Debunking: Does Cultivation Kill More Animals Than Livestock Farming?https://anupamkatkar.com/2015/10/08/debunking-cultivating-crops-for-vegans-kills-more-animals-than-pasture-grazing-livestock/Picture this: You’re a harvest mouse who lives in a wheat field. Being a mouse, you have excellent hearing and can easily pick up sounds that a human cannot hear. Thanks to your sensitive whiskers and small size, you’re acutely attuned to vibrations caused by large machines. Although your eyesight isn’t the best in the world, your eyes are situated high on your head and offer an excellent all-round view. And to top that off, you have lightning reflexes and dash about at a top speed of 8 miles an hour.
>>5140759Now imagine that you’re perched idly on a stalk of wheat, your tail curled around it like a fifth limb. You’re smelling the crisp morning air and feeling the sun shining on your face. But then, the ground starts to shudder as a 3 ton, 4-cylinder diesel-engine combine harvester ominously starts heading your way – which, by the way, you can see without even turning your head. What will you do?1 Run like hell2 Humbly await your fate on a Kentish plumIn a widely shared article, paleontologist Mike Archer goes with Option 2, which makes me wonder if he should be spending more time with living animals instead of extinct ones. https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/scienceshow/mice-the-biggest-losers-w-vegetarianism/4660498This essay is not the rebuttal of any one person or article, but an exploration of a notion perpetuated repeatedly without a shred of scientific evidence: that more animals are killed cultivating food for vegans and vegetarians, and therefore eating meat is kinder because it kills fewer animals. I think that this is not a scientific debate, but a social power struggle, perhaps with the support of the meat industry. But before we debunk the “armchair experts”, let’s have look at some actual studies conducted in the field.
>>5140760The best laid plans o’ mice and machinesThe English study on wood miceTew and MacDonald http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000632079390060E studied wood mice between 1987 and 1991 to understand how the harvesting of grain affects their numbers.[1] In one study, they fitted radio collars to 33 wood mice on three different sites. They wanted to find out how many of them are killed when a combine harvester shreds a wheat field. With all the propaganda about mass extinctions caused by crop harvesting, you might think that they were bracing themselves for a mouse apocalypse. Turns out, of the 33 mice, 32 survived the combined harvester – that’s 97% of them! The act of harvesting posed virtually no threat to these mice.Following the harvest, 17 of the remaining 32 mice were hunted by predators such as weasels and tawny owls. Clearly, the loss of cover made them more vulnerable to predators. But the mice knew that too. So they adapted. After the harvest, they became cautious in their forays, refusing to venture far unless it was safe. Many left the fields and migrated to nearby scrub. On the farms, the number of mice on the fields declined by 80%. But the point is, they had not been massacred by a combine harvester. The half who were killed made an important contribution to the ecosystem. Without wood mice, predators such as foxes, owls, stoats, martens, badgers and hawks would have a hard time surviving. Everything from a cat to a kestrel needs wood mice to thrive.The Argentine study on Azara’s akodontWhat’s an akodont, you ask? Don’t feel too bad, I had to look it up myself. Azara’s akodont is a grass mouse native to the Pampas of Paraguay, Uruguay and eastern Argentina. In 2005, a team of Argentine researchers studied the populations of the akodont in wheat and corn fields to understand the effects of harvesting. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880904002944
>>5140762They found that following harvest, the akodonts ditched the fields and moved to grassy borders between the fields. By being adaptable and moving to a different habitat, they were able to avoid the harvesting machines as well as predators. The study found no evidence to indicate that their numbers were affected in any significant manner by the harvesting process.The German study on common volesJacob and Hempel studied common voles on wheat fields and pastures in central Germany in 2002 to understand how farming practices alter their behavior. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10164-002-0073-8#page-1 In this extensive study, they fitted radio collars to 85 voles and studied them before and after mulching, mowing, harvesting, harvesting and ploughing.
>>5140764As expected, they found that any removal of cover, such as harvesting, mowing, or grazing cattle, decreased the spatial activity and home-range size of the voles, meaning that they didn’t travel far from their homes without the cover of vegetation. But they did not abandon the fields and did not shift their centers of activity. The voles rapidly adapted to the decrease in the height of vegetation and changed their habits, their travel routes and how far they traveled. Jacob and Hempel found that pretty much the only danger that agriculture presented to voles was an increased risk of predation. But they adapted by changing their behavior until the vegetation grew back. In this extensive, real-life field study, which used no controls, no manipulation and surveyed all agricultural activities, the data shows that actions like harvesting pose no threat to the voles. Quite the opposite of what armchair “experts” with an axe to grind claim about the impact of vegan food cultivation
>>5140765The Indonesian study on rice-field ratsIn 2002, an international team of scientists studied the movement and populations of female rats before and after harvest in western Java. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1249&context=icwdm_usdanwrc This species of rat, rattus argentiventer, is has been creatively named the rice-field rat because it’s found in – you guessed it – rice fields! And this study again shows how intelligent and adaptable rodents are, no matter what species they are or what continent they live on. As we’ve seen, rodents in other places have been observed leaving the fields and moving to the borders of the fields or a nearby forested area. Like their cousins elsewhere, rice-field rats in Indonesia live in wild patches on the borders of farms and venture into cultivated areas for foraging. But when the rice is harvested, the rats actually shifted base into the fields. Why? Because post-harvest, there are large stacks of rice straw left in the fields to dry (they’re used as fodder for cattle). Although the home range of these rats temporarily decreased by 67% and the distance of their forays shrank by 35%, they actually relocated an average of 367 meters to exploit better opportunities available elsewhere!
>>5140766To belabor the obvious yet again, it must be emphasized that harvesting did not kill these rats by the thousands, or hundreds, or even a handful. In fact, even though harvesting increases risk of predation (which is a natural part of the lives of rodents), none of those who were radio-collared for the study were hunted by predators. Unlike common voles, these rats actually remained in the fields for another 2 or 3 weeks – perhaps because it seemed like a better option than seeking shelter elsewhere.And what about baby mice?OK. But even if we concede that small wild animals remain largely unharmed by agricultural machinery and can adapt to risks created by loss of cover, what about baby mice? Oh, why don’t vegans care about baby mice? They are so tiny, and blind, and helpless! It’s ironic that the very people whose hearts bleed for infant mice do not feel the same compassion for newborn chicks who are thrown into grinders in the egg industry, or male calves who are killed for milk production. To a vegan, the death of a single baby mouse is a tragedy. What I have a problem with, however, is the meat industry and its advocates exploiting such losses to try and discredit the vegan way of life. (This, by the way, is a logical fallacy known as Moral Equivalence. Shame on you, Meat Industry. You’re amateurs.) So while acknowledging that the death of even a one baby mouse is a painful loss, let me put things into perspective.
>>5140767The typical lifespan of a rodent is between 12 and 36 months, depending on the species (smaller species have shorter lifespans). Baby rodents are typically weaned by the time they are 3 weeks old, at which point they leave their nests and socialize with others of their age before dispersing. Assuming a lifespan of 15 months (60 weeks), a baby rodent is dependent on her parents for food and protection for 5% of her life. Contrast this with human beings, who depend on their parents (and society) till they are 15 years old – for the first 20% of their lives, assuming a lifespan of 75 years. Or elephants, who also need maternal care and protection for 20% of their lives. Or lions, who depend on their mothers and aunts for food till they are 3 years old (16% to 20% of their lives). Which is to say, it’s pretty phenomenal that a rodent can fend for herself for 95% (!!!) of her life. And when a combine harvester menacingly heads toward a wee lil’ harvest mouse, there’s a 95% probability that he won’t be all that blind and helpless.https://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659This ^ article has been debunked here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nZEu9B67MBI
>>5140768Fine. But still not as awesome as a pasture, right?Simple math explains why buying meat means killing more mice and birds and whatnots.Ask someone about how livestock are raised, and most people imagine cows grazing on idyllic meadows, munching lazily on soft, green grass and smelling edelweiss while honeybees hum drunkenly around them. People think that factory farming is an ugly reality for “some” animals – and certainly not the ones they eat. Few people have an inkling of the true scale of grain-based livestock farming. Worldwide, 91% of the world’s beef cattle are raised on a diet of grain – thus spaketh the FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/X5303E/x5303e00.htm#Contents And in industrialized countries such as the United States, around 97% of all cows are fattened on grain – or almost all of them. http://www.nrdc.org/food/better-beef-production/feedlot-operations.asp So if you eat meat, chances are high that the animal was fed grain, even if the package comes with a “free-range”, “pasture-grazed”, or any other fancy label.
>>5140769And since almost all of the world’s meat is produced by cultivating grain as feed, it’s pretty obvious that almost all meat production puts wild animals at the same risks as cultivating grain for direct human consumption. Worldwide, 40% of all grain is fed to livestock. In the United States, over 70% of all grain is fed to farm animals; in some other countries, this proportion is even higher. So, even if your argument is, “Harvesting is a death sentence to innocent mice! Vegans are rodent killers!!!”, the fact remains that less than a third as many wild animals would be dying today if the demand for meat didn’t exist. Just ask a Casio calculator.If you’re a wee mouse, idyllic pastures can be far from idyllicSome people eat “grass fed”, “pasture-raised”, or another fancy-labeled meat, even paying premium for it, because they want to do the “right thing”. They sincerely believe that grass-fed meat is better for the environment. Let’s say that you’re one of the more conscientious meat eaters who only eats grass-fed cows. That sure means that all the mice, voles, pikas, gerbils, prairie dogs or tuco-tucos on that pasture are safe, right? Right? Meat companies would certainly like you to believe this lie. In reality, grazing does exactly what mechanized mowers or combine harvesters do – reduce tall, luxuriant grass to something resembling the head of a bipolar hedgehog. Research indicates that small animals are even more at risk of predation on a pasture, especially since, unlike cultivated areas, they have no forested areas to escape to.
A digressionIn 2003, Prof. Stephen Davis wrote a paper that essentially argued that practices such as mechanized harvesting kill more animals per hectare than, say, slow grazing by cattle – therefore, eating large herbivores (he recommended cows, not elephants or horses) might be more ethical than raising crops. https://www.morehouse.edu/facstaff/nnobis/papers/Davis-LeastHarm.htm This was music to the ears of meat industry supporters, who have shared it widely, despite the fact that it was soundly refuted the very year that it was published. For one, Davis’ assertion was not based on any field studies. He cherry-picked data that supported his point of view and did some back-of-the-hand calculations. Without conducting controlled studies, he assumed that pasture grazing kills only half as many wild animals per hectare as crop cultivation. Well, even if we assume that figure to be accurate, he is still wrong, because it takes only a tenth as much land to produce protein from onions and corn, versus grass-fed beef. In a detailed rebuttal, http://fewd.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Matheny__G._2003_Defense_of_Veg__in_J._Agric_Ethics.pdf Gaverick Matheny explains that even using Davis’ own figures, the average vegan’s diet kills 0.3 animals a year (or one wild animal every 3 years), whereas an omnivore who eats “ethical” pasture-grazed beef causes the death of 1.5 wild animals each year. http://fewd.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Matheny__G._2003_Defense_of_Veg__in_J._Agric_Ethics.pdf Most meat eaters eat grain-fed livestock.
>>5140770A American study on gray-tailed voles living on pasture land showed that their numbers were reduced by more than 50% when the pasture was mowed or grazed. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3808937?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents That’s a lot of dead and missing voles!!! Those who didn’t die suffered from “disrupted social organizations” and forced pregnant females to abandon homes and territories. Other studies also suggest that grazing causes widespread devastation on seemingly peaceful pastures. But don’t believe it because I say so; here’s what some field studies say:
>>5140772“Large herbivores consume the same vegetation as many rodents and they therefore have the potential to compete for food resources. They also reduce vegetation height and cover through trampling and grazing, which may damage nests and increase the exposure of small mammals to predation. The factors mentioned can all lower species richness.”Froeschke and Matthee, 2014[9]“Although owls seem to search for areas in which vegetation is sparse, transforming an entire pasture through intensive grazing would decimate small mammal numbers.”Marsh et al., 2014[10]“The [ungrazed area] supported 45% more grass cover, a comparatively heterogeneous grass community, and significantly more herb cover than the grazed pasture. … Various studies have shown that livestock exclusion may even accelerate woody plant growth in Southwestern rangelands. … Several of the species more abundant in the grazed area may be valuable indicators of desertification. … Collectively, grazing appeared to favor birds over rodents.”Bock et al., 1984[11]
>>5140773“Despite the relatively recent cattle grazing history in the study region, cattle appear already to have altered vegetation composition in areas where they have grazed more heavily. Total vegetation cover showed a tendency to remain higher in areas where grazing intensity had been historically light.”Frank et al., 2013[12][9] Froeschke, G., & Matthee, S. (2014). Landscape characteristics influence helminth infestations in a peri-domestic rodent-implications for possible zoonotic disease. Parasites & vectors, 7(1), pp. 1-13. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1756-3305-7-393.pdf[10] Marsh, A., Wellicome, T. I., & Bayne, E. (2014). Influence of vegetation on the nocturnal foraging behaviors and vertebrate prey capture by endangered Burrowing Owls. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 9(1), 2. Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Troy_Wellicome/publication/260634860_Influence_of_Vegetation_on_the_Nocturnal_Foraging_Behaviors_and_Vertebrate_Prey_Capture_by_Endangered_Burrowing_Owls/links/0046353aba61a2ffcb000000.pdf[11] Bock C.E., Bock J.H., Kenney W.R. & Hawthorne V.M. (1984) Responses of birds, rodents, and vegetation to livestock exclosure in a semidesert grassland site. Journal of Range Management, 37, pp. 239-242. Available at: https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/view/7711/7323[12] Frank, A. S., Dickman, C. R., Wardle, G. M., & Greenville, A. C. (2013). Interactions of grazing history, cattle removal and time since rain drive divergent short-term responses by desert biota. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3713037/
>>5140774Livestock farmers actively kill wildlifeOkay, so you shouldn’t read this section if you’re particularly sensitive, in a bad mood, or prone to nausea. I’m sure you already know what happens when a special interest group lobbies the government to use public funds – your tax money – to advance their interests. I’m sure you’re aware of what bank bailouts have done to the world economy. And how oil companies get no more than a rap on the knuckles when they destroy a marine ecosystem. Or how the conventional auto industry stalled progress on electric vehicle technology, or industrial lobbies have spent billions (on media and politicians) to confusing the public about the undeniable reality of climate change.But you probably do not know about all the wild animals that are massacred on behalf of livestock farmers. Many of us know about the cruel reality of factory farming and slaughterhouses, the damage caused to the Amazon rainforest by ranchers, and even all the oceanic fish that are killed to support livestock farming. But I’m talking about wild animals specifically killed at the behest of livestock farmers. Even if they never attacked livestock. With your tax money.
>>5140775This happens all around the world. In America and Canada, wolves and coyotes http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/09/22/wedge-wolf-pack-will-be-killed-because-of-increasing-beef-consumption/ are routinely poisoned, trapped or shot from helicopters for eating into farmers’ profits, prairie dogs for eating grass, http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/01/10/slaughter-innocents-yes-uncle-sam-really-planning-kill-16000-prairie-dogs geese for nesting or pooping, http://ourcompass.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/three-very-quick-actions-to-protest-the-upcoming-murder-of-250000-innocent-geese-and-their-babies/ or competing with grazing livestock. It’s not too different in the UK, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/birdlovers-angered-by-goose-cull-1425542.html which also culls animals like badgers for supposedly hurting the profits of dairy farmers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badger_culling_in_the_United_Kingdom Australia has killed almost 90 million kangaroos and wallabies in the past 20 years under the excuse that they’re at “plague proportions” http://www.animalliberation.org.au/kangaroo-culling/ (and I thought that sheep and cows are the non-native invasive species there). Individual incidents like these make the news if someone creates a petition, or organizes a protest, or speaks out on social media. What is not apparent, however, is the mind-boggling scale of killing carried out, often by government agencies, covertly, using your tax money, on behalf of private businesses and individuals, just so that livestock farmers can make a little extra profit.
>>5140776These include techniques such as gassing, trapping animals in steel snares and letting them starve and die from mutilation, using dogs to rip open live victims, burying them alive in their own dens, shooting them from helicopters, and even using phosphorous bombs to kill helpless cubs. By the hundreds. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/12/animal-torture-abuse-called-regular-practice-within-federal-wildlife-agency/?intcmp=relatedBut don’t take my word for it. Here’s what publicly available data https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2014/G/Tables/Table%20G_ShortReport.pdf from the ironically-named Wildlife Services http://www.predatordefense.org/USDA.htm unit says about wild animals killed in 2014. At the behest of the livestock farming lobby, the USDA killed around 322 wolves, 580 black bears, 800 bobcats, 61700 coyotes (also destroyed 425 homes), 5500 deer, 300 badgers, 2950 foxes, 8600 gophers (with 1162 homes destroyed) and 16,000 prairie dogs (with 73,560 homes destroyed). In addition to these massacres, they also systematically killed 22,500 beavers, 325,000 blackbirds, 4000 cardinals, 730 feral cats, 2090 coots, 16,560 cormorants, 542,231 cowbirds, 20,600 crows and ravens, 112,200 doves and pigeons, 6400 francolins, 21,400 geese, 100,730 grackles, 800 hares, 2560 marmots (with 1600 homes destroyed), 5500 skunks (and 30 nests) and 5000 vultures. All in all, they killed 2,713,570 wild animals, destroyed 79,845 homes, and rendered over 27,632,200 animals without territories or home ranges. All this in just one year.And livestock industry minions complain about all the mice supposedly killed for vegan food production.
>>5140777Final ThoughtsIn many ways, the controversy over the ethical cost of the vegan diet is similar to the controversy over climate change. Almost all evidence from field studies and controlled experiments clearly shows that climate change is significant and caused by human activity. And yet, industrial groups have orchestrated a controversy using ads, paid articles, hired “experts” and blog posts that double as press releases. They do not care to be right; their intention is to build an alternative narrative sow seeds of doubt in the mind of their customer, the average person. And so to the average person, climate change is unproven or beneficial, evolution is “just a theory”, and vegans are arrogant hypocrites.On one hand, this obfuscation of facts is driven by corporate greed, by an industry that wants to maintain status quo. On the other hand, it’s ardently supported by some meat consumers – regular people – who are defensive about their lifestyle choices. They do not want to be part of change in any form, want to be right all the time, and feel threatened by anything that challenges their assumptions, their habits and patterns of thinking.
>>5140778And so you get articles like those written by Mike Archer. Strangely (or not), they are written by a scientist who makes bizarre statements without offering any citation or sources (I’m not a scientist, and yet this article lists 14 references). Their choice of words, captions and title are clearly intended to provoke a reaction from vegans, perhaps hoping that they would make an emotional mistake and say something stupid. They are written by a paleontologist who, like the physicist S. Fred Singer who lobbied for tobacco and Big Oil, is writing on topics he probably has no expertise in. One of his posts was written for The Conversation, which is funded by the CSIRO, https://theconversation.com/au/partners/csiro which actively partners http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Farming-food/Breeding-better-animals with livestock farming corporations. http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/LWF/Areas/Landscape-management/Livestock-logistics It’s hard to take their claim of “no affiliations” seriously. Ironically, his life’s work has been to bring back the thylacine through cloning, although it was the livestock farming industry that caused its extinction in the first place. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/thylacine-hunted-into-extinction/Social change, even overwhelmingly positive change, is hard. We are emotional beings, and our consumption choices are driven by habits and culture, rather than our best interests. And yet information must be shared freely and plainly, in the hope that eventually, better sense will prevail over the egotistical need to be right all the time. And therefore, the malicious lie that vegans cause the deaths of more animals than meat eaters must be crushed whenever it crops up.
>The 2018 study by Fisher and Lamey estimates that the total number of animals (including reptiles) killed worldwide in plant agriculture is 7.3 billion. That’s worldwide. By contrast, 9 billion chickens are killed each year in the US alone (1 species, 1 country). And since over 40% of the world’s grain (including 70-80% of US wheat and 98% of US onions) are used as animal feed, it’s clear that even those incidental deaths would be a fraction of what they are today, if animal meat consumption dropped or ended. http://www.globalissues.org/article/240/beefwhile pastures look idyllic, they cause tremendous loss of biodiversity – to the extent that the wild plant and animal species that live on pastures are seen as indicators of desertification. As for animals escaping during harvest – surely you understand that an animal that finds food and shelter on a cultivated farm has a reasonable chance of surviving a threat, whereas an animal that has no habitat, no cover and no food on a pasture (deer, coyotes, foxes etc.) won’t exist at all. Why are you overlooking the fact that not having the habitat to feed, breed and hide is far more environmentally destructive than using a fraction of the land for agricultural production that also provides cover and food for wild species?There are many studies on this topic that I did not include in this article. For example, a 2013 study by the CIC states, “In Germany alone, the volume of wildlife losses resulting from grassland management amounts at a conservative estimate to 500,000 individuals, of which approximately 90,000 are fawns.” http://www.cic-wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Mowing_guide_EN.pdf
1. Beef cattle require 3 acres of land per grain-fed cow, and 9 acres of land per grass-fed cow. Over the entire production cycle, grass-fed beef requires 30% more land than grain-fed.Meat production using grass-fed cattle requires 35% more water than grain-fed cattle – which already have the highest water footprint of 1800 gallons per lb.Grass-fed cattle require 18 months to reach market weight, as opposed to 12 months (or even 8 months) for grain-fed cattle. Therefore, 30% more cattle will be required to meet existing demand – unsustainable even for a vast country like the United States, and impossible on a global scale. Plainly, replacing factory farming with pastures is a sure recipe for global famine.Because grass-fed cattle live 6 months longer, and because they are eating an inefficient diet (which is also unnatural, as wild cattle do not graze grass all day – they eat a variety of plants), grass-fed cattle emit 500% more (!!!) greenhouse gases than grain-fed cows – including 300% more methane, which is 86 times worse than CO2 over a period of 10 years.With significantly higher land use, grass-fed beef production would entail the massacres of many more wild animals by the USDA. The USDA’s Wildlife Services unit kills around 1.5 million wild animals each year at the behest of ranchers. Aside from ecologically vital predators like wolves, cougars, coyotes and bobcats, they kill any animal that can compete with livestock: rodents, blackbirds, badgers, deer, wild horses … Just because pastures look prettier than CAFO is not an excuse for you to be ignorant of the true ecological and ethical cost of meat, and the millions of wild animals actively killed on pastures to bring it to you.
>>5140759Better question: who gives a shit?All vegans are at least somewhat malnourished. Every society that has implemented meat restrictions or band has seen the less educated and wealthy people rapidly lose brain and body mass. The human body REQUIRES meat for optimum growth and function. Specifically seafoos and grass fed ruminant, which are higher in omegas and iodine. While vegans live longer on average, this is an artifact of comparing a group of wealthy people who have to be deeply analytical about their nutrient intake not to wither and die to a group of people who do not need to care and need not want to live an extra 2 years either. All statistics in favors of veganism are an emergent property of western vegans by choice being wealthy nerds. Globally meat intake is a determiner of lifespan, height, and IQ. Ever since the debunking of the blue zones (poor record keeping zones), healthy people who eat meat are more likely to live to 100 than either vegans or the dietarily careless. Vegans have a near-zero birthrate which is an implicit admission that a vegan diet can not support appropriate child development. Children raised on such deficient diets lose the advantage of their parents upper class genes with each generation. >>5140778Being vegan for “ethical” reasons is morally impermissible as it implies an obligation to enforce your “correct morals” (actually deranged and self harming) on others. All ethical/moral justifications for veganism are logically invalid.All vegans who play philosopher construct a batshit insane nonfunctional pseudo-religion solely to justify their self harming choice.
Too many words.
>>5140784Most climate change and pollution comes from india, africa, and china running dirty industry and waste disposal for cheap so US companies can cut costs to boost investor expectations and jews in the US can make more money off stock trading. These same people are telling you to starve yourself so they can get away with even more of this.
>>5140785>Being vegan for “ethical” reasons is morally impermissible as it implies an obligation to enforce your “correct morals” (actually deranged and self harming) on others.Based on ballot referendums and polls most people already disagree with you
>>5140790>1000 adults from the people who participated in their own genocide agree when pressed, they will answer whatever they think won’t get them called a “fascist”Who gives a FUCK what britcucks think? They participated in their own genocide. Their opinions are invalid. “survey of suicidal teen girls confirms philosophers suspicions that life is not worth living if brad fucks kelly instead of you”
>>5140790none of these are even exclusive of eating meat they’re just a bunch of soft oversocialized cunts longing for the traditional ranching you just wrote a “kill yourself for climate change… also pretend the east and global south dont exist because their poverty makes their per capita stats look good” screed condemning you fucking moron
Vegans will argue all day but when it comes down to it, if they have to make each of these choices in front of an audience>save one kitten from a tabletop blender or save a male chick from an industrial high speed grinder>save one cute dog from drowning or five chickens from slaughter>save ten cows from a chinese burger factory or one man from lethal injectionThey are choosing the correct options, or they are getting the shit beat out of them in the middle of their philsopho-cope rant.
>massive wall of text spam>Ignores human evolution>>5140796It's all performative bullshit. Virtue signaling before cutting your dick off was the preferred way. In this case it's a self imposed eating disorder (who's only benefits come from avoiding the blood sugar crash when eating carbs and fat/protein combined. Eat only carbs and there's no crash. Literally discovered a benefit of malnutrition lol.)
>>5140792ballot initiatives for farm animal welfare in multiple states show the same thing Also https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-137/voluntary-prosecution-and-the-case-of-animal-rescue/In 2017, Wayne Hsiung and other activists broke into Smithfield Foods' Circle Four Farms (a massive pig factory farm) in Beaver County, Utah (near Milford), to document conditions and removed two sick, injured piglets for veterinary care and sanctuary placement.The 2022 trial (moved from Beaver County to neighboring Washington County due to local bias and threats, as Smithfield is a major employer there) resulted in a full jury acquittal on burglary and theft charges despite clear video evidence, in a conservative southern Utah area that is majority Trump-voting.This outcome was notable given the rural, agriculture-heavy jury pool.If your argument boils down to might makes right this is a serious issue for your position
>>5140787They appeal to midwits>>5140789True kek. Liberals will never acknowledge brown people consume the most resources and pollute the most. Get Jamal eating vegan fried chicken before talking to me.
>>5140800Vegan and vegetarian demographics by race in the USA show notable variation with Black Americans consistently overrepresented relative to their share of the population. https://thehumaneleague.org/article/vegans-changing-demographic
>>5140801https://media.market.us/veganism-statistics/Black and Native American groups are where veganism is most pervasive in the United States. According to the BBC, 8% or about 1 in 12 Black Americans follow a vegan or vegetarian diet. Black Americans are reportedly the Americans whose veganism is expanding at the highest rate.
>>5140799>feel good voting, albeit for killing animals more cleanly, not veganism, proves everyone wants to starveRetard. People want to kill animals cleanly. They want more time off work to farm their own chickens. They don’t want a maltreated illegal immigrant shitting by the offal pile and returning to butchery and sloppy bolt pistol use without washing his hands. Also, do you even know what might makes right entails? It entails total subservience to the almighty. The way biology, nature, etc work are vastly mightier than all of mankind and are indistinguishable from the manifest will of an all powerful creator. The big chain of might and relativism leads up to the might of existence determining morals relative to your species and environment.
>>5140801>>5140805Ok now travel to India/Africa and promote veganism there. Tell my tire necklace cannibal nigger buddy to eat plants. Leave me alone.
>>5140805>>5140801The dietary caste system is working as it did in indiaThe idiots imitate a performative few brahmin and subsequently become weaker, dumber, and more easily controlled. Slave rebellion nipped in the bud… as long as the brahmin don’t get high on their own poison. Veganism is inherently oppressive. It excaberates class differences and writes them into biology.
>>5140806>People want to kill animals cleanly.Ballot referendums, polls and jury acquittals show people want humane treatment of farm animals also for the sake of the animals happiness and marketing departments know this
>>5140809So we agree people want to eat meat that isn’t tortured. Guess we’re going with grass fed cattle and beheading them with samurai swords.
>>5140807india was already infected by the universalist ethics virus. it is the direct, measurable cause of their tiny brains.
>>5140759>Y-you just can’t eat anything ok chud???Fuck this I want a huge steak with some farm raised veggies on the side. We don’t have to feed every brown beggar cannibal that comes knocking for free handouts, America is self sustaining we can just feed ourselves… imagine if millions and millions of “migrants” weren’t shipped over yearly and how much more food would be there to go around, among other things. Africa is such a vast continent, grow some fucking crops ffs.
>>5140818https://nypost.com/2026/07/05/real-estate/bidens-illegal-immigration-surge-triggered-rise-in-home-rent-prices-fed-paper/But illegals create jobs! It takes two of them to do the job of one american and the proper equipment to do the job safely and properly!
>>5140759i aint reading allat
>>5140759>>5140760Mice a CUTE!! And meatniggers lie about everything. Half of their lies exist to prop up the cattle rancher lobby. The other half come from crooked doctors trying to sell diet books.
>>5140759tl,dr: Yes.
