I would say that holding up a dead animal in your profile pic on an animal rights forum is a good sign of a troll.
I'm guessing that Joshua1 is not actually interested in logical debates either, judging by his previous comments such as, "If eating fish is wrong, why do they taste so good?"
For anyone else reading this who IS interested in whether or not the 'vegetarians cause more harm' argument holds up when properly scrutinised, please read the link Showbags posted, as well as these responses from another forum where the same article was shared recently:
I've read a million of these things and they're yet to convince me. I only had a quick skim of this one, but a fundamental flaw I see is that they're comparing the figures between animal agriculture and crop monoculture. People who strive to eat sustainably will support organic farming over monoculture. Organic farming uses crop rotation and biological pest control instead of synthetic pesticides. Having fields of only one crop (monoculture) attracts a large number of the same animals, creating pests and plagues. An organic farm has many different types of crop, which attract a balance of animals who keep populations under control naturally. This article is comparing two forms of unsustainable agriculture, so it is irrelevant when the question being asked is, "which diet is the most sustainable?"
This guy makes a much better argument than most similar pieces since he is focussing on Australian conditions and environments. Most of the info we get is American and may not apply here. But he still ignores the fundamental thing: Cattle grazing still does damage and removing cows from native pasture doesn't mean we have to plant crops there. On the contrary, my hope is that we begin to produce foods in cities in indoor systems. This makes the most sense because it means less water is lost to evaporation, less costs are incurred in transporting the produce since it is already in the city, and jobs are created in places people already live and actually want to work. All it requires is political will and investment and vertical farming should take off. Nobody wants a piggery, broiler or battery farm in their suburb but who would complain about a vegie factory?
1st Reply
http://animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc
Another reply
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/vege-mice-response/4674360
I think one thing to take away from the article is vegans are not angelic, we do have an impact on animals no matter what we do, Being vegan is about less impact, not no impact. The graph in the 1st link I provided above makes that clear. Some may ask why draw the line at being vegan, why not eat free range beef..? Add on top of this discussion solely about animals death, add animals suffering, add destruction of native habitats due to being less efficient, add costs to human health, add the ability to feed more people with less land (less world starvation), add less global warming, add less concentration of toxins... Any cracks or holes in a single one of those arguments is negated by the whole, it all adds up to be compelling, even if a single issue is not an absolute reason.
There is always more that we can do, but the vegan definition is simple, not to consume any animals products, we could change the vegan definition to exclude plant products that deforest areas orangutans live and include insect secretions, and it may better match more peoples values, but it makes the definition complicated with a long list of inclusions and exclusions. We have a simple definition, imperfect as it is, that is hugely beneficial, that has been established for decades so has a solid range of vegan products to leverage from, making being vegan entirely practical, some may consider vegan a baseline, others may consider it good enough, whatever you do your purchase will never be cruelty free.
I agree with [the above response] but I'd also like to point out- meat eaters eat plants too. Or at least they should. Doesn't this compound the deaths? We are omnivores but primarily herbivorous- meat is a supplement unlike in other omnivores like dogs where it's the other way around. Eating meat you still kill the herbaceous victims
...and a further comment from the author of that last article, in response to someone who said:
"The point that is often not acknowledged is that the acres used to farm livestock are very often not suitable to produce crops, especially in this country."
So Markus, can you please explain why livestock in most years uses the lions share of irrigation water? As far as I know, WA is the only state to keep accurate stats on the break down of rangeland cattle and other cattle.
http://www.gdc.wa.gov.au/uploads/files/Information_on_pastoral_businesses_in_the_Rangelands.pdf
You will see that the rangelands (which can’t be cropped) have half the WA cattle, but only produce 12% of the meat. Almost all of the rest is produced on land that is cropable. Livestock most years use the biggest share of all irrigation water.
