Student strike for climate change
Discussion
Davos123 said:
Randy Winkman said:
It sounds to me like you are tying yourself in knots to show that you know more about what other people think than they do. In general terms, being vegan is better for the environment than eating animal products. Do you really not agree with that?
I am a vegan and yes I do think being vegan is better for the environment than not. It's just that veganism is an animal rights movement and not eating animal products to help stop climate change isn't veganism.For reference, this is the Vegan Society's definition of veganism, if you don't fit it then you're not vegan.
""A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."
"vegan - 1. a person who does not eat or use animal products. 1. using or containing no animal products.
If someone complies with this are they not "vegan"?
Tankrizzo said:
That is an interesting statement - does it leave room for people being "vegan" yet supporting ethical treatment of animals as a food source? Or does treating any animal as food count as exploitation?
Genunely interested, it's an intriguing philosophical mission statement.
No it doesn't. The primary moral concern is our use of animals, not their treatment. Killing someone that doesn't want to die so you can enjoy how they taste (there's no nutritional need for animal products, you can get everything you need as a vegan) is exploitation. When you reduce a life to property, you are exploiting that life - how you choose to treat the property may make the situation worse but it's exploitation regardless since you are removing agency and free-will from the life that is your property.Genunely interested, it's an intriguing philosophical mission statement.
I don't mean that aggressively, just that's the vegan position.
Randy Winkman said:
Are the Vegan Society in charge of veganism? When I look for a definition of veganism I find:
"vegan - 1. a person who does not eat or use animal products. 1. using or containing no animal products.
If someone complies with this are they not "vegan"?
that's a definition which lacks the nuance of the Vegan Society's definition but is still saying essentially the same thing. A zoo is an animal product, really."vegan - 1. a person who does not eat or use animal products. 1. using or containing no animal products.
If someone complies with this are they not "vegan"?
The Vegan Society isn't in charge of veganism but it reflects the views of vegans well. I can definitely tell you that of all the vegans I know, through online and real life groups, activism and just in my general social circles, you won't find a single one who thinks that someone who doesn't eat animal products but otherwise contributes to animal exploitation through buying products tested on animals, spending their money at aquariums and zoos, buying pets from breeders etc is a vegan.
Davos123 said:
No it doesn't. The primary moral concern is our use of animals, not their treatment. Killing someone that doesn't want to die so you can enjoy how they taste (there's no nutritional need for animal products, you can get everything you need as a vegan) is exploitation. When you reduce a life to property, you are exploiting that life - how you choose to treat the property may make the situation worse but it's exploitation regardless since you are removing agency and free-will from the life that is your property.
I don't mean that aggressively, just that's the vegan position.
Capital, thanks. Decent explanation. No aggression taken, I respect your position although I could never adopt it; I love bacon just too much....I don't mean that aggressively, just that's the vegan position.
Davos123 said:
Randy Winkman said:
Are the Vegan Society in charge of veganism? When I look for a definition of veganism I find:
"vegan - 1. a person who does not eat or use animal products. 1. using or containing no animal products.
If someone complies with this are they not "vegan"?
that's a definition which lacks the nuance of the Vegan Society's definition but is still saying essentially the same thing. A zoo is an animal product, really."vegan - 1. a person who does not eat or use animal products. 1. using or containing no animal products.
If someone complies with this are they not "vegan"?
The Vegan Society isn't in charge of veganism but it reflects the views of vegans well. I can definitely tell you that of all the vegans I know, through online and real life groups, activism and just in my general social circles, you won't find a single one who thinks that someone who doesn't eat animal products but otherwise contributes to animal exploitation through buying products tested on animals, spending their money at aquariums and zoos, buying pets from breeders etc is a vegan.
Evanivitch said:
No, it's the vegan society position. You may adopt it as your own, others don't.
The gatekeeping approach is so absurdly stereotypical that it's painful to see.
The vegan society is reflecting the position of vegans and all literature written on it. There's already a perfectly decent word for people who take actions to protect the environment, they're environmentalists. People who take action to protect the rights of animals are vegans. It's no more gatekeeping than saying a hamburger isn't an ice-cream.The gatekeeping approach is so absurdly stereotypical that it's painful to see.
But please, carry on explaining to someone who's actually vegan, has spent a lot of time studying veganism and interacting with thousands of other vegans, what the f
king word means - I'm sure your experience is far more valuable.Davos123 said:
The vegan society is reflecting the position of vegans and all literature written on it. There's already a perfectly decent word for people who take actions to protect the environment, they're environmentalists. People who take action to protect the rights of animals are vegans. It's no more gatekeeping than saying a hamburger isn't an ice-cream.
But please, carry on explaining to someone who's actually vegan, has spent a lot of time studying veganism and interacting with thousands of other vegans, what the fking word means - I'm sure your experience is far more valuable.
Lol you don't see it do you? You're saying that an unelected body are the defacto authority on veganism. And anyone that doesn't strictly meet the definition that the unelected body has created is castigated as some alternative (which they've also chosen to define).But please, carry on explaining to someone who's actually vegan, has spent a lot of time studying veganism and interacting with thousands of other vegans, what the f
king word means - I'm sure your experience is far more valuable.You are literally the reason why vegans are ridiculed for their own self-promotion.
Veganism is a lifestyle, it's not a rule book. Just because you went to a zoo doesn't mean you're not a vegan.
Davos123 said:
I am a vegan and yes I do think being vegan is better for the environment than not. It's just that veganism is an animal rights movement and not eating animal products to help stop climate change isn't veganism.
For reference, this is the Vegan Society's definition of veganism, if you don't fit it then you're not vegan.
""A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."
As a vegan would you consume or use bits of a animal that died naturally? For reference, this is the Vegan Society's definition of veganism, if you don't fit it then you're not vegan.
""A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."
If we just looked after cows for example until they just died naturally and then used them?
Vegans don't seem to have a problem using the dead remnants of other dead animals.
Evanivitch said:
Lol you don't see it do you? You're saying that an unelected body are the defacto authority on veganism. And anyone that doesn't strictly meet the definition that the unelected body has created is castigated as some alternative (which they've also chosen to define).
You are literally the reason why vegans are ridiculed for their own self-promotion.
Veganism is a lifestyle, it's not a rule book. Just because you went to a zoo doesn't mean you're not a vegan.
No, I'm saying that their definition of veganism more accurately reflects the common understanding of the philosophy held by vegans.You are literally the reason why vegans are ridiculed for their own self-promotion.
Veganism is a lifestyle, it's not a rule book. Just because you went to a zoo doesn't mean you're not a vegan.
These people you're speaking of are mythical, anyway. It's a moot point, people don't just give up eating animals and call themselves vegan in any great numbers.
Veganism is an active moral position and a philosophy. Going to a zoo once doesn't mean you're not a vegan but actively supporting zoos and their existence means you aren't.
Not-The-Messiah said:
As a vegan would you consume or use bits of a animal that died naturally?
If we just looked after cows for example until they just died naturally and then used them?
Vegans don't seem to have a problem using the dead remnants of other dead animals.
I don't have any real ethical objection to a wild animal dying of natural causes and then being consumed (or a human) but it's not a realistic way of getting food or material so who cares? If you want to walk around the forest looking for the rotting corpse of a deer that died of a disease to eat rather than popping down to Tesco to get some broccoli, I won't object.If we just looked after cows for example until they just died naturally and then used them?
Vegans don't seem to have a problem using the dead remnants of other dead animals.
Davos123 said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
As a vegan would you consume or use bits of a animal that died naturally?
If we just looked after cows for example until they just died naturally and then used them?
Vegans don't seem to have a problem using the dead remnants of other dead animals.
I don't have any real ethical objection to a wild animal dying of natural causes and then being consumed (or a human) but it's not a realistic way of getting food or material so who cares? If you want to walk around the forest looking for the rotting corpse of a deer that died of a disease to eat rather than popping down to Tesco to get some broccoli, I won't object.If we just looked after cows for example until they just died naturally and then used them?
Vegans don't seem to have a problem using the dead remnants of other dead animals.
I don't personally like the idea of killing things just so I can eat them, But I just like the taste of them to much and believe life and existence is better than not existing at all even if that existence it's ultimately to be food for other life, its a key principle to life itself.
It reminds me of films like Logan's Run a world where people reach a certain age and then are killed off but are totally oblivious to it. The choice is would you rater have that existence or no existence at all?
Evanivitch said:
Vegan diet requires less human-managed land to be utilised for food production.
It requires less water to be taken from surface and groundwater sources.
It reduces the land area turned to monoculture, and encourages more diverse flora and fauna.
Areas don't smell of chicken st.
I don't think being Vegan is that friendly to the environment. Where do you think all of these vegan friendly products come from? We don't grow them all here.It requires less water to be taken from surface and groundwater sources.
It reduces the land area turned to monoculture, and encourages more diverse flora and fauna.
Areas don't smell of chicken s
t.It has also raised the prices of certain products native to other countries. Those who consume the products in their country of origin have been priced out.
It's a daft fashion statement and has been leapt upon by food sellers in the Western world. Want some overpriced 'super food' quinoa mix in fancy packaging that makes you feel good? Sure. f
k the poor sods who have to export it all for pittance though.I'm not saying that current farming methods across the world for other, more traditional food products are perfect. Veganism isn't the holy grail it has been made out to be though.
Edited by funkyrobot on Wednesday 20th February 10:36
Evanivitch said:
Vegan diet requires less human-managed land to be utilised for food production.
It requires less water to be taken from surface and groundwater sources.
It reduces the land area turned to monoculture, and encourages more diverse flora and fauna.
Possibly so but it all looks a bit armwavingly vague.It requires less water to be taken from surface and groundwater sources.
It reduces the land area turned to monoculture, and encourages more diverse flora and fauna.
How much less land, and how much less water, does it work out at a) per adult vegan convert. and b) per schoolkid vegan convert? Has anybody worked it out with a pencil?
The truth must be out there.
funkyrobot said:
I don't think being Vegan is that friendly to the environment. Where do you think all of these vegan friendly products come from? We don't grow them all here.
It has also raised the prices of certain products native to other countries. Those who consume the products in their country of origin have been priced out.
It's a daft fashion statement and has been leapt upon by food sellers in the Western world. Want some overpriced 'super food' quinoa mix in fancy packaging that makes you feel good? Sure. fk the poor sods who have to export it all for pittance though.
I'm not saying that current farming methods across the world for other, more traditional food products are perfect. Veganism isn't the holy grail it has been made out to be though.
It's a fair point but is by no means exclusive to vegan diets.It has also raised the prices of certain products native to other countries. Those who consume the products in their country of origin have been priced out.
It's a daft fashion statement and has been leapt upon by food sellers in the Western world. Want some overpriced 'super food' quinoa mix in fancy packaging that makes you feel good? Sure. f
k the poor sods who have to export it all for pittance though.I'm not saying that current farming methods across the world for other, more traditional food products are perfect. Veganism isn't the holy grail it has been made out to be though.
Edited by funkyrobot on Wednesday 20th February 10:36
A normal diet will see people consume.mest from across Europe (pork, chicken) and the world (lamb). A vegan diet may include fruit and vegetables from around the world but it can also seasonal, by sea freight (not clean, but less consumption that air travel) or actually domestically grown using heat and light from renewable and CHP resources. Anyone can choose to eat a healthy, domestically sourced diet if they want to.
Again, local price pressures aren't specific to people in a vegan diet, just anyone. If everyone in the UK was to be vegan, or more vegan, we'd greatly reduce our domestic production deficit as land used for animals and animal food would be turned to human consumables in most cases.
Quinoa isn't required to be a vegan.
turbobloke said:
Possibly so but it all looks a bit armwavingly vague.
How much less land, and how much less water, does it work out at a) per adult vegan convert. and b) per schoolkid vegan convert? Has anybody worked it out with a pencil?
The truth must be out there.
Vague, but true.How much less land, and how much less water, does it work out at a) per adult vegan convert. and b) per schoolkid vegan convert? Has anybody worked it out with a pencil?
The truth must be out there.
This BBC article just looks at milk alternatives.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-466...
Others have concluded that some animal use on lower quality land is more efficient, but it's important to note that this is low density, pasture grazed animals, and not intensive industrial farming that is increasingly common.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/0710...
I'm not against low-density animal farming, but it has to be done with hardy breeds that will be outside for the majority of the year (and not barn fed on concentrate for 5 months), these breeds however are not necessarily economic in the current market.
Evanivitch said:
turbobloke said:
Possibly so but it all looks a bit armwavingly vague.
How much less land, and how much less water, does it work out at a) per adult vegan convert. and b) per schoolkid vegan convert? Has anybody worked it out with a pencil?
The truth must be out there.
Vague, but true.How much less land, and how much less water, does it work out at a) per adult vegan convert. and b) per schoolkid vegan convert? Has anybody worked it out with a pencil?
The truth must be out there.
This BBC article just looks at milk alternatives.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-466...
Others have concluded that some animal use on lower quality land is more efficient, but it's important to note that this is low density, pasture grazed animals, and not intensive industrial farming that is increasingly common.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/0710...
I'm not against low-density animal farming, but it has to be done with hardy breeds that will be outside for the majority of the year (and not barn fed on concentrate for 5 months), these breeds however are not necessarily economic in the current market.
It's not vegan as such but this was of interest "A low-fat vegetarian diet is very efficient in terms of how much land is needed to support it. But adding some dairy products and a limited amount of meat may actually increase this efficiency, Cornell researchers suggest."
Time, and now space, for a Big Mac
No hard numbers on water per person as opposed to per glass, unless I missed them, apologies in advance if so.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 20th February 12:12
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff