Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Vegan hardline communists



pastafarian

pastafarian

Well-known member
Sep 4, 2011
11,902
Sussex
sydney said:
I've travelled a fair bit and seen some beautiful places & sights , i often wonder what certain places were like 300 or 400 years ago ....sydney harbour , port st.john in the transkei , the coromandel peninsula in Nz , the ports of Beira and Zanzibar and countless others would have been places of abundant beauty and natural wealth , it has taken us such a short time to munt a huge part of the planet ......the atmosphere being the main one , by far the worst is Asia & Indonesia by sheer weight of human population certain locations are disgustingly polluted and trash ridden.I still hope that there will be a move to clean up the planet but at the end of the day it is over populated by about 400% in my opinion.
Click to expand...

And there it is, the elephant in the room that the powers that be simply refuse to address and will continue to avoid.
There are too many people
 




pastafarian

pastafarian

Well-known member
Sep 4, 2011
11,902
Sussex
Mustafa said:
It's not so much that there are too many people, but each person on average carries with them a footprint that harms the environment. If we became a lot more efficient and environmentally friendly as a species, our population would not be an issue.

There is currently one cow, pig or sheep per every 2 people in the world. A significant reduction of meat eating would be a monumental step towards saving the planet.
Click to expand...

Its already an issue.........wake up.
Doesnt matter what environmental efficiency you put in place tomorrow, in a few years that will be negated by population increase, then you will need extra environmental efficiency until that is negated by extra population increase..........too many people, its a simple truth. Less people , more sustainable meat for others.
 


The Clamp

The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,537
West is BEST
pastafarian said:
WTF
NSC is being run by the political hard right? ?

:rotlf:

Has anyone told [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] ......surely is NSC being run by the hard right deserves a poll of polls,
meanwhile have some more tin foil.

View attachment 102381
Click to expand...

Now, please calm yourself before you read on . I’m reading one of your posts. I do it from time to time, it’s not anything to go into one of your infamous frenzy’s over. I have you on ignore so I don’t see the endless posts you used to tag me in. That’s all. This has been explained to you before so let’s all remain calm. I read a few of your posts and I reply to virtually none. I am replying to this one, please remain calm and know that I have already anticipated your fervid response calling me a narcissist and how you now have one up on me etc etc so don’t bother typing it, we’ll just take it as a given that those are your thoughts on my replying to you.

Anyway, to the point in hand . It’s a good un and you’ll kick yourself for getting so upset! You really will.......


I meant to type “ruining” not “running”.



Anywho, I only replied to spare you another pair of knickers, as you were.
TBFNSYSTC
X
 
Last edited:


The Clamp

The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,537
West is BEST
Mustafa said:
It's not so much that there are too many people, but each person on average carries with them a footprint that harms the environment. If we became a lot more efficient and environmentally friendly as a species, our population would not be an issue.

There is currently one cow, pig or sheep per every 2 people in the world. A significant reduction of meat eating would be a monumental step towards saving the planet.
Click to expand...


Where do we collect ours from?
 






pb21

pb21

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2010
6,328
Guy Fawkes said:
But they exist already, pretending they don't doesn't answer the issue of what happens to them all if everyone suddenly stopped eating meat tomorrow

So you want to save all the animals by wiping them out through the stopping them breeding in order to solve the issue of their being raised for consumption? Surely some quality of life is better than never existing at all to those animals?

Tackling conditions and treatment whilst alive so they are well treated and the quality of life they had would be more a better way to deal with animal welfare concerns, rather than demanding an end to the farming of animals

Whilst we are on the subject, what about pets? - should they be banned and phased out too? - especially cats and dogs due to the demand for meat needed for their diets and the damaging effect that would have on the environment and on the animals raised for this purpose

What about things like fertilisers that is made from manure? where do we source a replacement for this when there are no longer animals providing it? do we go for man made alternatives (and the possible side effects they may have on wildlife or possible long term human health problems which may be more damaging)

We would be growing far more crops so would need something

Would there also be a higher risk that disease and pestilence could lead to food shortages? - what about the impact of famine or drought affecting food supplies? (we become more reliant on crops for food and with more fields in use for crops, the chances of it causing problems if they fail surely becomes higher)
Click to expand...

1. If everyone literally stopped eating meat or consuming animal products now, then yes there would be a lot of redundant animals around. However this clearly wouldn't happen.

2. Animals that don't exist don't exist. If they do exist before existing and there is a queue of cows waiting to be born they will have to wait a little bit longer before living a fulfilling and happy life.

3. Better treatment for animals is obviously a good thing. Increased legislation is probably a good thing to address this.

4. Pets are generally happy, at least all the ones I know of are, my parents dog is as happy as Larry. pets are not the same as farmed animals, which are generally treated as a resource rather than a pet. In terms of eating meat, pets are not conscious beings able to exist on a non meat diet; we are and can.

5. Interesting point, something I hadn't considered before, presumably though manure isn't the only fertiliser. Also if animals are bred for fertiliser only then i can imagine the quality of life, through the increased legislation, would be better than it is currently.

6. True.

7. What about if a disease kills all the animals?

Essentially being vegan or vegetarian is about minimising the negative impact on animals as far as reasonable.
 




banjo

banjo

GOSBTS
Oct 25, 2011
13,247
Deep south
Just gonna throw this in the mix. Unless you eat seasonal veg. What about the impact on the environment of flying, or shipping in the veg from other countries. None of us are perfect. we could all do a bit more.
 












Herr Tubthumper

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
59,599
The Fatherland


Herr Tubthumper

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
59,599
The Fatherland








sydney

sydney

tinky ****in winky
Jul 11, 2003
17,754
town full of eejits
Mustafa said:
It's not so much that there are too many people, but each person on average carries with them a footprint that harms the environment. If we became a lot more efficient and environmentally friendly as a species, our population would not be an issue.

There is currently one cow, pig or sheep per every 2 people in the world. A significant reduction of meat eating would be a monumental step towards saving the planet.
Click to expand...

mate ...there are too many people and nothing can be done about it now .....it is what it is.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
59,599
The Fatherland










You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here