Yeah, I don't think there's going to be a massive transition overnight, neccesitating a slaughter. Just reduced demand over time, meaning less necessity to breed farm animals. Besides, aren't they all inevitably going to be slaughtered under the current system? If a euthanasia slaughter were necessary, it'd be no different than as it is now, but without future generations of suffering. I don't believe that that's the most positive solution, but it's no worse than the way things are now.WickedSkin said:That would still mean we'd have to kill ass loads of animals. Energy? Well the cow has to eat to live and grow. It mostly eats grass. If we stop eating meat and release the cow we can replace it's meadow with veggies. But we'd still need more and that cow still has to eat. Also counting calories meat is pretty efficient.ThrobbingEgo said:Yeah, except we'd also be using less resources on meat - which is a very energy inefficient way of getting food. So we'd actually have more food resources to ship to Africa in the long run.WickedSkin said:Someone is smart and didn't notice any irony. Though it's not completely untrue.ThrobbingEgo said:Yeah, that's retarded.WickedSkin said:A child in Africa might be starving right now because of you choosing to be a vegetarian! The veggies you eat are grown to die!
Some of the food that is not eaten is sent to African nations and others in need of help as aid. You have to eat more as a vegetarian which means less food is going to be available for those in need.
Also the vegetables were grown to die.
And, last I checked, carrots aren't social animals with mental states.
Who said they had?
And cows don't just eat grass. You think it'd grow fast enough in a pen to support dozens of cows? I'd imagine it'd only be possible free range.
Also, we grow a *lot* of poultry. What do you think they eat?