Saturday, November 7, 2015

Vegans and Their Reasons

An interesting exchange I had in the MK comments' section:
  • susan says:
    thanks for the links

    I’ve been writing for a Vegan journal for more than ten years, but they changed their logo to….the Vesica Piscis some while ago, and the Treasurer is a Jewish chap, so I’m a bit more suspicious about their actual motives (there’s a lot of money to be made there…).

    However anyone intelligent cannot deny that there is not room for two huge resource-consuming populations on the planet (humans and domesticated animals). Vegans think the second group should be diminished, globalists think the first group should be diminished. Who’s winning?

    I wonder if a nuclear bomb would be similar to Mount Pinatubo and dim the sun’s rays from hitting the earth for some while – which is an objective of the global warming advocates (see my previous links). Could kill two birds with one stone? Reduce the human population to, say, 500 million, and stop/slow/reverse ‘global warming’?

    With a “Who could have known?” plausible deniability clause.

    Whatever happened to Solar Cycle 24?

  • YoLithos says:
    Re : Livestock Methane Armaggeddon – @susan

    The general human driven industrial scale extinction of almost all the herds of larger wildlife on the planet – and now most of the rest from frogs to krill and bees, insects, and fish – probably ‘compensates’ for a lot of non-sustainable industrial livestock raising. Though the effects of the latter tend to be concentrated in ‘sacrifice zones’, albeit very large ones.

    The effect of industrial or extensive livestock raising and its methane production could be significantly reduced by better livestock feeding practices and waste treatment for biofuel and fertilizer. And these could then be used, sold, or distributed. And would reduce fossil fuel ‘externalities’ and logistics waste. Whether financial, political, or human.

    The inertia of power and complacent fearful habit would make that process too slow to bear. Ethically and morally, you do have a very strong case.

    The real problem might be in radiation, disease, pollution, and immunity collapse. The problem they care about is never the one they give as an excuse.
  • susan says:

    Thank you.

    Considerations other than methane are the ‘Land Use’ ones: the fact that (I forget what percentage) of land is used to grow food for domesticated animals, Winter feed and bedding for domesticated animals, grazing for DA’s, water for DA’s, a not-insignificant percentage of the dreadful pharmaceutical industry’s profits come from DA’s, the run-off from their urines ruin the water tables, so that certain farms have to re-locate (as in pig farms here in France), etc, etc.

    But your point about the loss of wild animals ‘compensating’ is well taken. One suspects that this is the plan of the Globalists – get rid of 80% of humans and ALL DA’s, and re-stock using DNA technologies, with a return to huntin’, fishin’ and shootin’, mostly wild animals, but sometimes stray humans, just for fun.

    Everyone has read ‘Ozone’ by Paul Theroux, I hope!
  • YoLithos says:

    You’re more than welcome. I hope it helped.

    There is enough agricultural land and technology in existence to feed the world several times over. If I remember correctly, the US alone could feed the whole world about once or twice over if it grew all it could. Actually caring for the land and adopting renewable and sustainable practices could probably increase that by a large amount and still use the leftovers to eliminate fossil fuel dependency and save a lot on other raw materials. Especially with modern transformation technology.

    The corporate industrial agriculture interests see that as a threat. Their ‘problem’ is to restrict farming and livestock production to profit from scarcity and uniformity. Extinction economics, as Max and Stacy pointed out some time ago. Otherwise, there would be enough for people and livestock to spare for the whole population of the USA-Canada (same model) a few times over.

    Land use and forest protection inquiries in the Brazilian Senate a couple of years ago said that recovering degraded pasture and farming land – and employing slightly more sustainable practices – could double the area and productivity available for both without tearing down any more forest for soy plantations. And Brazil alone has about six times China’s available farmland, and about a tenth of its population.

    So it’s a question of a short-sighted spiteful exploitative model. A wilfully ignorance-intensive one.

  •

    No comments:

    Post a Comment