Vegan extremists

[otolith]

DoubleD said:

Where do I start ha ha

Goddamn iphones.

[Davos123]

otolith said:

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

They could be returned to nature. George Monbiot has written a lot about this.

[otolith]

Davos123 said:

otolith said:

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

They could be returned to nature. George Monbiot has written a lot about this.

OK. That land belongs to someone. It's someone's livelihood. How does that happen? Do they just up sticks and sign on the dole?

If it gets "rewilded", what does it look like? Scrubland? Brambles?

[Rovinghawk]

otolith said:

That land belongs to someone. It's someone's livelihood. How does that happen? Do they just up sticks and sign on the dole?

They must make sacrifices for the greater good.

otolith said:

If it gets "rewilded", what does it look like? Scrubland? Brambles?

Whatever Mother Nature sees fit- let it happen & see what you'll get. It will be better than it currently is, absolutely guaranteed. 20,000 vegans can't be wrong, especially as they are more enlightened & progressive than those neanderthals who still eat meat.

[LDN]

Rovinghawk said:

otolith said:

That land belongs to someone. It's someone's livelihood. How does that happen? Do they just up sticks and sign on the dole?

They must make sacrifices for the greater good.

otolith said:

If it gets "rewilded", what does it look like? Scrubland? Brambles?

Whatever Mother Nature sees fit- let it happen & see what you'll get. It will be better than it currently is, absolutely guaranteed. 20,000 vegans can't be wrong, especially as they are more enlightened & progressive than those neanderthals who still eat meat.

Hawk; does it occur to you that sniping - and not actually addressing the points; speaks volumes? Maybe? You could address the points, but choose not to; assumptions have to be made when there’s a void of actual debate; the assumption being that, you don’t actually disagree with anything I’ve stated... if you do disagree with any of it; share your evidence and data. Otherwise sniping just cheapens your posts.

[LDN]

Rovinghawk said:

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?

Again, a cheap post. Address the actual points.

If I and many choose to be vegan; and have many arguments to ‘justify to ourselves’ - is that a suggestion that those arguments are true or false? You’ve copped out big time here. You can debate the points or just tread water. You don’t feel the need to justify what you eat, to anyone. Nor must you... so why so upset? And what is my connection to ‘terrrorists’ now, given the level of debate with many posters ,other than yourself, here?

[LDN]

DoubleD said:

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

[otolith]

LDN said:

DoubleD said:

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

Australia is a lovely country!

But seriously - what do you see happening to land like this? Would it be an improvement in habitat and biodiversity?

[LDN]

otolith said:

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

So if we are agreed that the animal agriculture industry, as a whole, is damaging the environment; increasing demand for land use and fresh water; increasing the need for drugs and antibiotics / leading to resistance which is a real problem - then the case for smaller farming practices is indeed less related to those issues, at large. If only all farming could be like that! Which is something you have alluded to. And so the debate there would be more an ethical / philosophical debate. But with regard environmental impact - and taking out of the equation; the ethical debate / and to some extent, the health debate; I have no problem with animals farmed on suitable land, hills and valleys; as described. Again; this is acknowledging that that practice VS the practice of mainstream animal agriculture, that which actually feeds the mass majority of our species; are so far removed.

[toppstuff]

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?

Edited by otolith on Thursday 15th November 12:52

I see a monoculture. Its all a single type of grass.

Rewilding would result in bigger hedges, more trees, much more diversity and considerably more wildlife, flowers, bees, butterflies etc etc..

[Phil.]

toppstuff said:

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?

Edited by otolith on Thursday 15th November 12:52

I see a monoculture. Its all a single type of grass.

Rewilding would result in bigger hedges, more trees, much more diversity and considerably more wildlife, flowers, bees, butterflies etc etc..

The government has a view as of today- ‘cut lamb and beef’ in half and incentivise farmers to plant trees:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...

[otolith]

toppstuff said:

I see a monoculture. Its all a single type of grass.

That's some impressive skills you have there. Last time I did that kind of survey it involved spending all afternoon on my knees combing through metre square quadrants. From my window, I can't even see the clover (assume you spotted it but didn't think it worth mentioning) let alone identify the grasses to species level or assess what plants are in winter dormancy.

toppstuff said:

Rewilding would result in bigger hedges, more trees, much more diversity and considerably more wildlife, flowers, bees, butterflies etc etc..

Assuming it would - how would the family who own the farmland make their living out of that?

[otolith]

Phil. said:

The government has a view as of today- ‘cut lamb and beef’ in half and incentivise farmers to plant trees:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...

Farm trees or other crops for biomass. That ain't rewilding.

[Phil.]

otolith said:

Phil. said:

The government has a view as of today- ‘cut lamb and beef’ in half and incentivise farmers to plant trees:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...

Farm trees or other crops for biomass. That ain't rewilding.

So long as the land owners are paid I doubt they would care. All land owners don’t need to be farmers, some make their income in other ways.

[LDN]

Phil. said:

toppstuff said:

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?

Edited by otolith on Thursday 15th November 12:52

I see a monoculture. Its all a single type of grass.

Rewilding would result in bigger hedges, more trees, much more diversity and considerably more wildlife, flowers, bees, butterflies etc etc..

The government has a view as of today- ‘cut lamb and beef’ in half and incentivise farmers to plant trees:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...

Interesting; and whilst not perhaps rewilding; it is related, directly, to the subject at hand. Hot off the press too.

[toppstuff]

otolith said:

Assuming it would - how would the family who own the farmland make their living out of that?

Ok so I generalised. But it is predominantly a monoculture. Sure you’ll get some grasses and clover ( certainly black grass ) but it’s still barren compared to the alternative. I have a very similar view behind my house.

Two miles down the road from me is a Wildlide Trust managed piece of private land ( a valley ) which has NEVER been farmed using machinery. It’s an amazing place.

You can still raise cattle and pigs on wilded land. Indeed they thrive on it and so does biodiversity.

You can also still take hay and haylage. It is not so different. It’s just a different approach. Besides you would not put all of the land over that way.

[Rollin]

At what point will population growth negate any positives of total vegan agriculture?

[LDN]

Phil. said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...

Hmmm, there is actually a rewilding aspect to the proposals.

Also, article states: The committee’s advice on producing less red meat is less radical than NHS Eatwell guidelines on healthy eating, which proposes a reduction in consumption of 89% for beef and 63% for lamb, and a 20% decline in dairy products.

BBC News understands that the committee have deliberately taken a more conservative position in order to minimise confrontation with the farmers’ union, the NFU.

Interesting that the reality has actually been diluted so as to no offend the farmers. Poor poor show.

[otolith]

But we're talking about what would happen to it if there were to be no animal farming; the argument being made is that it would be unneeded because we wouldn't need to grow so much in order to feed animals, and thus could be rewilded. I rather suspect that, since the farmer would still wish to make a living from it, it would end up under the plough and sowed with cereal or rape, hedgerows, trees and ponds removed to facilitate larger machinery and fertilised and sprayed to hell.

[LDN]

otolith said:

But we're talking about what would happen to it if there were to be no animal farming; the argument being made is that it would be unneeded because we wouldn't need to grow so much in order to feed animals, and thus could be rewilded. I rather suspect that, since the farmer would still wish to make a living from it, it would end up under the plough and sowed with cereal or rape, hedgerows, trees and ponds removed to facilitate larger machinery and fertilised and sprayed to hell.

But the mathematics globally would mean less plant crops and so less land fertilised and sprayed to hell; as you put it. I think there’s still this idea that if meat consumption declines then plant output would have to increase due to something needing to replace the livestock. Which is true; but the land needed to grow food for livestock is a multiple of what is actually needed for the relative calorie / protein output.

If you’re talking about the British countryside, solely, then; yes; farmers or land owners will want to monetise their land and that’s on them. I have never asked farmers to hold my hand, when I created my businesses: nor do I ask them to hold my hand with changing consumer trends, attitudes, exchange rates or government interference. It’s another debate entirely; and an evolution of the original debate regarding environmental impact... of which, our government seems to have agreed with my assertions.