Hi,
Since all the meat eaters really dont want to part with their beloved protein, I vote the meat eaters should make the switch and do their bit. 😛
But seriously, they are still animals, I dont eat anything with a face or their byproducts, and I have a feeling a lot a people that adhere to the vegan ideals would feel the same way.
oooohhhhhmmmmmm
You should sit in meditation for 20 minutes a day, unless you're too busy, then you should sit for an hour.
- Zen proverb
But the argument is that it would be ethically better for vegans to eat insects too.....although that does mean placing the value of an insect's suffering (I am allowing for the opinion that killing is a form of suffering) below that of other animals. The vegan philosophy seems to be out of date regards this.
Last edited:
It's a moral stance and one stemming from empathy.
It's not belief really. Well I guess, during the time of slavery you might have said - from being in the moral majority - that a stance that said those slaves were equal human beings and not savages was a "belief". So I can see where that idea comes from that a moral stance is just a belief, normally comes from being backed up by the majority..
I can't believe in this day and age there are people who still can't get their heads around an empathetic feeling at not wanting to deliberately harm animals for selfish gain...
Crazy how humans normalise things to such an extent that anything outside of that normalisation is becomes completely non-sensical. I think that if one keeps up learning throughout their lives and new experiences, enjoys the company of people different to themselves (completely), people's brains remain flexible and able to them comprehend ideas alien to their own.
This is a basis for the argument If Vegans Replaced Plants With Insects, They'd Harm Fewer Animals | HuffPost
I'm not vegan - only vegetarian - I wouldn't eat insects because I don't need to and they have a very important place in the ecology of the environment. And I say that with an understanding that mnay insects don't really have feelings - they have been found to eat themselves or be eaten whilst eating something else and not even notice..
If we're in a position of their not even being enough plants to feed the world (assuming the world had gone vegetarian first), then we will be far in the future and protein would be made in other ways, probably including GM plants.
If we're in a position of their not even being enough plants to feed the world (assuming the world had gone vegetarian first), then we will be far in the future and protein would be made in other ways, probably including GM plants.
Regardless of the argument, you can't make anyone eat bugs/insects if they dont want to.
Until I see some proper studies on environmental impact, etc... I'll just assume that it is just ploy to test the values of the vegan movement.
The insects would be bred. Many omnivores already eat them and more are being persuaded. The argument is that if more vegans ate insect fewer animals of higher orders would suffer
They might not even know they're eating them 😉🙂
That maybe so, but you can't make people not be paranoid 😀
So the solution to farmers harming animals to increase their profits (personal gain at the expense of another living animal), is to get those who care about the animals to change their ways... ?
That is the same logic of a saying the solution to domestic violence is to get a women's sanctuary to stop the women from annoying their violent husbands by slapping them until they learn.. (sorry to anyone if that's an insensitive analogy - only thing I could come up with quickly!). Kind of.. can you see what I'm getting at?
I take that article to be written from a place of anger against those with a moral stance that the author feels is judging them. You see that all the time...
Is it your argument? Are you willing to own it as your opinion and explain it and provide evidence for its validity?
If not, then we can just say "Interesting. Sounds like BS to me though" and not have a need to provide any counter evidence either.
That could be the case. But, leaving feelings aside (I know it's not easy) I think it is a valid argument
I beg to differ!
How often has a person with a fly in their soup let it go unnoticed! 😀😛
Unless it took a deep dive...
I don't. the problem outlined in the article is the use of pesticides and current farming practices which are, lets face it, centuries old but with patches patches of modern fixes on top to increase yields to increase profits.
Meanwhile we have food surpluses and farmers are paid to leave land aside to stop them producing.
It's all about money and crazy arbitrary rules and regulations that are kind of protectionist indirectly.
It's also about financial markets and commodities trading and derivatives directing the pricing and what farmers get for their crop.
Need a re-working of argriculture instead.
There could be basic ways of scaring away animals but the farmers don't care about not killing them and those methods would cost them money and effort, which they are not willing to spend nor exert.
Last edited:
I agree productivity is the biggest issue and a large population who have got used to cheap food
- Status
- Not open for further replies.