aaaaah avoiding the elephant in the room, are we? Where is your apology for pretending not to use the 'plants feel pain' argument and then lying about it? Not addressing that? Talk about intellectual dishonesty."As the numbers dwindle"...your not providing any real projections. By how much do you expect the population to decrease with the abolishing of farming? What is this decreased projection based on? There's 70 billion but what if it only goes down 20 billion? So you have 20 billion less cows but the ones left produce methane 5 times longer than their farm counter parts.
The average farm cattle produces 70 to 120kg methane per year lets go high end, 120. They live three years before slaughter, that's 360kg methane production per cow per life span(via farming) 360×70,000,000,000 = 2,520,000,000,000kg. If we take the lowest end of a vows avg. Life span which is 15 years that's a methane production of 1,800kg per cow per life span. The population of live stock would have to drop significantly to offset the increase they would produce. Using the previous example if the population dropped to 50 billion - 1,800 × 50,000,000,000 = 90,000,000,000,000kg as we can see to reach a similar 2.5 trillion kgs of methane the wild cow population would have to be reduced to around 1.5 billion cows. Do you see a realistic way of decreasing from billions and billions of cows down to just under 2 billion?
Farm life produces more methane than travel methods, don't know why you keep bringing this up as no one's been refuting it but ok, and yet you're advocating increasing the amount of time those producers are allowed to continue producing methane then say you're trying to help and remove methane. 1+1 don't = 2 in your equation.
It's not more ethical you self righteous **** stick. Is a bear more ethical when he eats a melon or some honey compared to if he ate a fish or human? You sound like an asshole.
Then that disproves his statement about non vegans being unwilling to change which was my initial point about said quote.
I like that you tried to do your homework, albeit with the wrong motivation.
So, it is not realistic to think that the whole world will turn vegan next week or next year, or even the next ten years.
It is a slow but steady process that will take atleast two generations (us) to get somewhere. By not breeding anymore livestock into existence, we put a halt to the production of livestock while the farmers transition to a plant-based produce. I can share a link with you of a site where british cattle farmers made the transition to plant produce successfully.
You wonder about the greenhouse gas emissions? With the rapid change in supply and demand, massive areas of farmland can now be recovered into forests and some used for animal sanctuaries to house the previously captive livestock. With recovering forests, the pollution is slowly being tackled, and water usage is more evenly distributed as the industry loses its grip slowly. A raise in demand for plant produce also makes for more air purifying farms and the process costs 8 times less energy than the production of animal protein. The numbers will drastically drop, but don't you worry about how we will get to 20 billion and below. How about you focus on what you can do to help. Even if the process is slow and tricky, does that excuse you from changing your habits that finance cruelty?
aaah another appeal to nature. tsk tsk you don't learn, huh? Again, you're not a lion or a bear. What happens in nature is not an excuse for you to finance animal suffering.
Regarding the famous activist: You didn't read properly. He said it didn't matter what his attitude was towards people, soft or dismissive. He was dismissive all the time and still converted a lot of people by sheer facts and mythbusting. And people on NB commented on my attitude not helping with convincing them about the benefits of veganism. Yet, others might read the facts, statistics, and moral dilemma and will think deeper about the issue, leading to them doing their own research.