full article/facts?
Because I recalled the case and wasn't going searching for it. But if you are going to quote a court case from Jan 2020 and criticise me for not doing so - why quote an article about the pending case rather than the outcome afterwards: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKET/2020/3331129_2018.html
AFAIK the Vegan Society refer to companion animals as ‘companion animals’ and (obviously ) have issues with ‘pet breeders’. Also not all of their articles/words on their website are the views of the Vegan Society
Again, wouldn’t it be simpler to just link to the Vegan Society and their statements, rather than giving your (misinformed/misinforming) ‘version’? https://www.vegansociety.com/news/blog/veganism-and-companion-animals
/blockquote>Interestingly I went to the vegan society website to check my recollection was correct that they have no big issue with pet ownership (they interchange the terms companion animal and pet - presumably not being as pedantic as you, or realizing that normal people would search for pet or vegan pet food etc, companion animal is a vet term). I didn't find the link you did - I did find other blogs telling me if my dog could go vegan etc. By implication if the vegan society are discussing vegan pet food they are not opposed to people keeping animals.
There's some pretty extreme mental gymnastics in that post that you yourself partially quoted: Rescue dogs/cats are OK but buying "new" is not, and rescue exotics are not. I'm glad I'm not a blind vegan with the tone of that piece - its ok because you've no other choice but hopefully one day you'll have a human companion... FFS!
But actually, this line seems to bring us back to Ton's original point, "...We can be hopeful that in the future, all animals will live in freedom and without the restraints of humans. This includes companion animals, who have lived under the ownership of humans for so long that it seems normal for us to control every aspect of their lives..." so it seems that at least that blog poster thinks cats and dogs should just be left to run feral. Surely if the "vision" is that domesticated farm animals are allowed to dwindle into extinction because there is no demand for meat then the vision for companion animals should be the same? I appreciate its one persons view on a blog - but you wanted me to link to it and quote it, and apparently, I was being fatuous by not having found it to do so.
i was curious just to what would or could happen if we all went down the no meat road *overnight.
*My correction/emphasis
But before you became ‘curious’, weren’t you even a tiny bit curious as to the complete and utter glaring impossibility/folly of the entire planet quitting meat?
And if that alone wasn’t unbelievable/impossible enough to deter your thoughts further, weren’t you even a little bit curious as to how that impossibility would be increased untoldfoldx by the human population synchronously ceasing to eat all meat not over 100 years or somesuch, but effectively overnight/within the lifespan of a chick? So quickly that billions of animals would be left unslaughtered and homeless to confuse vegan people the next morning?
Didn’t it make you even a little bit curious? Considering global meat consumption is increasing even now at the 11th hour of climate catastrophe and mass-species extinction/habitat loss?
Or was your curiosity really, truly honestly from a belief that the above could really happen?
and the replies have been interesting, even yours.
Nonpliment accepted. I try to put some thought into replies, even though I suspected it was simply bait to get some ‘vegan’ to say a silly/naive thing.
You’re accusing me of being a ‘pedant’. And I’m accusing you of being inaccurate/misleading (not intentionally, BTW).
I’ll take that.
so it seems that at least that blog poster thinks cats and dogs should just be left to run feral.
Such is your claim.
Surely if the “vision” is that domesticated farm animals are allowed to dwindle into extinction because there is no demand for meat then the vision for companion animals should be the same?
Which is what I got from that blog post. Funny how we can come to entirely different conclusions from reading the same words. Maybe I’m reading it wrongly? Maybe you are. Maybe it was written badly. Maybe it was written well. Maybe the moon is made of cheese!
Maybe it doesn’t matter because it ain’t frign happening anyway! It is overwhelmingly most likely that humans will always, variously happily, selfishly, greedily, carelessly, carefully, regretfully or with not a care the world exploit and breed and kill animals for their own pleasure and profit. Is my overall point. Some choose not to, but why pick so harshly.
BTW I literally googled ‘Vegan Society views on pets and that was the top result. Assuming always makes an ass of you and I.
Talking of which, I’ll own that I assumed you had read the article as you were commenting on views found at the Vegan Society. What I should have asked you was to share what you had found, not why you hadn’t shared what I assumed you had found ie
I appreciate its one persons view on a blog – but you wanted me to link to it and quote it, and apparently, I was being fatuous by not having found it to do so.
My apologies. I can maybe see why you might think I was accusing you of being ‘fatuous’
*Your words, and I didn’t and wasn’t BTW. I was more mystified by why not simply quote + link.
I still find it odd that the vegan society seem to have no issue with people keeping pet cats and dog
So if you could find/link where you discovered that, then I’d** be interested to read it also.
**Mrs P moreso
Factual snippet. But, why not instead simply quite and link to the full article/facts?
Because I recalled the case and wasn’t going searching for it. But if you are going to quote a court case from Jan 2020 and criticise me for not doing so – why quote an article about the pending case rather than the outcome afterwards:
Because you’d already stated they had won the case. I linked to that page because it explained more finally why they had pursued it (which was entirely lacking from your account) to flesh out the discussion. If you see that as a ‘criticism’ then OK, but it was intended more as a question/suggestion (ie semi-rhetorical, ie ‘why not instead yada yada?’
Correction
because it explained more
finallyfullysuccinctly why it was being pursued
Seriously, it was the first link I found on TVS which explained why they were doing it 🤭. Your subsequent link of the outcome was even more useful, thanks.
#exhausting
#duanegish
#theressomeonewrongontheinternet
It seems our little blood sucking pals are conspiring to turn us all veggies in time.
No Haribo either 😱
The whole question is ridiculous really as no time in the foreseeable future will the population of the planet stop eating meat. I stopped in 1982 and it didn't feel as common to not eat meat back then but I (idealistic 14 year old) thought that 40 years later most people would have realised we don't need to be killing animals to survive and it isn't the right thing to do.
While you would get the feeling that they are loads more vegeteranians and vegans now, and it is much easier being vegetarian, in reality it is still a small proportion of people.
stop talking mince
Very good, very good.
Ok, so this was clearly an early attempt to win most stupid thread of the year contest. and I should have stayed away but hey ho.
Terribly sorry I made you "cringe" p7eaven. Slight overreaction perhaps.
I'm not pretending to be an expert. I'm saying what I see and what I see when I look out of my window is about 40 sheep in a frequently water logged field of about 8 acres with no shelter. Sometimes they get to run around when the 'wolf' comes to chase them. The rest of the time they have nothing to do but eat grass or the pellet type things they are given and shit. And for whatever reason, the shit seems to go all over their backend and I can't imagine that is very nice for them. I also can't believe that any animal would evolve like that naturally.
I try to keep my dog very quiet when we pass because I don't want to startle them because more often than not you see at least a couple of sheep limping heavily when they run away and the others form a guard around them. I find that upsetting.
I know nothing about raising sheep but this thread was not about that. It was in probability about having a bash at vegans. Way to go, OP.
I'll just say one more thing @cougar and I'll leave it at that because I think we communicate very differently. You call it bollocks, I call it feelings. Not everything is about cold hard facts you know. And the 'experts' on here are only giving an opinion because no one really knows what sheep or any animal is feeling.
Having said that, I do know that doggo is ready for a walk and for once, it's not raining so perhaps we'll even enjoy it today.
A more natural sheep-like animal would have a far more interesting life. For instance, they would travel to different grazing grounds.
By early December the rut is over, the following four months are the toughest of the year for Soay sheep as the food supply diminishes and climatic conditions are at their harshest. Most natural deaths occur between February and April with lambs of the previous year and males (who enter the winter in poor condition after rutting) most likely to die.
Doesn't sound that interesting to me, I reckon I'd rather be indoors with a constant supply of food to keep me alive. If I was a sheep that is...
this thread, as expected has turned pretty ugly. Meat eaters on one side. Veggie/vegan/plant based on t'other.
An interesting mix of feelings. i do always wonder with those eating meat why one of the following 'categories' doesnt make them think to reduce or quit meat all together... Environment or Animal welfare or personal health. As the meat industry is pretty damn bad for all.
And going back slightly about 'is it better for an animal to live than not be born at all', im pretty sure these chickens are loving life....
as are these cows....
and these pigs are defo having their best days...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0mKhMxlFX8
I am sure most wont watch any of these, but if you do and you dont feel sadness or still think eating meat is fine, then we clearly are from different walks of life.
It truly breaks my heart. 🙁
what I see when I look out of my window is about 40 sheep in a frequently water logged field of about 8 acres with no shelter.
I regularly walk near a flock of about 100 sheep in a field of about 600 acres (common land with grazing rights). They universally stick to one particular small spot. Unless it's absolutely lashing down, then they might make for the trees just about right next to that spot.
I'm sure people who look after sheep (etc) might have more informed opinions and experience.
If my opinion is invalid, as someone who doesn't 'look after' sheep, then so is yours, monkfishfinger (I presume) so not entirely sure why you posted that. And if they choose to stay in that space, then that's up to them. The sheep I am talking about can't go to another area.
I'm not sure anybody would choose to live on St Kilda, man or beast
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53782411
For the record, I'm not having a go at farmers. I just think, unlike the poster above, that everybody's opinions are valid. I mean, how many posts do you get asking for advice on different matters and often people who give advice are just saying what they think, their opinion being formed by their experience. They are rarely experts on the matter. But when we talk about sheep - and we are not talking about rearing them or farm practices or the like - we can only listen to an expert. Doesn't make sense.
I am also not having a go at meat eaters. I have eaten meat for more years than I haven't. And I feed my dog meat because I am not convinced she should eat a vegan diet. I just think animals would be better off without human interference. That includes farm animals, working animals and pets. I'd like to see a massive reduction in the number of people on this planet so there was space for animals to live as they were meant to. And no, I don't think their lives would be full of unbridled joy but neither are the lives of many animals who live under human control.
Which is what I got from that blog post.
Yes from that post you found - but not from the others that I found telling you if its ok to feed your dog veggies etc.
Maybe the moon is made of cheese!
its unlikely but if it was I assume the vegan society would oppose tides 😉
Maybe it doesn’t matter because it ain’t frign happening anyway! It is overwhelmingly most likely that humans will always, variously happily, selfishly, greedily, carelessly, carefully, regretfully or with not a care the world exploit and breed and kill animals for their own pleasure and profit. Is my overall point.
I agree its certainly quite likely we destroy the planet or human race through climate change, illness or war before we stop breeding animals for food or fun.
Some choose not to, but why pick so harshly.
I don't think I was being harsh. I do find the Vegan Society pseudo-religious in their preechy stance and telling other people what they should or shouldn't do and how they should and shouldn't live their lives, and whether they mean to or not some vegans come across as though they believe they have a moral superiority. I'm guessing, but its only supposition, that this is why many places talk about "plant based diets" rather than vegan - there's a stigma attached to veganism which may actually be counter productive to the overall mission.
BTW I literally googled ‘Vegan Society views on pets and that was the top result. Assuming always makes an ass of you and I.
you see whereas I went to the vegan society website and browsed around (I might have used their search tool - its only marginally better than the STW one). Unlike Honey etc where they have a definitive policy. Perhaps its too divisive amongst the membership?
Talking of which, I’ll own that I assumed you had read the article as you were commenting on views found at the Vegan Society. What I should have asked you was to share what you had found, not why you hadn’t shared what I assumed you had found ie
https://www.vegansociety.com/news/blog/vegan-animal-diets-facts-and-myths and https://www.vegansociety.com/news/news/new-report-shows-rise-interest-vegan-food-cats-and-dogs (which says they have granted permission to use the vegan trademark to some pet food producers).
FWIW I don't think Ton was trolling. I've had discussions like that with people over the years who suddenly say, hang on if vegan/veggies love animals* why do they want to make whole species extinct. I've noticed that point more in people who discuss it from an environmental perspective, rather than a moral animal welfare one, where the impact on domesticated species may actually be an unintended consequence. It certainly does no good to respond with "that's the stupidest think I've ever seen". I'm not sure it is necessarily even helpful to say - well we know it will never happen so it is irrelevant. Be honest - "to committed vegans, no cows is better than cows being exploited, artificial fibre is better than silk worms being exploited etc."
*there's a leap in there - but in simple terms, that's what people having that epiphany are doing.
With regard to those videos, I haven't had the chance to watch them- will try later. A quick look told me a couple of things though.
1. The chickens- you're falling into the trap of projecting how YOU would feel about living in those conditions. I briefly saw the guy standing in the middle of a lot of calm and unstressed animals, not panicking or in poor health.
2. The pig- it was not well, but I didn't see any history of what happened. It may have been a fresh condition that the farm hadn't picked up on. It may have been undergoing treatment.
Even if these examples were bad, its very very easy to sensationalise the whole industry based on worst case scenarios, which is what these videos are. I have personally seen a farm worker hug a sow who had lost a piglet with tears in his eyes, but that wouldn't fit the agenda would it?
You call it bollocks, I call it feelings. Not everything is about cold hard facts you know. And the ‘experts’ on here are only giving an opinion because no one really knows what sheep or any animal is feeling.
I’m fairly confident that Cougar wouldn’t class himself an ‘expert’ on animal sentience, emotions and intelligence? (And neither am I) No doubt he’ll correct me if I’m mistaken (?) And please don’t take too much exception at my ‘cringe’ at your comment about ‘bored’ sheep. It’s just that upon reading it knew exactly how it would play out here.
You’re correct though to note that sheep have emotions and intelligence, and they do form strong protective social bonds. I have some mixed feelings:and experiences about farming with lambs/sheep as I’ve worked with sheep in only two different venues, ie with a stressed overworked sheep-farmer (to be fair he was building a sizable ‘empire’,with newbuilds etc and also with a lamb/sheep rescue.
‘Conflicted’ in that I have some empathy for both farmers, farm labourers and for farmed sheep.
This page https://www.lighthousefarmsanctuary.org/post/5-amazing-facts-about-sheep gives an interesting overview about the behaviour and intelligence of sheep.
I worked for a multi-generational farm in an ancient farming landscape in SW England. The farmer knew pretty much exactly what ‘his’ ewes required simply in order for them to produce lambs that were healthy and sizeable enough to pass muster at the scales on the the way to their ‘holiday’ (his jovial term for the slaughterhouse)
Transporting them and treating them was often stressful for both me and the sheep (and the farmer!) IME. Saw sheep (rarely) being abused/struck and (often) suffer fear and distress. I saw a ewe kicked in the head by a farmer’s booted foot (for the ‘crime’ of her falling and getting her head stuck in race as they were all being rushed through it)
Another had flesh torn from her leg for the crime of getting said leg caught on the (metal) trailer as they were being hurriedly packed into it. As the trailer-gate was being shut the hindmost ewe was trapped. An impatient farmer begins swearing at her, grabbed her other rear leg with one hand and just yanked it hard, tearing flesh on the other as it caught on the spring mechanism. He didn’t mean to tear the flesh and it only made him angrier at the sheep for what he’d now done.
Trailers IME are often horrible places for sheep to be. They piss and shit with fear when inside of it so the trailer is literally covered with urine and almost liquid faeces. Try cleaning that off the bare metal on a hot spring afternoon once it’s baked on. It’s some job. Overall it’s hard work with often very little sleep, and I saw a very stressed/overworked farmer lose his rag a number of times.
Beyond those lanolin, blood and shitpiss-soaked experiences, I learned as least as much again at the animal rescue/sanctuary. Sheep have surprising intelligence and form deep bonds with their offspring. They recognise and respond to other individual sheep and even people for years after. I still go to visit some of the rescued lambs 10 years later. They live much the same lives as if they were in the farmers fields, except of course now they live with their friends and family (two are related) and are (of course) still alive and also not subjected to regular (any) transporting/handling stresses.
It’s important to note that other sheep farmers will have different experiences and practices, temperaments and methods. Upland sheep farming is one of the least ‘intensive’ forms of animal farming in Europe. It’s millions of miles away from the majority of animals which are intensively ‘farmed’ and processed for consumption in the UK. But even so (IME) even those ‘sunny (rainy!) uplands’ of animal husbandry were sometimes enough to give enduring me nightmares/flashbacks. Other labourers may not lose a minutes sleep. I know someone who ran a slaughterhouse and wound up in psychiatric care. I also knew a very jolly butcher who never flinched. Everyone differs in both their awareness, empathy, intuition, and their tolerance and their assessment. Objective facts about animal suffering remain, but are here most often obscured by bias/cognitive stereotyping. No one is immune to that, not me and not you.
I was initially surprised to learn how individual sheep differ from each other in both temperament and personality. It was my initial ignorance that was ‘stupid’, I suppose. But I’d been raised in a family (like many UK families) who are meat-obsessed (as far as diets are concerned) and so the tendency was to teach kids that animals are ‘dumb’ and don’t ‘feel’ anything much, just basically insensate food items on legs. This view makes it so much easier to enjoy that limb in the oven, so I understand why we do it (even if we sometimes they don’t quite fully understand if or when they are doing it).
“Stupid" sheep is also common human misconception partly born from a misunderstanding of sheep’s strong flocking instinct (and failure to act independently of one another). This can get sheep into a pickle depending on the environment (ie navigating slippery trailers or broken/badly-erected races)
A flocks protection from predators is to band together and follow the sheep in front of them. If a predator is threatening the flock, this is not the time to act independently.
@ThePilot if you want to gauge the emotions of sheep here's a handy guide:
Ears are good indicators of emotions. They are more mobile in negative situations, such as isolation or unpalatable feed. Sheep raise their ears more when vigilant or displeased, and hold them back in intimidating or unpleasant situations. Ears are placed at different angles when rapid and surprising events occur. When relaxed and content, the ears hang loosely.
Finally, @ThePilot I have to fully apologise for offhand characterising your comment re sheep ‘boredom’ as ‘silly’. You have also shown far more class in your response (to your critics) than have any of your critics (self included).
From our previous studies and according to the frameworkused by Sander et al (2005), sheep appear to have thepotential to feel a wide range of emotions, including fear,anger, rage and despair, because they use the same appraisalcomponents involved in such emotions as in humans (Boissyet al 2007a; Veissier et al 2009). For instance, despair in humans is triggered by situations which are evaluated as sudden, unfamiliar, unpredictable, discrepant from expectations, and uncontrollable, whereas boredom results from an overly predictable environment, and all these components have been found to affect emotional responses in sheep…The assertions described in this study are not so far from the intuitive knowledge of breeders or other people who have close relations with animals (and sheep in this case). The present paper gives support to this intuitive inter-pretation of animal expressions.
*my bold.
Wasn't expecting that @p7eaven but it was a nice and informative and thought provoking even if ultimately sad (as in parts of it made me sad) response so thanks.
I wasn't classing cougar as an expert by the way or thinking he was doing so.
I haven't really looked at sheeps' ears but I know that from dogs and horses. If they are near the fence when me and doggo go past they are clearly scared as they run away but they are not always near the fence. We live in a sheepy area and can't always avoid them but we will go somewhere more urban when we move. I talk to them as we pass and hope it makes them less worried.
I once saw a sheep lying on its back, covered in cow dung and unable to get up. Little doggo found her. I went over to investigate what she was barking at. I'll never forget the look of pure terror in her eyes. Luckily, the farmer was in the field (we were in the woods next to the field) so I was able to call him over and he stood her up and she was very wobbly but ok in the end. Poor thing may well have been there all night.
Now, I know woodlice can't get up if they go on their backs but I think it unlikely that an animal such as a sheep would evolve so that it could not get up without human interference to breed animals that have such broad backs that they can't get up so as to produce more high-price meat.
I saw a tweet from a farmer informing people that if they see a sheep on it's back go over and help it as it needs the help.
As for chickens, have kept them for over 20 years and I know what they like. I can tell you that it is not just standing around inside a warehouse. They like to scratch around (under tress, bushes, flower beds etc,.), they like to dust bath in the sun making baths in the dirt and they generally just like walking around together doing chicken stuff.
Given the choice I would be amazed if they chose the warehouse.
Be honest – “to committed vegans, no cows is better than cows being exploited, artificial fibre is better than silk worms being exploited etc.”
And the problem with this is? As I said earlier in the thread, the world would be a much better place without cows, pigs, chickens and sheep. You can include domestic dogs and cats to that too.
And as for the vegan society, In my time I've known hundreds of vegans, most of my mates are vegan along with my family. I can assure you almost none of them worry about what the vegan society says.
That was my point really. We don't need experts to tell us that kerley's chickens are happier and healthier than those in a warehouse. All you need is a little empathy, a little compassion and a little common sense.
Anyone who is doesn't recognise that is trying really hard to convince themselves that it is ok.
And if anyone wants to ask, do we though? Here's my answer: yes
And the problem with this is? As I said earlier in the thread, the world would be a much better place without cows, pigs, chickens and sheep. You can include domestic dogs and cats to that too.
Nothing at all - but you can surely see why at first glance someone who thought vegans were out and out animal lovers might initially seem surprised at this.
And as for the vegan society, In my time I’ve known hundreds of vegans, most of my mates are vegan along with my family. I can assure you almost none of them worry about what the vegan society says.
Its interesting though - vegan is a term that the vegan society (or its founders) invented, they defined the rules, they sell the trademarks, people seem happy to use that label themselves but then say "I don't care what the vegan society say". It would be like me (who in many ways is supportive of most of the principles of humanism, but am not a member of the Humanist Society) labelling myself as Humanist but then saying, "I don't care what the Humanist Society says".
@poly (I’ll address your reply to me based on the OP/my response to same later when I have time)
Meanwhile - maybe try out what I find is a good method for getting to the bottom of things. ie make the argument both for and against your enemy/opponent.
ie in this case compare some charitable interpretations of the intentions of your chosen enemy? ie First choose your worst negative (even straw-man) interpretaion of what you are reading/hearing/remembering, and then pit that interpretation against your best charitable interpretation (if indeed possible) of same? There’s a good chance (possibly the best chance) that a clearer picture will emerge?
(Disclaimer: I’m not ‘vegan’ or vegan (but seems that my thoughts and feelings about animal exploitation broadly overlap with a substantial amount of vegan philosophy), and I don’t belong to Veganuary neither am I a card-carrying member of Vegan Society, Atheist Society, or the Flexitarian Foundation. Also described as broadly secular humanist but again, not a member of the Humanist Association or Secularhumanist org. I am a member of the CTC (Cycling UK) though and check regularly for information on how and when to wear a Carradice wool jersey 😀)
That boring and probably unnecessary stuff out of the way, here’s a starter from the ‘Veganuary’ NPO webpage: https://veganuary.com/will-farmed-animals-become-extinct-if-dont-eat-them/
…farming jobs would not be lost in a vegan world since producing vegetables is more labour-intensive than farming animals, so that’s good news for everyone!
The second concern is that individual species of farmed animal would become extinct if people stopped eating them, but for many farmed species this would be a very positive outcome.
Farmed breeds are not natural. They were specifically bred into being by people who wanted certain physical traits, such as large muscles or high milk yields, even though these money-making traits also cause a lot of suffering. Commercial breeds of turkeys and broiler chickens, for example, are bred to put on a lot of weight as quickly as possible and as a result their joints are painful, their hearts are weak and they are prone to bone breakages. It is right that these poor creatures are not bred to be this way.
Extinction of farmed species is not therefore a concern but the extinction of wild species is a very pressing issue. Up to one million species currently face extinction because of the activities of humans, according to the United Nations. Deforestation, habitat destruction and climate change together are driving the current “mass extinction event” and behind all three is animal agriculture.
Forests are razed to make way for grazing or to grow crops to feed animals. The oceans are decimated not just for human consumption but so that caught fish can be rendered into feed for farmed animals. And 14.5 per cent of human generated climate-changing gases comes from farming animals.
The science is clear: if we truly wish to stop animal species from becoming extinct, we should choose vegan.
What would be
1. Your best most charitable interpretation of that?
and
2. Your worst/most strawmanny interpretation of that?
And
3. When 1 & 2 are compared side by side. which one ‘wins’ and why?
If everyone in the world shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%.
Got a Further Reading for that?
I’m not sure why you think its loaded that the body that invented veganism as a specific concept/philosophy are the ones who decide what is or is not permitted. That seems entirely logical to me.
It's logical but not necessarily correct. P7 has already covered this in the time it's taken me to catch up, but one does not need to need to follow a society's self-created rules in order to avoid using animal-derived products. I guess it's akin to being a christian without being Catholic.
Very good, very good.
I'm glad that didn't go to waste.
I’ll just say one more thing @cougar and I’ll leave it at that because I think we communicate very differently.
This is a failing on my part, I know. I talk to people online like they're my mates and this is simply how my peer group talks. If I was talking bollocks I would 100% expect someone to say "tha's talking bollocks lad, shut it." This can be interpreted badly I know, but I've tried and failed to stop doing it for years. Sorry.
You call it bollocks, I call it feelings. Not everything is about cold hard facts you know. And the ‘experts’ on here are only giving an opinion because no one really knows what sheep or any animal is feeling.
But it is about facts, really. You can 'feel' what you like and it changes nothing. I could feel "it might be happier in an open field" about a dog, a small child, a sheep, a bowl of petunias or a breeze block. Some of those things might well be, but something as ephemeral as a 'feeling' is a shaky basis from which to make - or preach - lifestyle choices.
Would sheep be happier in [insert different scenario here]? Do sheep even have any concept of "happy" beyond instincts? I have no idea, and nor do you. Of course, giving them a four star sheep hotel to stay in with artisan grass on tap and "absolutely no wolves" signs might make people feel happier...
I just think, unlike the poster above, that everybody’s opinions are valid.
... in your opinion. Ironically. 😁
Again, you may feel this but it's not the case. Everyone is equally entitled to their opinions but it's a nonsense to suggest that all of those opinions hold equal validity. Alice is of the opinion that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, Bob is of the opinion that it is flat. Do we give both of those opinions equal credence?
I feed my dog meat because I am not convinced she should eat a vegan diet. I just think animals would be better off without human interference.
Why do you have a dog then? You monster.
@Cougar here (have yet to read it fully myself it’s fairly new)
https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets
here https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
(Link function has stopped working)
Thanks @cougar. It is a failing on my behalf too. And wasn't helped by an 8% can of IPA 😉
I disagree that it is about facts. There are no facts really and no one knows how animals really feel. Up to a point, sure, but only up to a point. I think intuition is at least as important as facts. I intuitively know that a sheep with foot rot who is limping and can't get to dry ground is suffering and would be happier if they were not suffering. That's how I think anyway.
As for opinions, yeah you're right in the example you give. And if I was going to farm sheep then I would consult an expert but this thread was never about, despite its drift, the process of farming sheep. Much more about animal welfare and as such I think a wider range of opinions was valid.
As for the dog, I've got a dog because I'm lonely. That's the honest answer. And I love dogs. And I am not doing so well with this thing called life. And I don't really seem to have any friends any more. And after my last relationship, I said that's it, no more and it's been 7 years now so I guess I meant it. Having said that, I would not have a dog bred for me. This one came to the UK from Romania to a family. They were told she was 14 and just needed a garden, no walks. Anyhow, the lady realised that she was unlikely to be 14, she was just ill and needed some tlc and there was every chance she'd be a fairly big, fairly strong dog with a massive prey drive. And she's all of those things. And she couldn't cope with that kind of dog as she already had other dogs. So she came to me as an emergency foster. And she was in such a state and the organisation wanted to move her on again fairly quickly but I didn't think it was fair on her, so she stayed. And she's a lovely lovely dog and has been so rewarding to help. And I think she is happy now but she's been through hell at the hands of human beings. Hell like we couldn't imagine. And she's one of the lucky ones because if that lady hadn't adopted her, she'd be dead. She would never have survived a Romanian winter the state she was in. And she's probably closer to 4 than 14. And we live in an old person's town with a difficult climate and the number of dogs I see that I think, can't you see that that dog needs to be pts? And to my total shame, I did the same with my last dog and only saw it after she'd gone. And she was so loved. And yet she suffered. And so that is at least one of the reasons why I think people should not be in charge of animals' lives. This one has been told she's going too early. By the time you notice, it's already probably too late, so too early is better than too late. But she's happy for now, chewing on a bull's penis as I type. Lucky dog, poor bull.
against your enemy/opponent.
I’ve never seen anyone on STW as my enemy. I certainly didn’t see anyone in this thread as my opponent. I think you might have just given me the push I need to log out from here permanently because if I’m pissing people off like that I don’t want to be here, and if other people believe we are in some sort of battle rather than an interesting discussion they are just wasting my time. I can tolerate the shit forum software, poor customer relations etc but only if there’s actually some fun in the discussions - clearly I’m not coming across right of people here are too sensitive on their pet issues.
if I’m pissing people off like that I don’t want to be here
You aren't, and please don't.
Your post and the one preceding require longer replies, but it's half 2 in the morning and I'm going to bed. Please believe that this place would be lesser if it were missing either of your contributions.
(+1 what cougar said, BTW)
poly you’ve been one poster here who has put in some good effort to defend the OP and you’ve also tried to highlight the core of the debate. This has not ‘pissed me off’, entirely the opposite! I see it as a fun opportunity to get to the bottom of the question. Maybe my debating style has pissed you off? I consciously try always to play the ball, not the person. I may forget put a wink in know and again if teasing someone’s POV/suspected angle, but that’s OK.
I’ve never seen anyone on STW as my enemy... I certainly didn’t see anyone in this thread as my opponent.
Maybe I didn’t articulate myself so well because that was not what I meant. Exactly the opposite!
I wasn’t referring to an individual or anyone on STW. I use ‘opponent/enemy’ here as a debating term in the framework of the thought experiment suggested in my post.
Let me try and explain again (if you stand behind your belief that the OP was a valid and interesting question) and maybe we could still get an answer to it (after pages of no answer!)
Fun in debating is what makes such serious philosophical/hypothetical discussions work. (not all discussions, ie non-serious discussions often call for zero facts and maximum fun)
But I also get fun/enjoyment (and knowledge) from debating serious questions. ie Getting to the nugget of the question, rather than throwaway statements and personal jibes and people pulling up their petticoats and making it personal. 100% debate/discussion. Play the ball etc. Obviously I’m not alone' some posters came here just to poke fun of course, but some posters (you being one of them) defended the OP and focused the debate on the actual question hiding behind the OP.
I agree with ton about one thing, and that’s that the OP was worded badly - because it isn’t really a serious question about meat at all, I’d suggest that it’s actually more correctly titled as
‘How can vegans care about domestic animals, if vegans also want to make domestic animals extinct’?
This ‘argument’ (in the debating sense) as far as I can gather) identifies the ‘enemy/opponent’ as the alleged contradiction in vegan philosophy. You highlighted a few of these (alleged) vegan contradictions in your posts ie
pretty extreme mental gymnastics…Rescue dogs/cats are OK but buying “new” is not, and rescue exotics are not. I’m glad I’m not a blind vegan
if vegan/veggies love animals - why do they want to make whole species extinct?
So my respectful/hopeful invitation is for you to make your opponent’s case in the pursuit of getting a final answer to ‘OP vs vegan moral dilemma/vegan contradiction. Again, this is 100% good-natured. It feels weird tbh to have to point that out 🤔. Maybe I am a very bad communicator via text. More than possible.
https://www.rightattitudes.com/2008/12/12/explain-your-opponents-perspective/
So please, please read my last post again and replace ‘opponent/enemy’ with ‘vegan contradiction’. Now do you get me? I hope so.
Maybe ton would also jump in and try the same. If indeed it was a serious question in the OP?
Again for clarity:
This ‘argument’ (in the debating sense) identifies the ‘enemy/opponent’ as the alleged contradiction in vegan philosophy?
“If you can’t imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking*, you just don’t understand it yet.”
– Anthony Weston, ‘Rulebook for Arguments’
*In the debating sense. ie again I’m not suggesting anyone here is literally attacking someone’s person or their feelings etc.
‘How can vegans care about domestic animals, if vegans also want to make domestic animals extinct’?
Domestic animals are created by humans. Their ‘extinction’ wouldn’t be a disaster or damage the world in any way. It’s stupid anyway as no one is talking about extinction, just reducing their numbers by 99.9%.
as the contradiction in vegan philosophy.
There is no contradiction. Vegan philosophy is focused on one thing, which is eliminating the cruelty and suffering perpetrated on non-human animals by humans. In actual fact the liberation of domestic animals from human exploitation would be good for those species. Those that can survive in the wild would prosper and evolve like any other species. Those that can’t would naturally die off. Vegans are against human inflicted suffering, not evolution.
In actual fact the liberation of domestic animals from human exploitation would be good for those species.
Firstly, whether your personal view is representative of ‘vegan philosophy’ is a question that springs to mind?
I would never voluntarily remove my care from other animals within my care unless
1. I could no longer care for them
or
2. I genuinely believed that they would suffer less without my care/without their family.
I would fully support their not being bred but I wouldn’t throw our rescue dog out into the street or woods to fend for herself and ‘evolve or die’. Neither our friend’s rescued battery hens and sheep. They are ‘captive’ on account of their welfare. Our rescue dog was literally scooped by Mrs P from inbetween passing vehicles as she (the dog) had been abandoned by leaving neighbours in the street as a puppy covered in cigarette burns and dog bites. She was enormously timid and took years of care to make her even slightly trust people (she would always have a harder time trusting another dog, unsurprisingly after being used/abused as a ‘toy’ for the prior ‘owner’s’ bigger/vicious dog)
Please clarify your position? Are you suggesting that ‘vegan philosophy’ is to release all domestic animals into the wild and if they thrive so be it, and if they suffer and die before finding a mate then they don’t get to ‘evolve’? Because that’s how your statement reads to me?
I very much doubt dazh is suggesting that humans abandon their domesticated animals to fend for themselves. I might be wrong.
I would like to see a world where animals are free from human interference and are free to live their own lives. But that could only be achieved over decades or centuries.
Helping a domesticated animal that needs help is a good thing to do but it would be better if that animal wasn't in need of a person's help, having been firstly created and then abused by other people, in the first place.
I actually really struggle being in charge of or a leader to my dog. I want us to be equals or even her in charge of me. But she lives in 'my world' so I have to be in charge of her. I really wasn't in charge with my first dog. And that was a terrible mistake. I took this one to a behaviourist and discovered that if she was going to be happy, then i had to change. Nothing major but little but important things.
Sigh. No I’m not talking about abandoning domestic dogs and cats, surely that’s obvious? p7 I’m getting a strong pedantry vibe here. I’m talking about a potential future where ex-domestic species could exist as wild animals. Some would be fine (domestic cats for instance), others not. FWIW we have 3 rescue cats. Over the past 30 years we’ve had about a dozen. The standard approach is to neuter them so they can’t breed and allow them to live out their natural lives. If everyone did that they would disappear quite quickly and the small number living in the wild would continue to do just that. Problem solved.
I very much doubt dazh is suggesting that humans abandon their domesticated animals to fend for themselves. I might be wrong.
Hence why I asked him rather than assume. They also (unwittingly) highlight poly’s good questions about what is ‘vegan philosophy’ , if there is no set rule-book (I paraphrase) then any old thing that is done or said or suggested in the name of ‘veganism’ can be claimed as ‘vegan philosophy’ (by detractors or supporters)
*edit
p7 I’m getting a strong pedantry vibe here.
I’m frustrated that you’re getting ‘pedantry’. My intention was to take time and care to clarify/expand upon what you meant as opposed to myself or others risking attacking a strawman version of your/vegan/philosophy. Maybe I rather took it for granted that you would see that? That explained, hopefully the twain can now meet?
Sigh. No I’m not talking about abandoning domestic dogs and cats, surely that’s obvious?</blockquote</>
No? It wasn’t immediately obvious and neither specified. It may be to me, but that’s irrelevant for the sake of the debate.
But now with your updated clarification we may have avoided pages of misunderstanding and strawguments? Is that not obvious? (no sarcasm intended, I’m beginning to think I really can’t make myself understood!)
See above on vegan philosophy. It’s really quite simple.
The reason you sound pedantic is that you’re trying to deconstruct and question something that is incredibly simple. By all means disagree but don’t try to use silly edge case arguments to discredit it.
I think poly's idea of logging out permanently, or at least out of this thread, is a good one.
I think poly’s idea of logging out permanently, or at least out of this thread, is a good one.
Maybe, but I have endless stamina for refuting silly arguments and the veganism issue brings out the silliest, as we’ve seen once again in this thread. It’s comical really. In all my decades as a vegan I’ve never been criticised for denying unborn animals the right to life. I told mrs Daz about this one and she thinks it’s hilarious.
See above on vegan philosophy. It’s really quite simple.
The reason you sound pedantic is that you’re trying to deconstruct and question something that is incredibly simple.
Obviously the question of rewilding domesticated animals is not ‘simple’ to everyone. Not to ton(?), not to poly, not to millions of people who think that vegan philosophy has some big old contradiction.
FWIW we have 3 rescue cats. Over the past 30 years we’ve had about a dozen. The standard approach is to neuter them so they can’t breed and allow them to live out their natural lives. If everyone did that they would disappear quite quickly and the small number living in the wild would continue to do just that. Problem solved.
That makes perfect sense.
I’m sure many would agree that
In actual fact the liberation of domestic animals from human exploitation would be good for those species. Those that can survive in the wild would prosper and evolve like any other species.
Is much more difficult to understand without further clarification. A lot of people don’t know the difference between domestic animals and domesticated animals, let alone what ‘liberation of domestic animals’ actually looks like.
Maybe, but I have endless stamina for refuting silly arguments
Likewise. But play the argument not the person. It took poly’s balls (!)/persistence to get to the nugget of the argument? And my ‘pedantry’ ball to tease out a clarification from a vegan.
Whether the ‘final score’ of ‘Understanding VS Veganism’ has turned out to be a load of balls or a load of bollocks depends (as from the outset) very much on whether the OP had a ‘serious’ question or not.
