How many planets of vegetation would be needed to feed 6 billion people? How many to feed 9 billion in 2050? Obviously this is no solution.

There are only two solutions: respect towards other beings in every way possible, or disappearance of the human race. I am afraid the last solution is the only one truly available... The only way humans would not hurt this planet would be in small communities, backward, face to face with nature again. Progress in our today's direction means life will be more and more considered a mechanism, not a marvel.

Being vegan is another illusion that we respect life. 6 billion vegans would drive this planet to a sterile hell, because woods would need to be cut down and agriculture would need to harden its muscle in eliminating "unwanted plants and pests", cutting down diversity. And by the way, plants suffer too. Life creates life and feeds with life in order to continue. The problem is that we destroy and disregard too much in order to continue existing...

I am so sorry to say all these. I would prefer to see a solution. But I am not. The only reasonable solution is again back in caves, being again way under 1 billion... And this will happen sooner than we think. The problem is that we will "reap what we saw", so to reduce our numbers would mean that out of six people you know, only one would survive. If lucky.

Whew. Sounds like you've got that all wrapped up.

What I mean to say is that your bleak view of the world is an opinion that stands unfounded, and your commentary regarding sustainability is simply illogical. I will make a few comments here, but to really have a solid, in-depth discussion, you'll need to provide some evidence of your groundwork or that of others.

First: you begin with a fallacy known as a false dilemma. You present two options as though they are the only two.

Second: your comment on vegetation and sustainability is silly. Clearly vegans recognize the need for population control as well as the cessation of animal exploitation. But to answer your question regarding how many planets are needed to sustain current population? One. Earth. If you look at how much food is being filtered and wasted through an unfathomable and unnatural number of farmed animals, you'd see that our lack of sustainability is generated immediately and almost entirely by our animal product consumption. Step 1, stop this practice and reap near-immediate returns. Step 2? Look at the other necessary elements of sustainability (including population control).

Third: Your paragraph regarding a sterile hell is based on your previous false conclusion that MORE land destruction would need to occur in order to grow more vegetables. This is inaccurate.

Fourth: The statement that plants suffer will need some significant evidence before it can be taken as credible. Please provide some.

Fifth: You base your entire post on logical fallacies and inaccurate information and then say that you would prefer to see a solution. Well, that's good to hear, because we're very solution-oriented around here! It is possible to construct models wherein a vegan society is not only possible but totally worth shooting for. If your pessimism were correct, then I wouldn't have become vegan. And neither would three of my coworkers after having listened to my ideas for a year. And neither would the hundreds of thousands of people who are starting to make vegan choices.

Start with the premise that change can happen, then start looking at the impact that certain changes can have, finally, start to make the changes that align with your values.

Vegan IS impact.

Welcome to the board!

Mike

We are talking about humans, right? Not about theoretical creatures.

I would like to see a solution, but I cannot because of history... I only see civilisations disappearing because of their own stupidity and lack of responsibility. I only see a decrease in the diversity of life on earth, and more and more this lack of respect for life is manifested by humans.

Population Control? What is that?! Tell me you are kidding. Who will check who? Who will have the right to give birth and who will not? Will there be country quotas for birth? What about humans who are not efficient enough (healthy, strong, intelligent and so on)? Again, we are talking about humans, right? Not about characters in a fiction book. Population control means intervening where only nature should take its course, or an individual decision, no other will who will most surely try to benefit from its position of power.

When you look at a green crop, what do you see? Nature, diversity, bounty, or a green desert? Do you think that respect for nature means an agricultural planet? Do you think this planet will thank us for this?

Food filtered and wasted: true. But this is because of the human spirit, not because of something else. Individualism makes people not share what they cannot profit from. This total individualism that we cultivate everyday with great care makes people throw away perfectly good food or if they cannot sell it. Also, do not think about inventing processes for prolonging the term of expiration. This makes food become non-food for human life on the long run.

Your third argument is not an argument. But I cannot demonstrate here exactly how agricultural practices destroy the land (here's not the place for such demonstrations). If your common sense does not tell you that, this is it. You only look from your human point of view, you are a speciesist.

Any form of life suffers and experiences joy. These are the forces behind the wheel of evolution. We cannot understand how a plant suffers, but when it looks for the light and tries to cover and patch its wounds when cut, this is a sign of suffering. It is not a suffering in human terms, but it is nonetheless a form of expressing suffering, the will to live, the will to flourish and not disappear. If you do not recognize suffering and joy as manifestations of LIFE, then you again are intrinsically a speciesist.

It is good to become a vegan. It is a solution that you have found for yourself. But it is not a real solution for this planet. The real solution is this: back to the basics - absolute respect for life in general, not only for human or animal life. This respect does not mean you refuse to kill, because this would mean not eating anything, not walking, not breathing. This respect means you bow in front of the forces of life, do not try to bend them. Walk with them. And if they defeat you, there is no problem. You will transform and help other beings to live. This is basically the Zen way.

But very few humans have the guts to really do this, not even I who speak about all these - I am a hypocrit in this respect. So we are bound to reap what we sow. We sow suffering for this planet, so we will reap suffering. Maybe not you and me, maybe not our children. But somewhere in the web of life some beings (human and not human) will get seriously hurt. They already are. Nevertheless this is good in the evolution of life! In the morning the wind is uplifting and pleasant.

Hi Ash, welcome to the board.

I think there are several problems with your arguments, but I’ll focus on just one (I’ll let Mike respond to the rest, since the debate began between you two.)

QUOTE:
Any form of life suffers and experiences joy. These are the forces behind the wheel of evolution.

As far as scientific knowledge goes, this is simply not true. A machine need not feel (nor even be alive) to respond to stimuli in ways that enhance its ‘existence’. (Think, for example, of a computer that turns itself off when over-heated, before any severe and irreversible damage occurs.)

A virus (an entity that many scientists describe as non-living, since, among other things, it doesn’t have a metabolism) acts, or rather, reacts to environmental stimuli in ways that help it either keep on existing, making replicas of itself, or both.

In regards to evolution, the forces behind it are not the ones you describe. The only things that need to exist in order for evolution to take place are replication, variation, and selection. In other words, all you need is an organism that replicates; that it or its replicas can mutate; and that these mutations affect its survivability.

An entity need not ‘suffer and experience joy’ in order to replicate and mutate, nor does it need to subjectively experience anything to be able to react to stimuli.

Science corroborates this showing that not all living entities experience pain and pleasure. Just some forms of life evolved this capacity, which proved to have selective value for them.

Furthermore, current scientific knowledge tells us that there can be no pain, pleasure, or any other subjective experience in lack of a nervous system. Most life lack nervous systems, among them bacteria, fungi, plants, and even some animals.

So, no, suffering and joy are not manifestations of LIFE, nor is the capacity to experience them the force behind evolution. And there is no speciesism meddling with these conclusions.

Anyway, although I understand your underlying sentiments and some of your pessimism, I still don’t see what practical (let alone positive) implications your approach has. Since you say that the only solution is the disappearance of homo sapiens, may I ask what tactic do you propose to achieve this? Not procreating is the most obvious thing, but what else?

Or is your motto similar to a religious one I've encountered several times; namely, “the end is so near, and there is no way to stop it, so why bother?”

I’d like to know what your practical position is. I hope is not that you are simply trying to argue the inevitability of total chaos in order to refuse to change and accept responsibility.

Regards,

Samuel.

The thread starter is probably correct in that human beings are going to destroy themselves before ever creating a 100% vegan utopia. All the specific examples are rather incorrect, however.

If you truely beleived that Mike, would there be any motivation to become vegan in the first place? Surely there is a grand chance due to the possesion of nuclear weapons and global pollution, but veganism actually has the potential to lessen these chances! Even if only 50% of the population was to go vegan it would greatly reduce our impact on the environment and strain on our resources resulting in less wars being started to collect said resources in other countries, as well as an overall mutual respect for life, human or nonhuman.