Veganuary

[tiggerblue10]

Is anyone having a go at going meat and dairy free just for January? If so, how is it going?

Also, would anyone try this if it was available in the UK?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/02/no-kill-lab-grown-meat-to-go-on-sale-for-first-time

[sevenOP]

"SevenOP, then that depends on your definition of "unnecessary" "

I would say "just because I like the taste" and "but it's a habit" - to justify killing a living creature qualifies as 'unnecessary'.

Vegans are doing LESS harm and have higher moral dietary standards than you pixie. (doesn't make you 'wrong' or a 'bad person' though pixie)

[sevenOP]

"What will happen to the species we currently make use of for food if much of the planet went meat free?"

Most would not be bred into existence to be slaughtered and some could be given space to roam free.

[pixie374]

I don't believe they do have higher standards, seven. They just claim to be less of a hypocrite than everyone else, while behaving the same way.
I have genuinely seen on this site, a comment from a vegan claiming "all lives are worth the same". And, literally on the same thread, admitting they know millions of animals die for them, but that is self-survival...
Everyone has arbitrary limits on what they believe. I would eat a beef steak, but not a horse steak, and I admit that must be hypocritical. But we also get people here, who pretend they aren't... as they wouldn't kill a cow, but millions of insects instead.
Make up your minds.... is your survival more important than other lives? Or only some? It's the deceit, I think, rather than the attempt.

[pixie374]

Also, humans are omnivores.... so the food chain is not just about taste.

[Stickybottle]

AuntPollyGrey
Stickybottle - welcome to AB ..............lol!

I guess sarcasm is wasted on some.

[sevenOP]

"I don't believe they do have higher standards, seven."

In never said that: I specifically said they "have higher moral dietary while behaving the same way. standards than you pixie", which they do.

"while behaving the same way."
But they don't behave the same dietary way as you pixie.
Every vegan is as individual as every other is.

At least AuntPollyGrey is aware of what goes on around some of the food she eats, what she does with that knowledge is her responsibility.

"Also, humans are omnivores."
That sounds a bit like some sort of mantra that abrogates responsibility. Meat eating, allegedly, became part of our diet when we came down from the trees and the use of fire increased that practice.
http://energyskeptic.com/page/2/

[AuntPollyGrey]

sticky I know who you are... hence the sarcasm which obviously went over your head lol!

[pastafreak]

// Most would not be bred into existence to be slaughtered and some could be given space to roam free. //

[pastafreak]

Agghhh...regarding the first part of your statement...the removal of species will upset the balance of Nature
And where would those remaining roam free when more land would be needed to grow crops? Particularly in the UK where some land is only suitable for livestock?

[pastafreak]

It would seem meat eating...and the further development of humans...was somewhat earlier than the use of fire.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273/

[woofgang]

many areas of England eg the New Forest, only stay the way they are because they are grazed by various kinds of domestic animal. This is funded by using animals in private ownership and those private people afford to do it by selling the animals, some for meat. No value to the animals = nobody wanting to do it = massive environmental change.

[pixie374]

I disagree, seven. Every one of us allows animals to be killed so we can eat. Most people acknowledge that, but vegans seem to think that they are different, because they are different kinds of animals. Why is killing 10 million beetles more moral than killing a cow?
I suspect we are never going to agree... which is fine. But I will still probably say something if I see a vegan trying to claim they are more moral about animals. Only in their own minds.
What would happen with other animals? Many won't "roam free" as they won't be bred or looked after. Do we just make cows, pigs, sheep, extinct?
And how about dogs and horses, who work for us... is that acceptable?

[Atheist]

Our ancestors may have eaten meat and killed each other as well as other animals, but that does not bind me to do the same as them. 'Get over it' is the call nowadays from brexiteers, and the same applies to our justification of our modern behaviour. We survived by eating whatever was available and digestible, and that changed over millions of years, from eating single cells to eating living creatures and, later in our ancestry, eating mainly vegetation with whatever meat we could manage to kill or scavenge.
Religious people may think we have advanced beyond our 'savage' history, and I would agree with them on that point; we are capable of other considerations, and just as we have on the whole largely rejected 'eye for an eye' and holy massacre, so some of us choose not to rely on the breeding (genetic manipulation) and mass slaughter of other creatures in order to provide us with meat.

[emmie]

not at the moment, probably thinking on it never, veganuary not really

[Atheist]

Pixie, we created modern domestic animals. Is it moral to breed them en masse so that we can slaughter them en masse, and claim that we are protecting them as species?

[pixie374]

It certainly is a choice, atheist. And maybe,in the distant future, people may evolve to be herbivores. Who knows? It hasn't happened yet.

[Atheist]

Pixie, is 'making them extinct' worse than permanently extinguishing them individual by individual in order to keep McDonalds and chicken nuggets in business?

[sevenOP]

"Agghhh...regarding the first part of your statement...the removal of species will upset the balance of Nature"

Most land animals we eat are deliberately bred into existence, many of those have unnaturally short lives;we BRED them into existence to provide us with food. Did us breeding huge numbers artificially into existence cause an upset in the balance of Nature?

A comparatively TINY number could be allowed to roam free for diversity and to keep that species going.

Concerning a gradual change in agriculture with respect to veganism, it is likely to be so slow it will likely never happen!!

[emmie]

atheist you eat meat sometimes, you said so before - and wear leather whats the difference in others doing the same,

[pixie374]

No atheist, in fact, probably controversially, I don't really agree with protecting any animal as a species. That's purely down to what humans like. If there were 3 tigers left in the wild, I would let them live out their natural lives. Not cage them to make sure we produce more.