On 06/06/2021 18:25, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 15:15:40 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 14:35, T i m wrote:

Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

But often extensive use of the soil for vegetable crops is destroying
the soil structure. Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep. I wonder what
the state of this environment would be if the land was reallocated to
just growing crops for vegan food.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 18:32:34 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 18:25, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 15:15:40 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 14:35, T i m wrote:

Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

But often extensive use of the soil for vegetable crops is destroying
the soil structure.

It certainly is in the Amazon and all the other areas that are being
cleared primarily to feed *livestock*.

Many of those environments have evolved over the years to *only* be
self sufficient *because* of what grew there. Cut it all down and
plant for animal feed and the soil is exhausted very quickly.

Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass? Chances are, trees,
absorbing CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

I wonder what
the state of this environment would be if the land was reallocated to
just growing crops for vegan food.

It wouldn't be, we don't need to, it would be re-wilded.

And it's not 'vegan food', it's 'food' as everyone can eat it (and
they have been for thousands of years).

Cheers, T i m

On 06/06/2021 19:11, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 18:32:34 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 18:25, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 15:15:40 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 14:35, T i m wrote:

Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

But often extensive use of the soil for vegetable crops is destroying
the soil structure.

It certainly is in the Amazon and all the other areas that are being
cleared primarily to feed *livestock*.

No, demand is rising to grow soy by plant eaters.

Many of those environments have evolved over the years to *only* be
self sufficient *because* of what grew there. Cut it all down and
plant for animal feed and the soil is exhausted very quickly.

Cut it down to satisfy users of synthetic meat and the soil is exhausted
very quickly.

Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass? Chances are, trees,
absorbing CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Probably bare hills.

I wonder what
the state of this environment would be if the land was reallocated to
just growing crops for vegan food.

It wouldn't be, we don't need to, it would be re-wilded.

So less food overall, so this is all envy we're allowed to eat meat and
you're not. If you were worried about efficient land use, wilding it is
hardly a solution to your imaginary problem.

And it's not 'vegan food', it's 'food' as everyone can eat it (and
they have been for thousands of years).

Quite, and we've cooked and eaten meat for thousands of years, as well
as evolving the gene to digest milk.

On 06/06/2021 18:11, T i m wrote:
alan_m wrote:

Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?

[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Before the trees, there was a glacier about a km thick, but 'global
warming' some tens of thousands of years before the Industrial Age, got
rid of it. Shouldn't we go back to those times instead, as interglacial
warm periods are quite short when compared to the glacials?

--
Spike

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 08:26:47 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 18:11, T i m wrote:
alan_m wrote:

Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?

[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Before the trees,

snip

Thanks for yet another irrelevant history lesson outside the period of
relevance.

1/10 (you *really* must try harder).

Cheers, T i m

On 07/06/2021 09:04, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 18:11, T i m wrote:
alan_m wrote:

Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?

[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Before the trees, there was a glacier about a km thick, but 'global
warming' some tens of thousands of years before the Industrial Age, got
rid of it. Shouldn't we go back to those times instead, as interglacial
warm periods are quite short when compared to the glacials?

Thanks for yet another irrelevant history lesson outside the period of
relevance.

It's *all* relevant to the land in question.

--
Spike

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:26:10 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 09:04, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 18:11, T i m wrote:
alan_m wrote:

Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?

[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Before the trees, there was a glacier about a km thick, but 'global
warming' some tens of thousands of years before the Industrial Age, got
rid of it. Shouldn't we go back to those times instead, as interglacial
warm periods are quite short when compared to the glacials?

Thanks for yet another irrelevant history lesson outside the period of
relevance.

It's *all* relevant to the land in question.

But not to our current use or restoration to a 'realistic' timescale
level of bio-diversity for the purposes of a sensible discussion.

Cheers, T i m

On 07/06/2021 11:03, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 07/06/2021 09:04, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 18:11, T i m wrote:
alan_m wrote:

Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?

[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Before the trees, there was a glacier about a km thick, but 'global
warming' some tens of thousands of years before the Industrial Age, got
rid of it. Shouldn't we go back to those times instead, as interglacial
warm periods are quite short when compared to the glacials?

Thanks for yet another irrelevant history lesson outside the period of
relevance.

It's *all* relevant to the land in question.

But not to our current use or restoration to a 'realistic' timescale
level of bio-diversity for the purposes of a sensible discussion.

Now comes T i m ' s qualifiers to shore up his argument...

"...current use... ...realistic time-scale... ...level of
bio-diversity... ...sensible discussion..."

....none of which were previously mentioned.

--
Spike

On 06/06/2021 18:32, alan_m wrote:
On 06/06/2021 18:25, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 15:15:40 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 14:35, T i m wrote:

Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

But often extensive use of the soil for vegetable crops is destroying
the soil structure. Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep. I wonder what
the state of this environment would be if the land was reallocated to
just growing crops for vegan food.

In many cases it wouldn't economically feasible. Land used for sheep
farming is usually difficult to grow crops on. It would simple revert to
disused pasture.

Then of course more land would be required to farm plant food. Leading
to more Amazonian rainforest felled for industrial processes making tofu.

On 06/06/2021 18:23, Fredxx wrote:

Land used for sheep
farming is usually difficult to grow crops on. It would simple revert to
disused pasture.

Then of course more land would be required to farm plant food. Leading
to more Amazonian rainforest felled for industrial processes making tofu.

No! No!

T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

--
Spike

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 08:27:05 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

Yes, they are pretty good and we had half a bag between us yesterday
in a large salad wraps.

But I don't 'prefer' them over many other alternatives, with different
options providing better solutions in different circumstances.

Cheers, T i m

On 07/06/2021 09:07, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

Yes, they are pretty good and we had half a bag between us yesterday
in a large salad wraps.

You make them sound like Frankenfoods.

But I don't 'prefer' them over many other alternatives, with different
options providing better solutions in different circumstances.

Waffle.

--
Spike

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 08:49:10 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 09:07, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

Yes, they are pretty good and we had half a bag between us yesterday
in a large salad wraps.

You make them sound like Frankenfoods.

NO, you want them to sound like that to =try to offset your desire to
cause pain and suffering to (a bizarre subset) of animals.

But I don't 'prefer' them over many other alternatives, with different
options providing better solutions in different circumstances.

Waffle.

Complicated isn't it, all this general talk, when you are a left
brainer.

So, Spuke, WHY don't you eat cows and sheep?

Cheers, T i m

On 08/06/2021 14:11, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 07/06/2021 09:07, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

Yes, they are pretty good and we had half a bag between us yesterday
in a large salad wraps.

You make them sound like Frankenfoods.

NO, you want them to sound like that to =try to offset your desire to
cause pain and suffering to (a bizarre subset) of animals.

But I don't 'prefer' them over many other alternatives, with different
options providing better solutions in different circumstances.

Waffle.

Complicated isn't it, all this general talk, when you are a left
brainer.

So, Spuke, WHY don't you eat cows and sheep?

groan Freedom of choice - something that veganists would like to ban.


--
Spike

On 06/06/2021 18:32, alan_m wrote:
On 06/06/2021 18:25, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 15:15:40 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 14:35, T i m wrote:

Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

But often extensive use of the soil for vegetable crops is destroying
the soil structure. Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep. I wonder what
the state of this environment would be if the land was reallocated to
just growing crops for vegan food.

Traditional crop rotation used to include a year or two laid to grass
and used for livestock grazing. That way they lots of nice organic
fertilizer got deposited on the ground in the process (displacing more
carbon generated as a result of the manufacture of industrial fertilizer
and its transportation), and the livestock converted all that inedible
grass into something nice tasty and nutritious.

A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 18:32, alan_m wrote:
On 06/06/2021 18:25, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 15:15:40 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 14:35, T i m wrote:

Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

But often extensive use of the soil for vegetable crops is destroying
the soil structure. Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep. I wonder what
the state of this environment would be if the land was reallocated to
just growing crops for vegan food.

Traditional crop rotation used to include a year or two laid to grass
and used for livestock grazing.

Traditional in the UK and in some cases more likely.

That way they lots of nice organic
fertilizer got deposited on the ground in the process (displacing more
carbon generated as a result of the manufacture of industrial fertilizer
and its transportation),

Yup, we don't want any of that stuff thanks ...

and the livestock converted all that inedible
grass into something nice tasty and nutritious.

Ah, the 'good old days' (well, unless you were 'livestock' that is).

A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 07/06/2021 15:16, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip


A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.

On 07/06/2021 15:23, Richard wrote:
On 07/06/2021 15:16, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip


A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.


Well I did specify sane :-)



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:58:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 15:23, Richard wrote:
On 07/06/2021 15:16, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip


A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.


Well I did specify sane :-)

The idea is we (those who care about the miss/treatment of animals in
2021) aim high then it's not so much of an issue if we fall short. So,
if we say 'none' we mean 'as few as possible' and whilst a single
unnecessary death is still one too many, we would start with those
creatures who also live the worst 'lives' first and work back from
there.

So, yer stereotypical (2% representative) beef cow raised on grass
(and ignoring the fact that it's killed whilst very young, making the
death particularly 'unkind') would be further down the 'list' than
those who spend their (short) lives in a concrete feed lot (inc in the
UK).

Regarding sanity, I think most people would judge the idea of killing
something when it's death wasn't necessary might put a question mark
on the sanity of such a choice? Well, till you tell them it's for 5
minutes of taste and *specifically* that they don't have to see, let
alone do it themselves ...

History will tell just how sane we have been ... ;-)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04sh6zg

Cheers, T i m

On 07/06/2021 16:42, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:58:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 15:23, Richard wrote:
On 07/06/2021 15:16, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip


A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.


Well I did specify sane :-)

The idea is we (those who care about the miss/treatment of animals in
2021) aim high then it's not so much of an issue if we fall short. So,

why not post a link to something from 2017?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04sh6zg

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/phot...E9_460swp.webp

On 07/06/2021 16:42, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:58:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 15:23, Richard wrote:
On 07/06/2021 15:16, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip


A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.


Well I did specify sane :-)

The idea is we (those who care about the miss/treatment of animals in
2021) aim high then it's not so much of an issue if we fall short.

The usual technique is bit-wise slow changes. Going for broke tend to
leave you penniless and achieving nothing.

So,
if we say 'none' we mean 'as few as possible' and whilst a single
unnecessary death is still one too many, we would start with those
creatures who also live the worst 'lives' first and work back from
there.

Does this mean you'll going to support initiative that improve animal
welfare? For you that will be a first.

So, yer stereotypical (2% representative) beef cow raised on grass
(and ignoring the fact that it's killed whilst very young, making the
death particularly 'unkind') would be further down the 'list' than
those who spend their (short) lives in a concrete feed lot (inc in the
UK).

I don't think the dead cow is going to be very aware of anything.

Regarding sanity, I think most people would judge the idea of killing
something when it's death wasn't necessary might put a question mark
on the sanity of such a choice? Well, till you tell them it's for 5
minutes of taste and *specifically* that they don't have to see, let
alone do it themselves ...

Not just taste, but all those nutrients we don't get from plant food.
Without which a child's brain development is stunted.

History will tell just how sane we have been ... ;-)

Quite.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04sh6zg

In your dreams.