- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Still sticking with the hillier than thou attitude I see.
You are NOT getting it, it's not about REPLACING something with another. People don't replace it because of their economic status, they CAN NOT replace it. The fact that you just say "replace it with that", shows your arrogance and ignorance.
It's not about what they eat, it's about what they can get.
Ive already said, I don't expect everyone in the entire world to go vegan, I see no reason why working class people in hong kong cant be vegan though, they have access to some basic vegetables surely?
Also, Veganism is a new word but the concept isn't even a western idea, other cultures (ancient Indian and west asian) cut out meat probably long before we did.
A quick google suggests there's a growing trend of cutting out meat in hong kong as well which is good to hear.
...Like I said I am against the big factories that don't treat animals in the right way as Animal welfare matters. But that doesnt make all meat eating wrong.
My hypothetical to you. If I have a pet pig that I looked after and treated the best I could then after years it dies of natural reasons. Due to emotional ties I wouldn't eat it myself but what would be wrong giving it to my local farmer to use for meat for his family who are on hard times and struggling to afford to eat. The animal didn't suffer, the body is not being wasted. Its a positive outcome from what is a negative event of a pet being dead. Why would this be wrong? What matters to me is where the meat comes from instead of saying all meat eating is bad. One does not have to follow veganism to reduce harm to animals. In this case one could still eat meat and still be following veganism from the point of view of trying to stop and reduce harm to animals. As the eating meat in this case is not causing any harm.
Cool, so you're against the majority of animal agriculture then Because most farmed animals are certainly not treated well.
If your pig lives to old age, dies out in a field, naturally? I would have no qualms about someone eating it.... would I eat it personally? probably not, just because I don't need or would want to.
Its also a well known fact that vegetarian agriculture like rice is one of the leading causes of greenhouse gases and the methane is more than 30 times as potent as carbon dioxide. If you scale up the size of the Vegetarian agriculture to replace the animal agriculture then the total amount of greenhouse gas can get worse and the type of greenhouse gas produced is worse.
Instead of looking at the total size of the animal agriculture against the size of the vegetarian agriculture. Look up say how much greenhouse gases is produced to feed say 10million people via animal agriculture v 10million via vegetarian agriculture. Once you scale up the vegetarian agriculture to feed mass amount of people you get runaway major greenhouse gas problems far worse then the current animal agriculture industry.
Rice farming up to twice as bad for climate change as previously thought, study reveals
Levels of overlooked greenhouse gas are up to 45 times higher in fields that are only flooded intermittentlywww.independent.co.uk
Cant read the article its paywalled. But fair enough I guess, except not only vegans eat rice You would also have to take into account the amount of plants we currently feed all the animals, that would obviously gradually be reduced thus saving emisions, which is probably why the oxford study says going plant based is better for the planet.