|
Whatcha gonna do about the consumption of filter feeders like molluscs or herrings? Or about the whole B12 problem which we do have an answer for assuming global cooperation. We won't have that cooperation.
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
No matter what, you're murdering more land animals and destroying more natural land for farming if you don't eat the filter feeders. It's possible to overfish them yes, but when not overfished they recapture nutrients and eating them is efficient.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 04:59
|
|
|
Oolb posted:you're right, gently caress it. Yup, about what I assumed. There's also a lot of medical processes using animal byproducts we're not close to synthesizing at scale. Avoiding factory-farmed meat is one thing, but society going vegan would have a lot of unwanted consequences. Unless you prioritize animal life at or above human life, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 06:31
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:So this is a bit, right? You're doing the stereotypical dickhead vegan loudmouth thing to own PETA or something That's almost all vegans though. Once you put insects onto the "do not kill" list you end up in a situation where you're either murdering wild animals and converting their habitats on a scale that's bad even compared to now, or just killing a whole lot of humans. Herrings are one of the go-to questions as well because they're clearly fish, and yet they're filter feeders and we have trouble converting brackish water to any kind of farming and otherwise we're not recollecting the nutrients going in without entirely ruining natural ecosystems. Which causes algal blooms and oxygen depletion if unaddressed. The funnier question is bullshit, because it turns out we need both the perennial plants and the bullshit for soil maintenance. We could replace the cows with fermentation vats, but that would be a massive undertaking very vulnerable to Great Leaping our way to a massive famine. So we'd be risking a massive amount of wildlife to avoid that specific animal byproduct. No moral high ground available, I'm afraid. And for the people who are just uncomfortable with hurting animals, they're still hurting animals, because it turns out all that food needed to be grown and we have seven billion hungry mouths and nowhere near the planet to feed them without highly efficient farming. I know, I know, vertical farming, replace all the soil with water, genetically engineer better plants for that, fuel it all using solar concentration power. I'm not against that infrastructure project. It'll take decades at the very least. Reducing meat consumption, introducing easy nutritionally complete replacement for meat-containing products, fighting against food waste (especially at the retailer spot) - all good ideas that can be done now. Veganism? Eh. Yes, lesser environmental impact than most people today. But not optimal for animal life. Life's gross and cruel like that sometimes. All part of the cycle. I mean, I just got a bee in my bonnet from one too many "then you should die" when I reveal I depend on animal-sourced medical treatments to stay alive, but I've put in my work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 08:14
|
|
|
And just to be clear: I can't loving wait for when we can print replacement organs and all the treatments I need off a protein printer of some sort. My ideal future doesn't involve any accelerated animal death to sustain us, because it turns out you can theoretically do everything I need - gently caress, everything I want - with the right genetic engineering. But we're not there yet, and if we ignore the idea doesn't work right now people will take matters into their own hands and our birds are going the way of the dodo. Also sore about the loving anti-fur lunatics ruining nature by "setting free" the fur animals, forcing me to be the one who got the blood on my feet in order to keep a lot of hungry, diseased animals from harming the nature I want to protect.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 08:21
|
|
|
Yeah no the reason I get so spicy about this is because I want to conserve nature in its pristine state at least in places. Feeding a massive number of cows with human-edible food so we can have cheap burgers isn't exactly friendly towards that goal either. Which is why I'm kinda annoyed at the lack of R&D toward easy and convenient vegetarian alternatives that also enable eating healthy instead of just "all the carbs". Pulled Oats are so good though. Shame about the texture. And about their tendency to really gently caress up the spices in anything ready-made.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 08:39
|
|
|
Oolb posted:um excuse me this is cspam, aggressive dickhead is the fashion. leftists talk so much game about the cool social trends but ultra clutch pearls at animal rights, and its like uh, its an insanely huge moral crisis. and then we get all these... That was a real dump of reasons why I think veganism isn't sustainable (well, yet). And a reveal why I take it personally enough to bother listing that many reasons. In order to assert it as a moral crisis you need to be able to prove you have any moral high ground whatever. As it is you behave morally that works only in a world where other people do the unsavory parts. Without showing how it can work for everyone you're not a leftist, you're a sanctimonious liberal. And yet you don't address the points, merely try to paint me as unreasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 14:08
|
|
|
Goatson posted:I've been vegan for almost five years now. While I was living in countryside in middle of nowhere in Finland, it was bit harder. The grocery stores didn't have much variety. Eating out was never an option. It was bit better in larger cities. However, last couple of years I could've get all the foodstuff I need from almost any store I go. Being vegan this long means that I've gotten creative with cooking. I make all my food myself and cook a lot. Having enough iron or b12 has never been an actual issue. Going vegetarian, it'll never be. Most of the fortifications used to be animal-based but we've come worlds ahead in affordable synthesis - but we're still far away from doing it at a scale sufficient for a world without dairy cows. Of course, I can just eat verilätty every other day and still come up short on nutrients so go me I guess. But I also live in an area of Finland with a lesser selection and boy going almost-full vegetarian and assembling a balanced diet with the whole "can't really cook anything I don't just put in the oven with minimal prep" restriction is a pain in the rear end. Even when I allow cheese. Eventually just gave up, the vegetarian diet options are dire and they don't come close to eating the double-discounted expired food as far as cost goes. Also seriously bring on the ready-to-snack bugs already. We're going there anyway might as well get used to it now. Colonel Cancer posted:I've embraced seitan today, it was good Hail seitan tho. Seitan's just great. You don't like gluten? Good, more for me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
The Puppet Master posted:What about if you raise and kill the animal your self? Take full ownership over the entire process from birth to death? Is that ethical? That's not vegan that's meat-eating with jumping through hoops. I don't think it's unethical but it's not vegan. Neither is crushed bugs turned to food that I advocate for, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 15:44
|
|
|
TheLemonOfIchabod posted:And before anyone suggests these, I already was eating shittons of kale, almonds, tofu, hemp seeds, whatever Verilätty is literally just blood with enough rye flour in it to change the consistency to something tolerable. I can eat those four times a week and not get enough iron to keep me going. Humans are just kinda broken a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:Verilätty is gross as hell tho I voluntarily went through a colonoscopy so I could stop eating them. I know they're gross as hell.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
lol you know just as well as I do going without killing animals isn't gonna happen in the forests. What would I wear? More seriously, other people survive just fine but those people can cook. And walk medium distances. And usually drive. ... I'm not deep enough in the forests that I'd lack access to anything if I could drive and cook. Also the only time I ended up killing animals even while I lived deeper was when we got goddamn fur animals loose. And then that rear end in a top hat of a farmer (fur farmers are assholes, whodathunk) got the insurance payments and we were back to where we were.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
matti posted:i know you have a real excuse bud Then tell me, what's wrong with eating bugs? I'm not rationalizing taking lives of animals that have the capacity for pain (unless you need to, see also the whole problem with medicine), but that's not even close to what veganism is. When we group together fish, bugs, birds and mammals we get all sorts of nonsense and that nonsense keeps getting in the way of the very real discussion we need to have about environmental impact of our diets. Repeatedly. We've just got over the nuclear question getting in the way of reducing the co2 impact of our energy and here we loving go again. The greens who believe in magic are the biggest obstacle towards real green progress. ... no, wait, that's the dipshits who believe loving peat is green energy. My bad!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
loving doubling down on peat in goddamn 2020 I hate both sides in that debate but one of them is right.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
Goatson posted:Are you sure you're not confusing veganism with Jainism? While Jains are vegan, not all vegans are Jains. The line between conscious actions you take and the unwarranted consequences of you living your life isn't the topic here. Perhaps you have sometimes accidentally swallowed a bug? It happens. Not the issue here. The issue is, that we, human animals, maintain and support a massive global industry that is built solely on abuse and murder of other animals. We do it knowingly, even if it's not being necessary for our survival (and actually being harmful for our planet), In terms of land and water management it's wasteful and destructive. And this is not taking into the ethical considerations. Sure, the existing nations states could limit this excessive consumption, but as capitalism shows again and again, those who profit are the real power holders and no structural changes get done. No, the responsibility falls on individuals to start the change. You're very confused over multiple subjects here. Such as what "ethical considerations" means (literally everything you listed is an ethical consideration), the environmental impact of eating (some) insects and filter feeders, how our agricultural cycles work, how well humans absorb nutrition from different sources, the inevitable waste products of producing vegetables and grains, the logistics of feeding this many humans... Veganism is refusing consumption of animal parts or byproducts. To make it a moral choice, you have to argue that killing any animal is wrong, which I don't agree with, because there's plenty of animals out there that aren't capable of suffering. If you define it just by "life", then plants are very much alive. If you define it by having a negative reaction to injury, again, plants do that too. If we go by preserving the planet, then it's rather simply not pure veganism and won't be until we're quite a bit further along in genetic engineering, doubly so if you consider animal labor as a problem as well. I have no moral qualms whatsoever over killing animals too simple to suffer. And won't. Living is killing. If you take it to sustain yourself, something else needed it to live. You've got to draw the line somewhere, and I fundamentally disagree drawing it at just "animals", because that's a category with far too much inside it to be meaningful.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
Bot 02 posted:Is this a regional thing? Where I'm from, all the vegan staples (grains, vegetables, legumes) are all cheap as poo poo. It absolutely is. Where I am, grains are cheap and plentiful, as are root vegetables, but legumes are real expensive. FacelessVoid posted:veganism started from the principle of do the least harm. not only eat XYZ foods no matter what. don't worry about satisfying someone else's rules and just follow your conscience. it's not complicated. Nah, veganism started from the principle of "I absolutely can't deal with killing animals and neither should anyone else". Look it up if you care. It wasn't even possible to survive as a vegan before 1955. Veganism is new, unlike vegetarianism, because we've been eating animals for five hundred thousand years but it turns out that while we don't have the bits to be vegan doesn't mean we have to kill the animals to get what we need. It's that complex stomach anatomy of ruminants that plays the biggest role here... well, that and famines. The cleanest way I've ever seen a diet summarized was "I don't eat anything with eyes". I point out inconsistencies with skill and dedication and even I couldn't pick that one apart.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
Well, no, there isn't. There's two thousand years of history of vegetarianism. You didn't have to eat meat. I said that. You needed to get your b12 from somewhere, and the sources that aren't animal byproducts are extremely regional, and we had no idea what they were until 1955. The cure used to be liver. Turns out cheese also works. Now we can just brew it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2020 23:24
|
|
|
baw posted:they got b12 from dirt in vegetables and water which we cant do anymore because the earth is poisoned Hah, post/av combo. But no, the concept of avoiding harming animals is ancient. The concept of avoiding any byproducts was invented by Joe Vegan, a carpenter that died in 2005.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:discussing veganism is always such an excelent example of people making the 'AH HA you arent following your own beliefs exactly to the letter in every single case! owned!' which is only a valid argument if you accept that in fact those beliefs are worth practicing exactly to the letter in every case. if your point is people fail to live up to their own ideals, well, yeah, no poo poo My point is that animals will die no matter what we do as a result of humanity's actions. There is no more land to expand to. We could choose now which animals we prioritize and why. Or we can just keep arguing about absolute lines built on hard moral stances instead of practical impact and do absolutely nothing to slow down capitalism doing what it does. We're going to do the latter anyway. I know.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:its bad point though, there is arable land not currently under production and it would not take more land under production to replace animal agriculture. im specifically saying that your hard line moral stance thing is a canard because people in this thread have repeatedly said that the idea is to minimize animal consumption and harm to the greatest extent practicable, not to mention the fact that any of our individual consumption behavior has no systemic effect whatsoever. me personally eating a plant based diet has not in anyway prevented me from organizing to 'slow down capitalism' and was actually an outgrowth of that work that has further embedded left practice and theory into my daily life. We're facing the biggest loss of arable land, ever, starting ten years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:oh, ok i see what you mean then. can you explain how you believe animal agriculture reduces the amount of land required for ag production? are you talking strictly about bugs and fish or something? I'm talking strictly about bugs and fish (and even then, just the filter feeders who convert algae to human-accessible energy), apart from the ruminant component required for all our stupid non-genetically-engineered food plants to thrive in soil. Also the whole problem where we grow grass to get the perennial roots and then don't convert that to human-edible food. In the latter case we don't actually have to do anything to the animals, we can just let them eat and poo poo and grow old and live their lives, but it is leaving very useful nutrients on the table.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
My life does make it fully impossible to go plant-based, yes. I disclosed that's a major problem I have with the moral argument. If you want to support research into synthesizing the bits I need so we can go fully vegan as a society you have my absolute support however. And no, I'm not talking in support of factory farming or against massively reducing meat consumption. Food that could be eaten by humans fed to animals so we can have McBeef? gently caress that. We're heading for the worst famine of all time and you're wasting nutrient production capability - worse, burning woodland and fossil fuels alike - in order for us to have lovely beef nobody really enjoys? That should absolutely be a crime.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:ok, yeah i actually basically agree then although im not following the stuff about grass, ruminants for food productions are not meaningfully maintaining prairie systems currently? or do you just mean that there is otherwise unarable land that could have ruminants on it? The soil for growing things like root vegetables is pretty goddamn picky and the cultivars we have evolved alongside pasture animals. The grass meanwhile is to prevent topsoil erosion. Fallowing as a whole is an important part of agriculture. Crumbskull posted:i dont at all see how the vegan movement is meaningfully at cross purposes with a wholesale transition to invertebrate/pescatarian consumption unless you want to pretend that all vegans are absolutely hard lined (despite the fact that we keep saying we aren't) Define a belief system where you can go absolutely hard lined without qualms. It's the only way to do discussions in public spaces, because nuance is dead. And because a lot of vegans are exactly that hard lined and this leads to a lot of natural allies toward sustainable agriculture demanding Impossible poo poo because they don't understand the food web very well, much less what kind of an absolute mess we've managed to twist it into in order to feed seven billion people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
FacelessVoid posted:i find your posts really hard to follow. i'm not even sure what you're trying to say. if you have filter feeds in an estuary or some poo poo why can't their natural predators just eat them? or the bugs that pollenate your crops can just be eaten by birds or whatever. isn't that part of a balanced ecosystem? No. That leads to algal blooms and oxygen depletion, killing the ecosystem.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:And because a lot of vegans are exactly that hard lined and this leads to a lot of natural allies toward sustainable agriculture demanding Impossible poo poo because they don't understand the food web very well, much less what kind of an absolute mess we've managed to twist it into in order to feed seven billion people. FacelessVoid posted:i find your posts really hard to follow. i'm not even sure what you're trying to say. if you have filter feeds in an estuary or some poo poo why can't their natural predators just eat them? or the bugs that pollenate your crops can just be eaten by birds or whatever. isn't that part of a balanced ecosystem? Crumbskull posted:ok, yeah i actually basically agree then although im not following the stuff about grass, ruminants for food productions are not meaningfully maintaining prairie systems currently? or do you just mean that there is otherwise unarable land that could have ruminants on it? It turns out to be a really hard topic constantly full of nuance and difficult questions you wouldn't even know to ask. The example about EDS is especially relevant because you wouldn't believe how many vegans I've met who rather simply do not know and refuse to believe we're not yet at the point where a purely plant-based diet is possible for everyone. And really the questions are ways I've determined to quickly pick up on who's just calling themselves "vegan" when they probably should be saying they aim to have a sustainable diet, and how many genuinely believe everyone who needs non-vegan food should die instead because they're automatically murderers. I take part in local politics. There's a lot of every kind of nutjob around, and ecofascists and vegans who want me dead are also included. In amounts that would probably startle you if this wasn't 2020. Crane Fist posted:Do not condescend to me, American Heh, minced meat is cheaper than most legumes here. Capitalism!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
FacelessVoid posted:I'm sorry what? This is what I meant by your post being hard to follow. I think you're trolling but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I'm not trolling and you're ridiculously wrong. No, they're not caused by our modern chemical agriculture, it turns out that we're neither great at filtering the water nor controlling the amount of water that enters. Wetland engineering will help with both, which requires the grasses again. As well a coherent plan where capitalism doesn't get to skip the wetland work required in favor of a bigger profit margin. Fertilizer helps plants grow. Turns out it also helps algae grow, based on the same principles. Anything you use to fertilize the fields will suffer from the same problem. And if you avoid fertilizing the fields, your per acre yield tanks, requiring more land, which is also a thing we don't have. We need to collect and remove the nutrients from the river estuaries somehow. Which means filter feeders because with all our technology we'd require a massive energy investment to do it without animal life, and energy to waste is also one of the things we don't have.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:i studied food systems mate i actually know a lot of the good questions, and im actually totally sympathetic to pretty much everything you are saying i just also think its counterproductive to use interactions with, like, insane ELF people to reflexively slander the idea of transitioning to a primarily plant based global food system. that said i completely understand using filter questions to gauge how seriously someone has actually thought about any of this poo poo but id like to think this thread is actuyally a good place for you to attempt the more nuanced discussion without having to assume that all of us think you are an irredemable murderer or whatever. for the record i think 'ethical veganism' that fails to meaningfully wrestle with practical political economic questions of global food production, processing and distribution is basically dumb as hell but i also think that most people who have that stupid belief live in 'developed nations' where they are perfectly correct that on balance a vegan diet is the least harmful thing they could be eating so even though they are incredibly annoying i believe its a net good At this point I'm convinced we need a new system that explicitly shuts out the ecofash and aims for maximum harm reduction as opposed to any moral stance depending on your perception of the morality of killing animals. I was gonna say I'd miss cheese but gently caress, cheese's fats. I don't actually want dairy I want the fatty goodness and texture. But yeah people may not give a poo poo about killing animals - sometimes I wonder if the majority gives a poo poo about killing humans - but everyone oughta be able to support the idea of "let's eat in a way that ensures we'll also have food tomorrow". FacelessVoid posted:No, I'm not wrong at all. lol
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Either FacelessVoid is giving my argument all the evidence it needs, or it's a dead-on metatroll gimmick. Bravo, either way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
FacelessVoid posted:I'm trying to engage you in good faith. But it's clear now that was a mistake. lol You believe in magic and have no idea how agriculture works. Or for that matter, how you would remove nutrients from an estuary so they don't overwhelm the available oxygen. Here's a hint: You're sending the nutrients, contained in fishies, to a farm upstate. Otherwise you'd have to stop the nutrients from entering the fishies. This kills the fishies too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 01:05
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:i;m British, checkmate. also imo its disingenuous to want to have a conversation about drastically altering the food system while also pretending that externalities that artificially reduce the price of meat/cheese/egg etc. wouldnt be accounted for differnetly. if you live on a danish island or something then, again, yeah o.k. in your specific case it is entirely possible that staple plant foods are more expensive than other forms of nutrition, but the idea that in order to go vegan one MUST eat specialty processed replacement foods is pretty funny to me imo. But if you need a systemic change to change the situation, doesn't that mean going vegan in a capitalist system is meaningless? The answer is obviously not, when you buy pre-prepared vegan products more funding goes toward that R&D which results in much more accessible vegan options that will through economies of scale and lower resource costs make those options more attractive. Thank gently caress the "will eat meat just out of spite" people are rare and most people just get what's tasty, cheap or healthy, preferably all three. Crumbskull posted:I actually think that vegan cheese can be good as gently caress if it is made like normal cheese and not processed into pre wrapped slices or whatever, plenty of fat and gooey texture but thats a relatively new development. also hard agree with the correct frame being harm reduction over moralism, and i agree with crane that 'yes lets all be back to the landers in cottages actually' is really stupid and not productive, but since at least the three of us know that we can move past it and continue to have a conversation about what the least harmful sustainable global ag system might look like Attaboy. I still want to find a new name for diets built around nature-friendliness and sustainability though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 01:15
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:Because the human pop is way above the level that byproducts from ag production can be managed in a hands off naturalistic way op It is important to note that if we engineer wetland so the runoff runs through it and gets to linger a bit, it can be reclaimed by weeds we can feed to animals or compost. In the case of those weeds we can capture the energy by eating the animals, drinking their milk or fermenting them for biogas. Every approach has its upsides and downsides, though the first one... isn't super great. The only points where animals eating the food and us eating the animals is a preferable approach from a resources perspective are grazing and dealing with damaged / spoiled produce that wouldn't survive the processing required to make it human food. But unless we entirely ruin the ecosystems of rivers to turn them into filters, this won't be enough to prevent the estuary from accumulating nutrients (and eventually, the sea or ocean - I live close to the Baltic and it's been one hell of a political fight to get the decline to stop). Also the farmers generally don't want to spend a bunch of extra time and dedicate land to stinky pits of recycling. Agricorps even less so. If we leave it to natural predators the nutrients just stay in the same cycle in the coastal area for the most part, it'll overwhelm the available oxygen, and we're at a point where the ecosystem collapses into a pool of hungry slime.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
IAMKOREA posted:just gonna kramer in here without reading pages 2 through 6 and point out that b12 is produced by bacteria in the soil, farm animals are given b12 supplements/injections now since the soil is dead and animals aren't even allowed to live on the soil anyway, and eating meat for b12 given that animals have to have b12 supplements anyway is just taking b12 supplements with extra steps B12 is not produced by bacteria in the soil. Unless you mean nightsoil. It's produced in the gut microbiome of a lot of herbivores, especially ruminants. Their poo poo gets mixed with the soil and thus soil contains B12. It's also naturally present in certain types of seaweed. We can now just ferment it up, we don't need a cow stomach, but figuring out if the process works or not was only possible in 1955, thus marking us being able to solve the deficiency with better answer than "guessing" or "eat cow liver".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Helpful, too! I'm in-process of switching. Habits, etc. lol The data's kinda garbage. Too much current impact data compared to optimal production. And even then it says vegetarian, not vegan. Those are distinct. And even then it's wrong. A vegan diet could never be the best option until we figure out sea farming in a somewhat reliable fashion - or get those giant vertical farming towers going. Invertebrates: Like the most efficient machines we could build, but technically animals.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2020 13:55
|
|
|
Bot 02 posted:
Wanting equal rights for all people, not all beings? Being aware of your existence as an individual being one of the very important lines.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 14:40
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:allowing other predators to live is also facilitating the suffering of other creatures, it is our responsibility as the only animals intellectually capable of recognizing the suffering inflicted through predation to eradicate all species that must kill & consume others for sustenance. Ultimately, we see a lot of suffering caused by the reproduction mechanisms of the flesh, from predation to cancer. The future is steel and silicon, perfect in its beauty, ending suffering.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 10:22
|
|
|
gay_crimes posted:I love to bring this up when people in-person set up a strawman vegan to attack. I’ve been vegan for a long time and I’ve met only one other vegan outside of meetups. Because I actually take a stand toward protecting the local environment in local politics. The vegans are the worst loving people. Also a massive hindrance towards those goals. No, a principled moral stand based on arbitrary categories doesn't excuse all sorts of hideous poo poo including no shortage of literal nazi propaganda about "natural" things especially regarding race and overpopulation and disability.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
In 2020 it shouldn't be hard to understand that Strong Moral Stances which, when taken to their extreme, require us to cull a significant amount of human population are natural (heh) fertile grounds for fascism and ecofascists are real, not my friend, and sometimes super about veganism. The plan where we all move to all-vegan diets isn't possible right now without first declaring a whole lot of disabled people unworthy of life and also putting a hell of a lot of time and effort into genetic engineering - as well as regular engineering - of perfect crops and farms. Funnily, the technology that would allow us to go full vegan without murdering anyone would also enable 3D printing replacement organs and that's research a lot of money is being poured into. So it's not a question of "we don't want to", it's a case of "we can't yet". Which means that if you're not an ecofascist you make compromises. Invertebrates are inevitable sources of animal labor and also allow us to convert human-inedible resources far more efficiently than any other method we have right now. Forage fish (anchovies, sardines, herrings) are a special case because the ocean's ecosystem is poorly suited for plants. And one of the compromises you make should be stopping calling yourself vegan so you don't give the fascists a place to hide.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
IAMKOREA posted:how on earth does veganism require culling the human population Veganism involves not killing animals for our food, including insects. It doesn't take any soybeans at all to produce beef, but that's irrelevant either way, because a primarily plant-based diet is still less resource-intensive than factory farming meat. However the way we produce plants involves a lot of death of things that would also rather like to eat our food, as well as the insects that help produce that food. Things bigger than insects can be dealt with humanely in most cases. Bugs? Not so much. We need to kill bugs. We need to kill a lot of bugs. Also it's not just pure calories there's a lot of cases where we need animal parts and byproducts to manufacture food and medication. Byproducts-only diet is possible. Synthetic diet allows us to go all animal sources free for healthy people. But there's a lot of work to be done.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Also it hasn't loving clicked in 2020 that the disadvantaged could have told you the fascists are among us all along and you just never see it because they don't consider you within the easy target list yet?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:As far as I'm aware, no vegans advocate a diet or lifestyle absolutely free of killing animals in the way you suggest is necessary. You've made up something new and are telling people that they're advocating for it. Then you're not very aware. I mean I get it's probably like lesbians in the UK on trans issues, but jesus loving almighty are the ecofash out there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2020 22:45
|
|