Forum menu
there is a legitimate question about who wrote the vegan rule book
There is no vegan rule book. TBH anyone who thinks following 'the rules' is what's most important doesn't really understand veganism.
official vegan position
See above. Veganism is a means to an end not a religion.
I’ve no idea if the OP was being serious, whilst the question could probably be better written
The OP was (objectively by any standard) just a massive self-generating strawman ‘question’, whether trolling or not. The urgency of certain populations (ie Europe, US, China etc) to begin moving towards a more plant-based diet is not largely being driven by ‘vegans’ at all. It’s being driven (variously) by objective scientific research, governments, environmental think tanks, biologists, economists, agriculturalists, sustainable food-producers, the United Nations, etc etc. ie Not Mrs P on some imaginary vegan committee,
do think that there is a legitimate question about who wrote the vegan rule book and decided what was “right” and “wrong”
Likewise, a strawman (albeit concealed within what I detect to be a genuine curiousness)
Most vegans (like cyclists) AFAIK are individual people and (like most individual people) they make their own choices as to what they feel comfortable exploiting (or riding, or driving), and how, and to what degree.
For instance (I only have one vegan to hand to interrogate) Mrs P chooses to buy and eat eggs from our neighbours and friends chickens. She doesn’t get into fights with ‘The Vegan Overseers’ over it. Not on technicalities. I assume such a body must exist? Probably some FB group somewhere there are twelve self-identifying vegan humans bashing into each other over their neighbour’s eggs. Or was that ‘The Buddhist Overseers’? OMbudsman
Everyone seems to think so. I checked the Vegan Society for a definition of veganism and nowhere did I find The Commandments per se but they do say that excluding eggs and honey’ is ‘something that all vegans have in common’, however in practical terms you will find that ‘veganism’ is a wider term defined briefly as
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
I checked the Ombudsman for a second opinion. It made (IME) important point about how we can use language to either provoke or reduce conflict.
ie this style of language is currently in vogue
All those who are committed to [x] are on the wrong path.
All those who are not committed to [x] are on the right path.
Whereas this style of language is not:
Being committed to [x] brings about suffering and is the wrong path.
Not being committed to [x] does not bring about suffering and is the right path.
The point is a simple and timeless one. There are all sorts of beliefs, opinions, practices, and behaviors that lead to harm, and many others that lead to well-being. By all means, let’s be clear about which is which, and share with others what we understand about this. But when we do this by disparaging people for their views, it will only trigger their existential defense mechanisms—and likely bring out their worst side.
TRICYCLE.ORG I think ‘veggan’ is a term I’ve heard for Mrs P’s choices, but it’s easier when buying food elsewhere to assume that the neighbour’s eggs aren’t being used and so ‘vegan’ is a less confusing term. The term ‘vegan’ (much like ‘cyclist’) tends to annoy a lot of certain people anyway, so ‘veggan’ would be just ‘asking for’ further derision/confusion/eye-rolling.
Labels are often better used on food (or transport systems) than on people, I find.
while 63 % of arable land in Europe is dedicated to the production of crops for animal feed (which is, roughly, cereal crops and oilseed)
Right, but my question is how much of that land could actually be used to grow crops people want to eat directly? This is a serious question, I don't know.
Would there be the unpleasant side effect of then producing more people. The last thing we need as the world problems are created by people. We need 10% (random very low number) or so of the current population not more.
@p7eaven you seem to think i was having a go at vegan people. i wasnt so relax a bit.
i was curious just to what would or could happen if we all went down the no meat road.
and the replies have been interesting, even yours.
Right, but my question is how much of that land could actually be used to grow crops people want to eat directly? This is a serious question,
Well it has a passing resemblance to a ‘serious’ question, but scratch the surface and it must be built on any number of (as yet undeclared) presuppositions, each positioned at a various unspecified point along multiple long pieces of string?
Well it has a passing resemblance to a ‘serious’ question, but scratch the surface and it must be built on any number of (as yet undeclared) presuppositions, each positioned at a various unspecified point along multiple long pieces of string?
Ok then put me right?
I'm not anti-vegan by the way. I'd be vegan tomorrow if I felt I could handle it.
But I think my question is a valid one, isn't it? I don't want to just wave stats and headlines around, I really am curious about the agricultural potential.
i was curious just to what would or could happen if we all went down the no meat road.
You could turn the same question right around, "what if everyone suddenly ate nothing but meat, where would we get all the animals from?"
The meat industry, like most other industries, is supply and demand. If demand dwindled, so too would production. And obviously vice versa, if demand soared then so too would production wherever possible.
what will happen to all the animals bred for the food chain if we all stop eating meat ?
A sudden global shift in diet would cause a shock to the system of course, but that's about as realistic a proposition as wondering what would happen if all the cows were abducted by aliens. We're never going to be sitting here going "well, everyone's vegan now, so WTF are we going to do with all these sheep?" - we simply wouldn't have bred as many in the first place.
all the animals would have to be released, as it is cruel to keep em locked up. would this make the vegan people happy ?
if we released them all, where would they all go ?
You're conflating "the vegan people" (whatever that even means, they're not a hive mind) with extremist shitwits like PETA. PETA has form for releasing bred-in-captivity animals into to wild, most of those animals likely wouldn't last the night. They're not expecting natural predators, they're waiting for the nice man in the white coat with the food and the lipstick and the really good drugs. It's a well-meaning death sentence.
The reason you're getting the frankly less robust than I was expecting replies is because your 'serious question' is one of a wholly hypothetical scenario of your own devising. Moreover, as others have already suggested, it's one which has oft been used as a lazy stick to beat v*gans with on a slow news day. If your question was genuine then be aware that it comes with baggage.
Right, but my question is how much of that land could actually be used to grow crops people want to eat directly? This is a serious question, I don’t know.
I read an article in New Scientist a few years ago (so cannot evidence my source and I've no idea now how reliable it was) which claimed that if the world went vegetarian there wasn't sufficient farmable land mass on the planet to feed everyone. Grass > cows > Big Mac is a more efficient food chain than growing crops to be consumed directly.
Ok then put me right?
I’m not saying you’re ‘wrong’ (or that you are ‘right’), I’m politely (if maybe too vaguely) suggesting that you’d first need to provide any number of presuppositions/assumptions/boundaries for such an open/vague question to not be (effectively, granted unintended) a ‘strawman’ question?
ie
- Are you asking on the assumption/outlandish/magical hypothesis (as per OP) that the entire population will not only voluntarily quit buying and eating meat entirely, but will also quit eating all of that meat overnight?
- and if so, is it assumed that they will be looking for ‘meat analogues’ or will they be eating more of the same dishes they normally eat, just minus the meat?
- and if so, is it assumed that each state/country must also instead be food self-sufficient and not to import meats/crops/foodstuffs from other countries or neighbouring states?
- Would we assume food waste remain at the same levels as of now?
-Are we presuming that ‘arable land’ currently used to grow livestock fodder is also unsuitable (now or in the future) to grow human fodder?
-or that humans dont already eat the same crops as livestock (ie soy, etc)
Are we presuming that all arable land can grow useful crops for human consumption?
-Are we assuming that crop biodiversity is more useful/less harmful and that crop monocultures are less useful/more harmful?
And on, and on.
Like I say, too many pieces of string and all hinge on presuppositions/hypotheticals that as yet haven’t been provided.
I’m not anti-vegan by the way. I’d be vegan tomorrow if I felt could handle it.
Wasn’t assumed. Me neither BTW. But I suppose again that would depend on your definition of ‘vegan’? Veganism is a personal philosophy about animals, while ‘vegan diet’ is really becoming just a shortcut term for ‘someone on/a plant-based diet’. You can be one without the other (or both)
As I say, global moves towards a more plant-based diet/agri-economy are not principally being driven by ‘veganism’ at all, but via objective scientific research and by governments, environmental think-tanks, NGOs, biologists, economists, environmentalists, agriculturalists, sustainable food-producers, the United Nations, WHO, etc etc as a response to real catastrophic crisis/existing real-world problem
ie moving towards a *more plant-based diet/reducing meat consumption* is not largely being driven by ‘vegans’ at all. It’s being driven (variously) by objective scientific research, governments, environmental think tanks, biologists, economists, agriculturalists, sustainable food-producers, the United Nations, WHO, etc
Vegans/veganism are (ideally) very useful allies in that direction (not to mention a huge depository of recipes! See also Hindus and Jains
No my question is much more specific than that.
Given the current protein foods favoured in vegan or even vegetarian cooking, such as lentils, beans, nuts and so on - how much of that could we produce? And how much would need to be imported if the majority were vegan?
Are we presuming that ‘arable land’ currently used to grow livestock fodder is also unsuitable (now or in the future) to grow human fodder?
Well this is the question. What conditions do lentils and beans need to grow, and are they suitable crops for the land that we have?
EDIT apparently quite difficult to grow lentils in UK climate generally but it's being worked on, in Suffolk
HODMEDODS.CO.UK I've asked the same question a few times, the real answer is "it depends". But I think that if Humans all decided to stop eating meat and products produced by animals (milk, honey etc) now, as in today. Tomorrow, the vast majority of the 70 billion farm animals on earth would be dead unless farmers were compensated for keeping them as 'pets'. Farmers do really seem to care about their livestock, but it doesn't extend to keeping them alive and fed for a moment longer than they have to, if they're born the wrong gender or stop producing etc.
I've always considered it an inconvenient truth for Vegetarians and Vegans that decide to stop consuming animal products on behalf of those animals, that they're only alive in the first place because of human consumption.
I’ve always considered it an inconvenient truth for Vegetarians and Vegans that decide to stop consuming animal products on behalf of those animals, that they’re only alive in the first place because of human consumption.
Not that inconvenient. Preventing an animal being born isn't a hardship, if we just let the ones we have get eaten up without breeding, or even if it took a decade to reduce meat production I don't see that many animal rights motivated vegans would complain.
Again: this is simply supply and demand. They may well be "only alive in the first place because of human consumption" but that breeding programme is scaled and tailored to what they can sell. There isn't a cow sat in the back of a farm somewhere all forlorn because those pesky vegans haven't eaten it.
Well this is the question. What conditions do lentils and beans need to grow, and are they suitable crops for the land that we have?
What sir needs is an agriculture expert, not an internet argument!
Seriously - the best anyone on here is going to do is a bit of googling and link to an article written by someone who proports to know what they are talking about. Why don't you cut out the middle man and do the googling yourself?
I’ve always considered it an inconvenient truth for Vegetarians and Vegans that decide to stop consuming animal products on behalf of those animals, that they’re only alive in the first place because of human consumption.
I'd say your ignorance is in the assumption that anyone would be that naïve that they were not hugely aware of the conundrums and hypocrisy that surrounds the very act of existing and simultaneously having morally conscious. I'd say moderating your diet for environment reasons is not about taking a moral high ground to beat others with or to live some sort of sin free whiter than white existence, beyond all reproach. The very best any of us can do (who want to continue living) is to mitigate our impact from this point forward, conscious in the knowledge that we do still have a negative impact - albeit a reduced one. The fact that the recalcitrant dinosaurs amongst us want to berate those at least doing something with a bit of petty point scoring always confuses. I'm not sure why they feel the need to - but I've always thought it said more about them than it does about those they criticise. Like the old comedogen grumpily sat in a burning building, arms folded, criticising those trying to put the fire out because their buckets of water are not always very well aimed.
"I’ve always considered it an inconvenient truth for Vegetarians and Vegans that decide to stop consuming animal products on behalf of those animals, that they’re only alive in the first place because of human consumption."
What kind of life and death do you think these animals get? Try having a look at a flock of sheep and you'll almost certainly see some with foot rot. Limping because they can't walk properly, never mind run, but they have to because they are being chased by a sheep dog. They live the most boring lives stuck out in a field, charged with eating and producing more lambs. They have been selectively bred to provide as much high price meat as possible. They often have no shelter. The lambs are sometimes born too early and are in danger of freezing to death overnight.
And sheep are not the worst treated of farm animals. I think an intensively raised pig would thank you very much for sparing it the life they get.
Sheep, pigs, cows, or their more natural cousins, are capable of living so much more rich lives. Try watching The Secret Life of Cows I think it was called on BBC iPlayer. The difference between the lives of those animals and the poor milk and beef producers we call cows is stark.
If you really think by eating meat you are giving animals a life, you're not being honest with yourself imo.
I've a vegan and I'm much the same as Mrs P7eaven. I bought some free range, ex-battery, had-to-drive-carefully-so-I-didn't-hit-the-hens eggs a few months ago. I had no problem about the ethics of eating them. I just don't like eggs. It's a shame as they would have been a good source of protein but not for me. "It's like eating the unborn child." I heard that on the TV the other day. Made me laugh.
They live the most boring lives stuck out in a field, charged with eating and producing more lambs
Holy anthropomorphisation Batman!
I'm not sure sheep really ask for that much in general.
They live the most boring lives stuck out in a field
As opposed to what? Are they longing for a game of Canasta? Bit of a kickabout before Eastenders starts?
anthropomorphisation Batman
Please tell me that juxtaposition was intentional.
I’ve always considered it an inconvenient truth for Vegetarians and Vegans that decide to stop consuming animal products on behalf of those animals, that they’re only alive in the first place because of human consumption
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not an inconvenient truth, it's a simple truth that all veggies/vegans motivated by animal rights/welfare accept. If no one eats them, they won't exist. That's exactly what we want!
I don’t see that many animal rights motivated vegans would complain.
Of course we/they wouldn't. Why the hell would we complain that a cow didn't exist because it had never been bred by a farmer for the sole purpose of selling it to be killed for meat? Honestly this thread is ridiculous. Use your brains FFS!
@p-jay - so you think a chicken would prefer a short life of misery in a factory farm, being force fed, until someone fancies a rank old bit of meat dipped in the kernels secret recipe, than to not be born at all?
I'm not so sure.
If only we could ask them!
Not that inconvenient. Preventing an animal being born isn’t a hardship, if we just let the ones we have get eaten up without breeding, or even if it took a decade to reduce meat production I don’t see that many animal rights motivated vegans would complain.
Not to us, but that's kind of the point. Some people are so concerned that animals are being killed for food, they'd rather they'd never been born at all, or are deny them the right to reproduce.
I think a valid question to ask is, is a shorter life, free from hunger or becoming prey etc, really worse than no life at all?
Another one is - do people really care about the lives of animals, the ones they'd rather never lived at all, or do they just find the idea of killing them unpleasant? We seem to be pretty unique in that, the other animals on Earth aren't bound by our moralities, predators will tear apart their prey with ruthless efficiency and whilst it's very rare, Cows will kill humans and go about their normal day afterwards.
I'm not looking for an argument, or upset anyone, but it's been on my mind a lot. I can't eat dairy and we're having a few 'veggie days' a week at home, which by default makes them Vegan days for me, but I wonder why I'm driven to stop eating something I enjoy. Is it health reasons, environmental, financial or moral?
Some people are so concerned that animals are being killed for food, they’d rather they’d never been born at all
Err, yeah! That's kind of the point. 🙄
do people really care about the lives of animals, the ones they’d rather never lived at all
Why would anyone care about an animal (or human for that matter) which never existed? This is a really odd line of argument. If I don't impregnate Mrs Daz tonight does that mean I'm abusing my unborn child by denying them the right to life? I'm really confused.
Re the sheep comments above - sorry quoting never works for me - the sheep we see in field have been engineered to provide us with meat and wool.
A more natural sheep-like animal would have a far more interesting life. For instance, they would travel to different grazing grounds. They wouldn't have to shit where they eat and live. They would seek shelter. They would have some sort of society. They wouldn't need pumping full of drugs to keep them from getting sick...
I find it utterly arrogant to think we know what animals need and what they don't need. I'm not meaning to have a go at any one poster, I'm talking about the arrogance of the human race.
but I wonder why I’m driven to stop eating something I enjoy. Is it health reasons, environmental, financial or moral?
Who is driving you? You or are you talking about feeling some sort of public pressure? If the former - you need to answer that for yourself.
p.s. I liked meat. The taste and texture that is. But living without it is no biggie. The world is so full of amazing experiences (activities, sights, sounds - the whole caboodle) that fixating on just reducing your eating by one food group being a profound life altering deprivation seems to me to be an indication that you need to get out more.
Please tell me that juxtaposition was intentional.
That juxtaposition was intentional.
You got two wishes left.
A more natural sheep-like animal would have a far more interesting life.
Starving over winter, becoming fatally injured in mating contests, being ripped apart by wolves.
May you live in interesting times.
I find it utterly arrogant to think we know what animals need and what they don’t need.
I genuinely can't move for irony.
That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. It’s not an inconvenient truth, it’s a simple truth that all veggies/vegans motivated by animal rights/welfare accept. If no one eats them, they won’t exist. That’s exactly what we want!
fair enough, perhaps a bit harsh but I can handle it, you're probably a big hangry (that really is a joke, please don't hate me).
But can I ask a really honest question, I'm not baiting I promise. Do you ever question the idea that denying a life of an animal raised in the very best hypothetical welfare standards is in some ways the same as killing them, only they never get to experience life at all?
But can I ask a really honest question, I’m not baiting I promise. Do you ever question the idea that denying a life of an animal raised in the very best hypothetical welfare standards is in some ways the same as killing them, only they never get to experience life at all?
Nope, never. Can I spin it for you - do you mourn the non lives of wild living beings that would/could live in rewilded areas if the land was not being used for intensive farming?
Fair point with regards the irony monkfinger.
But at least it is a life not imposed on them by us.
Nature is not necessarily kind but it's more kind than human beings.
The wolf has to live too and with regards mating, it's survival of the fittest. Not great for the individual but good for the species. Human beings could learn something there.
That's a big bag of ethical and moral considerations for sure. All of us humans have a life imposed on us, in many respects, too. And not all of those lives good. Would we be better off living like Neanderthals? And survival of the fittest as applied to humans? There are always selection pressures present. Drifting off topic with that one though.
As a hypothetical unborn sheep contemplating life in a drizzly field in England or never existing, I'll take the latter.
Has ton got all the serious answers he was seriously looking for?
I think the planet and many of its plants and species, including many of those that are now extinct, would be better off if we lived like Neanderthals or preferably further back than that.
Nope, never. Can I spin it for you – do you mourn the non lives of wild living beings that would/could live in rewilded areas if the land was not being used for intensive farming?
Not mourn no, but I do think about not only intensive farming, but Human population growth a lot.
I suppose the thing is that, Humans are animals, we're just the cleverest ones on this planet, we share a spectrum of morality that is unique to Humans. At least the Veggies and Vegans who have answered me, believe the best thing to do for the animals we've domesticated for food, is to deny them the chance to reproduce, one of the most basic and powerful emotions animals have and assuming Farmers could be persuaded, forced or paid to keep the existing ones fed and looked after, within 15-20 years, there would be around 50 billion fewer animals on Earth which would bring some serious environmental benefits.
As we've seen in the past with China for example, denying People the right to reproduce is considered a grave infringement of their human rights and caused all sorts of pain in many terrible way.
So, is it really fair to deny animals something we consider a fundamental human right?
Or, due to their lessor intelligence, morality and comprehension of their world, do we say that denying them that right is the best thing for them on their behalf? and If so, are we really making a moral decision not to kill them, if they don't and can't share that morality themselves?
It seems to me, it's incredibly likely that if that if they had the choice, as all other animals do in the wild, rather than deciding to stop reproducing to save their unborn children the chance of life and an early death, they'd evolve to reproduce as quickly as possible to out-pace the predators.
Would perhaps the most moral thing to do is remove our care and allow them the chance to be wild again? They'd die in their billions, but eventually they find an equilibrium with their environment.
I admit, I've gone down a rabbit hole now.
I don't think sheep want as much as people do. Their main concerns in the wild would be good to eat and safety from predators. They get both of those. I'm not sure they are suffering the same existential angst when deprived of the survival challenge as humans do. That's just a guess though.
Different story for battery chickens though.
Human population growth
I'm not convinced breeding ought to be an undeniable fundamental human right. It's almost like we'll have to deny humans the right to reproduce at some point... if we don't want to Easter Island the whole place up.
We already know what we do to farmed animals when the expected slaughterhouse > butchery > table route is removed, because it's happened a couple of times in relatively recent years - the foot and mouth outbreak 20 years ago and the post-Brexit slaughterhouse issues more recently. We kill them and burn them.
Fair point with regards the irony monkfinger.
But at least it is a life not imposed on them by us.
Nature is not necessarily kind but it’s more kind than human beings.
The wolf has to live too and with regards mating, it’s survival of the fittest. Not great for the individual but good for the species. Human beings could learn something there.
Part of me agrees with you, but few people like the idea in reality.
Consider Covid for example, and please this is just idle thoughts, not a plan. about 18 months ago, there was a thread about Covid (there's a surprise) considering the positives and not in a rose tinted wasn't lockdown 1 lovely because the roads were quiet and it was sunny kind of way, but more fundamental that that.
I suggested that we humans have massively out populated the earth and we're simply incapable, thanks to our nature to a) stop reproducing b) meaningfully reduce our consumption of well everything to fix that. More specifically the Population in the West had grown old, kept alive longer and longer due to our comfortable lives and medical science.
I suggested that a plague was the only real way 'Mother Nature' could correct that and perhaps lockdowns and such were against nature trying to correct. I was called a Monster for it, and it was only a thought! If we lived like Animals and by a code of 'survival of the fittest' Covid would have killed multiples of the terrible number of people it did kill, and continues to kill, mostly it would have killed older people and the sick, reducing our population to more manageable numbers and improving the average health of the remaining population.
Do you ever question the idea that denying a life of an animal raised in the very best hypothetical welfare standards is in some ways the same as killing them, only they never get to experience life at all?
No of course I don't. Why on earth would I worry about the rights of something that never existed? To try and equate this with killing a living animal is ridiculous. I'm not having a go, it's just a plainly stupid idea. It would be like forcing people to have kids on the basis that it's wrong to deny the unconceived the right to life.
A more natural sheep-like animal would have a far more interesting life. For instance, they would travel to different grazing grounds.
Would they though?
A more natural sheep-like animal would have a far more interesting life. For instance, they would travel to different grazing grounds. They wouldn’t have to shit where they eat and live. They would seek shelter. They would have some sort of society. They wouldn’t need pumping full of drugs to keep them from getting sick…
Would they?
Blast, nine minutes! Sorry.
Well they are not going to stay in a place where there is no food, are they? All grazing animals roam.
Agree with a lot of your last post P-Jay.
I don't think sheep would be as bored as humans being stuck in a field. But I do think they are bored. I don't know how clever they are compared with dogs but look at all the stimulation dogs get from their owners. I mean toys, walks, playing etc.
Obviously dogs are predators but look at horses. Stuck in a field all day. Compare them to the Mustang hoses of North America.
I also don't think farm animals care if they are killed and burned or killed and eaten. Only humans worry about that.
Sheep dog here:
Tell me this, cougar and slowoldman: why would they not do any of those things? And shouldn't animals be given the chance to if they want?
Wouldn't work in the world we live in obviously but in a better world.