Vegan extremists

[DoubleD]

Has anyone got any exciting vegan recipes then? I was a chef many years ago so that side interests me.

I also think that it is better to entice people to become vegan, rather than shouting at people and telling them what they must do. Show them nice food rather than just reminding them what they will be missing out on.

[Halb]

LDN said:

There must be plenty that do! But as stated here... it seems that a lot of alcoholic drinks have become vegan. By chance or by design.

there's vegan pubs, so some must!

THere is a great vegan restaurant in Camden town, that does great ice-cream

[LDN]

DoubleD said:

Has anyone got any exciting vegan recipes then? I was a chef many years ago so that side interests me.

I also think that it is better to entice people to become vegan, rather than shouting at people and telling them what they must do. Show them nice food rather than just reminding them what they will be missing out on.

I’ll get you some recipes when I touch home.

As an aside; I’m not sure there’s a lot of shouting at each other here, is there? Moreso, straight debate. The latest point being that of the benefits of the current animal agriculture industry; (of which I don’t think there are any bar simply feeding people in an inefficient; questionable way) VS what the future might look like. Biodiversity and habitats has been mentioned as a good aspect of modern animal agriculture; which I find surprising. I believed those factors to be filed under ‘bad aspects’ of the current animal agriculture industry, as they impact biodiversity and habitats; not aid them. Interested to know more on that.

[grumbledoak]

LDN said:

I believed those factors to be filed under ‘bad aspects’ of the current animal agriculture industry, as they impact biodiversity and habitats; not aid them. Interested to know more on that.

What do you think the "biodiversity and habitats" are like in a 1,500 acre fertiliser-, pesticide-, herbicide-, and fungicide- drenched field?

[LDN]

grumbledoak said:

LDN said:

I believed those factors to be filed under ‘bad aspects’ of the current animal agriculture industry, as they impact biodiversity and habitats; not aid them. Interested to know more on that.

What do you think the "biodiversity and habitats" are like in a 1,500 acre fertiliser-, pesticide-, herbicide-, and fungicide- drenched field?

So you’re agreeing or disagreeing that when it comes to bio diversity and habitats, that animal agriculture has a negative effect? Please expand. Another poster said it was actually a good aspect of modern animal agriculture, which surprised me. Hopefully he’ll chime in.

Separately, the plant crops I believe you are referring to are majorty fed to livestock. The majority of soy crops for example feed livestock. So if thats a concern of yours; animal agriculture is still mostly to blame...

As well; I’m intrigued by your belief that we are actually carnivores. Please expand.... so far, you’ve ignored efforts to engage this point of debate in particular. I’m guessing why, but maybe you’ll surprise.

[grumbledoak]

LDN said:

So you’re agreeing or disagreeing that…

Separately, the plant crops I believe you are referring to...

As well; I’m intrigued by your belief that we are actually carnivores...

Do you do anything other than put words in other people's mouths?

It's as unconvincing as your "vision" of a Vegan paradise without any of those inconvenient animals. Literally without any animals.

[LDN]

grumbledoak said:

LDN said:

So you’re agreeing or disagreeing that…

Separately, the plant crops I believe you are referring to...

As well; I’m intrigued by your belief that we are actually carnivores...

Do you do anything other than put words in other people's mouths?

It's as unconvincing as your "vision" of a Vegan paradise without any of those inconvenient animals. Literally without any animals.

Won’t actually debate the points then... just some vague snipes. Well; you are consistent

[otolith]

LDN said:

otolith said:

LDN said:

Good post. One point to pick up on; you say it’s the worst aspects of our current system but without the animals. What are the best aspects of the current system that are not transferable, do you think?

I would say that the best aspects of our current system are what you get from mixed, extensive agriculture, in terms of habitat, biodiversity, soil health (and carbon capture) and landscape and reduced use of synthetic fertilisers. But I recognise that we probably can't feed the world that way. There are just too damn many of us.

I’m not sure that the good aspects you’ve listed can be attributed to the current system of animal agriculture. Are you saying that the current system benefits habitats, biodiversity, etc? If you mean some niche of the current system; that the vast majority of the animal agriculture world, plays no part in; then that can be explored - but even then, as you say; the world couldn’t be fed that way.

Those are the bits of the status quo I approve of.
There’s an awful lot of stuff I don’t (and not just in the farming of animals).

[otolith]

The enlightened management of grazing land gives good biodiversity, for instance.

[LDN]

otolith said:

LDN said:

otolith said:

LDN said:

Good post. One point to pick up on; you say it’s the worst aspects of our current system but without the animals. What are the best aspects of the current system that are not transferable, do you think?

I would say that the best aspects of our current system are what you get from mixed, extensive agriculture, in terms of habitat, biodiversity, soil health (and carbon capture) and landscape and reduced use of synthetic fertilisers. But I recognise that we probably can't feed the world that way. There are just too damn many of us.

I’m not sure that the good aspects you’ve listed can be attributed to the current system of animal agriculture. Are you saying that the current system benefits habitats, biodiversity, etc? If you mean some niche of the current system; that the vast majority of the animal agriculture world, plays no part in; then that can be explored - but even then, as you say; the world couldn’t be fed that way.

Those are the bits of the status quo I approve of.
There’s an awful lot of stuff I don’t (and not just in the farming of animals).

I see you mean the good aspects that can be had from smaller managed grazing which don’t really play a part in global animal agriculture in general; which, to be fair, you’ve already acknowledged; as you already stated that the world cannot be fed that way. Never the less, interesting.

In general, bio diversity and habitats are negatively affected by animal agriculture; and in some cases, in severe ways. That’s why I was curious.

[Rollin]

LDN said:

otolith said:

LDN said:

otolith said:

LDN said:

Good post. One point to pick up on; you say it’s the worst aspects of our current system but without the animals. What are the best aspects of the current system that are not transferable, do you think?

I would say that the best aspects of our current system are what you get from mixed, extensive agriculture, in terms of habitat, biodiversity, soil health (and carbon capture) and landscape and reduced use of synthetic fertilisers. But I recognise that we probably can't feed the world that way. There are just too damn many of us.

I’m not sure that the good aspects you’ve listed can be attributed to the current system of animal agriculture. Are you saying that the current system benefits habitats, biodiversity, etc? If you mean some niche of the current system; that the vast majority of the animal agriculture world, plays no part in; then that can be explored - but even then, as you say; the world couldn’t be fed that way.

Those are the bits of the status quo I approve of.
There’s an awful lot of stuff I don’t (and not just in the farming of animals).

I see you mean the good aspects that can be had from smaller managed grazing which don’t really play a part in global animal agriculture in general; which, to be fair, you’ve already acknowledged; as you already stated that the world cannot be fed that way. Never the less, interesting.

In general, bio diversity and habitats are negatively affected by animal agriculture; and in some cases, in severe ways. That’s why I was curious.

Which crops grown for human consumption on an industrial scale have a positive effect on bio diversity and habitats?

[LDN]

Rollin said:

LDN said:

otolith said:

LDN said:

otolith said:

LDN said:

Good post. One point to pick up on; you say it’s the worst aspects of our current system but without the animals. What are the best aspects of the current system that are not transferable, do you think?

I would say that the best aspects of our current system are what you get from mixed, extensive agriculture, in terms of habitat, biodiversity, soil health (and carbon capture) and landscape and reduced use of synthetic fertilisers. But I recognise that we probably can't feed the world that way. There are just too damn many of us.

I’m not sure that the good aspects you’ve listed can be attributed to the current system of animal agriculture. Are you saying that the current system benefits habitats, biodiversity, etc? If you mean some niche of the current system; that the vast majority of the animal agriculture world, plays no part in; then that can be explored - but even then, as you say; the world couldn’t be fed that way.

Those are the bits of the status quo I approve of.
There’s an awful lot of stuff I don’t (and not just in the farming of animals).

I see you mean the good aspects that can be had from smaller managed grazing which don’t really play a part in global animal agriculture in general; which, to be fair, you’ve already acknowledged; as you already stated that the world cannot be fed that way. Never the less, interesting.

In general, bio diversity and habitats are negatively affected by animal agriculture; and in some cases, in severe ways. That’s why I was curious.

Which crops grown for human consumption on an industrial scale have a positive effect on bio diversity and habitats?

Not many - but I never said any were. It was asserted that one of the ‘good aspects’ of animal agriculture is bio diversity and habitats. But animal agriculture has decimated habitats and negatively impacted bio diversity. And that was my point. Your post agrees with my assertion?

[Rovinghawk]

LDN said:

Not many - but I never said any were. It was asserted that one of the ‘good aspects’ of animal agriculture is bio diversity and habitats. But animal agriculture has decimated habitats and negatively impacted bio diversity.

Has veggie agriculture improved habitats & biodiversity? I think not.

You'll doubtless claim that the negative impacts are somehow 'better' than animal-based impacts.

[Symptomless Coma]

LDN said:

Not many - but I never said any were. It was asserted that one of the ‘good aspects’ of animal agriculture is bio diversity and habitats. But animal agriculture has decimated habitats and negatively impacted bio diversity. And that was my point. Your post agrees with my assertion?

Good animal husbandry is a positive thing for biodiversity; permanent grazing (where the land isn’t suitable for agriculture) eg hills and valleys with good management gives fields of wild flowers with the associated insects; with planned haymaking gives suitable habitat for ground nesting birds.
Compared to a field of single crop with all the additional chemicals...

[LDN]

Rovinghawk said:

LDN said:

Not many - but I never said any were. It was asserted that one of the ‘good aspects’ of animal agriculture is bio diversity and habitats. But animal agriculture has decimated habitats and negatively impacted bio diversity.

Has veggie agriculture improved habitats & biodiversity? I think not.

You'll doubtless claim that the negative impacts are somehow 'better' than animal-based impacts.

You ignore the questions posed to you in almost every single instance. It’s quite somehting. I’ve said before; if the negative impacts of plant agriculture is a concern of yours; animal agriculture is a major cause of that also... see previous posts on the inefficency of animal agriculture related to plant crops / soya as an example where the mass majority of soy crops are for animal feed.

And so if animal agriculture and plant crops are having a negative impact; which they are... then animal agriculture has the most to answer for - because it, in and of itself, is bad for bio diversity and habitats, but also, it requires multiple amounts of plant crops to sustain it.

Yes? No?

[LDN]

Symptomless Coma said:

LDN said:

Not many - but I never said any were. It was asserted that one of the ‘good aspects’ of animal agriculture is bio diversity and habitats. But animal agriculture has decimated habitats and negatively impacted bio diversity. And that was my point. Your post agrees with my assertion?

Good animal husbandry is a positive thing for biodiversity; permanent grazing (where the land isn’t suitable for agriculture) eg hills and valleys with good management gives fields of wild flowers with the associated insects; with planned haymaking gives suitable habitat for ground nesting birds.
Compared to a field of single crop with all the additional chemicals...

But we are speaking about feeding our species. One particular type of animal husbandry, that does not sustain our ever growing population, has some positive side effects. But to then expand on that and say that animal agriculture is good for the environment; is a no go. When you say a single crop with all of the additional chemicals... again, you’re only really referring to the very crops that then go onto feed livestock, in multiples of what would be needed otherwise. So a way to cut down on plant crops; in the largest way possible, is to cut down on livestock.

Let’s be clear; animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of deforestation, biodiversity loss, water pollution, etc. And so, to specify a type of farming - that the world’s population is not sustained on, and say that animal agriculture is benefitting the above; is a little disingenuous.

UN Stats from some years back state that; worldwide, more than 40% of wheat, rye, oats, and corn production is fed to animals, as well as 250 million tons of soybeans and other oilseeds. In countries outside of our own, heavy doses of antibiotics and drugs are used to speed animal growth and reduce disease outbreak. In 2011, the USA pumped 13,600 tons of antibiotics into animals, for human consumption; many times more than humans themselves took for illnesses. Some reports say that China used over 100,000 tons in their meat production.

And so, the picture of animals grazing the hills and valleys is a lovely one, but a million miles from the reality of the situation.

[otolith]

OK - so how would you expect the British countryside to change if we were to stop farming animals? What differences would we see?

[otolith]

i.e. This is what is outside my front door. They farm dairy cattle and sheep, They also keep a few free range chickens for eggs.



What would you see happening to that land?

Edited by otolith on Thursday 15th November 12:52

[DoubleD]

otolith said:

i.e. This is what is outside my front door. They farm dairy cattle and sheep, They also keep a few free range chickens for eggs.



What would you see happening to that land?

Where do I start ha ha

[Rovinghawk]

LDN- you have chosen to be vegan & have many arguments to justify your position to yourself. respect your freedom to do as you please.

I wish to eat whatever I choose, including meat & dairy, and don't feel the need to justify it to anyone. Assuming that you will equally respect my freedom to do so, would you please ask your quasi-terrorist co-vegans to stop intimidating & attacking those whose views differ from your/their own?