Childhood indoctrination

[KichigaiNeko]

Polyester is a category of polymers which contain the ester functional group in their main chain. Although there are many polyesters, the term "polyester" as a specific material most commonly refers to polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Polyesters include naturally occurring chemicals, such as in the cutin of plant cuticles, as well as synthetics through step-growth polymerization such as polycarbonate and polybutyrate. Natural polyesters and a few synthetic ones are biodegradable, but most synthetic polyesters are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyester

http://textiletechinfo.com/spinning/POLYESTERmanu.htm

Just for complete disclosure

---

The same question can be asked "why do you think you deserve to eat plant material?"

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.

---

I like this one..in fact we purchased it...I just LOVE IKEA!
http://www.ikea.com/au/en/catalog/products/S29897007/
Cover for chaise longue/ cover two-seat sofa:
Lining: Non-woven polypropylene
Total composition: 100% cotton

---

@ 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?

---

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.

Ahhh there is also a rub. You don't know how to sustain the soil at all and would probably die from lack of nutrients. You are also probably one of those who oppose the usage of "synthetic fertilisers"? Supper Phosphate is one that comes to mind

---

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.

They must be very embarrassing for vegans/vegetarians everywhere.

---

Apologies for the long post but I think this might be interesting

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2013/02/sta...he-planet/

[The Grand Nudger]

To jump right back in after my passing out drunk on a monday night (wewt)....

We -could- grow something other than livestock with both the area that livestock is kept (a very small area, remember, battery farms and feedlots) and the area that feed for livestock is grown - in some cases-. The reasons that this is untenable are simple at heart (but can be very complicated if we explore them - laying aside land that's unsuitable for ag)

---

A:livestock production is undertaken in areas where it is economically more feasible to produce beef than to produce tomatoes - the effect of this is that you can buy more tomatoes with your beef money - than you could with tomato money. Does this increased buying power get distributed among the hungry in the area - no, it does not....but neither does the tomato money. Very often, (and I'm an example of this btw-despite being a niche producer of a highly profitable set of perishables.....in a first world country...not beholden to the developed distribution infrastructure or commercial buyers in any way.....) a producer can't even afford their own product.

B:people aren't going hungry because we don't produce enough food, they're going hungry because they lack the purchasing power to avail themselves of the food we have an impressive glut of. It's amusing to note, that some starving somebody somewhere might actually be willing to pay -more- for a tomato than any given american - but of our developed infrastructure and superior market that tomato shipment will still wind up on our docks as opposed to theirs because the producer will net a massive difference here due to volume alone.

The long and short of this, is that one cannot talk about food production whilst ignoring the harsh economic reality of food production - which drives it more directly and more forcefully than any other factor - and determines what is or is not an effective use of available land. Livestock production produces an economically valuable product (as well as a nutritionally valuable product - that has by-products with a wide range of fairly important uses themselves). Producing food for human consumption on land that is currently used to produce feed (where it can be done) won't alleviate this problem, as all it will have done is decrease the buying power of the producers (because they're now producing a less valuable crop) - who already cannot afford to consume their own products......and already lack the buying power to secure the productivity of others - meanwhile food rots away in shipping containers daily.

We might contend that hunger is a complex issue, but I disagree, I think it can be summed up pretty simply. People can't afford the food we have, and it's already dirt cheap because there's so damned much of it- and part of the reason they can;t afford it, depressingly..is because it's so damned cheap that they can't generate enough revenue from it to purchase it - but simultaneously can't afford to eat it as opposed to selling it. That guy producing feed on his plot - is attempting to make enough money to buy food...and growing anything else would lessen his already poor ability to do so. Get it?

---

As to the notion that we could "feed the world" by growing more crops

We could already "feed the world" with the crops grown and current methods. We -could- cut out livestock production...if we ignored the economics (in the bit above) and simply dispersed the commodities free of charge and we would have an even more impressive glut of food (sans meat)...but this isn't going to have the effect that we might think it would (even if it weren't horrendously wasteful to begin with...which it would be) - alleviating the suffering that we're likely to invoke as an impetus for doing so.

I want to make this very clear...so that people understand it. There are animals (including human animals) in our food production pipeline that are subject to an existence that is orders of magnitude more shitty than livestock. Our livestock actually have rights - some would argue not enough, others would argue that these rights aren't well enough enforced (and I would agree on both counts).......these animals (again, including humans) have none. Less than none. They are exploited and/or exterminated on the whims of the price of grain. We turn oil into food. Really take the time to let that sink in.

If we wanted to eliminate this vastly greater contributor to said suffering - this abuse of organisms that we afford no rights to whatsoever - we will have to stop producing food the way that we do...which would be difficult, because the way we do it is precisely why we have whatever amount of food we do in the first place. It's efficient. The only way we are currently aware of even conceiving of weaning ourselves off of this vastly more useful and efficient source of fertility is by...wait for it....ramping up livestock production.

It's simple, to produce food at a level sufficient to feed ourselves we require nutrients in greater amounts (and greater quality) than would exist in any natural ecosystem. There is no balance here, there has never been any balance here - and trying to strive for some "balance of nature" in agricultural production is to reach for what has been a fairy story from the word go. We are going to have to point at something that is exploitable - and I'm honestly not going to begrudge anyone for what they point at so long as it works - and so long as they think their position through and own up to the realities of their suggestion. Those of us in this thread that have suggested that we shitcan livestock and start mass-producing the leafy stuff have not thought this through -at all. They have ignored (or were blissfully unaware of) the reality of the production of the commodities they seem to think offer a more moral or more efficient solution to the food question.

[Eric9001]

It's how life functions. Organisms eating other organisms has been among the top methods for life to continue to exist for billions of years and at this day. The house cat when let outdoors will kill thousands of animals over its life. People seem to place unnecessary morals into the process of eating other organisms. They feel the pain of the animals. But what is pain? It's a response by the nervous system to say that something is bad. Other animals do not let pain stop them from killing each other, why do we?

Using the behaviour of wild animals as an ethical reference point is not logical as an ideology, since it would also allow us to rape and steal. When discussing ethics, we have to decide if we're operating as part of a civilised society with rules, or if we're operating as wild animals. People who justify carnism (http://www.carnism.org/index.php/2012-05-09-15-00-33) flip-flop between the two whenever it's convenient to justify the position they already hold.

I answer this the next sentence down. It is a rhetorical question used to set up my next point... which is about morality, something humans have that stops rape/stealing

Well, that comes from our own humanistic nature which developed – creating an appreciation and understanding of other humans, feeling their pain. Morality.. We take that morality we have for other human beings and apply it to animals because we see humanistic qualities in some species and realize that many animals, biologically, are not too far off from ourselves. The most noble thing to do would to be not eat at all. But because we realize eating is a necessity for out living, and because we value our living more than anything else, we consume something, but what? So with morals, people decide that the further away from human that something that they are consuming is, the better. So naturally, we find people eating only plants.

I view the world realistically. I take this idea to be arrogant because I realize that Earth exists as a joined effort, and all life, even non-living material, plays an equal role on supporting it. Rather than view my eating as what's best for humanity I view it as what's best for the continuation of life planet Earth. We lower plants to such a low level because they are so different from us, but we should realize that plants are and have been so important in sustaining balanced life on Earth. So all that's do it then is which has a worse impact on it all, eating a part of a chicken or eating a bunch of plant material? To be honest, there's negatives to both, they both have a very similar, negative, insubstantial impact. Eating an endangered species would probably have a larger impact on the world, so I view this as one of the worst things to do. Eating a bald eagle would have bad impacts on my life socially, so I would not eat that. If I was truly unmoral I would probably view humans as the best thing to eat, since they have a large negative impact on Earth, comparably to others. But I am moral.

Plants certainly do play a role in ecology, but the difference is that they do not have the capacity to be individual victims, as they are not sentient. The logical obligation of our civilisation's structure is not to behave in a way that involves innocent victims. But yes, we have to acknowledge that all food consumption is harmful to some extent, but we need to do it with as little harm as possible. Committing direct acts of violence in order to eat each day, when this is clearly not necessary to obtain the level of nutrients needed, is not consistent with any model of harm minimisation.

I know. I note that point of view and argue against it when I say:

Morality.. We take that morality we have for other human beings and apply it to animals because we see humanistic qualities in some species and realize that many animals, biologically, are not too far off from ourselves. The most noble thing to do would to be not eat at all. But because we realize eating is a necessity for out living, and because we value our living more than anything else, we consume something, but what? So with morals, people decide that the further away from human that something that they are consuming is, the better. So naturally, we find people eating only plants.

I view the world realistically. I take this idea to be arrogant because I realize that Earth exists as a joined effort, and all life, even non-living material, plays an equal role on supporting it. Rather than view my eating as what's best for humanity I view it as what's best for the continuation of life planet Earth.

[NoraBrimstone]

That Omnivore Bingo is fantastic!

[Aractus]

OK, I know I said this ages ago, so let's try again now. Let's say that I accept that there is a valid ethical argument. Now let's consider the environmental argument. Many of the uses that wool has - for instance as a hard-wearing textile fabric (as used on chairs, lounges, etc) cannot be matched with cotton or synthetics. Said fabrics do not pass rub tests - I'm sure you're aware of this - they simply do not last as long as wool. Now your main two alternatives to this are vinyl and leather. I actually don't know the difference in durability between vinyl and leather, however what I do know is that leather folds and vinyl doesn't. In other words, vinyl is fucking uncompfortable! Now what I simply don't understand is that you know there is a huge advantage to wool - environmentally - and yet you oppose it only on the grounds of ethics, as if the environmental concerns are not important!

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.

[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.

[bennyboy]

I'm reading this thread about vegetarian, which I support, and wonder wth it has to do with childhood indoctrination, which I both support and practice.

[Aractus]

So you're telling me that synthetic fibres are actually failing quality control tests, and they're still letting them on the market?

That's right. Any reputable company will not use them.

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.

It's really not my area of expertise. But what I can give you is a whole list of companies that will only use WOOL fabric for upholstery and of those only the ones that pass the rub tests they demand. As far as Ikea is concerned - they have no credibility for quality control, thus I'm not interested in what they sell.

As far as the unreportable companies are concerned, FYI, not only do they sell shit that doesn't pass quality control tests - they sell shit that isn't even legal to begin with. But that's another matter. An example is - there are strict legal limit on what amount of formaldehyde particle board is allowed to spew into the atmosphere. All the companies that produce particleboard - or - particleboard products have to abide by these standards - The Laminex Group, Polytec, Sebel, etc. Next time you see a particleboard product made in china, why don't you go get it tested? What you'll find is that it doesn't meet our legal standard (let alone quality controls) yet still gets sold by Office Works, Ikea, etc. Granted I kind of think people stupid enough to buy Chinese particleboard deserve to breathe in formaldehyde, so it kind of all works out anyway.

I'd love to see Australia put a flat-out ban on all imported particleboard - and especially imported timbers - yet, alas, I'm just a minority and my opinion doesn't count for squat when it comes to this.

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.

And who sells it? Ikea? What about Sebel or another more reputable brand?

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.

Pfft, we don't even recycle half the non-synthetic shit we have, let alone synthetics.

[bennyboy]

Pfft, we don't even recycle half the non-synthetic shit we have, let alone synthetics.

I've seen this category very often in these kinds of discussions. For example, meat-eaters point out that a "vegetarian" diet of mass-produced grain is going to involve farm machinery causing many deaths-- probably more deaths than a cow diet would.

However, the lack of infrastructure isn't really a good excuse, since it represents a lack of will of people. If they want a purely suffering-free, death-free diet, then it's possible to do that. If they want to recycle stuff, then it's possible to do that.

So the real question should be: what kind of world do we want? In my case, I prefer a relatively pollution-free diet in which I cause as little suffering in others as possible. The infrastructure to do this currently is insufficient-- however, I will still act according to my own vision of a better world, because that's what it means to be human (to me).

[KichigaiNeko]

It REALLY isn't in me to educate people ....so I will try my best to give you MY point of view

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.

I would say you are still trying to remove yourself from the food chain Forbi and set yourself up as "lord and master" complete with religious overtones. You so far have not displayed that you have any idea of the complexities of life on this rock. I would also posit that you have not really "read" the article that Summer has generously given you.

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.

Justify religion then. Why should an omnivore justify the way they want to live to you?

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 :

Traditionally, agricultural soils were fertilized using livestock manure, which is rich in nutrients and organic matter. Farmers also practised 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.

Thank you. You have just negated your argument against animal manure/ animal death as a fertiliser. I find that animal manure plus some trace elements enough to maintain a "Kitchen Garden". You will have to reference Rhythm's knowledge of 'Big Ag' for the crops that are needed for your utopia.

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.

Not necessarily so. Have you read Rudolph Steiner? Take out the woo bit, but you will find (as I did) that it is bacteria/ parasites/ micro organisms that make the world go round and even vegan/ vegetarian shit/ animal death is required to keep a soil fertile....add to that alot of bleeding and dying and rotting corpses from wars, Oh, and also a fertile top soil to a depth of metres.

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.

No one is disputing this. But I am concerned about the damage of petro-chemicals (in light of the recent BP oil disaster) have on our environment and crops/ animal live stock and our soils and the health of our rivers and oceans....these petro-chemical sythetics you are so stongly advocating come from Du-pont and their ilk ...are you sure you want to support this sort of corporate structure that has given rise to Monsanto et al?

"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.

Would I? how presumptuous of you

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.

Ah. Well there's the rub. Your sentiments can be just as easily inserted to your silly bingo game. And you are saying that you would much rather see ALL of our live stock die of petro-chemical poisoning , drought and starvation ? VERY humane of you.

]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.

This is where you show you complete lack of understanding of biology, evolutionary theory, genetic theory, germ theory and your place on this planet. Again I would posit that you are speaking from the pages of dogma to set yourself up as a religious fanatic. Have you not seen how chimpanzees (our closest relatives) delight in cannibalism for their share of meat protein?

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.

Who says that "inocent animals are "paying" for our mistakes? We have about 65 million years of evolution with these creatures that feed us. Are you positing that evolution is a mistake?

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.

Yes synthetic fibres fail the test for durability and eco-friendliness. After all Pertol is something that is abundant and something you seem to be advocating . How often do you think you have to replace that IKEA Lounge? Both Daniel and I are from a wool growing nation and we have a long and abiding love of sheep and everything that animal gives us, nothing is wasted. Your synthetics on the other hand take much more to produce (by way of environmental vandalism) to last only five years? i and many other Aussies have the ubiquitous "Ugh Boot" that will last 5-10 years thank you sheep for your skins and meat.!

Your petro-chemicals are not even in the same ball park.

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.

The victims are the environment and the very soil you need for your vegan/ vegetarian utopia. I really don't think you have questioned the dogma you have swallowed hook line and sinker.

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.

NOW we get to the crux of the matter. Sythetics are not recyclable nor are they eco-friendly and have a longer half life than "natural" fibres.

You LIKE the vegan/ Vegetarian ethos? Good for you. I am so glad you have found something other than the abrahamic religions to be religious about. But the point is; you are still locked in a dogma fed to you and you seem to enjoy second hand ethics other than constructing your own.

No one here gives less than a tinker's cus about your "blind ethics". You are clearly striving to set yourself up as some messiah, a message bringer to those of us who have out grown your silly childish nonsense and understand the world as it is. No it isn't pretty and I will re-iterate..."IF you are going to kill something, make it a clean quick kill so the animal/ creature in question does not suffer". Pity we don't extend this to our own species but that is another story.

From an Urban Horticulturalist/ Permaculturalist point of view you are far to free with your wilful murder of plant life. You have no regard for the earth or anything that is living on/in it and as such are no more worthy of note than a rabid judeo/ xtian/ islamist.

You sir are just a first world yuppy striving to abrogate your guilt for being alive and stifling third world nations in the process. In short...you are a nothing and your message is not the panacea you would like to think it is. I am certain that many vegan/vegetarians cringe at your virtuous mouthings and just simply want to do what they can do as they see fit; you forget that not everyone is able to got the "vegan/vegetarian way" from mainly genetics (enzymes) but most importantly, bacterial (animal) symbiosis that you seem very ignorant of.