[Discussion] If everyone was vegan
- Thread starter Belserion
- Start date
chopstickchakra
Active member
We would have more methane gases being dispersed, I know people try and say farms are the reason we have so much methane but it's the cows and if the cows aren't dying then they're breathing which makes methane. Just because you stop farming cows doesn't mean they stop producing methane gases. The more cows alive, the more methane being produced.
Plus we would have less available land for our ever growing population which would then be being joined by an increasing animal population as well. Eventually animals will need containing whether it's for food or space.
I think this is something vegans think will just disappear but it's still going to be an issue so I ask you which is more respectable to the life of that animal to kill it in order to gain sustenance and continue living or to kill that animal to make way for you?
Are you assuming aliens wouldn't eat other life forms?
Last edited:
salamander uchiha
Active member
Negative, if everybody went vegan that would speed up soil depletion. Vitamin and Mineral deficiencies would rise and malnourished people would die younger or struggle through their miserable lives. The planet would die an early death and even those "animals" we're trying to save would die off.
chopstickchakra
Active member
Do you think there's a wild animal more proficient and efficient at killing other animals than humans? A cow that lives 2-3 years may now live his whole life before being slaughtered. That's x years of increased methane, land depletion and vegetation consumption which if we were a plant based diet would mean less resources available to consume.
chopstickchakra
Active member
Is survival of the fittest moral? There's x amount of land and resources with an ever growing human population you want to change to a plant based lifestyle then allow more of a population that shares a plant based lifestyle to populate an area with limited land and plant based resources and not expect there to be a power struggle?
Animals will have to die so I ask you (as I asked in general earlier) is it more moral to kill that animal and use them to sustain yourself or to kill them so you can have the land and food they were taking?
HowDidIGetPrem
Active member
Awards
Definitely positive if things were to go nicely, but I don't things would go so well. It is not as though animals graze in unclaimed land, the land that is already taken will remain taken. If people no longer ate meat, these guys would still have an amount of animals & that land. It's simply a matter of doing something new with the two or the land itself. Pets will always needs meat, so not all of the animals would be discarded either even if there's nothing more to be done with them.
I mean, taking animals out of the equation makes everything better without a doubt. Despite what Chopstick is saying, it is not as though we will suddenly have millions of cows unleashed. If everyone were vegan or if meat were outlawed, the transition would be slow & sellers of the meat would read this change happening and slowly drop the amount of animals they're raising to to maintain a profit or keep what remains for other reasons. But, it's what will replace the animals that bothers me. The likeliest I see is something expensive, whatever it is, filling the land now given that crops probably don't cost shit to maintain but also wouldn't rake in as much as the animals did either.
I mean, taking animals out of the equation makes everything better without a doubt. Despite what Chopstick is saying, it is not as though we will suddenly have millions of cows unleashed. If everyone were vegan or if meat were outlawed, the transition would be slow & sellers of the meat would read this change happening and slowly drop the amount of animals they're raising to to maintain a profit or keep what remains for other reasons. But, it's what will replace the animals that bothers me. The likeliest I see is something expensive, whatever it is, filling the land now given that crops probably don't cost shit to maintain but also wouldn't rake in as much as the animals did either.
Pumpkin Ninja
Active member
Awards
No, we'd have less cows because we wouldn't breed them to meet our requirements. We'd have to get rid of a lot of cows alive first though. Plus I think a one time slaughter of a bunch of them is more ethical than continually raising and killing them.
Last edited:
Yeah right
Active member
Cows would die by the millions.
Chickens would die by the billions
Basically all meat animals would almost go to almost extinct level.
Why? Because there will be no reason to raise them anymore. They barely fit the natural ecosystem anymore.
States would lose a lot of money. People will lose their jobs. Families will break apart and some might die. When husbands don’t have a job or money, wife will cheat. Rise of Cucks all around. The real kind. Illegitimate children.
Chickens would die by the billions
Basically all meat animals would almost go to almost extinct level.
Why? Because there will be no reason to raise them anymore. They barely fit the natural ecosystem anymore.
States would lose a lot of money. People will lose their jobs. Families will break apart and some might die. When husbands don’t have a job or money, wife will cheat. Rise of Cucks all around. The real kind. Illegitimate children.
Last edited:
HowDidIGetPrem
Active member
Awards
Doing nothing at all and killing cows is the difference between those two though once the aftermath arrives. Once the cows are gone, you're doing nothing. That could not possibly be immoral when pitted to ongoing killings. It's a choice of choosing between continuing an immoral act or performing another that also puts the end to a situation that's already perceived as immoral. The second is more righteous, so should be less immoral(being right in some regards at least) if it garners backing specifically because people think it's the right thing(moral) to do.
It would be terrible...and I'm not saying this just because I'm not vegan.
There's a balance that's needed. We don't eat animals and they start to overpopulate.
That overpopulation would then lead to shortage of food and not just for them.
Animals eat plants. They run out of the food they need in the wild they're going to look towards farms.
And you can't just say you'd fix that with fences because then you'd have billions of starving and malnutritioned animals, rotting animal carcasses all over the forests and an increase in bug and scavenger populations. The only things that would even thrive off of this are "scavengers" like ants, vultures, or mushrooms and possibly insectivorous animals(??). All animals that rely plants for their diet would go to near extinct levels and because of that so would carnivorous animals. Then eventually the scavengers would just die off too because there's nothing left.
We rely on animals for more than people realize. They're not just a food source. They keep the environment clean, they keep plants alive, they provide the balance that we can't always give. Humans destroy more than animals but an overpopulation of anything is never good. It would completely destroy whatever balance there is.
There's a balance that's needed. We don't eat animals and they start to overpopulate.
That overpopulation would then lead to shortage of food and not just for them.
Animals eat plants. They run out of the food they need in the wild they're going to look towards farms.
And you can't just say you'd fix that with fences because then you'd have billions of starving and malnutritioned animals, rotting animal carcasses all over the forests and an increase in bug and scavenger populations. The only things that would even thrive off of this are "scavengers" like ants, vultures, or mushrooms and possibly insectivorous animals(??). All animals that rely plants for their diet would go to near extinct levels and because of that so would carnivorous animals. Then eventually the scavengers would just die off too because there's nothing left.
We rely on animals for more than people realize. They're not just a food source. They keep the environment clean, they keep plants alive, they provide the balance that we can't always give. Humans destroy more than animals but an overpopulation of anything is never good. It would completely destroy whatever balance there is.
HowDidIGetPrem
Active member
Awards
Animals have gone on without humans screwing with them on such a large scale since forever, why do you think it'd be different this time around?
This is entirely false. Where are you basing any of this? Soil depletion is a multifaceted issue caused by things such as tiling farming practices, acidification and alkalization of soil, or even wind erosion. How does switching crops to be grown for animals over to being grown to feed humans accelerate or decelerate the rate of soil depletion?
Deficiency tho
You must be registered for see links
Vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores have access to all nutrients on all diets. Inb4 b12. Cyanocobalamin and other forms of b12 are found in most enriched grains, and forfitied foods. Name any essential vitamin that's found in an omnivorous diet that isn't found in a vegan diet?
Animal deaths tho
You must be registered for see links
50+ billion animals are being killed PER YEAR as a product of meat consumption. How does gradually cutting the amount of global meat consumption down to zero increase the rate of animal deaths?
How does the Earth die an early death as a product of an ecoshift toward less consumption? This is the most moronic comment I've seen in ages.