Vegans and Vegetarians Think They Don’t Kill Animals but They Do

kunst nugget · 14-11-2016 02:57PM #1

Came across this article which I thought might be interesting for After Hours. Claudio Bertonatti, a naturalist in Argentina wrote an article called The Vegan Confusion in which he tells us that eating only vegetables does not prevent the death of animals and that vegans and vegetarians concentrate only on the welfare of domesticated animals while being ignorant of the effect that their lifestyle choices have on wild animals.

What drove you to write the article?

In Argentina, I encounter many people who claim to be defenders of nature because they don’t eat meat or wear leather. They think that by being vegan or vegetarian they’re preventing animals from dying. It’s not true.

Why?

From the moment that humans began to raise cattle and adopt agriculture we generated an impact. There is no animal species whose survival doesn’t result in the death of other animals, whether directly or indirectly. I understand that this can be a painful realization. I’d also like to live in an ideal world, but that’s not the reality. Many vegans and people who only wear cotton seem to believe they don’t cause any deaths, but they do.

Indirect deaths?

Wheat, rice, corn. Most vegans eat these things. The first impact of mass cultivation is deforestation: we force nature out to make room for crops. In Argentina, they set fire to the jungle, burning nests with flamethrowers. Then they must defend the sown land from the birds who come to feed; many landowners do this by scattering poisoned grains. After that, the wild herbivores come looking for the first shoots, so the landowners put up electric fences or hunt the animals down with guns.

What happens during harvest?

The land is fumigated to combat fungi, insects and other plants. The animals that have been driven out move on to other areas which already support animals: the hotel is fully booked. So, the animals go to neighbouring crop fields and another wave of impacts is generated.

By contrast, he says, in fields dedicated to livestock there are more species of other animals.

There are lots of wild grasslands in Argentina. You can go for a walk there and find everything: amphibians, reptiles, birds. Of course, I’d be lying if I said there’s the same variety of animals as you’d get if the cows weren’t there. The farmer also persecutes wildlife and kills any animals he considers harmful to production. Even so, the impact is less. When I say this, a lot of people feel I’m cornering them.

In what sense?

In the sense that there’s no escape: if you eat meat, you kill animals, but you also kill them by eating plants. A lot of people who care about environmental issues look for good guys and bad guys, but it’s not like that: it’s far more complicated.

http://www.playground.plus/food/vegans-and-vegetarians-think-they-dont-kill-animals-but-they-do/

While omnivores are just as much to blame for animal deaths in terms of crop production, I think he's trying to highlight the problem of adopting a moral or ethical stance without actually properly researching or thinking about the impact that lifestyle choice has. To my eyes, it seems like a pretty pragmatic article addressing some of the grey issues that surround what many think of as a black and white issue. I'm sure some on here will be able to highlight the flaws in the argument and I'm interested to see what they are.

So, people of boards, what do you think?

FortySeven · 14-11-2016 02:59PM

Vegans should clearly commit suicide to limit their impact on the environment.

Veggies can be turned but the vegans are lost to us.......

Lovely Bloke · 14-11-2016 03:00PM

I think people should just do what they want, once they aren't hurting other people.

Animals be damned.

Fratton Fred · 14-11-2016 03:00PM

Because of the increased fibre they eat, Vegans also produce more Chloro Farto Carbons than everyone else. It is these CFCs that are causing global warming.

apparently.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 14-11-2016 03:00PM

What harm are they doing to you?

Pherekydes · 14-11-2016 03:03PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What harm are they doing to you?

My tree house was chopped down to make way for a rice paddy. :mad:

Stigura · 14-11-2016 04:41PM

THIS.

And, yes; He is Right. You are Wrong

OldNotWIse · 14-11-2016 04:44PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Came across this article which I thought might be interesting for After Hours. Claudio Bertonatti, a naturalist in Argentina wrote an article called The Vegan Confusion in which he tells us that eating only vegetables does not prevent the death of animals and that vegans and vegetarians concentrate only on the welfare of domesticated animals while being ignorant of the effect that their lifestyle choices have on wild animals.

http://www.playground.plus/food/vegans-and-vegetarians-think-they-dont-kill-animals-but-they-do/

While omnivores are just as much to blame for animal deaths in terms of crop production, I think he's trying to highlight the problem of adopting a moral or ethical stance without actually properly researching or thinking about the impact that lifestyle choice has. To my eyes, it seems like a pretty pragmatic article addressing some of the grey issues that surround what many think of as a black and white issue. I'm sure some on here will be able to highlight the flaws in the argument and I'm interested to see what they are.

So, people of boards, what do you think?

And that is where you are wrong. Most visitors here will be simply bashing vegans and engaging in plant-loving whataboutery.

Shenshen · 14-11-2016 05:02PM

Has it been 2 days already?

RobertKK · 14-11-2016 05:08PM

I suspect vegans are anti-cat too.

cattle are so tasty, whether it is cow's milk or their meaty backsides...

ScumLord · 14-11-2016 06:35PM

I think an urban lifestyle creates a certain disconnect with the reality of the natural world. We tend to forget we're not a separate entity from nature. We're actually a major player in the natural world, almost up there with weather and solar cycles at this stage, what we do matters. We can't just have a set of beliefs and ideals and expect them to work in the real world. If we start or stop doing anything it will have a major impact on the natural world. US not eating meat would mean that the globes top predator has disappeared. We already have examples of how detrimental removing predators can be to an environment. We can't just assume that not taking part will make things any better for other creatures.

Overall though the real problem is rampant consumerism. We're quantifying everything into a monetary value and seeing everything from bits of dirt to reading your phone while having a shyte as a commodity that needs to be exploited. We the people might complain that big business is destroying the planet but we the consumer are the ones actively encouraging and funding that destruction.

CaptainR · 14-11-2016 06:43PM

(Lisa) “I’m going to become a vegetarian” (Homer) “Does that mean you’re not going to eat any pork?”
“Yes”
“Bacon?”
“Yes Dad”
Ham?”
“Dad all those meats come from the same animal”
“Right Lisa, some wonderful, magical animal!”

OldNotWIse · 15-11-2016 10:48AM

ScumLord wrote: »

I think an urban lifestyle creates a certain disconnect with the reality of the natural world. We tend to forget we're not a separate entity from nature. We're actually a major player in the natural world, almost up there with weather and solar cycles at this stage, what we do matters. We can't just have a set of beliefs and ideals and expect them to work in the real world. If we start or stop doing anything it will have a major impact on the natural world. US not eating meat would mean that the globes top predator has disappeared. We already have examples of how detrimental removing predators can be to an environment. We can't just assume that not taking part will make things any better for other creatures.

Overall though the real problem is rampant consumerism. We're quantifying everything into a monetary value and seeing everything from bits of dirt to reading your phone while having a shyte as a commodity that needs to be exploited. We the people might complain that big business is destroying the planet but we the consumer are the ones actively encouraging and funding that destruction.

I might be wrong or perhaps misunderstood your post, but given that most animals reared for food live and die in factory farms that are essentially removed from the "circle of life" I don't really see how not eating meat will effect it. A factory farm exists as a discrete entity where animals are bred, live and then are killed. Is it not a simple case of supply and demand. If they stopped eating meat, there would be no demand to breed more. If they stopped breeding animals for food today, and ate through the current supply until it was gone, then no longer bred any more factory cows,pigs, chickens etc - how would that interfere with the environment (aside from drastically reducing their carbon emissions)?

I agree with you on the rampant consumerism. People insist of having meat not just every day but even more than once a day, when in reality a couple of times a week would suffice.

fizzypish · 15-11-2016 11:02AM

Stigura wrote: »

THIS.

And, yes; He is Right. You are Wrong

Ya bolix. This reminds me of when I was a young fella, topping one of the fields on the tractor. Accidentally mowed a rabbit. Managed to stop the power drive in time so as to simply cut its leg off rather than completely disembowel the poor ****er. Still died but in a less horrendous way. AWWW **** and now you've reminded me of the time I was walking a greyhound and a pheasant chick ran across the path. Rather than grabbing the lead up short and restraining the dog I lunged to protect the chick (yes I'm a moron) thus providing the dog ample lead to lunge. Awwwwwwww this is gonna cost me a fortune in therapy...

robarmstrong · 15-11-2016 11:13AM

Vegans drink water, that's a fish's home you sick twisted deviants!!!!!!!

OldNotWIse · 15-11-2016 11:16AM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Vegans drink water, that's a fish's home you sick twisted deviants!!!!!!!

And probably has fish pee in it eeeeeewwwwww

ScumLord · 15-11-2016 02:49PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

If they stopped eating meat, there would be no demand to breed more. If they stopped breeding animals for food today, and ate through the current supply until it was gone, then no longer bred any more factory cows,pigs, chickens etc - how would that interfere with the environment (aside from drastically reducing their carbon emissions)?

It wouldn't go down that easy. Nothing ever happens without consequences.

I'm against intensive farming, for the most part cattle and sheep in this country aren't intensively farmed.

At the moment we're putting pressure on the ecosystems, especially ecosystems that are alien to our domestic animals. But Europe and the middle east have been farming for a long time, ecosystems have actually adapted to the fact farming happens. Removing farming would have a knock on effect on creatures and plants that have adapted to those cycles.

Cattle provide all sorts of other items and goods that go into other industries. So all those would collapse.

If wool disappeared we'd likely have to come up with alternatives which would mean growing something else or using synthetic alternatives that might be less sustainable and more polluting. The list of knock on effects would be endless. I can't even begin to think of them all.

That doesn't mean I don't think we should reduce meat use and pay more for meat. I think we should bring in standards for intensive farming ASAP, increase welfare and make meat more expensive. But we should keep the domestic animals, we have a partnership that benefits us both which is how nature works, it's turning out we didn't enslave many of the domestic animals, they actually came to us.

OldNotWIse · 15-11-2016 03:02PM

ScumLord wrote: »

It wouldn't go down that easy. Nothing ever happens without consequences.

I'm against intensive farming, for the most part cattle and sheep in this country aren't intensively farmed.

At the moment we're putting pressure on the ecosystems, especially ecosystems that are alien to our domestic animals. But Europe and the middle east have been farming for a long time, ecosystems have actually adapted to the fact farming happens. Removing farming would have a knock on effect on creatures and plants that have adapted to those cycles.

Cattle provide all sorts of other items and goods that go into other industries. So all those would collapse.

If wool disappeared we'd likely have to come up with alternatives which would mean growing something else or using synthetic alternatives that might be less sustainable and more polluting. The list of knock on effects would be endless. I can't even begin to think of them all.

That doesn't mean I don't think we should reduce meat use and pay more for meat. I think we should bring in standards for intensive farming ASAP, increase welfare and make meat more expensive. But we should keep the domestic animals, we have a partnership that benefits us both which is how nature works, it's turning out we didn't enslave many of the domestic animals, they actually came to us.

I think if they could speak, there would be many millions and millions of farmed animals that would disagree with you on that one.

FortySeven · 15-11-2016 03:52PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think if they could speak, there would be many millions and millions of farmed animals that would disagree with you on that one.

If we were all vegan there would not be any of these species to talk. No need = no feed.

Edups · 15-11-2016 04:08PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What harm are they doing to you?

Found the vegan

Shenshen · 15-11-2016 04:53PM

ScumLord wrote: »

It wouldn't go down that easy. Nothing ever happens without consequences.

I'm against intensive farming, for the most part cattle and sheep in this country aren't intensively farmed.

At the moment we're putting pressure on the ecosystems, especially ecosystems that are alien to our domestic animals. But Europe and the middle east have been farming for a long time, ecosystems have actually adapted to the fact farming happens. Removing farming would have a knock on effect on creatures and plants that have adapted to those cycles.

Cattle provide all sorts of other items and goods that go into other industries. So all those would collapse.

If wool disappeared we'd likely have to come up with alternatives which would mean growing something else or using synthetic alternatives that might be less sustainable and more polluting. The list of knock on effects would be endless. I can't even begin to think of them all.

That doesn't mean I don't think we should reduce meat use and pay more for meat. I think we should bring in standards for intensive farming ASAP, increase welfare and make meat more expensive. But we should keep the domestic animals, we have a partnership that benefits us both which is how nature works, it's turning out we didn't enslave many of the domestic animals, they actually came to us.

I couldn't agree more with the bolded part.
It's a funny thing, every time there's a discussion on animal welfare or vegetarianism or veganism on this forum, one of the things that gets rolled out is the "Look at how happy the sheep and cows in the fields are" argument. And personally, I'm sure they're happy as Larry for most of their lives, with the exception of the last hours or days (depending how far away from the abattoir they were reared).
However, these lucky creatures do not account for the bulk of meat consumption in this country. 74% of meat consumed here is poultry and pork. And I would bet that not many people see chickens and pigs frolicking in the fields on a daily basis.

On top of that, Ireland actually imports beef from the UK (37% of the beef the UK exports ends up here http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/irish-beef-tops-uk-beef-imports-while-we-took-37-of-the-uks-beef-exports/#) - so we ship happy cows off abroad, and import cheaper beef from probably less happy cows.

I would love it if people were a little more conscious of what they eat, and treat meat not as a commodity to be had 3 times a day 7 days a week for next to no money at all, but as a treat to be enjoyed.

I'll never forget my grandmother telling me that when she was little, a Sunday roast was 2 pigeons shared among a family of 7...

mathie · 15-11-2016 05:05PM

"The first impact of mass cultivation is deforestation: we force nature out to make room for crops. In Argentina, they set fire to the jungle, burning nests with flamethrowers. Then they must defend the sown land from the birds who come to feed; many landowners do this by scattering poisoned grains. After that, the wild herbivores come looking for the first shoots, so the landowners put up electric fences or hunt the animals down with guns."

What a pile of ...

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

"Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein, according to the Cornell ecologist's analysis.

Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)"

TLDR Don't feed animals plants and eat them yourself saves you having to get your deforestation on.

15-11-2016 05:12PM

You know what a vegan is, right? A vegetarian with no sense of humour.

Shenshen · 15-11-2016 05:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You know what a vegan is, right? A vegetarian with no sense of humour.

I can't help thinking that partially that must be because none of the jokes are new...

It must be like sitting in an interminable Michael Mcintyre show.

_Brian · 15-11-2016 05:17PM

Shenshen wrote: »

I couldn't agree more with the bolded part.
It's a funny thing, every time there's a discussion on animal welfare or vegetarianism or veganism on this forum, one of the things that gets rolled out is the "Look at how happy the sheep and cows in the fields are" argument. And personally, I'm sure they're happy as Larry for most of their lives, with the exception of the last hours or days (depending how far away from the abattoir they were reared).
However, these lucky creatures do not account for the bulk of meat consumption in this country. 74% of meat consumed here is poultry and pork. And I would bet that not many people see chickens and pigs frolicking in the fields on a daily basis.

On top of that, Ireland actually imports beef from the UK (37% of the beef the UK exports ends up here http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/irish-beef-tops-uk-beef-imports-while-we-took-37-of-the-uks-beef-exports/#) - so we ship happy cows off abroad, and import cheaper beef from probably less happy cows.

I would love it if people were a little more conscious of what they eat, and treat meat not as a commodity to be had 3 times a day 7 days a week for next to no money at all, but as a treat to be enjoyed.

I'll never forget my grandmother telling me that when she was little, a Sunday roast was 2 pigeons shared among a family of 7...

We keep our own chickens for eggs and pigs for meat.
Other than the serious improvement in the quality of the animals life, the unbelievable difference in taste is wonderful. The bacon is like nothing you can buy in the shops, they have a shed for shelter but also access to outside space to root around and eat whatever they find.

The eggs are much better coloured, taste stronger and more filling that commercially produced eggs.

However, I'd say the bacon Is more expensive than commercially produced stuff so most people wouldn't be interested.

Animal welfare isn't always down to vegan verses meat eaters. If consumers shopped a bit less on price and more for sustainable farming practices then they would both get better tasting foods, support local farmers and improve overall animal husbandry by choosing animals that are reared roaming outdoors.

ScumLord · 15-11-2016 05:51PM

Shenshen wrote: »

On top of that, Ireland actually imports beef from the UK (37% of the beef the UK exports ends up here http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/irish-beef-tops-uk-beef-imports-while-we-took-37-of-the-uks-beef-exports/#) - so we ship happy cows off abroad, and import cheaper beef from probably less happy cows.

I've never seen British meat on the shelves here, not cuts of meat anyway. So I'd wonder if that meat is being processed into ready meals and being exported out again? I wouldn't really accept that cattle know what's coming to them either. They're used to being transported, that's something familiar to them so it probably wouldn't alarm them all that much. They don't know what an abattoir is, they're not used to the smells in there, which might put them on edge on some instinctual level but they've no reason to think they're going to die. I'm sure the vet smells just as odd to them.

mathie wrote: »

"The first impact of mass cultivation is deforestation: we force nature out to make room for crops. In Argentina, they set fire to the jungle, burning nests with flamethrowers. Then they must defend the sown land from the birds who come to feed; many landowners do this by scattering poisoned grains. After that, the wild herbivores come looking for the first shoots, so the landowners put up electric fences or hunt the animals down with guns."

What a pile of ...

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

"Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein, according to the Cornell ecologist's analysis.

Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)"

TLDR Don't feed animals plants and eat them yourself saves you having to get your deforestation on.

We can't really grow most grains here all that well. We can't grow a lot of things because it's just too wet, and the guys that do grow those things run the risk of losing entire crops to bad weather. So we're looking at importing the vast majority of those crops. This breakdown is supposed to make us think monetarily of animals and food, it only really makes sense if you're looking at land as purely a commodity to be exploited.

You say plant protein is better than animal protein and I'm sure there are plants that have higher protein content than animals but that's probably not true across the board. They've probably selected a specific plant and set it against animals. It's not like if I grow apples (which I couldn't grow in my part of the country, not in a financially viable way for the food industry at least) that I'm going to be able to replace meat in my diet with just those apples. Can we even grow this super plant they've used in the research?

I don't think this study takes everything into account and can be applied to Ireland in the same way it can be applied to the US. Bottom line is Ireland can produce great meat. Not so much for a lot of crops.

Shenshen · 15-11-2016 06:06PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I've never seen British meat on the shelves here, not cuts of meat anyway. So I'd wonder if that meat is being processed into ready meals and being exported out again? I wouldn't really accept that cattle know what's coming to them either. They're used to being transported, that's something familiar to them so it probably wouldn't alarm them all that much. They don't know what an abattoir is, they're not used to the smells in there, which might put them on edge on some instinctual level but they've no reason to think they're going to die. I'm sure the vet smells just as odd to them.

As I said, I suspect that this would be the cheaper end of the scale, it could go into all sorts of things, from sausages to ready-meals, to bulk-bought meat for fast food outlets.
Things where the packaging doesn't make it immediately obvious to the customer where the meat is from, if there is any packaging at all. I'm not sure they'd count it as import unless it was consumed here?

Shenshen · 15-11-2016 06:09PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Bottom line is Ireland can produce great meat. Not so much for a lot of crops.

While that's certainly true, there are a lot more crops that could be grown here but aren't.
I always die a little inside when I see asparagus from Peru and garlic from China on the supermarket shelves

I suppose it is still cheaper that way, but something inside me balks at the thought that these things have travelled further than I do in any given year, when they could in theory be grown just down the road.

FortySeven · 15-11-2016 06:12PM

Shenshen wrote: »

As I said, I suspect that this would be the cheaper end of the scale, it could go into all sorts of things, from sausages to ready-meals, to bulk-bought meat for fast food outlets.
Things where the packaging doesn't make it immediately obvious to the customer where the meat is from, if there is any packaging at all. I'm not sure they'd count it as import unless it was consumed here?

I worked in a cold storage warehouse where pallets of meat were split and rebuilt mixed with pallets from all over Europe. Mostly to homogonise fat content and meat quality. Ie. Mix lean blocks with fatty blocks to create a pallet. Most went to McDonald's after they were relabled as Irish.

diomed · 15-11-2016 06:13PM

How can you tell if someone is a vegan?
You don't have to, they will tell you.

ScumLord · 15-11-2016 06:14PM

Shenshen wrote: »

As I said, I suspect that this would be the cheaper end of the scale, it could go into all sorts of things, from sausages to ready-meals, to bulk-bought meat for fast food outlets.
Things where the packaging doesn't make it immediately obvious to the customer where the meat is from, if there is any packaging at all. I'm not sure they'd count it as import unless it was consumed here?

It would essentially be "consumed" by a business into a new product. Exporting it doesn't change the fact it was imported.

Of course it doesn't really say how the meat is imported. Maybe it's imported as cheap beef patties that you'd get in a chipper, if it is it's probably a disingenuous statistic because those patties probably aren't just meat in the same way a cut of beef is. Most chippers have a sign somewhere stating they're meat is Irish, my local does, even McDonalds do that. It really wouldn't surprise me at all if most that imported meat ends up leaving the country again in a package. For all I know it's coming here simply to be packaged for export, the fact we produce so much meat might mean we're competitive on stuff like that.

Vegans and Vegetarians Think They Don’t Kill Animals but They Do

Comments