RE: Environmental concern/veganism [100% veg*n ] Digest Number 390

[Guest guest]

I think it's a misnomer to imagine that a vegan diet/lifestyle is automatically

more environmentaly sustainable than one which incorporates animal products.

 

I've begun to explore the issue in my article at

http://pages.unisonfree.net/gburnett/essay/veganperm.htm

 

A couple of further thoughts;

 

1. My partner's sister and her family used to be travellers- on two occasions

that

I can recall they used animal products rather than vegan alternatives, these

being,

once they ate fish caught from a local stream, and on another occasion used milk

from a goat from the place where they happened to be staying- to my mind these

were

both examples where thye were showing more awareness and sensitivity towards

issues

such as sustainability than by following vegan dogma (eg, using local resources

rather than highly processed soya products which had been grown as a cash crop

half

way accross the world and imported to the UK with all the food miles issues that

implies).

 

2. Kathleen jannaway in her 'Abundant Living In The Coming Age Of The Tree' (see

MCL website, http://www.mclveganway.org.uk/ )argues convincingly for a tree

based

future where animal farming has been phazed out- but this would also mean the

end

of pasture and grassland ecologies which are primarily managed by grazing cattle

and are in themselves valuable and biodiverse habitats- is this desirable?

 

3. also, not all of the earth's surface is suited to growing plants which can be

directly consumed by human beings- I just found this in the Gaia Atlas Of Planet

Management; " Most domesticated animals forage off of plants that offer no

sustenance to humans, thus they are not competing with humans. When we count in

remote rangelands, forests, and other little recognised stock-supporting

territories, domestic animals make use of 6 billion ha of land, or almost half

the

planet's ice free surface. They thereby mobilize much plant material to our

benefit- and they do it with no adverse consequences for natural environments,

except when their numbers rise to unsustainable levels. At the opposite end of

the

spectrum, however, one calories of grain fed steak costs at least 10 calories in

it's production- an absurdly inefficient way for us to nourish ourselves.

About 40% of world cereal production goes to feed livestock- and in richer

countries, the figure is sometimes as high as 75% (in the US 90%). The land on

which this animal feed is grown is reffered to as 'ghost hectarage'- it adds a

further 40 million ha of land required to support livestock in the US alone " .

 

So whilst we as vegans are quite right to critisise the over consumption and

unsustainability of industrialised meat & dairy production caused by the

Northern

Hemisphere's dietry preferences and whims, do we have the right to tell other

cultures what they should or shouldn't be doing? Does the soya milk drinking,

petro

chemical-based boot wearing UK or US vegan have the right to tell the

Pastoralist

Masai tribesmen of East africa who rely on their livestock for food, clothing,

draught power and transport is 'wrong' or 'immoral'? To my mind that's the sort

of

arrogance that's led to the kind of horrors we've seen unfolding globally over

the

last month or so...

 

Just some thoughts...

 

Cheers, graham

www.landandliberty.co.uk

 

 

> Which is worse - use of a byproduct of the meat industry, i.e. leather -

direct

consequences to an already-dead animal: negligible

>

> OR

>

> pollution and destruction of the environments and habitats of animals -

indirect

consequences to wild, living animals: often death, possibly extinction?

>

> but

>

> ...having said that leather as a byproduct subsidises the price of meat and

killing animals. Our wearing of leather may legitimise use of animals as a

resource to non-vegans. This is one of those 'grey areas' and each vegan's

decision to be made for themselves.

>

> For me the strongest argument is I like to think we can show others that it's

entirely possible to lead a normal life without the use of animal products, to

be

prototypes, perhaps, for the 'next generation' of humanity .

>

> Ash

> _________________________

> Visit http://www.visto.com.

> Find out how companies are linking mobile users to the

> enterprise with Visto.

>

>

[Guest guest]

i can speak for how the rest of the world eats, or try and influence them...

but..i do know , that when " american " or western style agriculture is exported

to some " third world " nation, all sorts of hazards and consequences

arise...increased erosion, dietary diseases crop up..etc..

as for the " eating local " , it all depends...there are still vegan alternatives

worldwide that don't have to be soy...

and, i didn't become veganish JUST because animal production destroys the

environment

cheers

fraggle

 

 

" Graham Burnett " <grahamburnett wrote:

 

>I think it's a misnomer to imagine that a vegan diet/lifestyle is automatically

>more environmentaly sustainable than one which incorporates animal products.

>

>I've begun to explore the issue in my article at

>http://pages.unisonfree.net/gburnett/essay/veganperm.htm

>

>A couple of further thoughts;

>

>1. My partner's sister and her family used to be travellers- on two occasions

that

>I can recall they used animal products rather than vegan alternatives, these

being,

>once they ate fish caught from a local stream, and on another occasion used

milk

>from a goat from the place where they happened to be staying- to my mind these

were

>both examples where thye were showing more awareness and sensitivity towards

issues

>such as sustainability than by following vegan dogma (eg, using local resources

>rather than highly processed soya products which had been grown as a cash crop

half

>way accross the world and imported to the UK with all the food miles issues

that

>implies).

>

>2. Kathleen jannaway in her 'Abundant Living In The Coming Age Of The Tree'

(see

>MCL website, http://www.mclveganway.org.uk/ )argues convincingly for a tree

based

>future where animal farming has been phazed out- but this would also mean the

end

>of pasture and grassland ecologies which are primarily managed by grazing

cattle

>and are in themselves valuable and biodiverse habitats- is this desirable?

>

>3. also, not all of the earth's surface is suited to growing plants which can

be

>directly consumed by human beings- I just found this in the Gaia Atlas Of

Planet

>Management; " Most domesticated animals forage off of plants that offer no

>sustenance to humans, thus they are not competing with humans. When we count in

>remote rangelands, forests, and other little recognised stock-supporting

>territories, domestic animals make use of 6 billion ha of land, or almost half

the

>planet's ice free surface. They thereby mobilize much plant material to our

>benefit- and they do it with no adverse consequences for natural environments,

>except when their numbers rise to unsustainable levels. At the opposite end of

the

>spectrum, however, one calories of grain fed steak costs at least 10 calories

in

>it's production- an absurdly inefficient way for us to nourish ourselves.

>About 40% of world cereal production goes to feed livestock- and in richer

>countries, the figure is sometimes as high as 75% (in the US 90%). The land on

>which this animal feed is grown is reffered to as 'ghost hectarage'- it adds a

>further 40 million ha of land required to support livestock in the US alone " .

>

>So whilst we as vegans are quite right to critisise the over consumption and

>unsustainability of industrialised meat & dairy production caused by the

Northern

>Hemisphere's dietry preferences and whims, do we have the right to tell other

>cultures what they should or shouldn't be doing? Does the soya milk drinking,

petro

>chemical-based boot wearing UK or US vegan have the right to tell the

Pastoralist

>Masai tribesmen of East africa who rely on their livestock for food, clothing,

>draught power and transport is 'wrong' or 'immoral'? To my mind that's the sort

of

>arrogance that's led to the kind of horrors we've seen unfolding globally over

the

>last month or so...

>

>Just some thoughts...

>

>Cheers, graham

>www.landandliberty.co.uk

>

>

>> Which is worse - use of a byproduct of the meat industry, i.e. leather -

direct

>consequences to an already-dead animal: negligible

>>

>> OR

>>

>> pollution and destruction of the environments and habitats of animals -

indirect

>consequences to wild, living animals: often death, possibly extinction?

>>

>> but

>>

>> ...having said that leather as a byproduct subsidises the price of meat and

>killing animals. Our wearing of leather may legitimise use of animals as a

>resource to non-vegans. This is one of those 'grey areas' and each vegan's

>decision to be made for themselves.

>>

>> For me the strongest argument is I like to think we can show others that it's

>entirely possible to lead a normal life without the use of animal products, to

be

>prototypes, perhaps, for the 'next generation' of humanity .

>>

>> Ash

>> _________________________

>> Visit http://www.visto.com.

>> Find out how companies are linking mobile users to the

>> enterprise with Visto.

>>

>>

>

>

>

>To to the Digest Mode [ recommended ], send an email to:

vegan-network-digest

>

>