Shenshen wrote: » Well, you couln't switch over overnight... You need different kind of machinery, different storage facilities, and a lot of crops take more that a year before bearing any fruit. And you would of course you would need to train farmers. That said, the climate in Ireland woul be well suited for most crops, as would the soil I think.
LordSmeg wrote: » From my limited experience I know that only certain crops can be grown at certain times to preserve the soil. Would it even be possible to grow enough to make farming profitable given that the prices of crops will nose dive once all dairy and livestock farmers switch to crops ? Given the cost involved in re training, new machinery, storing and processing facilities (I hear tell its too costly to reintroduce beet farming) and the loss of incomes and jobs on a huge scale while all this happens is it possible at all ?
LordSmeg wrote: » Easy as that is it ? Stop farming animals and start growing something ? I'd like to hear a more informed view of it as I'm not clued in enough to know the full scale of what it would take or if it would be possible. Clearly neither are you. The role that livestock plays in farming isnt limited to meat going into the market. And it wouldnt be possible to simply replace it by growing something else.
Irish Guitarist wrote: » What do you think would happen to the dog if this person didn't have him as a pet? If the dog was set free he would either die of starvation, be hit by a car or picked up by a dog warden and put down. Towns and cities aren't a good place for animals to be wandering around. There's an abandoned garage near where I live and there was once a load of stray cats living there. Almost every couple of weeks I would see one of them lying dead in the road having been struck by a car. I don't agree with keeping a dog if you can't take him or her out for lots of walks but in general dogs being kept as pets isn't necessarily a bad thing. They're happier than they would be if they were wandering the streets starving.
wonderfulname wrote: » You've just added your own parameters there in implying we herd off all the animals and start up the plow, I'm not saying it's a good idea, but given time and considerable investment I'd be willing to bet it would be easier done than banning pet ownership and preventing breeding as the structures are in place to oversee it.
I have a fair idea of the scale and it would be bloody huge, but if you disagree with animals being in captivity for human interests then you don't care about bloody huge. GarIT is of the impression that people should not own pets but that meat should be produced, I am merely pointing out that that is completely illogical as the two points conflict, not because I think a vegetarian society is feesable, it's not in the real world, it is in the world where a responsible pet owner is a cruel captor.
Anyone else who wants to argue this with me as though I care, I grew up on a dairy/beef farm, I love meat, I even eat it raw, I think it's an important part of a truly balanced diet*, I'm not stating my opinions, I just don't understand how anyone can be simultaniously pro piggeries and anti pets, it's obsurd.
wonderfulname wrote: » Have you ever had a pet?
LordSmeg wrote: » How is it not holding them against their will ? Part of owning a dog is keeping it locked up. Of course its against their will, dogs have evolved to hunt and run not sit in back gardens.
Pushtrak wrote: » That was wolves... I'd suggest following up on the topic if interested. There is a lot of info out there on it.
LordSmeg wrote: » Same could be said for slavery couldnt it ? Better to own an African child and give them a good life doing your bidding than let them live a life of misery in Africa. The reason there are so many dogs around is because everyone has to have a dog. There is a lot of them put down every year and impounded yes but taking them in (although helping that one dog) does nothing for the problem which is caused by everyone wanting a dog.
Bajingo wrote: » Everyone wanting a dog and buying them from a breeder would make this problem worse. However if everyone went to the pound and took one in the pound wouldn't start importing them because of the increased demand. Adopting from a pound would actually solve the problem.
LordSmeg wrote: » The problem I'm talking about is the attitude that everyone should have a dog. So adopting a dog although great for the dog does nothing for the problem. If your talking about reducing the amount of dogs then possibly, I think the pound neuters them so at least they wont be having pups in someones garage and then handed to anyone who will take them. To stamp that out entirely though all dogs should be neutered with only those with a breeding licence allowed to keep non neutered ones. Personally I'd neuter every single one of em but I'd compromise on trying to control the breeding.
LordSmeg wrote: » So can anyone who claims to love animals really care about animals when they own pets ? Or are they just hypocrites who put their own wants ahead of the welfare of an animal ?
Bajingo wrote: » I think we're on the same page here though I don't think it would work to neuter every dog, because then there would be none and personally i'm not against people owning dogs. For one thing most breeds are so inbred and domesticated that a lot of them wouldn't survive in the wild. I do think the OP's friend is a hypocrite and a bit cruel. There needs to be better licensing at the level of the breeder and especially the owner, there are people out there who should be, by law, unable to obtain a dog.
LordSmeg wrote: » The last bit I'd agree with absolutely, some people have no business owning a pet regardless of anything else. As for certain breeds not surviving in the wild I dont think they would ever get the chance to. I dont see any scenario introducing domesticated dogs into the wild. Just neutering them and letting the breed die out. I wouldnt see any need for preserving the breed.
Bajingo wrote: » Are there any particular breeds of dog your talking about, like Jupiterkid mentioned? Or are you for the ultimate extinction of the domesticated dog altogether? I do see the benefit of neutering potentially dangerous breeds.
LordSmeg wrote: » There are certain ones I think would be of benefit, certain working dogs like seeing eye dogs or sniffers. Any potentially dangerous breed or aggressive dog should be neutered anyway regardless of any plan in regards over all population of dogs. Eventually I'd like to see pets removed from society. I wouldnt like to see domesticated dogs eradicated entirely because as I said certain dogs can play a role in society. But as a pet and a play thing I'd like to see it done away with.
Discodog wrote: » As someone who has always been involved in animal welfare I find your view to be way too extreme. It is as bad as the animal rights extremists. The key to better animal welfare is education. If schoolkids were given a few lessons on pet care then they would grow up knowing how to look after animals. Organisations like the Dog's Trust have a team of educators who take dogs to schools & teach the kids how to approach a dog, care for it etc. If you teach children that tying a dog up is wrong you will eventually stop it. But it is a particularly Irish problem. The vast majority of dogs in the UK & Europe live indoors. One of the first thing that I noticed moving back here was the sound of barking dogs - you don't here them anywhere near as much in the UK. If the dog is kept indoors then it is more likely to get daily walks.
Gummy Panda wrote: » But I want protein with a decent amino acid profile
whiplashed wrote: » Gummy Panda wrote: » But I want protein with a decent amino acid profile There are no amino acids in animal protein that can't be also found abundantly in plant foods. Sure, you won't find all the amino acids that are found in meat in the same plant food, but it is a myth that we have to. Just as you can have a food contain Vitamin C and also Vitamin E - you can however still absorb one of these vitamins from plant foods that are devoid of the other, amino acids are no different.
Shryke wrote: » Their is no methyl b12 found in plant foods which is why a lot of vegetarians need to take it as a supplement after a while. A strictly vegetarian diet is a poor one and there is no two ways about it. We evolved eating meat and it's a part of a healthy diet. You might not die without it but you'll be better off with it.
Shenshen wrote: » You might be confusing vegetarian with vegan, I suspect. I do love the argument from evolution... We evolved as herbivors for millions of years. But as we acquired the ability to digest meat a few thousand years back, people now assume that not eating meat is "unnatural".
Shenshen wrote: » Shryke wrote: » Their is no methyl b12 found in plant foods which is why a lot of vegetarians need to take it as a supplement after a while. A strictly vegetarian diet is a poor one and there is no two ways about it. We evolved eating meat and it's a part of a healthy diet. You might not die without it but you'll be better off with it. You might be confusing vegetarian with vegan, I suspect. I do love the argument from evolution... We evolved as herbivors for millions of years. But as we acquired the ability to digest meat a few thousand years back, people now assume that not eating meat is "unnatural".
Shryke wrote: » Their is no methyl b12 found in plant foods which is why a lot of vegetarians need to take it as a supplement after a while.
A strictly vegetarian diet is a poor one and there is no two ways about it. We evolved eating meat and it's a part of a healthy diet. You might not die without it but you'll be better off with it.
