Childhood indoctrination

[Forbinator]

Hmm...let's suppose hypothetically that animal faeces actually is necessary to grow crops (despite the existence of synthetic fertilisers). How does producing fertiliser mean that the animals deserve to be slaughtered? This link has not been explained in any detail.

I never said it did. I merely pointed out that to have agriculture spread enough to feed the current (and most) human populations, you need a way to supplement the soil.

It's true the soil "takes care" of itself in its own way, but you will not grow crops in it without supplementing it. End of story.

Killing the animals after using their shit is an entirely different story.

Good read. It won't take you long:

Why I'm Not a Vegan

Is this an excuse for animal cruelty? Absolutely not. But humans have removed themselves so far from the chain of survival that even the well-intentioned ones don't quite understand the way things go.

Thanks for that. Definitely an interesting read, and as I think you've acknowledged, the author still is unable to justify eating or wearing animal products.

Crops certainly do need to be supplemented in some way, but I'm not convinced that fertiliser is necessary. This is from http://www.sustainabletable.org/207/soil-quality :

Plants need more than just sunlight and water. In order to grow, they require a variety of different nutrients. In natural environments such as prairies and forests, plants obtain most necessary nutrients from minerals found within the soil. When these plants die, they fall to the ground, decompose, and release nutrients back into the soil, making them available for new plants. In this way, nutrients are "recycled" with each generation.
...
Traditionally, agricultural soils were fertilized using livestock manure, which is rich in nutrients and organic matter. Farmers also practiced crop rotation, regularly alternating the types of crop grown in various fields and periodically allowing fields to remain unplanted. This process enables organic matter to accumulate and decompose, thus restoring nutrients to the soil.
...
The over-application of synthetic fertilizers and manure both contribute to the growing problem of nutrient pollution.

It seems that crop rotation may be a more sustainable form of agriculture, allowing us to mostly avoid the fertiliser issue. In the article that you posted, the author seems to assert that plants require nutrients from blood and bone fertiliser, but history (and the article I posted) suggest that these nutrients are available in decomposing plant matter.

You seem to just want to keep playing this game. Are there any squares that anyone's missed?

I am not "playing a game" you seem to be though.

---

And no it isn't a vegan couch... silly thing! it is a product of petro-chemicals and some very clever usage of wood chips.

@ Forbi
IF we "don't need to farm our domestic live stock" in the first place what do you propose we do with the billions of live stock we have now?

And which "in the first place" are you talking about?

Vegan means no animal products, so that couch is vegan. All products have some environmental impact though obviously, and we need to try to minimise that. It's a bit of a losing battle when there are 7 billion of us, but we still need to do our best.

"In the first place" is a figure of speech, not an attempt at historical revisionism, as I'm sure you'd like it to be.

And what's funny is that after stating that you're definitely not playing the defensive omnivore bingo game, you've managed to fill in yet another square by feigning concern over what will happen to our current livestock when the world turns vegan. The question has already been answered seriously, so I'll just answer by saying that the cows will take over the world, enslaving all of humanity.

All in all, I am thinking that there is no "Childhood indoctrination" at play here as per the original OP. More likely millions of years of human development and that Forbi and llil'endie are not putting forward a convincing argument for the total exorcism of said millions of years of human development in favour of this pseudo-religious ethos they seem to have dreamed up.

Ahh there's the old "but we've always done it!" argument which always favours the status quo. You mention this "human development", but fail to state any evolutionary adaptation (not found in other herbivorous primates) to consuming flesh and secretions.

*well reasoned economical justification for why replacing all animal agriculture with crop farming is not an adequate measure to eliminate world hunger*

Thanks for your post. I guess as long as we have a monetary system, humanity is screwed? That sounds about right, but let's not make innocent animals pay for our mistakes.

Alternatives to wool include cotton, polyester, synthetic shearling, Tencel and Polartec Wind Pro. I have a jumper made of 100% acrylic which feels just like wool, and has lasted me for 10 years and counting. Now here you get a choice: do you want to claim that wool is superior because it lasts a long time, or because it degrades easily? You can't claim both as they are contradictions! Wool requires machinery to process, and requires more land clearance to grow, so I remain unconvinced that wool is environmentally preferable to acrylics unless you provide a valid source.

And look, a vegan couch: http://www.ikea.com/au/en/catalog/products/S89873843/

The other fibers - polyester, and cotton don't pass rub tests! They aren't as durable as wool. So Ikea sells some inferior quality lounge? LOL! As if that's evidence. If it's cotton or synthetic then the fabric will wear out much faster than wool, it's as simple as that. As if Ikea is known for quality!

---

I have a jumper made of 100% acrylic which feels just like wool, and has lasted me for 10 years and counting. Now here you get a choice: do you want to claim that wool is superior because it lasts a long time, or because it degrades easily?

And I have about 4 or 5 jumpers made of 100% wool that feel just like wool! As for the claim - wool is recyclable, so it has every advantage over synthetics in terms of being environmentally friendly. It can be made durable for hard-wearing textiles (seat fabric, suits, etc), and yes it is degradable because it's a natural fiber.

So you're telling me that synthetic fibres are actually failing quality control tests, and they're still letting them on the market? I think I might have to call consumer affairs! Maybe a more realistic/believable statement would be that the synthetics achieve quantitatively lower results on rub tests but still pass them. If they're genuinely failing, I think you need to provide a source.

The only "evidence" that the vegan couch provides is of the existence of a vegan couch, but what it means is that the animal products are not necessary. You would have to at least agree with that, even if you view the vegan option as inferior. You're the one with the choice, and you seem to care deeply about finding the most gentle textile for your precious tushy, but the animals who are exploited for that choice have absolutely no say, and I think it would be basic decency to at least consider your victims.

Also, if we recycle our synthetic products, then it doesn't really matter that they are not biodegradable, so I remain unconvinced that an environmental argument against veganism is credible.