NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello,

I am new here and very interested to find out if there are any pro-vegan and anti-animal cruelty nations/communities here. This is for networking purposes.

Ideally, it would be an amazing experience to start or join a nation that is sustainable without the use of animals for food, entertainment, experimentation or fashion.

This is something I promote in the RW too.

Hope to get some reponses soon.

We believe a government has no place in the people's diets, and oppose your plan, whatever it is for. Also, we would like to ask you exactly what you consider to be "animal cruelty", because eating meat is obviously not, since other animals do it.

-Parlament Swilajski

I understand your concern regarding a proposed government/nation that chooses to dictate what food it's people eats. It is a very rational response.

My objectives are to generate a open dialogue about veganism as the means to ending animal cruelty.

I am open to the reading the opinions of others.

Here are some points I wish to share with everyone:

Animal cruelty exists in the meat industry. One only has to look at the treatment of animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses to realize that there is tremendous cruelty to animals.

Animals in the wild kill other animals primarily for sustenance. They do not create self-imposed "eco-systems" that are unnatural to the flow of life and evolution.

Why veganism has a place in the decisions that governments make:

Animal agriculture is an environmental disaster. It is an inefficient way of producing food, since feed for farm animals requires land, water, fertilizer, and other resources that could otherwise have been used directly for producing human food.

Animal agriculture's dependence on higher yields accelerates topsoil erosion on farmlands, rendering land less productive for crop cultivation, and forcing the conversion of wilderness to grazing and farm lands. Animal waste from massive feedlots and factory farms is a leading cause of pollution in groundwater and rivers.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has linked animal agriculture to a number of other environmental problems, including: contamination of aquatic ecosystems, soil, and drinking water by manure, pesticides, and fertilizers; acid rain from ammonia emissions; greenhouse gas production; and depletion of aquifers for irrigation.

In a time when population pressures have become an increasing stress on the real world environment, there are additional arguments for a vegan diet.

The United Nations has reported that a vegan diet can feed many more people than an animal-based diet. For instance, projections have estimated that the 1992 food supply could have fed about 6.3 billion people on a purely vegetarian diet, 4.2 billion people on a 85% vegetarian diet, or 3.2 billion people on a 75% vegetarian diet.

Please feel free to discuss. Thank-you.

Isn't this more of an IC issue?

Veganism is a great way to promote increased population density, and intensive cultivation of land. Where animals would roam now there would be gardens lot of them, in a very concentrated amount. Veganism is often a response to not having enough crop land for too many people.

There would be little attempt to curb animal population growth as well. Elimination of animal pests, mice, rats, deer, and other animals would become a major problem.

Because the diet is focused on vegetables and fruits, more exotic fruits and vegetables would be incorporated in the diet. This means more farmland cleared for exotic plant cultivation especially in places like rainforests. More banana plantations, more orange plantations in the amazon.

Veganism in some ways is very imbalanced. It does not use land properly. Animals and humans have lived together for a very long time. Killing animals for meat may not be a realistic answer, but wool, milk, and companion animals have been part of human life for a very long time. Keeping a dog is not slavery it is symbiosis.

The view on animals and their place in the world is at best naive in veganism. Animals are not tourist attractions. They are living beings. Veganism is an excessively civilized response to the way world works. It is thoroughly out of touch with the natural world.

This is very interesting response/post Commonalitarianism

Veganism is a lifesyle that encourages individuals to take only what is needed and to reduce excess. This is not a naive lifestyle, it is revolutionary. Many non-human animals live as herbivores so it is only natural for veganism to occur within the human race. This is not a new lifestyle. It has a history which requires another post of it's own.

With regards to the concerns with animal population growth, the increase of "animal pests" is not associated with veganism but rather the human interference with natural ecosystems. When humans hunt or destroy the natural habitats of predatory animals, the ecosystems become overpopulated by smaller, faster reproducing animals. By illimating the human as predator, the predatory animal populations would increase.

It is ironic that you have suggested that veganism would lead to clearing the rainforests for plantations. The educated and environmentally conscious vegan supports earth-friendly farming. This is a balanced agricultural approach that draws on sustainable local farming traditions. An astounding number of fruits (bananas, citrus), vegetables (peppers, okra), nuts (cashews, peanuts), drinks (coffee, tea), oils (palm, coconut), flavorings (cocoa, vanilla, sugar, spices), and other foods (beans, grains) originated in and around the rainforest and would grow in abundance if the rainforests were to be protected from the current majority human diet.

Veganism vs. raising animals for meat is far more efficient in terms of land use. An acre of land growing oats produces 8 times the protein and 25 times the calories, if the oats are fed to humans rather than to cattle. An acre of land used for broccoli produces 10 times the protein, calories and niacin as an acre of land producing beef. Statistics like these are numerous. The world's resources would be more efficiently utilized if the land used for livestock production was converted to raising crops to feed people.

Raising animals for meat has unquestionable consequences. It leads to rain forest destruction, global warming, water pollution, water scarcity, desertification, misuse of energy resources, and world hunger. The use of land, water, energy, and human effort to produce meat is not an efficient way to use the earth's resources.

Since 1960, some 25% of Central America's rain forests have been burned and cleared to create pasture for beef cattle. It has been estimated that every four ounce hamburger made from rain forest beef destroys 55 square feet of tropical rain forest. In addition, raising cattle contributes significantly to the production of three gases which cause global warming, is a leading cause of water pollution, and requires a staggering 2464 gallons of water for the production of each pound of beef. It only takes 29 gallons of water to produce a pound of tomatoes, and 139 gallons to produce a one pound loaf of whole wheat bread. Nearly half of the water consumed in the United States goes to the growing of feed for cattle and other livestock.

I agree that animals are not tourist attractions. Yes- they are living beings. Yes - Veganism is an excessively civilized response to the way world works.

I do not agree that veganism is thoroughly out of touch with the natural world. Veganism is a way of life that promotes the entire ecosystemof life not a single species.

It really is time for humans to consider the destruction caused in the last 50 years. A vegan and revolutionary approach is to ask humankind to make some sacrifices and give something back to the planet. To nurture it and stop finding ways to reap rewards for short term gain.

Mass meat production is a form of slavery. Humans are part of the factory farming equation. Very few people question authority when it comes to food or diet. The metaphor of eating meat as being natural was lost as soon as factory farming started.

I hope this conjures up some new thoughts from others.


Veganism is a great way to promote increased population density, and intensive cultivation of land. Where animals would roam now there would be gardens lot of them, in a very concentrated amount. Veganism is often a response to not having enough crop land for too many people.

There would be little attempt to curb animal population growth as well. Elimination of animal pests, mice, rats, deer, and other animals would become a major problem.

Because the diet is focused on vegetables and fruits, more exotic fruits and vegetables would be incorporated in the diet. This means more farmland cleared for exotic plant cultivation especially in places like rainforests. More banana plantations, more orange plantations in the amazon.

Veganism in some ways is very imbalanced. It does not use land properly. Animals and humans have lived together for a very long time. Killing animals for meat may not be a realistic answer, but wool, milk, and companion animals have been part of human life for a very long time. Keeping a dog is not slavery it is symbiosis.

The view on animals and their place in the world is at best naive in veganism. Animals are not tourist attractions. They are living beings. Veganism is an excessively civilized response to the way world works. It is thoroughly out of touch with the natural world.

You are correct in some ways about cattle. Cattle should be raised on more marginal land, not farmland per se. It is more of a question of appropriate land use. Beef is a real problem. Yes, people eat way too much meat, but not all land can support intensive vegetable cultivation. A diet with eggs, chicken, and fish makes a lot more sense.

Veganism also started as a religious response to the world. The closest diet to veganism is the diet of the buddhist monk, or Jain without milk or meat. It did not start as a response to the environment. Thus it is both excessively civlized and in some senses religiously enlightened.

Also in those countries with a massive vegetarian focus there is much greater population density and much greater loss of land to cultivation.

I am going to disagree with you on the idea of plantations. As much or more land is turned over to inappropriate vegetable cultivation for hungry western consumers of cocoa, sugar, coffee, and tropical fruits (luxury goods). A better response is to buy local produce and local farm products. This does more to save the rainforests than veganism can.

The idea that removing humans from the food chain will bring balance to the world is rather naive. On the contrary humans should be more aware of their place in the food chain. Hunting and fishing while appearing cruel bring people closer to their place in the wild. It makes people more aware of the nature of wilderness and creates an urge to preserve what is there.

Living in cities in some ways is synonymous with destroying wild land. In urban populations there are already examples of this. Overpopulations of deer which could not be effectively controlled with vegan methods, coyotes moving into cities, rats and raccoon populations blossoming in urban settings. Bears moving into urban housing. Making more land cultivated would only attract them more.

The problem is also with the nature of most people. What is not used people destroy. In the medieval mindset, productive land, i.e. farmland is more "valuable" than wilderness. And if farmland is the most "productive" land it becomes the most valued land.

The other problem is one of human greed. There is more than enough food to feed everyone. It is more of a problem of human values that causes the problems of starvation. Farmers are paid not to feed people and not to produce goods in many western economies.

You are correct about factory meat farming being cruel and zoos being cruel.

It's all well and good to talk about ceasing to eat meat and animal products, but that's discrimination against the poor vegetables! How can you possibly think of raising vegetables for the sole purpose of eating them? That's needless cruelty if I've ever seen it; for all we know carrots have feelings too! How would you like it if someone dragged you out of your house and cut you in pieces for their salad?! EVERY TIME YOU EAT A CARROT, I CAN HEAR IT SCREAM!

I propose, rather than eating life-forms and sentience, we limit our diet to rocks, the carcasses of dead animals and plants, and air. Or wait! We might devour some innocent microorganism in the process!

-- I. A. Takahashi, Oligarch-Elect of Czarna City-State

This has been an IC post and may not represent the opinion of the player behind Czardas in real life

The above line of text has been blatantly stolen from Goobergunchia

Sarcasm can often be useful in areas of debate to draw humour into a discussion but there is a difference between wit and idiocracy.

For the record, plants lack a central nervous system and a brain, both of which are necessary in order to register pain. A painful response can be indicated by both its physical and emotional manifestation, each of which underscores the other. For example, a calf in a veal crate not only senses pain because he has been denied freedom of movement and has tender joints, but also because this restriction has kept him from his normal grazing instincts and comforts. His physical pain is compounded by his emotional pain, and vice versa. This calf possesses a central nervous system and a brain, so pain is experienced in a way scientists can chart, just as it would be with humans. The calf's piteous cries at being taken from his mother can be understood by anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of animal behavior as emotional trauma.

Plants, however, differ from animals in significant ways. For one, as mentioned earlier, they lack the necessary physiology to register a painful response. Any being that can feel pain can also has been equipped through evolution with the ability to remove oneself from the cause of threat or pain. Furthermore, though plants have needs that must be met in order to thrive, they do not have complex social relationships and instictive needs for comfort, which, when denied, cause prolonged and identifiable suffering.

Perhaps it is possible that plants do feel pain, and we lack technology sensitive enough to prove this. If this is so, it is unfortunate, as we need plants in order to live. All beings with sentience must consume in order to survive. Meat and animal products, however, are absolutely elective and unnecessary - actually, they are detrimental - to human health. If it is true that plants feel pain, one can be comforted by the fact that they are taken at the end of their lives and, as opposed to animals, are allowed to go through their life cycle under the sky as nature designed.

The truth is that all all animals - from crustacean to mammal - avoid pain and seek comfort. This is motivation enough to treat other beings that we know have the capacity to suffer with as much compassion and consideration as we can.

Kesshite is not a vegetarian nation, though we do consume less meat than many of our first world contemporaries, and cows are not native to the region. We're also uncertain how a vegetarian nation could exist without the removal of private property and the creation of laws against meat eating.

We're also uncertain how a vegetarian nation could exist without the removal of private property and the creation of laws against meat eating.Laws banning meat consumption, sure, but how does removal of private property play into this?

This is very interesting response/post Commonalitarianism

Veganism is a lifesyle that encourages individuals to take only what is needed and to reduce excess. This is not a naive lifestyle, it is revolutionary. Many non-human animals live as herbivores so it is only natural for veganism to occur within the human race. This is not a new lifestyle. It has a history which requires another post of it's own.

Many non-human animals live as carnivores, so it is only natural for humans to eat nothing but meat.

Many non-human animals urinate to define their domain, so it is only natural for humans to do so as well.

You see the problem? You aren't using the term "natural" properly. If it means anything at all, it means what is appropriate to the species in a state of nature, i.e. an environment it does not control (a problematic concept in itself, given that all species affect their environment as much as they can, but that's a different issue). In a state of nature, i.e. prior to the development of civilization, humans were omnivores (and our close relatives, the neanderthal,were carnivores). It is therefore highly unnatural for humans to avoid meat.

With regards to the concerns with animal population growth, the increase of "animal pests" is not associated with veganism but rather the human interference with natural ecosystems. When humans hunt or destroy the natural habitats of predatory animals, the ecosystems become overpopulated by smaller, faster reproducing animals. By illimating the human as predator, the predatory animal populations would increase.

All animals are predators of something, even if the "something" is a vegetable. To that extent, all animals affect their ecosystem, and humans necessarily affect it on a massive scale because our numbers are so disproportionate to what would be expected of a mammal our size.

It is ironic that you have suggested that veganism would lead to clearing the rainforests for plantations. The educated and environmentally conscious vegan supports earth-friendly farming. This is a balanced agricultural approach that draws on sustainable local farming traditions. An astounding number of fruits (bananas, citrus), vegetables (peppers, okra), nuts (cashews, peanuts), drinks (coffee, tea), oils (palm, coconut), flavorings (cocoa, vanilla, sugar, spices), and other foods (beans, grains) originated in and around the rainforest and would grow in abundance if the rainforests were to be protected from the current majority human diet.

If veganism became popular on a mass level, the crops to sustain it would have to be produced on a mass basis. "Traditional" methods would be utterly inadequate for feeding billions.

The fact that a product originates in a given ecosystem has nothing to do with the ecosystem that is most efficient for producing that crop. Sugar, for example, is not produced in the rain forest but on sugar plantations.

Your point merely confirms that many of the crops required for a vegan diet require subtropical land to be grown. The largest untapped source of subtropical land is the rain forest.

Veganism vs. raising animals for meat is far more efficient in terms of land use. An acre of land growing oats produces 8 times the protein and 25 times the calories, if the oats are fed to humans rather than to cattle. An acre of land used for broccoli produces 10 times the protein, calories and niacin as an acre of land producing beef. Statistics like these are numerous. The world's resources would be more efficiently utilized if the land used for livestock production was converted to raising crops to feed people.

So? The world does not have a shortage of food, or the major inputs of food. What it does have is a distributional problem. If you really want to make a concrete step towards eradicating world hunger (which is an entirely realistic goal), agitate for free trade in agriculture.

Raising animals for meat has unquestionable consequences. It leads to rain forest destruction, global warming, water pollution, water scarcity, desertification, misuse of energy resources, and world hunger. The use of land, water, energy, and human effort to produce meat is not an efficient way to use the earth's resources.

But the relevant resources are not in short supply.

Mass meat production is a form of slavery. Humans are part of the factory farming equation. Very few people question authority when it comes to food or diet. The metaphor of eating meat as being natural was lost as soon as factory farming started.

Animals by definition cannot be slaves. Slavery implies loss of consent, and animals cannot give legal consent (or bestiality would be legal).

I hope this conjures up some new thoughts from others.

IMO, the only valid argument for veganism (and it is a strong one) is the "cruelty" argument. But don't tell us that it is more "natural." There is nothing so unnatural as a species rejecting a food source for the good of other species.

You are correct in some ways about cattle. Cattle should be raised on more marginal land, not farmland per se. It is more of a question of appropriate land use. Beef is a real problem. Yes, people eat way too much meat, but not all land can support intensive vegetable cultivation. A diet with eggs, chicken, and fish makes a lot more sense..

The key is not to practice intensive vegetable cultivation – by that you are suggesting mono-crop farming which is stems from the intensive farming methods imposed by the need to generate food for farm animals.

Veganism also started as a religious response to the world. The closest diet to veganism is the diet of the Buddhist monk, or Jain without milk or meat. It did not start as a response to the environment. Thus it is both excessively civilized and in some senses religiously enlightened.

Veganism cannot be simplified as a religious response to the world regardless of the practice of animal free diets throughout history amongst various cultures. Veganism is an active expression of truth and identity – every choice an individual makes as a vegan is done so with respect to the the individual, the community, the animals and the environment. It takes far more than a diet or lifestyle to achieve religious enlightenment.

Also in those countries with a massive vegetarian focus there is much greater population density and much greater loss of land to cultivation.

If you are suggesting that a country such as India which has a 20-40% population of vegetarians and an estimated 2-4% population of vegans is responsible for a greater loss of land to cultivation because of it's vegetarians or vegans you are sadly mistaken. 75% of Third World imports of corn, barley, sorghum, and oats are fed to animals, not to people. Just because a country may have a significant population of vegetarians and vegans does not mean that it does not practice animal agriculture farming.

I am going to disagree with you on the idea of plantations. As much or more land is turned over to inappropriate vegetable cultivation for hungry western consumers of cocoa, sugar, coffee, and tropical fruits (luxury goods). A better response is to buy local produce and local farm products. This does more to save the rainforests than veganism can.

Veganism, as stated in my previous post, does support local farm products – reducing fuel costs associated with transporting non-local produce and food products.

A vegan – who eats only plant foods and products – requires just 1/8 of the land needed to feed a meat-eater. As far as an ecological footprint goes, the average vegan uses 1/6 acre of land whereas the average meat eater uses 3 acres of land.

Animal agriculture accounts for more than 85% of annual soil erosion and 80% of annual world deforestation. More than 1/3 of the world's agricultural land suffers desertification through: clearing forests for grazing; overgrazing; overcultivating croplands to feed farm animals as well as people; using poor irrigation techniques.

In the future, I will refrain from responding to statements and opinions about the concept that the veganism is an inappropriate use of land unless actual facts or statistics are made available.

The idea that removing humans from the food chain will bring balance to the world is rather naive. On the contrary humans should be more aware of their place in the food chain. Hunting and fishing while appearing cruel bring people closer to their place in the wild. It makes people more aware of the nature of wilderness and creates an urge to preserve what is there.

The majority of the world population has exceeded sustenance living models because of overconsumption. Hunting within a westernized culture encourages protection of natural ecosystems not preservation. Animal protection agencies act on the part of human needs not the needs of animals or the environment. The priority is to protect, develop and manage human controlled ecosystems.

Living in cities in some ways is synonymous with destroying wild land. In urban populations there are already examples of this. Overpopulations of deer which could not be effectively controlled with vegan methods, coyotes moving into cities, rats and raccoon populations blossoming in urban settings. Bears moving into urban housing. Making more land cultivated would only attract them more.

Urbanization does lead to destroying wild land but not to the same degree as animal agriculture. To reiterate, animal agriculture accounts for more than 80% of annual world deforestation. Veganism will eliminate animal agricultural farming and allow wild animals to thrive within their natural habitats.

The problem is also with the nature of most people. What is not used people destroy. In the medieval mindset, productive land, i.e. farmland is more "valuable" than wilderness. And if farmland is the most "productive" land it becomes the most valued land

The other problem is one of human greed. There is more than enough food to feed everyone. It is more of a problem of human values that causes the problems of starvation. Farmers are paid not to feed people and not to produce goods in many western economies

You are correct about factory meat farming being cruel and zoos being cruel.

Veganism by nature promotes a reduce, reuse, recycle approach to living that is beneficial to the environment. It is the right choice as far environmentally conscious lifestyles go. Any argument that is made against veganism should take into account that currently, 25 billion animals per year are raised & slaughtered for meat for a human population of 6.5 billion.

Veganism is the right choice as far environmentally and ethically aware lifestyles go. Vegans will always strive to lead balanced lives within communities whether they are rural, suburban or urban.