> there is no 'need' to consume mono-cultured crops.

There is no "need", but it is a practical reality for most people, vegan or
not.

> yet vegans depend on
> them, and then claim that meat eaters are 'murderers'.

As I said any human activity kills animals, however collateral damage like
that is not "murder", there was no intent to kill. There is, if you eat
meat, unless you scavenge it when dead.

> And replace it with even more "death, exploitation and suffering." Why is
> it ok to kill 10, 100, 1000 other animals and leave them to rot just to
keep
> from killing one cow and eating it?

I don't think it is okay to kill 100s of animals for monculture at all. I
would prefer a tree based culture utilising fruit and nut trees. These could
be created in almost all parts of the globe and have high output and provide
homes for many creatures.

> LOL You guys are so good at made up words, aren't you? The point is
that
> vegans don't even pick and choose among the foods they do eat which ones
> cause more/less death and suffering.

This is rubbish, I know many compassionate vegans who are very careful to
eat organic produce, and grow as much as they can themselves or even just
live off the land. Many are stuck in industrial capitalism, but in any
__comparable situation__, they will typically reduce suffering and waste by
opting to eat plant foods instead of animal.

> They automatically assume that not
> eating meat means they are automatically 'doing better'. It's a false
> premise.

It is perfectly correct. Westernised Vegans living in a city will not be
causing less death than say a wild living "Aboriginal", or even an ordinary
farmer who keeps a few hens for eggs and grows his own vegetables, but
compared to someone similar to them who eats sausages and so forth, they
have less environemtnal impact and cause less death. And that IS the point.

> No, I'm using the one that is the real definition. that vegans today have

I accept the terminology of the current Vegan Society. What is your
definition and its source?

> Then they are not vegan. Anyone here on usenet is not a real vegan
either.

I do not know all the members beliefs.

> Strawman, stupid. There is no shortage of food.

There would be if meat eating increased as you suggest.

> false. There are lands that are not siuitable for crop production, but
will
> support animals.

These lands can be planted with trees and then reclaimed progessively.

> how does that fit your vegan definition, fool? You really haven't thought
> this out much beyond your brainwashing, hae you?

Actually I have, you presume far too much, I educated myself, there was no
brainwashing involved. I grew up with a meat and dairy eating family, and
disliked it even as a child.

> focus on what they think others are doing, and ignore their own bloody
> footprints.

One does not have to be a perfect god man before one can ask others to be
more caring. I do not call meat eaters muderers and make protests against
them as I don't think that pursuades people. Rather I prefer to educate. The
Vegan message is aimed largely at the Westerner who consumes so much animal
products it is absurd.

> Where's your credibility fool? You haven't posted anything to back up
some
> of your stupid remarks.

"Global meat consumption is increasing dramatically"



By Colin Tudge

The New Scientist

Vol.# 181, Issue #2438

March 13, 2004; Page 19



Meat is wonderful. Human beings are good omnivores and we have always been
hunters as well as gatherers. Farming is always more efficient with a few
animals on board: ruminants like cattle and sheep to eat the grass that
grows where staple crops will not, and pigs and poultry to sweep up the
leftovers. In Africa 80 per cent of farmers keep chickens for just this
purpose. In the extreme north and in deserts meat can be the prime source of
calories. For the world as a whole meat and milk are the guarantors of
quality protein, and a key source of essential structural fats, vitamins,
and minerals including calcium and zinc.



But you can have too much of a good thing. And as a new report for the
campaigning group Compassion in World Farming will point out next week, we
produce and eat so much meat it is literally killing us and our environment.
The world's output of meat increased fivefold in the second half of the 20th
century. We now have 22 billion farm animals, including 15 billion chickens
and 1.3 billion cattle. And the industry is girding its loins for a 50 per
cent increase in the next two decades. By 2050, the world's livestock
population will, on present trends, have grown to the point where the plant
food it consumes could feed an extra 4 billion people, if it wasn't hived
off for meat production.



The environment is already suffering and will suffer further if the extra
beasts continue to be raised intensively in "factories". Million-head "pig
cities" already exist in the US and are now planned for Poland when it
becomes part of the expanded European Union. Collectively, the world's
livestock produce 10 per cent of all the greenhouse gases, including 25 per
cent of the methane, among the most potent of all. Then there is water,
which is rapidly becoming the greatest check on overall food productivity.
It takes 500 litres to raise a kilo of potatoes; 900 for a kilo of wheat;
nearly 2000 for rice or soya; 3500 for a kilo of chicken; and a staggering
100,000 litres for a kilo of beef.



Our health is suffering too. According to the US Worldwatch Institute, 1.1
billion people worldwide are underweight, and another 1.1 billion too fat.
In the US, 23 per cent of adults are obese, but obesity besets poor
countries too, from Brazil to China. Meat and milk are not the sole cause
but increased fat intake is a prime suspect and most of it, in the developed
world at least, comes from livestock.



With fat come "diseases of affluence". In the UK, 165,000 people a year die
from heart disease - which, so one report suggests, would go down by 40,000
if everyone were vegetarian. Worldwide, 150 million are now diagnosed with
adult-onset (type 2) diabetes. The World Health Organization says this will
double by 2025. The world's diabetics will exceed the total population of
the US today.



Why is this happening? Why do governments and many scientific experts
encourage the big corporations that increasingly control the world's food,
to spoil our lives and ruin the planet? There are two prime answers, both of
which boil down to cash.



First, "economic growth" as measured by increase in gross domestic product
is the standard index both of government success and human well-being. But
GDP is deceptive. For example, heart disease cost the US an estimated $180
billion in 2001, but the money apparently squandered appears as a gain - for
it adds to the rising star that is the health industry. Both livestock and
medicine are big business, both flourishing, so both, on paper, seem good
for the economy.



Then there's the general problem that besets all farming: we can only eat so
much. Humans need about 1500 kilocalories per day to stay fit. Eat more than
twice that and most of us become obese. Providing enough for everybody is
actually not too difficult - if people stick to traditional, plant-rich
diets.



Meat offers the food industry a way to raise the ceiling on global
consumption of farming output. Simply feed the staple foods to livestock and
sell the meat: roughly 2 kilograms of feed for each kilogram of chicken, 4
for pork, and 7 or more for beef. Then the bar can be raised again by
throwing most of the carcass away and selling only the steaks and cutlets
(when did you last try buying tripe at the supermarket?). This game has a
long way to go yet, especially as people in developing countries presently
eat only about a third as much meat as westerners eat, and most of the
increase is in developing countries.



The myth is that output is raised in response to public "demand". In truth,
meat has been sold and sold again, to maximise farm output. Corporations
seek to maximise profit; governments see those corporations as the sine qua
non; and scientists cannot or will not see what a cynical commercial game
they have been sucked into. The fundamental question is why we, humanity,
allow the world to be run by people who have long since lost the plot.



Colin Tudge's latest book, So Shall We Reap, on world food production, is
published by Penguin. The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat will be
published by Compassion in World Farming on 15 March.