Vegan Snowflakes

[gregs656]

Kenny Powers said:

gregs656 said:

Kenny Powers said:

Sadly, and ironically, it will probably increase further as farmers struggle to make profit in a world where their industry is being demonised in an attempt to shut it down.

It takes some serious mental gymnastics to blame people who are not consuming meat for industrial practices designed to deliver high quantity low price meat to people who are consuming it.

I'm not blaming people "who don't eat meat". I'm saying that the worldwide push to demonise meat-eating is not likely to make things any easier for cattle farmers. I don't care what people eat or don't eat, but this isn't likely to improve the quality of farming.

That is the logic of your argument.

I think it is quite likely to improve the quality of farming, if farms are not under intense pressure to produce volume they can concentrate on quality.

[Kenny Powers]

gregs656 said:

That is the logic of your argument.

I think it is quite likely to improve the quality of farming, if farms are not under intense pressure to produce volume they can concentrate on quality.

I'm not sure that is how business works. If they are not under pressure to produce meat it will be because it's not selling. Not selling product is unlikely to encourage farmers to adopt more expensive and less profitable practices. But none of us have a crystal ball. I guess we will find out in due course. In the meantime, intensive mono-cropping is destroying the topsoil and killing millions of animals and their habitats, so it doesn't exactly get a free pass in the green-credentials department.

All in my opinion only, of course

[gregs656]

Kenny Powers said:

I'm not sure that is how business works. If they are not under pressure to produce meat it will be because it's not selling. Not selling product is unlikely to encourage farmers to adopt more expensive and less profitable practices. But none of us have a crystal ball. I guess we will find out in due course. In the meantime, intensive mono-cropping is destroying the topsoil and killing millions of animals and their habitats, so it doesn't exactly get a free pass in the green-credentials department.

All in my opinion only, of course

You're being a little one dimensional.

My argument is that a switch away from intensively farmed animal product is not a switch away from animal products per se. Free range eggs is a good example of that, a lot of people wouldn't think of buying eggs from battery chickens now - it makes eggs more expensive, but it was a price people decided was worth paying.

In South America it is deforestation for Beef cattle that, by a significant margin, is the leading cause. Globally cattle is a leading cause of deforestation.

If you want to minimise your impact (and I guess, who doesn't?) then cattle is not a bad place to start.

Edited by gregs656 on Friday 25th October 20:24

[Davos123]

gregs656 said:

You're being a little one dimensional.

My argument is that a switch away from intensively farmed animal product is not a switch away from animal products per se. Free range eggs is a good example of that, a lot of people wouldn't think of buying eggs from battery chickens now - it makes eggs more expensive, but it was a price people decided was worth paying.

Free range eggs can still be (and mostly are) intensively farmed.

[richie99]

gregs656 said:

You're being a little one dimensional.

My argument is that a switch away from intensively farmed animal product is not a switch away from animal products per se. Free range eggs is a good example of that, a lot of people wouldn't think of buying eggs from battery chickens now - it makes eggs more expensive, but it was a price people decided was worth paying.

In South America it is deforestation for Beef cattle that, by a significant margin, is the leading cause. Globally cattle is a leading cause of deforestation.

If you want to minimise your impact (and I guess, who doesn't?) then cattle is not a bad place to start.

Edited by gregs656 on Friday 25th October 20:24

Not deforestation to grow soya then? Hmmm.

[vdn]

richie99 said:

gregs656 said:

You're being a little one dimensional.

My argument is that a switch away from intensively farmed animal product is not a switch away from animal products per se. Free range eggs is a good example of that, a lot of people wouldn't think of buying eggs from battery chickens now - it makes eggs more expensive, but it was a price people decided was worth paying.

In South America it is deforestation for Beef cattle that, by a significant margin, is the leading cause. Globally cattle is a leading cause of deforestation.

If you want to minimise your impact (and I guess, who doesn't?) then cattle is not a bad place to start.

Edited by gregs656 on Friday 25th October 20:24

Not deforestation to grow soya then? Hmmm.

Yes soya that is also used to feed livestock. Cut animal agri’ - cut soya production.

Funny how these things are all linked; often in ways you don’t expect.

[Pan Pan Pan]

richie99 said:

gregs656 said:

You're being a little one dimensional.

My argument is that a switch away from intensively farmed animal product is not a switch away from animal products per se. Free range eggs is a good example of that, a lot of people wouldn't think of buying eggs from battery chickens now - it makes eggs more expensive, but it was a price people decided was worth paying.

In South America it is deforestation for Beef cattle that, by a significant margin, is the leading cause. Globally cattle is a leading cause of deforestation.

If you want to minimise your impact (and I guess, who doesn't?) then cattle is not a bad place to start.

Edited by gregs656 on Friday 25th October 20:24

Not deforestation to grow soya then? Hmmm.

Or palm oil plantations. It is people who are causing de forestation, and we seem to have no problem with knocking out up to 342 thousand new people (net) per day.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Saturday 26th October 09:59

[gregs656]

richie99 said:

Not deforestation to grow soya then? Hmmm.

Not on the same scale.

Or palm oil.

Cattle is the leading cause in South America by something like 5 times as much as soy or palm oil, and that is before you consider that soy is partly there for the cattle. It is a leading cause globally, as I say.

Just the area which used to be Amazon rainforest in Brazil supples about 1/4 of the global demand for beef. The cleared area accounts for 80% of the deforestation in Brazil.

Does that mean deforestation for soy or palm oil isn’t a problem? Of course not, but let’s at least be honest about the varying scales of the problems.

[Pothole]

HustleRussell said:

It's a shame all of that pasture can't be utilized for any purpose other than meat production really, isn't it

What do you suggest?

[Davos123]

richie99 said:

Not deforestation to grow soya then? Hmmm.

The vast, vast majority of soya grown is to feed cattle.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Davos123 said:

richie99 said:

Not deforestation to grow soya then? Hmmm.

The vast, vast majority of soya grown is to feed cattle.

Which is then used for what?

The vast, vast majority of the things, those who believe in man made climate change, and damage to the planets environment, and other species, is being caused by, and being done for, is in fact man, and we are producing vast, vast numbers of even more `man' every day.
It seems that even though many believe that `man' has already upset the planet, and its climate NOW, those very same people seem to believe that, we can also go on producing more, and more `man' and it wont be any problem at all?

[gregs656]

That is a total straw man IMO as I have no read that point of view from anyone, and certainly no one on here.

The best thing to slow population growth is to emancipate, educate and allow women to control their fertility.

We also, probably, need to think about moving away from economic models where more is better. At the moment it would be suicide economically to encourage people not to keep on spending, not to buy the new car etc etc.

Im all for both. I still think we could support our existing population in a less damaging way.

Edited by gregs656 on Monday 28th October 12:25

[Pan Pan Pan]

gregs656 said:

That is a total straw man IMO as I have no read that point of view from anyone, and certainly no one on here.

The best thing to slow population growth is to emancipate, educate and allow men to control their fertility.

We also, probably, need to think about moving away from economic models where more is better. At the moment it would be suicide economically to encourage people not to keep on spending, not to buy the new car etc etc.

Im all for both. I still think we could support our existing population in a less damaging way.

The problem is that people seem all too willing to focus on `what' is being done, when they should really ask the questions, why is this being done and who for. They are merely looking at the symptoms not the root cause.

I fully agree that everyone should do their best to limit their resource take up (and therefore emissions production) to the minimum that they need, and also agree that if someone does not want to eat meat, they should not be forced to do so (any more than someone who does want to eat meat, should be forced to stop doing so)
Bringing the environment into the question of eating of meat or not, inevitably is going to lead to questions related to what we are doing, and more importantly who we are doing it for.
The problem is that one persons normal consumption, is anothers excess, and yet anothers idea of absolute poverty. How that aspect of what we humans are doing on, and to the planet will ever be reconciled, is anyone`s guess.

[Cotty]

gregs656 said:

The best thing to slow population growth is to emancipate, educate and allow men to control their fertility.

Trouble is you get dick heads like this having 21 children https://news.sky.com/story/britains-largest-family...

[Pan Pan Pan]

Cotty said:

gregs656 said:

The best thing to slow population growth is to emancipate, educate and allow men to control their fertility.

Trouble is you get dick heads like this having 21 children https://news.sky.com/story/britains-largest-family...

Not forgetting that we are `all' to a greater or lesser extent driven by the prime biological directive.
So it is not just down to a neat familial idea of having a family.
Some feckless youf, and some not so young, go around having numerous children, from numerous different mothers. The nearer their brain resides to their bellend, the worse they are.
The other issue is that the more people are able to acquire, in the world, the more it opens the prospect of seeing, and trying to gain more, such the they often begin seeking the next level of acquisition. If a hungry person gets a sandwich they will be happy for a while with just getting a sandwich. but for how long will just a sandwich be enough?

[Cotty]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Not forgetting that we are `all' to a greater or lesser extent driven by the prime biological directive.
So it is not just down to a neat familial idea of having a family.
Some feckless youf, and some not so young, go around having numerous children, from numerous different mothers. The nearer their brain resides to their bellend, the worse they are.

Sounds like the plot to Idiocracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

[Pan Pan Pan]

Cotty said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Not forgetting that we are `all' to a greater or lesser extent driven by the prime biological directive.
So it is not just down to a neat familial idea of having a family.
Some feckless youf, and some not so young, go around having numerous children, from numerous different mothers. The nearer their brain resides to their bellend, the worse they are.

Sounds like the plot to Idiocracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

Not forgetting of course, that nutmeg of another option, Soylent Green!

[br d]

I'm sitting in a posh hotel in London. I just ordered a pint and a club sandwich at the bar, guy asked me if I want bacon so I said no I'll just have the veggie one please with avacado.

5 minutes later he brings me the bacon one. I called him back quietly and said "sorry mate it was the veggie option one I asked for" he looked horrified and started blurting apologies, I said it's fine, no problem.

He reordered then him and the chef came over and apologised again, prostrating themselves like they'd killed my dog. I just kept saying it's fine, it's not an issue.

There are lots of young hipster type people in here so I presume they are terrified some idiot is going to make a big deal of it like the story in the OP.

Even if I'd taken a bite I would have still reacted in the same, quiet way. Amazingly it wouldn't have traumatised me for life.

[Pothole]

Evanivitch said:

Langweilig said:

Oh dear. Another "traumatised" vegan snowflake.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vegan-sla...

Says a lot about their standards of food preparation if they can't work out if they put real ham on it.

If that had been someone with a medical condition then there could have been more serious consequences.

Not very likely from ham.

[vdn]

Pothole said:

Evanivitch said:

Langweilig said:

Oh dear. Another "traumatised" vegan snowflake.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vegan-sla...

Says a lot about their standards of food preparation if they can't work out if they put real ham on it.

If that had been someone with a medical condition then there could have been more serious consequences.

Not very likely from ham.

... or Jewish or Muslim ...