How can it be better for the animals? If not looked after they will suffer because who will spend time on looking after them if they are not going to get a return?
Distasteful vegan TV ad
- Thread starter lookitsjonno
- Start date
- Status
We could just... oh I don't know, not breed as many?
People talking in this thread like it's going to be an overnight thing that the world is going to be 'forced to go vegan' and we're just going to be left with billions of livestock with no purpose. It's clearly going to be a gradual thing and to an extent is already happening a la meat consumption decline.
I'm struggling to find the evidence that doesn't support reducing our meat intake (or removing it entirely) in order to reduce personal carbon emissions etc etc.. happy to be pointed in the right direction for some relatively sensible evidence if it exists.
This is one of the terrible arguments against it.
"Oh, all those poor pigs that were going to get slaughtered will have to be slaughtered."
Besides, as said, it will be gradual.
Meat chickens are only on farm about 8 weeks anyway. Which is pretty disgusting I'm my opinion. Poor things are programmed to eat as much as possible as fast as possible
I would hope most people would believe that but we all know that what happens in reality and what happens on paper are two different things.
When a farm went under there might be a cull of everything due to the conveyer belt that is meat production.
Selective deafness again I see.
I give up, you crack on, I'm sure you'll do a great job convincing people to stop eating meat just like you have here
If it happens now then the stock would be sold on( hopefully) if it happens when veganism is more mainstream then they probably would be culled for no reason as no one would want them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
I have to say that is the weirdest argument ever. If we dont keep eating meat we will have to kill animals.
The vegans are going on about animal cruelty and abuse, yet if there is no market for a farmer to get rid of their stock, then the animals would either be left to fend for themselves (domesticated animals wouldn't fare very well in that scenario)or they would be culled for no reason.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
You are just making it worse.
Soldato
A lot of that seems to be due to the funding available through various environmental/rewilding stewardships.
One of the farmers around here mentioned it, saying it made more business sense to have guaranteed revenue with one of these stewardships for 5 or so years than take the huge risks growing crops where he could end the season in eye-watering debt. He generally seemed a bit miffed at the (UK) government not really supporting arable farming at the moment.
In a weird roundabout way, he isn't entirely wrong if there was an epic uptick of veganism where there could be the potential for culling. Back in reality though, you would assume it would be a gradual reduction of livestock that inline with the increase of veganism (or rather plant-based which is the majority of 'vegans').
Last edited:
Glad you think so,
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
I dont think you understood.
It has been explained to you many times yet you keep saying the same thing.
Last edited:
Associate
Last edited:
Soldato
It wouldn’t happen if veganism was more mainstream as the farm wouldn’t go under due to the price of their product probably being a small fortune and catering to the super rich, who would be the only ones who could afford meat.
If veganism became mainstream the few remaining ‘meat’ farms would have animals worth their weight in gold.
Save the Planet, Put Down that Hamburger (Published 2023)
Researchers examined the diets of 55,500 people and found that vegans are responsible for 75 percent less in greenhouse gases than meat-eaters.
Now you have got no excuse not to read one.
Your ignorance just keeps on going. There would be no need to grow sugar beats etc. That is the whole point
Save the Planet, Put Down that Hamburger (Published 2023)
Researchers examined the diets of 55,500 people and found that vegans are responsible for 75 percent less in greenhouse gases than meat-eaters.www.nytimes.com
Now you have got no excuse not to read one.
Your ignorance just keeps on going. There would be no need to grow sugar beats etc. That is the whole point
I think I have read that and no it’s not a solution. You seem desperate to offer up veganism as something it’s not.
- Status