Open reply to all who responded to my 'Some questions for vegans..' thread...

[Ghost in the Machine]

Thanks for all of the great responses. I'm answering this way because I'd just sound monotonous and almost insincere trying to reply back to all of you..

Just for the record, I *do* fully realize that the scenario I asked about would never happen. These were just questions that came to mind after actually *hearing* someone say that "killing animals for any reason & eating meat should be outlawed..."

That's the fun part of asking "what if" questions. It's not really a matter how likely something will happen, more like just the 'off chance' that it *did* happen. What if all the planets were lined up, all the gods & goddesses were happy & smiling and playing golf together on the clouds somewhere, leprechauns were running amok in the streets granting wishes, multiple rainbows shined down on pots of gold in every city, town, community and one horse 'burg' in the world and unicorns were flying overhead shitting gumdrops when this person wished for this, and by decree it was done. (again, not that I think this *would* happen) :crazy:

I did notice throughout the thread though that no one seemed to mind having the animals dying off and their populations drasticaly reduced or eliminated. At least that's what I'm reading out of the comments about 'slowing down or stopping breeding'...

I also learned a little bit. I wasn't aware of the amount of land used for feed crops. I worked in the produce industry for several years where everything went to market for human consumption, so I'm not really that familiar with other types of crops.

Ok, i've babbled so much already that I've done nodded off twice while writing this, so it's off to lala land for me... it's been a long weekend... :snore:

[LeftyMom]

1. Re: reduced populations of farmed animals

Yeah, I don't really have a problem with reducing or eliminating breeding and essentially phasing out via attrition animals currently farmed for food.

The short answer why: those breeds are a human construction, bred for human needs, and are often bred into forms that, while more efficient for food production, are incompatible with a healthy and comfortable life.

[defendandprotect]

3. Overbreeding/exploitation would be ended --- that's all ---

I did notice throughout the thread though that no one seemed to mind having the animals dying off and their populations drasticaly reduced or eliminated. At least that's what I'm reading out of the comments about 'slowing down or stopping breeding'...

I think this is a total misstatement of anything anyone said on that thread ---
in fact, the obvious is clear -- that the herds would be reduced naturally --- and/or thru
birth control methods.

And when you mention that populations will naturally be reduced -- did anyone but YOU say "eliminated"/???? --- you don't seem to absorb the reality that we have OVERBREEDING of
animals in this system of animal-exploitation. Therefore, letting animals return naturally to
a base number is obvious when we stop this enforced breeding.

Try to understand that this is a totally manipulated process ---
females are FORCED to breed -- not in any natural way -- not in any natural cycle.

So overbreeding would be permitted to be naturally reversed. That's all --

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. It was an interesting question and I commend you for raising it.

I, too, have wondered what would happen to all those domesticated animals should humans unilaterally decide to quit eating meat.

Speaking of "populations drastically reduced", I would really like to see a discussion centered around negative human population growth. And I mean negative, not zero. What would be the ramifications of that, given expanding lifespans in the developed world and an economy that is based on growth, growth, growth at all costs? How will we take care of billions of aged people who can no longer work, while (hopefully) promoting policies that encourage a less-than-replacement rate of procreation? Because, obviously, our very survival as a species depends upon our reducing our numbers, given the rate at which we (developed world folks) consume and pollute the environment.

[northzax]

7. negative population growth?

ok, you first.

[REP]

8. Can't speak for the NPG poster, but I've already 'gone first'

It's pretty easy - just don't have children. That simple step does more to reduce consumption than just about anything else.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

9. Are you unfamiliar with what that means?

It doesn't mean killing yourself, if that's what you're thinking. It means a birthrate that is below the replacement rate.

[northzax]

10. of course

but then, every westernized capitalist democracy already has this. you know, of course, that the replacement fertility rate in a developed capitalist country is about 2.1 children per adult female. Men are statistically irrelevant in the equation. the fertility rate among second-generation or more women in the United States is about 1.9 (nationally, it is higher in the South and midwest, lower in North and Western States) that is sub-replacement, although significantly higher than the 1.3-1.4 that Western Europe, the Baltics and Russia are currently experiencing (Japen is at about 1.23-1.25, well below replacement fertility rates)

birthrate, by the way, is a crude measure, fertility rates are much more useful. fertility replacement rates take other key things into effect, such as the likelihood of a child being female (not the 105:100 male:female ratio you'd think in a lot of the world, in Afghanistan, for instance, 55% of children are boys and at age 13, it's closer to 60%. In sub-saharan africa the numbers are fairly close to that) you can have all the boys you want, it doesn't change the population numbers a generation out, only girls that survive to reproductive age do. there are pockets of India and China, for instance, where the ratio of boys:girls climbs as high as 130:100.

guess the countries with the highest replacement fertility rates? the lowest?

oh gee, seems I do know something.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

11. 1.9 children might as well be 2.

And the average US child will suck up far more resources than his/her counterparts elsewhere. The other countries in the West have the right idea by getting closer to one child.

I don't know what your point is by throwing out all these figures. Okay, I'm impressed with your ability to compile demographic data. But it doesn't address the estimated 9 billion global population that is projected by 2042. The human race is in a world of shit and people need to have fewer babies. Period.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

12. even at two (or 2.1)

You are still in negative growth. People die in car accidents, of disease, .....

AS for me and my wife we have two and are planning more I know that offends some people but I really cant run my family by what others think..

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. Trust me, as a childless-by-choice person I catch way more shit than you do

I have perfect strangers feeling entitled to butt into my personal business to inquire about my choice. I bet no one ever asks you why you decided to be a parent or tells you you'll regret your choice later, or infers that you are "immature" and "selfish". Let's not even start on the tax breaks and other preferential treatment you get because you chose to become a parent.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

14. I have people in my own family..

asking me when I plan to stop having kids, why I want 'so many' .....

When I got married my sister pulled me aside and told me to wait 5 years that I would regret having them too soon. (so you lose that bet)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

16. Of course your family is nosy. How many strangers say things like that?

How many co-workers and random acquaintances? Face it, our culture worships children and parenting and encourages breeding more resource-hogging American humans.

And before you even start on the "my children will be taking care of you one day!" nonsense. Neither of us has any idea what your children will be doing in the future. They could grow up to be awesome geniuses who are highly productive citizens or they could become criminals who are a drain on society. Children are not an insurance policy or a retirement plan. Not for you and not for me. It is your undisputed right to have as many as you want but please don't expect me to genuflect before you for it.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

18. Never did and Ill thank you

to not expect others to see your lack of kids as some kind of amazing sacrifice that youre doing for the earth..

[mrreowwr_kittty]

20. You don't have to see it that way.

Though it is worth 72 years of recycling and at least 50 years worth of not driving on the road, among other things.

Conversely, you should stop expecting your having kids as some amazing sacrifice you're doing. Which is exactly how so many parents act.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

21. Ive never said they are a sacrifice

They are a gift!

[Dora]

17. Be careful. Those exact criticisms were dished out to me here on DU.

Comparing the amount and quality of shit one person gets for having children against the amount and quality of shit another person gets for not having children is a fruitless endeavor.

I will never forget the wheelbarrow of criticism I received from one DUer for having a child. I also receive criticism from acquaintances and strangers for making the decision to stop with this child.

Someone *always* knows better, or suffers more. In either case, I try not to be that person.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

19. But come on! How much flak do you take outside of internet discussion boards?

And note how the criticism you take in public is for *stopping* at one child, not for having one. This is a very pro-natalist culture, and the choice to not procreate is not respected in the public or private sector.

[Dora]

22. But come on? :-)

No buts.

[northzax]

15. not at all

1.9 might as well be two if you have a hundred women (since the difference then is 190 children versus 200 children) but with a billion women? the difference is 100,000,000 people. the difference between one in a million and two in a million sounds meaningless, untill you have a billion people, and that difference is a thousand people.

and my point is, you asked me if I knew what the term meant. I was pointing out that yes, in fact, I do, and that the terms you were using are outdated and not statistically relevant. the US, Europe, Japan and other developed countries have ZPG, if you discount immigration (which has a net value globally of creating zero new people, since you are shuffling people around the globe)

replacement fertility in a healthy, wealthy education population of humans appears to be about 2.05, this takes into account the higher number of male births. again, men are basically irrelevant, en masse, to this equation, it's all about women. if you were going to create a colony, and you could send 100 people, would you send a 50/50 ratio? no. each individual male is much more replaceable from a fertility standpoint as each individual female is. if you have 50 women, and one is killed, your possible fertility numbers just went down by 2%. if you have fifty men and one is killed, your possible fertility numbers didn't change at all. in fact, you could have 99 women and one man and still have 99 babies in a year, (theoretically of course) one woman and 99 men gives you one baby a year. Hence the reason that polygamy has been more common than polyandry. and then you have infant and child mortality to take into account (in the US, in 2003, combining Infant, Child and Teen mortality rates gives you roughly 815 per 100,000. I say roughly because the numbers are actually a little bit lower for statistical reasons) so 100,000 adults must have, generally speaking, 100,815 children combined to replace the 19 year old population in 19 years.

so what's the point of all this? educate and empower women and the fertility rate goes down. that's the lesson.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. "educate and empower women and the fertility rate goes down." Yes!

What would also be great, IMO, is a shift from pro-natalism in general. This is not to say denounce people for being parents but to discourage procreating out of a sense of obligation or personal vanity or because you think they'll take care of you when you're old or because all your friends are doing it or the myriad other reasons many people unthinkingly plop out kids. Let's make it *okay* not to be a parent, even admirable. There'd be no need for coercive policies like in China if only the people who really wanted kids and really thought the decision through had them. Of course, that is an absurdly unrealistic pipe dream I'm engaging in there.

Also, the reason that there are economists wringing their hands over the "low birthrate" in developed countries is that the business world operates on a paradigm of endless growth. Smart women should tell them to piss off. It is not our job to create more consumers and workers and cannon fodder for the wealthy.

[VotesForWomen]

4. thanks for the response. nt

[KG]

5. the responses of the virulent meat-eaters was amusing and revealing.

not sure i understand the ignorance, hatred and fear of veganism; the rhetoric seemed akin to racist or homophobia.

[RB TexLa]

6. Meat eater here, and I'm helping an animal population to die out, no breeding from me

never.