Breeding

[Guest guest]

I thought I would weigh in on the whole " breeding " issue as well. I commend the

connection between environmentalism and animal rights. The worsening

environmental conditions are causing extinctions (read genocides) and other

hardships for non-human animals, and environmentalism must be a part of our

struggle. However, I am concerned that the left has become increasingly

anti-children, and the effect definitely is that the extreme right begins to

outnumber us. The environmental problems of overpopulation should be met with

creativity and can thereby be solved without repressing our biological instincts

and desires. It is the scarcity mentality of capitalism that has produced the

majority of social problems we face. I agree with the authors of " cradle to

cradle " (good book - read it) that humans could improve the environment around

them by living in it if we applied our creativity to the task, like ants (there

are more ants by weight than people on the planet, yet their activities enrich

the ecosystem around them rather than destroying it). There is no reason that

more people has to equal more destruction, but a change of consciousness and

focus must occur first. And for that we must start with ourselves. Clinging to

the mentality that there is not enough will enforce that situation as a

self-fulfilling prophecy, whereas if we can imagine bigger things (like a vegan

world), they can come about.

[Guest guest]

Debbie, I agree, and I would add that the data show that overpopulation is a problem that is solving itself.  The most important factor in population stabilization is women's education.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-12-09-worldpop-usat_x.htmThe UN projects the population will level off at 9 billion.  Similarly, these researchers predict zero population growth or even declining population by the end of this century:

http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific/scientific-research/201738-1.html

Contrary to what some might think, people are not actually rabbits.  They choose small families if they have the means to do so.  This is true in developing as well as developed nations.  This article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2172474explains how women with access to television in rural India have smaller families, since television depicts people with urban lifestyles who already tend to have smaller families.  The same effect has been observed in Brazil:

http://www.popline.org/docs/1168/118281.html Googling " fertility transition " will get you more information about how population is stabilizing in various countries. So, the data support optimism about world population.  The Earth can support the projected maintenance population, if we all live sustainably.  Working toward a sustainable lifestyle, of which vegetarianism is a major component, is key.

The data also show that certain attitudes such as political orientation are heritable--which does *not* mean they are 100% determined by genes, as many people with quite different attitudes from their parents can attest, just that genes make a contribution strong enough to be measurable.  Certain studies indicate that most of the influence of parents on their children is actually through their genes, and that in terms of environment, children are more influenced by their peers than by their parents.  

Given all this, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that vegetarians breeding is likely to be helpful.  It is certainly a personal choice whether to do so or not, but judging those who choose to do so negatively is not supported by the facts.  Furthermore, I expect this kind of statement is quite hurtful to those who are parents (I am not a parent myself).  Let's please remember to be kind to our fellow humans as well as to the animals.  Embodying kindness will also help to attract more people to vegetarianism.

--Ruchira

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Debbie <deborah.stanescu wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought I would weigh in on the whole " breeding " issue as well. I commend the connection between environmentalism and animal rights. The worsening environmental conditions are causing extinctions (read genocides) and other hardships for non-human animals, and environmentalism must be a part of our struggle. However, I am concerned that the left has become increasingly anti-children, and the effect definitely is that the extreme right begins to outnumber us. The environmental problems of overpopulation should be met with creativity and can thereby be solved without repressing our biological instincts and desires. It is the scarcity mentality of capitalism that has produced the majority of social problems we face. I agree with the authors of " cradle to cradle " (good book - read it) that humans could improve the environment around them by living in it if we applied our creativity to the task, like ants (there are more ants by weight than people on the planet, yet their activities enrich the ecosystem around them rather than destroying it). There is no reason that more people has to equal more destruction, but a change of consciousness and focus must occur first. And for that we must start with ourselves. Clinging to the mentality that there is not enough will enforce that situation as a self-fulfilling prophecy, whereas if we can imagine bigger things (like a vegan world), they can come about.

[Guest guest]

Yes, educated women choose to have less children, that is one reason the education of women is so important for sustainability.

 

Beth S/--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Ruchira Datta <Ruchira.Datta wrote:

Ruchira Datta <Ruchira.DattaRe: Breeding"Debbie" <deborah.stanescuCc: Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 4:48 PM

 

 

Debbie, I agree, and I would add that the data show that overpopulation is a problem that is solving itself. The most important factor in population stabilization is women's education.

 

 

http://www.usatoday .com/news/ world/2003- 12-09-worldpop- usat_x.htm

 

The UN projects the population will level off at 9 billion. Similarly, these researchers predict zero population growth or even declining population by the end of this century:

 

http://www.allbusin ess.com/professi onal-scientific/ scientific- research/ 201738-1. html

 

Contrary to what some might think, people are not actually rabbits. They choose small families if they have the means to do so. This is true in developing as well as developed nations. This article:

 

http://www.slate. com/id/2172474

 

explains how women with access to television in rural India have smaller families, since television depicts people with urban lifestyles who already tend to have smaller families. The same effect has been observed in Brazil:

 

http://www.popline. org/docs/ 1168/118281. html

 

Googling "fertility transition" will get you more information about how population is stabilizing in various countries. So, the data support optimism about world population. The Earth can support the projected maintenance population, if we all live sustainably. Working toward a sustainable lifestyle, of which vegetarianism is a major component, is key.

 

The data also show that certain attitudes such as political orientation are heritable--which does *not* mean they are 100% determined by genes, as many people with quite different attitudes from their parents can attest, just that genes make a contribution strong enough to be measurable. Certain studies indicate that most of the influence of parents on their children is actually through their genes, and that in terms of environment, children are more influenced by their peers than by their parents.

 

Given all this, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that vegetarians breeding is likely to be helpful. It is certainly a personal choice whether to do so or not, but judging those who choose to do so negatively is not supported by the facts. Furthermore, I expect this kind of statement is quite hurtful to those who are parents (I am not a parent myself). Let's please remember to be kind to our fellow humans as well as to the animals. Embodying kindness will also help to attract more people to vegetarianism.

 

--Ruchira

 

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Debbie <deborah.stanescu@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

I thought I would weigh in on the whole "breeding" issue as well. I commend the connection between environmentalism and animal rights. The worsening environmental conditions are causing extinctions (read genocides) and other hardships for non-human animals, and environmentalism must be a part of our struggle. However, I am concerned that the left has become increasingly anti-children, and the effect definitely is that the extreme right begins to outnumber us. The environmental problems of overpopulation should be met with creativity and can thereby be solved without repressing our biological instincts and desires. It is the scarcity mentality of capitalism that has produced the majority of social problems we face. I agree with the authors of "cradle to cradle" (good book - read it) that humans could improve the environment around them by living in it if we applied our creativity to the task, like ants (there are more ants by weight than people on

the planet, yet their activities enrich the ecosystem around them rather than destroying it). There is no reason that more people has to equal more destruction, but a change of consciousness and focus must occur first. And for that we must start with ourselves. Clinging to the mentality that there is not enough will enforce that situation as a self-fulfilling prophecy, whereas if we can imagine bigger things (like a vegan world), they can come about.

[Guest guest]

The idea that going vegan and not breeding are the two most important things one can do for the planet just boggles my mind. Neither of those things does anything positive for the planet. At best, they minimize the damage that we do. Also, is not having kids really better than not driving a car? Is being vegan better than being a localvore?

It's probably possible to live off of what we could forage locally (many weeds are quite nutritious), but I'm going to hazard guesses that a) no one on this list lives exclusively off of locally foraged food; and b) many vegans seek out new and interesting food. Many vegans I know are foodies (including me), and I'm guessing there are a few foodie vegans on this list. Chocolate, coffee, tea, spices, sweeteners, vegan cheeses, soy milk in tetra paks, and other common kitchen items have huge carbon footprints. Also, many of these things are often farmed in non-sustainable ways or with unfair labor practices. Even farmed sustainably, there are agriculture is going to result in killing many creatures (e.g. insects that eat crops). Pesca-vegetarian localvores probably have a less negative impact on the world than vegans who eat stuff from all over the world.

If vegans can justify owning cars or eating imported/packaged foods then why not having kids? Depending on how you go about them, having kids could be the least environmentally damaging of the three, and also be the one most likely to have an upside.

The biggest reason for me for being vegan is not to limit the damage I personally do to the planet, but to show others that one can be vegan and fully enjoy life. The more people can relate to me as a person the more likely they are to be interested in thinking about veganism. Lots of non-vegans have biological kids. Seeing a vegan family where the kids are happy and healthy could have a significant positive impact beyond simply limiting damage that the family does by living on the earth. Same if the family were localvores, or didn't drive, or taught their kids about the supply chain of food and social justice, or all of the above.

There are other things we can do, too, like figuring out ways we can be positive participants in our eco-systems, finding ways to deal with natural pollution as well as human created pollution, etc. But ... being vegan and talking to people are really easy. :-)

Jen-Mei

[Guest guest]

My comments below in italicized blue.

Warren

In a message dated 7/2/09 8:02:36 AM, veganjenny writes:

 

The idea that going vegan and not breeding are the two most important things one can do for the planet just boggles my mind. Neither of those things does anything positive for the planet. At best, they minimize the damage that we do. Also, is not having kids really better than not driving a car? Is being vegan better than being a localvore?

When you say neither being vegan nor not breeding does anything positive for the planet, it makes me wonder if you could possibly be serious.

Have you read these: or any of the other hundreds of articles written on the subject?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm

http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/hinrichsen_robey.html

http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/environment.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/cafo_issue-briefing-low-res.pdf

 

It's probably possible to live off of what we could forage locally (many weeds are quite nutritious), but I'm going to hazard guesses that a) no one on this list lives exclusively off of locally foraged food; and b) many vegans seek out new and interesting food. Many vegans I know are foodies (including me), and I'm guessing there are a few foodie vegans on this list. Chocolate, coffee, tea, spices, sweeteners, vegan cheeses, soy milk in tetra paks, and other common kitchen items have huge carbon footprints. Also, many of these things are often farmed in non-sustainable ways or with unfair labor practices. Even farmed sustainably, there are agriculture is going to result in killing many creatures (e.g. insects that eat crops). Pesca-vegetarian localvores probably have a less negative impact on the world than vegans who eat stuff from all over the world.

Who says being a vegan and being a localvore are mutually exclusive? It is possible to be both in as much as one can. I think you are making a lot of assumptions about the people on this list and vegans in general.

 

If vegans can justify owning cars or eating imported/packaged foods then why not having kids? What vegans are justifying owning a car? Nobody on this list has said anything about owning a car that I know of. I myself don't even know how to drive a car. Depending on how you go about them, having kids could be the least environmentally damaging of the three, and also be the one most likely to have an upside. You are assuming that most vegans buy lots of imported/packaged foods. Unless you have done a study or have studies to show this I don't think it's fair to make that assumption. Even if a vegan does buy some imported/packaged foods, that is going to be a lot less impactful on the environment than all the natural resources a human being will use in their entire lifetime. Just think about all the things that will be needed for that person's survival in their lifetime even if they are a contentious person.

 

The biggest reason for me for being vegan is not to limit the damage I personally do to the planet, but to show others that one can be vegan and fully enjoy life. The more people can relate to me as a person the more likely they are to be interested in thinking about veganism. Lots of non-vegans have biological kids. Seeing a vegan family where the kids are happy and healthy could have a significant positive impact beyond simply limiting damage that the family does by living on the earth. Same if the family were localvores, or didn't drive, or taught their kids about the supply chain of food and social justice, or all of the above. why couldn't this be accomplished with adopted children? That would also show people that you don't need to breed more people to have a happy family.

 

There are other things we can do, too, like figuring out ways we can be positive participants in our eco-systems, finding ways to deal with natural pollution as well as human created pollution, etc. But ... being vegan and talking to people are really easy. :-)

 

Jen Mei

 

I think a lot of people are in denial about the impact of putting another human being on the planet is because they are either trying to justify their choice to breed or their friends choice to breed. Once again I will say that if you already have kids and you are raising them with progressive values such as compassion, respecting the earth etc then you are doing a wonderful thing and kudos to you but if you haven't had kids and you are considering having them you might want to think about the huge impact that will make on the already overpopulated planet. Overpopulation is killing our planet. Please consider adopting instead.

 

Warren

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**************Dell Summer Savings: Cool Deals on Popular Laptops – Shop Now! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222696924x1201468348/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D1)

[Guest guest]

oops, I meant to say Conscientious not contentious below

 

Warren

In a message dated 7/2/09 9:02:09 AM, wgjii writes:

 

 

 

 

 

My comments below in italicized blue.

Warren

In a message dated 7/2/09 8:02:36 AM, veganjenny (AT) gmail (DOT) In a messa

 

 

 

The idea that going vegan and not breeding are the two most important things one can do for the planet just boggles my mind. Neither of those things does anything positive for the planet. At best, they minimize the damage that we do. Also, is not having kids really better than not driving a car? Is being vegan better than being a localvore?

When you say neither being vegan nor not breeding does anything positive for the planet, it makes me wonder if you could possibly be serious.

Have you read these: or any of the other hundreds of articles written on the subject?

http://www.sciencedhttp://wwhttp://wwhttp://www.scienhttp://w

http://www.actionbi http://w http://www.acti http://www http://ww

http://www.veganout http://ww http://w http://www. htt

http://www.ucsusa. http://www http://ww http://w http://www. http://www http://w http://www

 

 

 

It's probably possible to live off of what we could forage locally (many weeds are quite nutritious), but I'm going to hazard guesses that a) no one on this list lives exclusively off of locally foraged food; and b) many vegans seek out new and interesting food. Many vegans I know are foodies (including me), and I'm guessing there are a few foodie vegans on this list. Chocolate, coffee, tea, spices, sweeteners, vegan cheeses, soy milk in tetra paks, and other common kitchen items have huge carbon footprints. Also, many of these things are often farmed in non-sustainable ways or with unfair labor practices. Even farmed sustainably, there are agriculture is going to result in killing many creatures (e.g. insects that eat crops). Pesca-vegetarian localvores probably have a less negative impact on the world than vegans who eat stuff from all over the world.

Who says being a vegan and being a localvore are mutually exclusive? It is possible to be both in as much as one can. I think you are making a lot of assumptions about the people on this list and vegans in general.

 

 

 

If vegans can justify owning cars or eating imported/packaged foods then why not having kids? What vegans are justifying owning a car? Nobody on this list has said anything about owning a car that I know of. I myself don't even know how to drive a car.  Depending on how you go about them, having kids could be the least environmentally damaging of the three, and also be the one most likely to have an upside. You are assuming that most vegans buy lots of imported/packaged foods. Unless you have done a study or have studies to show this I don't think it's fair to make that assumption. Even if a vegan does buy some imported/packaged foods, that is going to be a lot less impactful on the environment than all the natural resources a human being will use in their entire lifetime. Just think about all the things that will be needed for that person's survival in their lifetime even if they are a contentious person.

 

The biggest reason for me for being vegan is not to limit the damage I personally do to the planet, but to show others that one can be vegan and fully enjoy life. The more people can relate to me as a person the more likely they are to be interested in thinking about veganism. Lots of non-vegans have biological kids. Seeing a vegan family where the kids are happy and healthy could have a significant positive impact beyond simply limiting damage that the family does by living on the earth. Same if the family were localvores, or didn't drive, or taught their kids about the supply chain of food and social justice, or all of the above. why couldn't this be accomplished with adopted children? That would also show people that you don't need to breed more people to have a happy family.

 

There are other things we can do, too, like figuring out ways we can be positive participants in our eco-systems, finding ways to deal with natural pollution as well as human created pollution, etc. But ... being vegan and talking to people are really easy. :-)

 

Jen Mei

 

I think a lot of people are in denial about the impact of putting another human being on the planet is because they are either trying to justify their choice to breed or their friends choice to breed. Once again I will say that if you already have kids and you are raising them with progressive values such as compassion, respecting the earth etc then you are doing a wonderful thing and kudos to you but if you haven't had kids and you are considering having them you might want to think about the huge impact that will make on the already overpopulated planet. Overpopulation is killing our planet. Please consider adopting instead.

 

 

 

Warren

 

 

 

**************Dell Summer Savings: Cool Deals on Popular Laptops – Shop Now! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222696924x1201468348/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D1)

[Guest guest]

My mother had five children.  I think my childhood was incredibly

valuable.  I see every one's point though, on sustainability and

population.  My dream is, upon graduation, to form a collective and

while each woman gives birth to a single child or two, the large group

of people makes it appear you have many children.  Sorry, I'm in a

hurry and this isn't well structured, but you get the gist of my

thoughts!Cheers,Hannah-Hannah Brownstudent, UC Berkeley2545 Hillegass AveBerkeley, CA 94704p. (804) 357-3003

2009/7/2 jenny w <veganjenny

 

 

 

 

 

The idea that going vegan and not breeding are the two most important things one can do for the planet just boggles my mind. Neither of those things does anything positive for the planet. At best, they minimize the damage that we do. Also, is not having kids really better than not driving a car? Is being vegan better than being a localvore?

 

It's probably possible to live off of what we could forage locally (many weeds are quite nutritious), but I'm going to hazard guesses that a) no one on this list lives exclusively off of locally foraged food; and b) many vegans seek out new and interesting food. Many vegans I know are foodies (including me), and I'm guessing there are a few foodie vegans on this list. Chocolate, coffee, tea, spices, sweeteners, vegan cheeses, soy milk in tetra paks, and other common kitchen items have huge carbon footprints. Also, many of these things are often farmed in non-sustainable ways or with unfair labor practices. Even farmed sustainably, there are agriculture is going to result in killing many creatures (e.g. insects that eat crops). Pesca-vegetarian localvores probably have a less negative impact on the world than vegans who eat stuff from all over the world.

If vegans can justify owning cars or eating imported/packaged foods then why not having kids? Depending on how you go about them, having kids could be the least environmentally damaging of the three, and also be the one most likely to have an upside.

The biggest reason for me for being vegan is not to limit the damage I personally do to the planet, but to show others that one can be vegan and fully enjoy life. The more people can relate to me as a person the more likely they are to be interested in thinking about veganism. Lots of non-vegans have biological kids. Seeing a vegan family where the kids are happy and healthy could have a significant positive impact beyond simply limiting damage that the family does by living on the earth. Same if the family were localvores, or didn't drive, or taught their kids about the supply chain of food and social justice, or all of the above.

There are other things we can do, too, like figuring out ways we can be positive participants in our eco-systems, finding ways to deal with natural pollution as well as human created pollution, etc. But ... being vegan and talking to people are really easy. :-)

Jen-Mei

[Guest guest]

Perfectly said Beth!

Thank you for your well informed comments.

 

Warren

In a message dated 7/2/09 12:22:00 PM, bcs_mail writes:

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe anybody on this listserve who is trying to point out the facts on population issues is trying to devalue the wonderful vegan families that are out there.  We are just simply trying to put out the information so people can make informed family planning decisions in the future, such as considering limiting family size or exploring adoption or fostering as alternatives.  Here are some facts:

 

"People consume food, fresh water, wood, minerals, and energy as we go about our daily lives. And producing food, pumping groundwater, harvesting wood, mining minerals, and burning fuel all deplete our resource base."

 

"(The US) just five percent of the world's population consumes 23% of its energy!  Imagine if you wasted five times more gasoline as your neighbors... or five times more food... or produced five times more garbage....Next time you hear about a woman in India who has seven children, remember that she'd have to have more than 20 children to match the impact of an American woman with just one child."  worldpopulationbalaworldpopulationbworldpopu

 

A vegan in the US will have significantly less impact (see facts below on the amount of water:energy; and resources needed to feed and raise animals to feed us).  However, we are born into an infrastructure that itself causes massive energy use because our houses and work are spread out; our food production is not necessarily local; our houses are not built efficiently; and our corporations that employ us or give us material goods to live on use massive resources from the Earth.  A vegan family who fosters or adopts a child already born will not add a consumer, and a vegan family that limits themselves to one biological child will not contribute to increasing US population and Earth consumption.   Not to devalue the large families of the past before we realized the problems with population explosion.  Children often rebel, we cannot control who they choose to become.  I have met meat-eaters brought up in vegetarian households.  I love children and pointing out the facts is not "anti-children" it is responsible information for future planning. 

 

"Another surprising statistic is that the nine billion head of livestock kept in the US consume seven times the grain eaten by the country’s human population, and the percentage of grain fed to livestock is also skyrocketing in developing countries such as China, Egypt and Mexico. Furthermore, according to the Worldwatch Institute, each pound of grain-fed steak results in 35 pounds of eroded topsoil, and sustaining a meat-eater’s diet requires more than 4,000 gallons of water daily versus 300 for vegetarians.

According to the renowned ecologist Mathis Wackernagel, our animal-based diet is a major reason that humans are consuming the planet’s long term bio-capacity at an unsustainable rate."  http://www.godsdirehttp://wwwhttp://www.http://wwhttp:// 

 

While we all recognize that eating local unprocessed vegan food is optimal.  Choosing a vegan diet, even one with processed soy has much less impact on the planet.  Much of the soy grown is used to feed the livestock to feed meateaters.  Even chickens use three times as much grain as we would use if we fed ourselves with the grains directly.  We can be joyful vegans but recognize the environmental benefits as well.

 

Beth S.

 

 

 

--- On Thu, 7/2/09, jenny w <veganjenny wrote:

 

 

jenny w <veganjenny

Re: Breeding

@To:

Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:50 AM

 

The idea that going vegan and not breeding are the two most important things one can do for the planet just boggles my mind. Neither of those things does anything positive for the planet. At best, they minimize the damage that we do. Also, is not having kids really better than not driving a car? Is being vegan better than being a localvore?

 

It's probably possible to live off of what we could forage locally (many weeds are quite nutritious), but I'm going to hazard guesses that a) no one on this list lives exclusively off of locally foraged food; and b) many vegans seek out new and interesting food. Many vegans I know are foodies (including me), and I'm guessing there are a few foodie vegans on this list. Chocolate, coffee, tea, spices, sweeteners, vegan cheeses, soy milk in tetra paks, and other common kitchen items have huge carbon footprints. Also, many of these things are often farmed in non-sustainable ways or with unfair labor practices. Even farmed sustainably, there are agriculture is going to result in killing many creatures (e.g. insects that eat crops). Pesca-vegetarian localvores probably have a less negative impact on the world than vegans who eat stuff from all over the world.

 

If vegans can justify owning cars or eating imported/packaged foods then why not having kids? Depending on how you go about them, having kids could be the least environmentally damaging of the three, and also be the one most likely to have an upside.

 

The biggest reason for me for being vegan is not to limit the damage I personally do to the planet, but to show others that one can be vegan and fully enjoy life. The more people can relate to me as a person the more likely they are to be interested in thinking about veganism. Lots of non-vegans have biological kids. Seeing a vegan family where the kids are happy and healthy could have a significant positive impact beyond simply limiting damage that the family does by living on the earth. Same if the family were localvores, or didn't drive, or taught their kids about the supply chain of food and social justice, or all of the above.

 

There are other things we can do, too, like figuring out ways we can be positive participants in our eco-systems, finding ways to deal with natural pollution as well as human created pollution, etc. But ... being vegan and talking to people are really easy. :-)

 

Jen-Mei

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**************Dell Summer Savings: Cool Deals on Popular Laptops – Shop Now! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222696924x1201468348/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D1)

[Guest guest]

I don't believe anybody on this listserve who is trying to point out the facts on population issues is trying to devalue the wonderful vegan families that are out there. We are just simply trying to put out the information so people can make informed family planning decisions in the future, such as considering limiting family size or exploring adoption or fostering as alternatives. Here are some facts:

 

"People consume food, fresh water, wood, minerals, and energy as we go about our daily lives. And producing food, pumping groundwater, harvesting wood, mining minerals, and burning fuel all deplete our resource base."

 

"(The US) just five percent of the world's population consumes 23% of its energy! Imagine if you wasted five times more gasoline as your neighbors... or five times more food... or produced five times more garbage....Next time you hear about a woman in India who has seven children, remember that she'd have to have more than 20 children to match the impact of an American woman with just one child." worldpopulationbalance.org/population_energy

 

A vegan in the US will have significantly less impact (see facts below on the amount of water:energy; and resources needed to feed and raise animals to feed us). However, we are born into an infrastructure that itself causes massive energy use because our houses and work are spread out; our food production is not necessarily local; our houses are not built efficiently; and our corporations that employ us or give us material goods to live on use massive resources from the Earth. A vegan family who fosters or adopts a child already born will not add a consumer, and a vegan family that limits themselves to one biological child will not contribute to increasing US population and Earth consumption. Not to devalue the large families of the past before we realized the problems with population explosion. Children often rebel, we cannot control who they choose to become. I have met

meat-eaters brought up in vegetarian households. I love children and pointing out the facts is not "anti-children" it is responsible information for future planning.

 

"Another surprising statistic is that the nine billion head of livestock kept in the US consume seven times the grain eaten by the country’s human population, and the percentage of grain fed to livestock is also skyrocketing in developing countries such as China, Egypt and Mexico. Furthermore, according to the Worldwatch Institute, each pound of grain-fed steak results in 35 pounds of eroded topsoil, and sustaining a meat-eater’s diet requires more than 4,000 gallons of water daily versus 300 for vegetarians.

According to the renowned ecologist Mathis Wackernagel, our animal-based diet is a major reason that humans are consuming the planet’s long term bio-capacity at an unsustainable rate." http://www.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/eng/news/160/vg3.htm

 

While we all recognize that eating local unprocessed vegan food is optimal. Choosing a vegan diet, even one with processed soy has much less impact on the planet. Much of the soy grown is used to feed the livestock to feed meateaters. Even chickens use three times as much grain as we would use if we fed ourselves with the grains directly. We can be joyful vegans but recognize the environmental benefits as well.

 

Beth S.

--- On Thu, 7/2/09, jenny w <veganjenny wrote:

jenny w <veganjennyRe: Breeding Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:50 AM

 

 

The idea that going vegan and not breeding are the two most important things one can do for the planet just boggles my mind. Neither of those things does anything positive for the planet. At best, they minimize the damage that we do. Also, is not having kids really better than not driving a car? Is being vegan better than being a localvore?

 

 

 

 

It's probably possible to live off of what we could forage locally (many weeds are quite nutritious), but I'm going to hazard guesses that a) no one on this list lives exclusively off of locally foraged food; and b) many vegans seek out new and interesting food. Many vegans I know are foodies (including me), and I'm guessing there are a few foodie vegans on this list. Chocolate, coffee, tea, spices, sweeteners, vegan cheeses, soy milk in tetra paks, and other common kitchen items have huge carbon footprints. Also, many of these things are often farmed in non-sustainable ways or with unfair labor practices. Even farmed sustainably, there are agriculture is going to result in killing many creatures (e.g. insects that eat crops). Pesca-vegetarian localvores probably have a less negative impact on the world than vegans who eat stuff from all over the world.

 

If vegans can justify owning cars or eating imported/packaged foods then why not having kids? Depending on how you go about them, having kids could be the least environmentally damaging of the three, and also be the one most likely to have an upside.

 

The biggest reason for me for being vegan is not to limit the damage I personally do to the planet, but to show others that one can be vegan and fully enjoy life. The more people can relate to me as a person the more likely they are to be interested in thinking about veganism. Lots of non-vegans have biological kids. Seeing a vegan family where the kids are happy and healthy could have a significant positive impact beyond simply limiting damage that the family does by living on the earth. Same if the family were localvores, or didn't drive, or taught their kids about the supply chain of food and social justice, or all of the above.

 

There are other things we can do, too, like figuring out ways we can be positive participants in our eco-systems, finding ways to deal with natural pollution as well as human created pollution, etc. But ... being vegan and talking to people are really easy. :-)

 

Jen-Mei

[Guest guest]

I appreciate everyone's thoughtful and thought-provoking dialogue on this topic. It's been a really interesting discussion. Personally, I don't see eating vegan as a sacrifice or a hardship, nor do I see childless families as unfulfilled and unhappy. But I guess it all boils down to perspective and what we are ready to embrace.

 

But as I've said since we started the group, there are many paths to veg*nism and we obviously all didn't take the same one given the various opinions that have been shared. However, let us not focus on our differences, but what we have in common and can share and learn from each other, in this discussion and others.

 

Cheers,

 

Tammy

 

My two cents, vegan-style .. - today or read it on GenerationV.org

Save a life today - help us with public education & outreach

07/04 Sand-n-Surf Vegan Food Party! - Montara State Beach 07/12 San Pedro Valley Hike - Pacifica 07/12 Food for Thought Book Club (new members welcome)

[Guest guest]

well, obviously if there were a LOT less people on the planet and if everyone was vegan AND lived their lives in the most environmentaly friendly way they could then we could avert catastrophe. which is why people, including myself, are advocating not putting any more people on the planet.

 

Warren

In a message dated 7/5/09 2:21:20 PM, veganjenny writes:

 

 

I don't think I'm alone in believing that we're near a crisis point where we're going to have a planet changing catastrophe if we don't make some radical changes. If we could halve the population of the planet (we're nearly 7 billion people now) and get everyone to be vegan without changing any other habits/trends, we could at best postpone catastrophe, not avert it. 

 

To avert catastrophe, we would need to change our behavior in other ways. We need to stop producing greenhouse gases (including through industry and transportation)To avert catastrophe, we would need to change our behavior in other ways. We need to stop producing greenhouse gases (including through industry and transportation)<wbr>, we

 

Being vegan and being a non-breeder are both extremely easy to do, and in the big picture, I just don't see how either, on an individual level, could be considered a substantive improvement to the situation. I don't know how others see veganism, but my attitude about being vegan is that it's about as virtuous as refraining from kicking puppies when you walk down the street. I don't kick puppies and I'm vegan, but I feel those are about limiting harm rather than doing good. It's through advocacy and activism that I think we can do good, and I'd place those higher on the list of things we can do for the planet than being vegan or being a non-breeder.

 

I also don't think that whether you decide to have kids or not is not alone a negative or positive for the planet. It's really about how you live your lives. If as a family, adoptive or otherwise, you reach out to others to change behavior, that's a great thing. Yes, there's no guarantee your kids will share your values. There's also no guarantee that they won't improve on your values, either.

 

I believe that it's possible for a family of five or six to live more sustainably than a single non-breeding vegan, depending on the behavior of those being compared. In fact, I think it's already the case ... I would bet there are large numbers of non-vegan families in the global south who have less of a negative impact on the planet than some non-breeding vegan individuals living in industrial nations.

 

Jen-Mei

 

 

 

**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222887319x1201497660/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072 & hmpgID=62 & bcd=JulyExcfooterNO62)

[Guest guest]

I don't think I'm alone in believing that we're near a crisis point where we're going to have a planet changing catastrophe if we don't make some radical changes. If we could halve the population of the planet (we're nearly 7 billion people now) and get everyone to be vegan without changing any other habits/trends, we could at best postpone catastrophe, not avert it. 

To avert catastrophe, we would need to change our behavior in other ways. We need to stop producing greenhouse gases (including through industry and transportation), we need to stop using fossil fuels, we need to stop filling landfills, we need to stop questionable use of genetic engineering -- we need to live sustainably on the earth. 

Being vegan and being a non-breeder are both extremely easy to do, and in the big picture, I just don't see how either, on an individual level, could be considered a substantive improvement to the situation. I don't know how others see veganism, but my attitude about being vegan is that it's about as virtuous as refraining from kicking puppies when you walk down the street. I don't kick puppies and I'm vegan, but I feel those are about limiting harm rather than doing good. It's through advocacy and activism that I think we can do good, and I'd place those higher on the list of things we can do for the planet than being vegan or being a non-breeder.

I also don't think that whether you decide to have kids or not is not alone a negative or positive for the planet. It's really about how you live your lives. If as a family, adoptive or otherwise, you reach out to others to change behavior, that's a great thing. Yes, there's no guarantee your kids will share your values. There's also no guarantee that they won't improve on your values, either.

I believe that it's possible for a family of five or six to live more sustainably than a single non-breeding vegan, depending on the behavior of those being compared. In fact, I think it's already the case ... I would bet there are large numbers of non-vegan families in the global south who have less of a negative impact on the planet than some non-breeding vegan individuals living in industrial nations.

Jen-Mei

[Guest guest]

Hi All:

 

I'm quite fascinated by this thread. I have been married for almost 11 years,

and one of the values my partner and I shared before marrying was the plan to

not bring anymore children into this world.

 

As I have become more involved in the veg community, I was surprised to find

quite a number of veg*ns share this value as well (for various reasons).

 

Anyhow I put up a poll here to find out what people think on this list:

 

/surveys?id=12922453

 

 

Best Regards,

Mila

[Guest guest]

I just had one last point to make on this topic. It's obvious, by now, that there are a variety of opinions and I can respect that not everyone will agree on this issue. But for those who disagree, please, let's not call it anti-children, as there are, as many have shared, wonderful veg*n children in our community and we're not against them. And, actually, wanting to preserve our planet for future generations is "pro-children" since they will be the ones living here.

 

I think anti-breeding is a more appropriate term.

 

And for anyone interested in SB 250, the Senate Bill about spay/neuter of dogs & cats that spawned this topic, you can find the text of the current bill here:

 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_250 & sess=CUR & house=B & author=florez

 

Cheers,Tammy

 

 

 

My two cents, vegan-style .. - today or read it on GenerationV.org

Save a life today - help us with public education & outreach

07/12 San Pedro Valley Hike - Pacifica 07/12 Food for Thought Book Club (new members welcome) 07/25 Plant-Powered Hikers: Redwoods! - Woodside