Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

An Open Letter to Angry Vegetarians?

Options
  • 22-07-2014 3:21pm
    #1
    Wurly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,095 ✭✭✭


    I came across this woman's blog post today. Do you agree with her notion that each meal requires killing, regardless of it containing animal products or not?

    http://www.handpickednation.com/an-open-letter-to-angry-vegetarians/

    The truth is there is no meal we can eat without killing. None. A trip to your local grocery store for tofu and spinach leaves may not include a single animal product but the harvesting of such food costs endless animal lives. Growing fields of soy beans for commercial clients means removing habitat from thousands of wild animals, killing them through deforestation and loss of their home. Songbirds and insects are killed by pesticides at legion. Fertilizers are made from petroleum now, and those fields of tofu seeds are literally being sprayed with oil we are fighting wars over. Deer died for that tofu. Songbirds died. Men and women in battle died. And then when the giant tofu factory harvested the beans they ran over those chemical oil fields of faux-food with combines that rip open groundhogs, mice, and rabbits. Tear apart frogs and fledgling birds. It is a messy and bloody business making tofu or any of that other non-murderous food.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    nortot01
    Registered Users Posts: 1 ✭nortot01


    Ive been vegi for about 40 years, Im nearly 60 now. Ill never touch anything that ever had a face but I dont believe I need to convince you and you and you the merits of my actions. My wife would eat her weight in animals, as would 2 of my 3 kids, and this is not a battle I want to engage in. It's enough for me that I satisfy myself.
    On the nub of the question; you cant walk accross a field without scattering death in your wake at least at a microscopic level. Yes, food production of either persuasion inevitably will lead to creature deaths, whether by collateral damage (remember Iraq?) of full on human greed, sometimes simply homicidal greed, people will be killed/displaced because somebody wants to make money from their land/resources. We can all watch Prime Time, Newsnight etc etc for the dirty evidence and Id say most of it is true, but going on a holier than thou crusade (If this quotation are the words of a Crusader?) will not to my mind bring any closure to the debate. Yes, when you have a Big Mac you are complicit with Big Business and all it's sins, but get a grip on the small part you play please....change your own actions to reflect better your principles but don't alienate the poor sods who like a bit of Tofu. I'm only sayin......


  • Options
    #3
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    It's just a form of sophistry. The use of natural resources for farming will end up with death of animals, directly or indirectly, but it is clear that the environmental burden of provision for vegetarianism is massively lower than non-vegetarian. Indeed the production of meat almost adds a new and very inefficient layer of burden on top of the non-meat oriented layers.

    Put another way, pretty much every one of the above arguments applies to meat production but with a load more damage.


  • Options
    #4
    loveisdivine
    Registered Users Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭loveisdivine


    For me its about the lesser of two evils. Veganism reduces the destruction, but of course it doesn't remove it entirely.

    In my perfect world, we would all live in small, independent communities where we grow our own food sustainably and eat with the seasons.
    It would be much easier that way to control the destruction.

    However I am also an avid supporter of vastly reducing our population. Which would be a neccesity to live as I describe above.

    So in the meantime its simply the lesser of two evils.


  • Options
    #5
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    Wurly wrote: »
    I came across this woman's blog post today. Do you agree with her notion that each meal requires killing, regardless of it containing animal products or not?

    http://www.handpickednation.com/an-open-letter-to-angry-vegetarians/

    I think most people who have dedicated a bit of brain space to their veganism/vegetarianism would rate it as a lesser of two evils rather than an absolutely perfect solution. Industrial products, including food products of every sort, involve some level of habitat displacement. Even an organic farm harvesting the soy by hand with no industrial inputs involves a habitat displacement. Habitat displacement inevitably involves some level of population correction in the animal population.

    Doesn't mean it's not something worth pursuing though.


  • Options
    #6
    Greenmachine
    Registered Users Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭Greenmachine


    In the case of vegan. Where they will not use animal product. The alternative for shoes at least will usually involved plastic materials invariably made from petrochemicals, the production of which is damaging to the animals they are aiming to protect.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Just Like Heaven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,132 ✭✭✭Just Like Heaven


    Lazy blog post.

    What kills more animals? Destroying natural habitat to grow plants for humans or destroying natural habitat to grow plants for food to feed animals that take up much, much more natural habitat, fossil fuels and water and then to kill those animals in the end.

    Look lads, you might as well eat meat and support the farming of animals because one day you're bound to step on a snail and there's no way to avoid it etc.

    Animal rights aren't the only reason to go veg either, if the world went vegan you could wipe out world hunger in a few short years using the farmland already in existence. Lots of vegans for health concerns. And if people are just straight out speciest and don't care about the lives of any animals except one in particular, say pigs. Then that's morally in line with this half-assed, factless opinion and a perfectly credible argument.


  • Options
    #8
    Just Like Heaven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,132 ✭✭✭Just Like Heaven


    Greenmachine wrote: »
    In the case of vegan. Where they will not use animal product. The alternative for shoes at least will usually involved plastic materials invariably made from petrochemicals, the production of which is damaging to the animals they are aiming to protect.

    Strawman argument. My very existence causes suffering because I eat food that could be given to other starving people. Vegans seek to minimise it.

    It would indeed be hypocritical for me to claim I cause absolutely no animal suffering but I don't you're just assuming I do. Really, I try to cause less, and I do. Do you agree?

    Also there are no vegans using absolutely no animal product, there's non-vegan glue in my furniture and mice probably die in order to harvest my grain. But less than would die to feed a cow which I would then kill.

    And shoes and clothes can be made from other organic materials not just oil products.


  • Options
    #9
    Greenmachine
    Registered Users Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭Greenmachine


    fewtins wrote: »
    Strawman argument. My very existence causes suffering because I eat food that could be given to other starving people. Vegans seek to minimise it.

    It would indeed be hypocritical for me to claim I cause absolutely no animal suffering but I don't you're just assuming I do. Really, I try to cause less, and I do. Do you agree?

    Also there are no vegans using absolutely no animal product, there's non-vegan glue in my furniture and mice probably die in order to harvest my grain. But less than would die to feed a cow which I would then kill.

    And shoes and clothes can be made from other organic materials not just oil products.

    That's a totally loaded question. I have a choice as to whether to wear leather shoes or shoes made of synthetic materials, a vegan is compelled to wear synthetic materials for shoes at least. I acknowledge that with clothing, you can use cotton, but I have never seen cotton shoes and with good reason. The point I was making was that in the case of certain categories of product, the vegan choice is not necessarily the most ecologically friendly.

    I am not sure how one would quantify the amount of deforestation that occurs with the purpose of growing food, that will end up in a vegan/vegetarian plate, and it's overall ecological impact. Or indeed the comparison between meat production and organic food production from an ecological impact perspective. Meat production for example leads to an increased methane production. Vegetable and grain production can result in contamination of water supply, which in turn can kill fish etc, and in the case of water in the human food supply chain, requires increased processing and use of chemicals to maket the water consumable.


  • Options
    #10
    Just Like Heaven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,132 ✭✭✭Just Like Heaven


    Meat production still causes the contamination of water from grain and vegetable production and a lot more of it because that's what is fed to animals. This is basic ecology. Of the energy provided by the sun 10% is available in grass for the rabbit to eat because 90% was used to grow grass, of the energy in the rabbit 10% is available in the fox because approximately 90% is used by the rabbit to live and so on, the more steps the less energy is transferred. It's impossible for eating meat to be more efficient than eating plants. Of course it differs with each plant/animal product but the principle applies. I'm on my phone and can't link but that's why there was this thing a few years ago with the UN trying to get people to eat insects and eggs, because it's so much less taxing than meat and dairy.Plenty of other stuff if you google it I'm sure.

    Maybe you're indeed right about leather shoes being more environmentally sound than shoes from plastics (although I doubt it because a lot of petrol resources go into raising a cow), I don't know I haven't read anything about it. I would assume you can get more shoes out of that which would be needed to raise a cow, turn it into leather and then turn the leather into shoes, but I admit I'm making that assumption.


  • Options
    #11
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    I came across this posted today qualifying environmental damage from beef production:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057254157

    For me being a vegi who doesn't eat eggs, its reduce reuse recycle and reduce overall consumption and energy use. But it is tempered with realism ie where possible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Wurly wrote: »
    I came across this woman's blog post today. Do you agree with her notion that each meal requires killing, regardless of it containing animal products or not?

    http://www.handpickednation.com/an-open-letter-to-angry-vegetarians/

    She does realise that the vast majority of soy produced worldwide is used as animal feed, right?

    The argument is a bit backwards - yes, animals will suffer and die no matter what a human being decides to eat. But accepting that animals are killed in producing vegetables and grains for human consumption is one thing.
    Feeding those veg and grains then to other animals in order to kill and eat those involves a LOT more dead animals.


  • Options
    #13
    henryporter
    Registered Users Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭henryporter


    So taking the original quoted argument to its ultimate and most absurd conclusion, vegans should, having reduced their animal harming sphere to an absolute minimum should just go ahead and top themselves as their entire existence is a contradiction of their beliefs/philosophies/life-styles/attitudes/standpoints. It's a pretty pathetic argument.


  • Options
    #14
    Bafucin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 642 ✭✭✭Bafucin


    So because you cannot do everything you should do nothing? That is the mantra of the lazy.


  • Options
    #15
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Bafucin wrote: »
    So because you cannot do everything you should do nothing? That is the mantra of the lazy.

    Do what you can and be the best that you can. Twee I know, but ideal.


  • Options
    #16
    blatantrereg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭blatantrereg


    I am deeply ashamed. From now on I am a freegan fruitarian.


  • Options
    #17
    sok2005
    Registered Users Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭sok2005


    That whole article was irritating but weirdly enough the point that stood out as even more annoying for me was : "But now there is so much food and your diet is as much a personal a choice as your religion and sexuality"
    Just a small dig at the gay community there too. I have gay friends and family who would insist their sexuality is something they are born with not a choice and i'd totally agree with them.

    And I use seaweed as my fertilizer, it's not necessary to use blood and bone as she was trying to insinuate also.


  • Options
    #18
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    There are eco-friendly shoe brands but I doubt using any synthetic would cause more damage than partaking in the killing industry and keeping it afloat.
    Wurly wrote: »
    I came across this woman's blog post today. Do you agree with her notion that each meal requires killing, regardless of it containing animal products or not?

    http://www.handpickednation.com/an-open-letter-to-angry-vegetarians/

    Not just each meal but living in general causes death, such is nature. Our aim is to minimize suffering, this puts her on the defensive as our default stance is painting her in a bad light, people can't handle that. They need to tear down what somebody else does instead of internal reflection.

    There is no reason not to minimize damage done and try to do better. Instead of **** it I'll do nothing. It is better to do something than nothing, all that person wants to do is point fingers to bring others down.


  • Options
    #19
    Slaphead07
    Registered Users Posts: 2,323 ✭✭✭Slaphead07


    That "article" and ones like it crop up every now and again. Frankly I don't engage because if a cul-de-sac can be an ever decreasing circle this is it. It's like the idiot who points at your shoes/belt/wallet and screams "ah yer wearing leather so .... blah blah blah". I answer to my own conscience and nobody else's. We all do our bit, even carnivores have their limit (normally) and it's not for anyone else to undermine what we do and say we should do more - don't take that literally you know what I mean!

    it really doesn't deserve much debate and neither did it the 30 times I've seen it online before. It's lazy trolling at best and somebody trying to wrongly justify meat consumption at worst.


  • Options
    #20
    BMJD
    Registered Users Posts: 2,694 ✭✭✭BMJD


    Wurly wrote: »
    woman's blog post

    hte54o.jpg


  • Options
    #21
    --LOS--
    Registered Users Posts: 11,028 ✭✭✭✭--LOS--


    This is the question I feel like I have to answer the most for people, it seems to be a common anti-vegan/veggie stance online, then people come along and read it without even thinking it through logically. If you thought about it for a second you wouldn't need to be told how crazily stupid an argument it is.

    Whenever this argument pops up I have to take a breather because it's just such a negative way of looking at things, it's as pointless as saying we all die so why bother live.

    I'm just going to copy and paste what I wrote elsewhere....

    2 main points:

    1. Most of the grain we grow is fed to animals, so that we can eat the animals, thus a waste of grain, instead of eating it ourselves. We consume more plants through animal consumption than by eating vegetarian/vegan.

    2. There is a difference between accidental killing and purposeful killing, heck we all know that. So if you're concerned about the accidental killing of insects, rodents, snakes etc through harvesting of plants, then you should be especially concerned about animal consumption, since that is what is using the most plants, causing the most accidental deaths!

    It's an simple as that.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement