sustainability...

[greenorelse]

thank you for that. i have often wondered if it is sustainable as i guess im a part-time carnivore and considering switching to a completely veggie lifestyle but have often wondered about all these sustainability issues - those regarding soya bean etc.

There are soya beans organically-grown in Europe, crowsashes. 95% of all soya beans grown (much on cleared rainforest land) is fed to livestock.

i know a couple who class them selves as vegan but still eat eggs, by their logic they only keep hens and thus the eggs are un-fertilised and not a 'living creature' so dont see the problem otherwise it would go to waste. but is that out weighed because they use soya milk ?

There's a range of viewpoints on such issues; it's up to individuals as to where to draw a line. I feel that providing safety and food for other animals in return for (whatever) can be a kind of symbiosis. I don't like exploitation for exploitation's sake.

Also, it takes less land, water and resources to feed a vegan than just about any other diet. Actually, that's the answer to your question, isn't it? I mean, how can feeding food to an animal be more sustainable for humans than feeding it directly to humans?

that is true but what about small domestic set ups that many of us have where we keep hens for eggs? yes they require food but as has been said also provide a valuable resource ( manure) and they eat up kitchen scraps, clear grubs from the garden and help clear beds etc. cattle are probably the worst- i can live without beef and pork. but then theres sheep - again another duel purpose animal providing us with both wool and meat? yes we dont need to eat them to make use of the wool but does it really make sense to graze sheep all year and not to use them to provide food after all the can live where we cant necessarily grow food?

See above and earlier posts.

[Odsox]

It goes back to the fact that intensive grazing requires large amounts of land so really you're reinforcing my point, Odsox.

This was part of my point, arguments that despair me.
I'm not talking about "intensive" grazing, that is restricted to rich arable land. I'm talking or poor hill land that can probably only sustain about half a dozen sheep to the acre, "extensive" grazing over many thousands of acres.
In your scenario there would be no agriculture at all in parts of Ireland, Scotland or Wales and your beloved soya beans would have to be shipped in from warmer climates to feed the thousands of now redundant small farmers and other rural dwellers.

How is that sustainable ?

Sorry I upset you over my word "compulsory", I was merely trying to envisage a world of 100% vegetarianism.

[boboff]

We are all dooooooooomed!

[TheGoodEarth]

The Brundtland Commission set up by the UN in the 1980's defined sustainability as

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"

This is widely accepted as the most accurate definition of sustainability by countries around the world.

So no matter what you do with your soya beans or sheep, unless it meets this definition it is not sustainable.

[gregorach]

We are all dooooooooomed!

Of course we are. The question is, what do we do while we wait?

[MKG]

We are all dooooooooomed!

Of course we are. The question is, what do we do while we wait?

Make beer and wine. Drink beer and wine. Make more beer and wine.

There's a solution to doomsday.

[gregorach]

That's certainly the plan I've been working on so far MKG... Seems to be going OK.

(Well, except for pouring about a gallon of beer all over the living room floor last night... Always check that your barrel taps are closed before starting siphoning and leaving the room! Thank God I've got laminate flooring.)

[greenorelse]

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"

This is widely accepted as the most accurate definition of sustainability by countries around the world.

So no matter what you do with your soya beans or sheep, unless it meets this definition it is not sustainable.

Well said.

[greenorelse]

I'm talking or poor hill land that can probably only sustain about half a dozen sheep to the acre, "extensive" grazing over many thousands of acres.

...which circles back round to my point: intensive grazing elsewhere puts pressure on marginal land - ie, we end up exploiting every inch.

In your scenario there would be no agriculture at all in parts of Ireland, Scotland or Wales

In parts, quite possibly but again, 'every inch'.

your beloved soya beans would have to be shipped in from warmer climates to feed the thousands of now redundant small farmers and other rural dwellers.

Whoa! With respect, Odsox, hey're not 'my beloved'! Soya beans make up only 5% of human food and most of that is a filler in bread and pizzas.

And many of these 'thousands' are only able to be there through EU subsidies. Is that sustainable?

Hey, thanks for going with this Odsox. I mean it, we all need challenging from time to time.

[oldjerry]

I've read this thread through and through and I can see reason on both sides.But the following thought occurs,would you suggest a vegan diet for say an Innuit? Course not,it's not appropria\te to where they live.Given the distance your transporting essentials,is it appropriate for the UK(or similar)?
Only a half-wit ,or someone with shares in McDonalds,would argue in favour of widescale intensive livestock farming on arable land,but In upland areas whats the problem?

[niknik]

for a truly sustainable lifestyle to food we eat would need to be local, the types we grow fit with the local environment- for thousands of years we lived on local plants this would help preserve the local ecology, by growing food specific to its area we limit the need for pesticides, it would take time but it is possible.

So what about all the various veg we did without until the Americas were discovered? potatos, tomatoes, peppers.etc........ and fruits too....... that now all grow quite happily, nearly world wide, witout any special conditions?

LOcal ecology has somewhat changed since then. ansd also various other plants, thta now also grow wild in the UK but were originally from lands much distant...
Do we get rid of all of them?

[greenorelse]

I've read this thread through and through and I can see reason on both sides.But the following thought occurs,would you suggest a vegan diet for say an Innuit? Course not,it's not appropria\te to where they live.

The Inuit pay for their lifestyle with a significantly reduced lifespan, as do other cultures (thinking about Americans...) featuring a high-meat diet. I admit there are other factors involved - smoking, alcohol etc - brought about by contact with other 'civilisations'. Essentially, though, you're talking about a minority who cling on by the skin of their teeth, fair play to them.

Given the distance your transporting essentials,is it appropriate for the UK(or similar)?

See earlier posts.

Only a half-wit ,or someone with shares in McDonalds,would argue in favour of widescale intensive livestock farming on arable land,but In upland areas whats the problem?

Ditto.

[dave45]

You seem to be missing the energy angle.

"Ever since we ran out of arable land, food is oil. Every single calorie we eat is backed by at least a calorie of oil, more like ten."

from http://harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915 - a fascinating read !

[MKG]

The Inuit pay for their lifestyle with a significantly reduced lifespan, as do other cultures (thinking about Americans...) featuring a high-meat diet. I admit there are other factors involved - smoking, alcohol etc - brought about by contact with other 'civilisations'. Essentially, though, you're talking about a minority who cling on by the skin of their teeth, fair play to them.

Now that's a bit naughty. For every "report" highlighting the damaging effects of a high-meat diet on the Inuit, it is a simple matter to find another poo-pooing the whole thing and, in some cases, actually stating the opposite. And I hardly think that the Inuit would regard themselves as a minority in the very large areas of Canada now classed as their semi-autonomous homeland.

Veganism, no matter anyone's personal stance on the matter, is an intellectual ideal and a political statement. Why anyone should think that its health benefits need to be either attacked or defended (or worse, rammed down unwilling throats) is completely beyond me.

Mike

[grahamhobbs]

This has been a very interesting thread with clear points made from both 'sides'. The point that hasn't been mentioned is that veganism is essentially a moral question, whereas sustainability primarily a practical one. Moralists tend to have rigid boundaries whereas pragmatists fuzzy ones.

Most of us aspire to live morally but don't like being moralised to by others, why because morals are man made (although some try to claim moral authority because their morals come from an almighty).

To me we are part of nature but are also in conflict with it, even in raising our vegetables, we work with nature as best we can but we also have to struggle against the weather, pests, etc. It is a balance, it is also a balance as to our diet.

In the west we can nowadays eat anything from anywhere in the planet, whether it is good for us or the planet is however debatable. In the past, peoples in more northerly climates had no choice but to eat mainly meat, whilst in other places the poor had no choice but to go without meat, both suffered through poor diet. We now have the luxury of deciding what is best for our morals, our diet and for the planet.