Childhood indoctrination

[Forbinator]

Two approaches are interlinked. We are wasting so much land to produce plant-based food to use to fatten up animals, who shit out 85% of it. Let's feed our food directly to humans, rather than filtering it through animals whose populations are artificially increased for that purpose. Much of the deforestation today is to make way for more and more cattle grazing, as well as crops that will be fed to enslaved animals. 80% of the world's soy is fed to animals!

Well, but that would require that many people go back into agriculture because it is much simpler to just grow huge mono-cultures of rather robust but inadible (for humans) soy and then funnel it through cattle which are then eaten by humans. If you would want to use these same lands to grow vegetables digestible by humans then a lot more thought would've to be put and a lot more skill would be involved.

That would be great, just saying it's not quite as easy as simply diverting the flow of soy/corn/grain from cattle to humans. That's information I gathered in a discussion here on these forums, so kudos to atheistforums.org!

---

I thought humans could eat soy (as well as corn and grain). :p But either way, I acknowledge that we can't eat grass so I get your point. We need to grow different stuff, which requires careful re-cultivation of land, and it isn't something that will happen overnight. But more people demanding more vegan food over time will make a difference (supply and demand etc).

Both approaches are necessary together, that is, both welfarism and abolition

Arguing with others rarely every convinces anyone of veganism, but I know where the zeal comes from... I think you might find consolation in this: You're already doing a huge part of what you as an individual can do for a more humane planet. Others will follow a good ideal when they see it and when they are ready.

Thankyou for that. I think the key is to just gently keep mentioning it to people. Part of the issue is that people see veganism as some crazy hippie movement, so the more it can be mentioned in a mainstream setting the more normalised it may become. If I argue too much I will probably come across as a dick (if I haven't already).

---

Example: I had a friend growing up whose father was a poultry farmer. He was moving turkeys from one house to another when it started to rain. He lost somewhere around 1/3rd to half the turkeys because they put their heads back and drowned... Me thinks an animal this stupid should probably be eaten because they could never survive on their own. I'm not concerned with turkey-rape happening in those overcrowded houses... I do think they shouldn't be in over-crowded conditions, but they're definitely at least a few notches down from being intelligent, emotional creatures worthy of "every life is sacred" status.

"Sacred" is a religious terminology, but I think the key here is whether there is a survival instinct. For example, if they see a predator, how do they react? This might be more reliable than thinking about how they react to artificial situations that endanger their lives. I'm assuming that wild turkeys (who can actually fly because they haven't been genetically selected for excessive growth) aren't actually faced with decisions about which man-made shed to walk in and out of.