View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"

> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
> of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
> buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.


True to an extent, yes all human activity involve "collateral damage", i.e.
animal death. Even when you walk down your yard to pluck some raspberries
you must kill thousands of insects. But that has nothing to do with what
veganism is about.

> What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> to avoid the following in order to be successful:


No, we do not "have" to avoid, we just _should_ avoid where we can when it
is practical - being a vegan is not about being some ideal god-man. I know
many vegans who do avoid many of the things you mention BTW, and would avoid
more if they could.

You are creating a false definition of veganism and then attempting to
discredit it on that basis.

> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised

8<

This is such a discredited claim, I am surprised you even raise it. Just
about any vegetarian book will tell you why meat consumption eating isn't
sustainable or environmentally friendly, as will any ecologist. For example,
if Asia where to convert to eating cattle, much more jungle would have to be
cleared to provide the pasture for the cattle. Rice paddies are not ideal,
but they will support more people than a similar amount of pasture with
cattle. Many prairies in the USA were once forests, cleared for wood to
cook, and now used to raise cattle. They would support more people and more
wildlife if turned over to agroforestry and vegeculture.

John C