> wrote in message
ups.com...
8<
> It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT
> living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which
> most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get
> it, banbrains.

we do "get it" as I keep pointing out, it is you who do not

1) Vegans have proposed (and some do practice) "veganic agriculture"
(organic no animal products culture, and often no-dig) to reduce cds

2) We rarely live up to that standard because society imposes different
conditions due to less concern for animal welfare - this is a further case
for more veganism (not less). This is little different from slavery
abolitionists who still benefitted from the products of slavery, but didn't
keep slaves, and of course, opposed slavery. Like vegans, they were not
hypocrits, and it seems society eventually agreed that they were morally
right.

3) No reasonable case has been made that "pasture fed" (a very misleading
title) beef is better than vegan food in terms of cds - pasturing is
probably never any better than growing plants for direct consumption because
of the 90% loss of energy input (you need far more land available for
pasturing per calorie yielded). Worse "pasture fed" is very misleading as
such cattle can be fed quite high amounts of "concentrates". This includes
things like barley and corn, maybe up to 5 pounds daily, and on top of that
protein (some from dead fish or chicken) and vitamin supplements (in the UK
75% of land is already used for farming, much of which to grow animal feeds,
thus promoting more meat eating in the UK, or anywhere similar is a very bad
environmental move).

The Innu peoples and Tibetans (and similar) will probably need to keep
eating animals for practical reasons, most people in the West do not.


John