Oxfam and World vision Animal expoitation

Also, it's probably worth mentioning that this isn't just about feeding them. It's about breaking the aid dependency, which simply sending them grains doesn't do. They need to be able to farm and be able to have a surplus to trade if they're ever going to develop as nations. They don't have coal, oil, gas, iron ore or prime farmland like we have here to use so this is their only option to improve their living standards.

Guess it depends if you care more about an animal's life than another human's life.

Likening supporting charities which provide animals (yes, for food) to 3rd world countries and such, to eating a 'big steak' is absurd. Everyone's entitled to their opinion though, so don't try and shove it down our throats.

vegfam is a vegan 0xfam

Heh, I don't agreee with the attitude or way this poster is getting their point across, but I kinda agree that....... if you're against using animals for food.. you are against it full stop, not just against it for one country but then happy to do it for another. :
It really is putting those humans above animals, which we say is bad here...

Sending an animal to its death is what it is, no matter who eats it.

I can understand why you'd come to that conclusion but just let me throw this out there as food for thought:

The people in the third world have no access to a vegan diet. They can't grow the crops and we don't currently have the resources to magically ensure their environment can sustain the type of agriculture that is best ethical practice, educate them appropriately and ensure no significant number of human deaths occurs in the meantime due to starvation.

You and me live in Australia. We have all we want at the access of our fingertips. Very few of us go thirsty or hungry.

The only option for those living in the third world is them eating animals. This won't be forever necessarily if in the wealthy nations we make a shift away from the excessive food consumption.

Why are you the one to decide it's okay to choose a non-human animal life over a human's life just the same as the humans saying the third world could eat meat, regardless of their ethical position to meat consumption in the western world?

Even if your ethics lead you to be absolute to the core for non-human animals living over anyone, I don't think anyone can personally say in a situation where if they were present of a starving child and only have a steak to access, they wouldn't give the child that steak. You're making a decision to allow someone/thing to die, for most people that's a very heavy decision to make then carry.

Thanks for mentioning that! I'm going to donate to them!

Vegfam looks interesting. Although they wouldn't have anywhere near the capacity to react to disasters like oxfam and the other big aid groups. Good concept though.

How many people are wearing clothes made from fairly traded cotton or buying fair trade chocolate, coffee, tea etc? It's a bit much for us to judge the third world for exploiting animals for their own needs when we're so happy to exploit the third world for our own wants.

EDIT- that's a genuine question by the way, it kind of reads like a rhetorical one. Personally I think worker exploitation is, or at least should be, pretty closely linked to veganism.

I don't even think anyone should bother trying to reason with this poster... /facepalm. Seems to just be looking for an argument.

I have started to buy a lot more fairtrade and second hand items, though I still admittedly buy items that aren't fairtrade, mainly due to the cost of the items, availability, and because fairtrade certification is only found on a limited range of products.

I think a lot of veg*ns seem to forget about basic human rights, I for one never even thought about it until about 6 months ago. People are animals too, so if your reason for becoming veg*n is to reduce animal suffering, then that should also include humans.