(June 16, 2013 at 10:44 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote:This might be true, but this land is then neither available to animal agriculture nor to crop production, therefore it doesn't enter into the equation. The question should be: What is the best use of the remaining fertile land?Forbi Wrote:And yes, the article you posted makes the ridiculous claim that we would need "more" land degradation to cater to vegans, even though we could just use the land in high rainfall areas currently being squandered on prime beef and dairy production.
I did point out to you that here in Oz the majority of our arable land in high rainfall zones is paved an houses our population.
(June 16, 2013 at 10:44 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Only 4%? That's pretty good really.The 4% failure rate is only "good" as long as you don't allow yourself to have any empathy with the 4 out of 100 animals that are very much aware of their body being "processed", as the industry calls it. Anyone who allows him/herself the tiniest amount of compassion will find this figure unacceptable.
But even aside from slaughter, there is no ethical way to produce dairy products, because it always requires to tear away a calf from his/her mother and put it into a box where the baby screams its lungs out for Mom day and night. Cattle are mammals and herd animals just like us. Any mother will acknowledge how traumatizing this must be for mother and child, and there is no happy ending for either.
(June 16, 2013 at 10:44 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I am also to assume that you don't hunt and live in an urban area? Just asking.Ad hominem, doesn't relate to the argument. I'm not stereotyping you as the "enemy", kindly return me the favor.
"Men see clearly enough the barbarity of all ages — except their own!" — Ernest Crosby.