Dansk Esperanto Esperanto (ISO-3) Espańol

Why Plants?

What is wrong with using animals?

Why is it that we do not use animals?

• cloth, eg wool
• strong waterproof materials, eg leather
• fertiliser from dung
• drug and toxicity testing

In ecological terms, a plant based diet is also far healthier for the planet. Domestic cattle belch out large quantities of methane every day, and methane is a greenhouse gas, thereby increasing global warming. In fact methane is 20-30 times more efficient than CO2 at trapping heat. Methane also helps to destroy ozone in the upper atmosphere.

The effluent from the large quantities of farm animals, as well as the washings from milking equipment and slaughter houses pollute rivers and seas.

Most of the land in Britain is used either for grazing or for growing feed for livestock. And is if that wasn't enough, huge quantities of grain are also imported from other countries - often tropical countries where people are starving - eg Britain continued to import grain from Ethiopia during the 1984 famine!

With a plant based diet (based on tree crops such as fruit and nuts), Britain could easily be self-sufficient in food with ample land left over for growing trees for fuel, construction purposes, amenity and wildlife. This would free land in other countries such as Africa for the local people to grow their own food instead of exporting grain for animal feed. This would also reduce their need for foreign aid.

Using animals for food is a tremendous waste in this age where millions starve due to lack of food. As Gandhi said, 'There is enough for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed.' When grain is fed to animals such as cattle, the creature uses most of the food for its own living purposes, and only a small proportion is laid down as meat. For example, for every 10 tons of protein in the form of grain fed to cattle, only 1 ton of protein is obtained as meat. The present human population means we simply cannot afford such a waste. By using plant foods only, we are saving on the Earth's resources and allowing more people to be fed - as well as eating a healthier diet and boycotting the senseless cruelty involved in rearing animals for food.

Animal grazing and deforestation have caused a lot of erosion and environmental destruction. For example, in the Mediterranean, deforestation and the use of goats which prevented tree regeneration means that the once beautifully wooded hills are now semi-bare eroded, gullied slopes. The Sahara has long had a naturally dry climate but the desert has been extending and invading into the surrounding savannahs and woodlands due to deforestation and overgrazing. Much of Ethiopia used to be lush dense forests (a few remnants still remain), but is now bare eroded hills - hence the famines. Africa north of the Sahara used to be the grain basket of the Roman Empire, 2,000 years ago, but has since become too dry to even contemplate growing grain.

Bad farming practices - whether or not animals are used - will ruin the land as exemplified by the Dust Bowls of North America. Even now, for every bushel of grain harvested from North American Mid-West, 1.5 bushels of soil is lost due to erosion. These problems could be solved with a plant based diet coupled with replanting trees.

A plant based diet is far more sustainable. We can feed many more people in plant foods than on animal foods. At present we have two population explosions - that of humans, and that of farm animals which compete with us for food, land, water, and many other commodities. Factory farming is not the answer. It does not save land or food, but results in sewage disposal problems, disease not to mention great cruelty. Why not consider a plant based diet as the answer? It is mainly habit and custom which prevent change, but change must come if we are to survive.

A plant based diet is far more compassionate. Many people nowadays would not eat meat if they had to go out and hunt the animals themselves. As the horror of the slaughterhouse is out of sight, it is also out of mind. But going out and hunting is actually more compassionate than eating a factory farmed broiler chicken, or an intensely reared slice of cow or pig. The intensive rearing of animals, where animals are kept in tiny cages and pumped full of growth hormones etc, is undoubtedly very cruel. But even free range organically farmed animals suffer stress and pain before their eventual slaughter. They are restricted in where they can roam and are not allowed to live in their natural social groupings.

It is not just a plant based diet, but a plant based agriculture that is needed. The use of artificial fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides is a serious threat to us all. Our rivers are becoming more polluted by the day whilst the land becomes gradually sterile and dependant on more and more chemicals to obtain the same yield (never mind increasing it!) and the pests become resistant to an ever greater variety of poisons. As the use of chemicals increases so does the threat to our health from the residues remaining in our food.

Many organic growers argue that you need animal farming to maintain the fertility of the land. But this is not true. Just feed the vegetable wastes to the compost heap, grow green manures, comfrey and nettles and you will have plenty of food for the soil. But even under organic conditions the growing of annual crops leads to a net loss of topsoil; each year. So for truly sustainable growing concentrate on trees, shrubs and perennials, which require little work or feeding once they are established. For more information see our leaflets Vegan-Organics - The Basic Principles and Why Perennials.

There are many plant fibres that can be made into warm clothes or quilts, that are good substitutes for wool. We do not need sheep! (See our leaflet Fibre Plants.) Many of these plant fibres are very strong and when coated with water- repellent gums and resins (also from plants), they can be made into waterproof materials.

And, of course, we do not need to test drugs, household chemicals and food additives on animals! Herbal medicines are more effective and far safer than drugs and do not need to be tested; they have been used by traditional Medical Herbalists for hundreds of years. And there are so many natural soaps and cleaning agents available - why do we need more? And synthetic food additives are often harmful to our health, so really we are better off without them.

So plants can provide us with the majority of our physical needs, and we benefit greatly from using them. And unless we are prepared to return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, like that of the North American Indians (which is only possible with a very small human population), using animals for food is just causing environmental destruction and a deterioration of health. The answer lies in using plants.

Readers Comments

Why Plants?

Johnson Sat Jan 20 22:39:36 2001

Modern husbandry may be bad for the environment, but the fact is that ungulates can eat plant life that is not edible to humans. As a result, they can be raised in semiarid areas where little humanly-edible vegetation can survive (dates and cacti, mainly, but that is not a balanced diet). Irrigation of such lands for the cultivation of grains & vegetables has throughout human history been associated with salination of the soil, making the land unsuitable for producing ANY food, and causing the death of empires.

Methane is also produced by soil microbes feeding on plant and animal wastes. Indeed the cattle-methane IS from bacteria fermenting plant material. Eliminate the cattle and you will not eliminate, and probably not even reduce, the methane. Indeed since relatively little of any plant is digestible (vs. close to 100% of meat), arguably veganism increases the world's methane supplies--from the decay of all that cellulose in our sewers. Such concentrated source could be trapped for fuel (as could intensive cow wastes), but methane is kinetically stable and a thus a poor fuel. BTW, water has always been the most important greenhouse gas on Earth.

Humans evolved a diet similar to wild pigs: omnivory with carnivorous preferences. ~90% of food ingested by cattle is consumed for catabolism, etc, but 90% of most crops aren't even edible to us. To acheive the same caloric intake, much more of even the edible parts of plants (except fatty nuts) must be consumed. ==>More wastes.

While overconsumption of fatty meat is associated with chronic health problems (our ancestors rarely had such plenty, thus didn't adapt), animal products contain the most concentrated digestable cache of nutrients, and more people have died in the short term from lack of it ("rabbit starvation," various protein/nutrient deficiencies) than you acknowlege. Acute death from properly cooked meat diets is unknown; it is not uncommon among people who lack meat. Developing a nutritionally complete diet from vegetable materials is difficult. Even worse, since most plants (except fruits) are better off if they are not eaten (more energy left to reproduce, etc), most have evolved some level of toxicity. This might be helpful in keeping the worms down, but has been a frequent cause of acute poisonning and may be a chronic cancer risk. While I appreciate your work in disseminating info on diverse edible species (in my case, because I acknowlege that not all climates are suitable for lettuce, although England probably is not the best testbed for harsh-climate vegetation), I am alarmed by the apparent lack of info on detoxifying preparations. "Aboriginal" groups the world over, who for lack of long range trade subsisted on only local foods, often had complicated preocedures to render their plants edible. Many arrowroots are toxic; unpurified sago is deadly. European famine foods like marsh marigolds also required preparation. Some plants are edible only during certain times of the year (e.g. American pokeweed: Phytolacca). To simply list as edible plants those known to be have been used for food, w/o info on harvest stage or preparation is in my opinion irresponsible, particularly for nondomesticated veggies where the risk of toxicity can be high due to lack of selective breeding to reduce it.

Each to their own ken, but the arguments for abstaining from meat for the sake of the environment or health seem quite weak to me.

Why Plants?

Breanne Thu Apr 12 04:20:36 2001

I am a senior at Texas Christian University in Texas. I am doing a unit on plants for 1-3 graders and was wondering if you have any info. as to why some seeds are eaten and some are not? Why are some plants edible and others are not? I know that some are poisonous, but is there something in the structure that makes them edible?

Why Plants?

Heather Green Sun Jul 15 13:01:14 2001

I was wondering if you could tell me what hormones are used in plant fertilisers. I would be so grateful as it is for some science homework! Thankyou

Why Plants?

Nor Farzana Bte Khamis Sun Aug 12 13:19:12 2001

Why are plants important? Can other things be more important than plants? If you can answer me, give me at least ten ways. If you can answer me, I will recomend your website to others and you will be very famous with your geniuses.

Why Plants?

Jason Fri Jan 18 04:16:10 2002

My primary reason for choosing plants is that I have a dynamic love for all living things. Having said that, implementing such a love is an ongoing challenge, raising a great many questions. I have already determined that I will not eat carrots and potatoes, as doing so would destroy the entire plant. I wish to minimize the amount of destruction to other life that my eating results in.

Albert Schweitzer advocated and practiced a reverence for all life, including microscopic organisms. He also acknowledged that we are as yet unable to live without destroying any other organisms. He advocated living in such a way that you minimize the damage. When other lives are destroyed by necessity, one should be certain that it truly is a necessity, taking the life with great reverence.

We are an adaptable and clever species, and I think we will one day be able to live completely without destruction of even a single member of any species. I am taking steps towards that end in my own life, seeking to grow plants that I will cherish for their own sakes as well as obtain food from. I will do so with minimal harm to the plants, and I will allow the plants to live out their lives even if their "yield" goes down or vanishes.

A love for all living things is an often delightful and wonderfully challenging path to explore!

Why Plants?

L. Torkelson Thu May 16 13:24:32 2002

Using plants will keep some of the animals from going away and not coming back. This way we can keep the animals and eat plants because they grow faster then an animal.

Why we can't use salt or polluted water to grow plants?

Bryana Thu Jan 9 17:17:35 2003

I'm doing a sciece fair project on plants and I was wondering why we can't use salt or polluted water to grow plants. I need answers please. please.

Why Plants?

Wed Jan 29 20:59:29 2003

You know I have no idea I would like to know the answer to that to. Maybe there's something in the seed that your body can't digest.

Why Plants?

Kyle Tue Feb 25 15:17:00 2003

Plants will always be here; no matter how hard we try, plants will always be here...unless we abuse the problem. Plants can grow at an amazing rate and can also made food that is good and edible for healthy people - but we shouldn't overestimate the existance of plants. Animals can be used too - maybe not as often but hey...

Why Plants?

Joe Tue Feb 25 15:20:27 2003

You're an environmentalist arent you? Why don't you go out and hug the trees...save them from being turned into classroom material, firewood and other sorts of "unnecessary objects of this world."

Why plants

Daniel hart Thu May 26 2005

Animals here today will continue to exist and produce, some of us will need to take up husbandry if we are to give a special, healthful place to the animals here. In excess, anything goes sour, but animals play a key role in nutrient cycling and energetics. As long as vegans aren't denouncing those that will find practical solutions for animals AND plants, that's OK. We all have to do our "thing". Let me say that a total vegan culture would be suppressive to the other side. Let's keep it all in the mix and in balance. -love to all-

Why plants

Mon Jun 13 2005

stfu

Why plants

Anna Fri Jul 29 2005

Quote from the last entry: "Let me say that a total vegan culture would be suppressive to the other side." Hi, I'm a vegan animal rights activist and above quote is quite common. However Daniel himself overlooks that vegans aren't repressive, vegans are fighting against repression: The repression of animals which are being killed and abused in unimaginable numbers. Being of a different species is no excuse to abuse and kill, just as it is no excuse to keep human slaves you imported from another continent. Daniel then goes on to write: "Let's keep it all in the mix and in balance." Which is incredible given that he put this below a text which goes through great length that animal exploitation *is* the imbanlace. There is no good mix, animal exploitation is *bad*, *very bad*, no matter how you look at it. And he ends with unintentional cynisism: "-love to all-" Well Daniel, I suppose _your_ "all" doesn't include animals. There is no love in being hanged upside down and having your throat slit. Please think about how undefendable your position is.

Why plants

Deb Bromley Fri Nov 11 2005

NatureGem - Nontoxic Healing Resources Promoting awareness of toxins in our food and environment that can cause disease, and providing global access to nutrition information, herbal remedies, and alternative health resources.

Why plants

michelle Wed Nov 16 2005

how could growing black beans in water soil or sand benifit society

plants for a future dont have

Why plants

Jerrica Thu Nov 17 2005

What does stfu stand for??

Why plants

???? Wed Nov 23 2005

stfu.. lol sorry this post has nothing to fo wtih he subject

Why plants

Mark Thu Dec 15 2005

Of course we have to eat meat, you guys are going a bit off the edge. Theres nothing wrong with eating meat, just consuming less of it than we are today.

Why plants

dylan and the ten qestions Tue Jan 24 2006

ok,hers the ten reasons starting with water how could plants even grow with out water?And humans,why, because there the ones who planted them in the first place.and soil,light,oxygen,photosinthesis,and care.well theres 7.and not to meantion nature and evoltion.your probbly woundering why evoltion well because with out evoltion you woulden't be here .and finaly last but least you because i wouldent be writing this comment. P.S. that gave me about 3 sec. to figure out OH, and an other thing YOU GOT SEREVED!! and my website is albinoblacksheep.com

albinoblacksheep.com

Why plants

Sam Bottman Sun Feb 5 2006

Personally, I agree with what Anna waid a while ago, e.g. "There is no love in being hanged upside down and having your throat slit" However, you are overlooking the fact that there are many ways of producing meat that DO NOT result in excessive cruelty and suffering from animals. Currently, although factory farmed meats dominate consumer choices, there are also farms that allow their animals to live full, natural lives which DO NOT result in pain and suffering. What we need to do is NOT to simply look away from meat as a whole. What we DO need to do is look the meat that we eat in the eye, and promote sustainable, suffering-free alternatives to factory-farming and current practices. In other words, although I DO promote vegitarianism, I think that it is just as morally responsible and environmentally friendly to promote safe ways of farming that allow animals to live safe, happy, suffering-free lives: Something that facotry-farming does not accomplish in the least.

Why plants

Oki Wed Feb 15 2006

Firstly it is essential to reealise that humans as a species are omnivours. We are not herbivours and so therefore, as part of a healthy and balanced diet we need to consume both meat and veg, or at least supplement veg with meat. It is true that the current agricultural situation all over the world is , in general unsustainable. It is therefore wise and logical to consider other forms of farming. Sustainable farming methods can cater for the production of both plants and animals, whilst at the same time benifitting the environment as a whole. It is unwise for people to try and aim to be as 'environmentally friendly' as they possibly can, for it is impossible to be 100% environmentally friendly. What needs to be achieved here is a balance that allows humans to cultivate plants and rear animals, in a way that is both sustainable and environmentally friendly. Thats all- simple. No over the top gestures of everlasting love for life.

Why plants

Sam Bottman Thu Feb 16 2006

I disagree. While humans are, by nature, omnivorous, this is because when humans as a species were developing, we could not afford to be herbivorous: it was essential for our survival, at that time, to consume as much energy as possible. However, in the modern world, with modern-day agriculture and the lifestyle we undertake, it is not necessary to eat meat. A healthy vegetarian diet provides as much energy as an omnivorous diet, as well as promoting a healthy lifestyle and a healthier, more balanced diet. Also, we should not compromise our ethics just to gain a small part of our diet which is, as of today's modern lifestyle, not necessary. Oki, you say that it is unwise to try to be as environmentally friendly as possible, because we cannot be 100% that way. However, isn't it better to try, and be at least fairly environmentally friendly, than just not caring, and destroying the natural world as well as compromosing our morals and ethics? This is the type of question that we, as a species with power to make or break the environment, must ask ourselves.

Why plants

Oki Sat Feb 18 2006

Sam, i would like to point out that the argument you have made for vegetarianism is based merely on your opinion not on scientific facts. Being a vegetarian is unnatural as from the beggining of time man has eaten meat in every environment it has encountered not just harsh ones which require high meat intake. Furthermore a vegetarians diet is lacking in energy, calcium, zinc, and vitamins- without supplements bad medical problems can arise. M.J Lentze, a German, discovered that vegetarianism causes impared growth amoungst children 5 years or younger. Imagine if you vegans got your own way!! Your offspring would be in great peril. I would also like to correct you on a point that you made from my previous post. Evidently you have misread it. I was merely trying to point out that once a balance has been attained between crop cultivation and animal rearing that is both susatinable and environmentally friendly then one should be satisfied and not try to push further and further to try and make their farming/lifestyle 100% environmentally friendly for this cannot be achieved. If you read the sentance after the one you commented on it says this. Lastly i would like to mention that solely relying on veg for your diet is unwise for the structure of society today is crumbling. With oil declining, war increasing and global warming on the rise it won't be all that long before agriculture as we know it hits an all time low and eating meat will be as important as ever in maintaining a healthy and balaced diet.

Why plants

Sam Bottman Sat Feb 18 2006

Apparently you misread my second to last post. Yes, I was defending the view of vegetarianism in my last post. However, I never said that vegetarianism is necessary. If you had read my other post as well, you would have seen that I had said that a sustanable, cruelty-free approach to obtaning animal-byproducts is acceptable from my point of view. I would like to point out that I was not saying that a vegan's diet is healthy and balanced. What I said what that with a proper diet, a vegetarian can live a healthy life with enough nutrients. Calcium can be obtained through dairy products, which are readily consumed by vegetarians. Energy can also be obtained, through animal by products and high-energy foods such as nuts and legumes. Any other vitamins can be consumed through dietary supplements. Scientific evidence, you ask? Check out this webpage: (http://www.wildoats.com/redesign/hn.php?org=wildoats&ContentID=1301007) It cites many studies that promote vegetarianism. For instance, a study of 30,000 Californians showed that among vegetarians and meat-eaters who had extremely similar lifestyles and diets other than the difference between eating meat and not eating meat, the meat-eaters had, among other things, higher chances of obesity, higher blood pressure, and more cases of colon cancer. You cite a study in which children who were vegetarians had impaired growth. However, I cite a seperate study which showed that between vegetarians and meat-eating children, the vegetarian children had only slightly impaired groth: "For different age groups, the mean height ranged from 0.2 to 2.1 cm and the mean weight ranged from 0.1 to 1.1 kg less than the reference median. The largest height difference was observed at 1 to 3 years of age and may be partly the result of intrinsic irregularities in the US growth reference at those ages. By 10 years of age, children from The Farm averaged 0.7 cm and 1.1 kg less than the reference median, representing only 0.1 and 0.3 SD from the reference. Thus, these children have adequate attained growth, even though it was modestly less than that of the reference population." This shows that though groth in vegetarian children is slightly less, it is only a slight discrepancy from the growth of a meat-eating child. The study can be found here, if you doubt my opinion: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2771551&dopt=Citation)Oki, you say that vegetarianism will decline in part because of oil declining. However, the farming of animals also consumes a LOT of energy, including oil. You also cite the increase of war. However, the increase of war will not stop the farming of animals any less than the fariming of plants. You also cite global warming as an obstacle for farming. However, by changing what we grow to fit the parameters of global warming, we will be able to grow new crops accordingly. So you can see right here that agriculture is as sustainable, or more so, than farming animals.

Why plants

Oki Sun Feb 19 2006

Sam, i welcome your points as valid and respect them too. The evidence you have presented is indeed credible. I would like to say though, that firstly agriculture means "the practice of cultivating the land or raising stock". So when you say "So you can see right here that agriculture is as sustainable, or more so, than farming animals", agriculture incompasses rearing animals so you are really just contradicting yourself!! I stick with my point of saying that vegetarianism will decline due to oil depletion becasue what consumes more oil, intensive farming on fields with gas guzzling machinery, or a herd of cows simply grazing on rough pasture then slaughtered when they have fufilled a very natural life. Moreover using the argument that adapting to organic arable farming when oil depletion comes is invalid as mass orgainc farming would cost far too much and would be tooo unproductive. Interestingly, it should be considered that should a nuclear war break out, agricultural activities would not be able to take place in desolate radioactive places (common sense!!). Furthermore should an area be bombed it would be far easier to feed animals on the first weeds that crop up and grow instead of trying to carry out the impossible task of growing unressilient crops on wiped out land which is why i said that although agriculture as we know it go (that includes animals too) eating meat will become far more practical. Moving on to global warming. Should the gulf stream stop then england could be plunged in to a mini ice age. You cannot grow many crops in freezing temps but there are quite a few breeds of hardy livestock. Crops are far more sensitive temperature changes than animals, you should bear that in mind. So all in all i would say that yes, vegetarianism has its benefits, but practically it is fussy, not all that natural for humans and really not neccessary. And thats the bottom line of it no matter how much you argue it.

Why plants

Sam Bottman Sun Feb 19 2006

Yes, I respect your points as well, Oki. However, first of all my use of agriculture was just a misconception. I really meant the farming of plants, not agriculture, however this was just a Freudian slip. Secondly, you say that agriculture will fall as a result of oil depletion. However, there are many means of alternative, replenishable sources of energy such as solar energy and wind energy. In addition, you make the weak argument that mass organic farming would be a result of oil depletion, and would be unproductive. However, with proper global preparation and investigation into alternative sources of energy, we will still be able to undertake farming. I now direct you to this excellent page concerning that: ( http://www.attra.org/energy.html ) It is the webpage of the NAtional Sustainable Agriculture Infromation Service, and I think you will find it very informative. Then you go on to say: "Furthermore should an area be bombed it would be far easier to feed animals on the first weeds that crop up and grow instead of trying to carry out the impossible task of growing unressilient crops on wiped out land which is why i said that although agriculture as we know it go (that includes animals too) eating meat will become far more practical." This is a faulty argument because "desolate radioactive places" are not, to say the least, conductive to life. In the wake of the Chernobyl Disaster, for instance, both plant life AND animal life were damagaged severely within a 30-km radius of the accident. In other words, in cases of severe radiation from nuclear war, ALL life would be wiped out, not just animal life. And, if radiation levels were to be high enough for nimals to survive and not pass on contamiantion to humans, then the same would be true from plants. You also say that plant farming will not be practical because of global warming. However, this is also a bad argument because while one may not be able to necessarily grow crops self-sufficiently, even in a worst-case scenario with Britain lapsing into an ice age (note: highly unlikely), crops would still be imported, and certain hardy crops, such as hardier varieties of plants, and genetically modified varieties of plants bred to be hardier, could still be grown locally. In addition: "Of the earth's 130 million square kilometres, over 31 million are used as permanent pastures for animals bred unnecessarily for food. Such animals are also given a large proportion of the crops grown on the 15 million square kilometres of cropland". If even a small amount of the land now used for animal farming, could be used instead for plant farming, we would have a large amount of land from that. In other words, I respect the fact that some people rely on animal farming to live, but in a society where we have enough money to make the choice of being a vegetarian, if a person thinks it is good to be a vegetarian, then this is a perfectly acceptable, very reasonable idea which IS sustainable and is a healthy, morally permissible alternative to being an omnivore. In addition, I have one question for you, Oki: do you buy factory farmed meat like nearly everyone else, or do you promote free range, humanely raised animal products? If so, great. If not, then it goes against what you just said in your last post, when you promoted free range, humanely raised animals.

Why plants

Sam Bottman Sun Feb 19 2006

Oops! I forgot to cite the page where I got this information: "Of the earth's 130 million square kilometres, over 31 million are used as permanent pastures for animals bred unnecessarily for food. Such animals are also given a large proportion of the crops grown on the 15 million square kilometres of cropland" That web page is: http://www.mcl.webspace.unisonfree.net/globalwarming.htm

Why plants

Oki Sun Feb 19 2006

Evidently sam, you have an answer for everything. You say my arguments are weak, which is your, evidently biased opinion, yet you still acknoledge they are arguments and as i forsaw cannot really disprove them. I have to go back to your argument on alternative energy resources which was, i have to say, is ridiculous. Do you realise how many thousands of wind farms or solar panels it would take to satisfy the needs of 6 million people let alone the agricultural needs for energy. Windfarms would take up huge areas of sometimes wonderfully scenic areas, ruining them. Solar panels are extremely inefficient and rely solely on sunshine, of which there is little in winter months when energy is needed most. This and the absolute gigantic fortune that would be needed to fund such a vast and time consuming project makes the whole renewable engery scenario utterly ridiculos. Governments are already stretched on money as it is!! Weathy elitists would do their utmost to hold on to lucrative markets such as oil, especially if the prices are going to drasticlaly increase. You simply cannot 'hope' that the all governments will come together, make up some as yet non existant enegy resource and the world will live happily ever after. Wake up! Welcome to the real world. Its not as simple as you put it, as i just discussed. As for your argument on radioactive fallout, that works in my favour for now we can see that no life would inhabit such areas, it would mean people would have to either hunt MEAT, or rear animals for MEAT because they would not be able wait or get hold of mass veg seed to grow in the event of such a catastrophe. Furthermore, you seen unwittingly to display a great deal of ignorance when you talk about global warming. Many scientists have said its not case of if but when the gulf stream is going to shut down, so it is very likely to happen at some stage, and even if it doesn't global warming is having and set to have a devestating effect in some parts of the world. Moreover a lot of vegetable plants are hardy to some extent but not hardy enoght to withstand some of the conditions forecast as a result of global warming, so your comment about hardy varieties were a load of rubbish, and anyway, weather conditions would be in turmoil and hard to predict so it would be very hard to pinpoint a ideal variety to grow if there was one hardy enough to thrive. Genetically enginieering i would have thought goes against most peoples beliefs and is seen as both unnatural and dangerous for the environment- so why you asked me about buying free ranged eggs and humanly raised animals remains soomewhat of a mystery to me. I would also like to ask why on earth you are making an inane point about unneccesary land usage when i have said throughout my posts that i belive a sustainable alterative to present agriculture is needed, which incompasses the reduction of land wastage as land wastage is aprt of the present agricultural system!! I would also like to say that MOST people have some kind of omnivourous diet not 'some' and that being an omnivour is the most natural, common and healthy way of living like humans were intended to. In a society where we do have money and choice we shouldn't be looking to become vegetarians but should be selecting the most healthiest and natural diets we can instead of tree hugging and clinging on to some deluded doctrine that vegetarianism saves the unneccessary suffering of animals and saves the environment, which perhaps is not something which you yourself have said directly but is certainly a view held by some vegetarians. As for your last comment, well that just topped it. It was a cheap last resort dig which served no relevance to the argument as you have no idea of how i am as a person. Yes, support free range and humanely raised animals, haven't i already said i want a sustainable system where animals are killed humanely?? Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Why plants

Sam Bottman Mon Feb 20 2006

Oki, I don't like to prolong arguments, but in this case I want to get the last word in. First of all, you said this: "Windfarms would take up huge areas of sometimes wonderfully scenic areas, ruining them" because areas of land for free-range animals do this as well, as I said before, in my last post. Also, you say that solar energy is ineffective in the winter. While this may be true to a certain extent, nuclear energy, a form of alternative energy, could be used to generate electricity, which is used to create hydrogen, which can be used effectively as a fuel. (http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-07_H2EconNotDiff.pdf) You may counter this by saying that nuclear meltdowns would then be imminent. However, the risk of nuclear meltdown in a nuclear power plant is much less when compared to the risk of other potential disasters. Check out this webpage for reference: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUREG-1150) You can look at probabilities of different criteria happening at that site. Also, concerning your argument on nuclear fallout, let me just say that 6 billion people hunting all of Earth's animals would be a pretty bad idea because not only would it cause all of the animals in the world to be extinct, it would also only work for a short amount of time, until all animals became extinct. Also, you say that in the wake of oil running out, we could raise animals WITHOUT alternative forms of energy. Well, this could not happen because the fact is that animal farming DOES, right now, take unreplenishable energy sources. Now let's talk about what you said about the Gulf Stream: Yes, there is a chance that through global warming, Britain's climate will become colder. However, Britain will still be able to import crops it won't be able to locally grow, and it will be able to grow some hardy crops in Britain, some of which could, yes, be genetically modified. Concerning genetic modification, I think that it is permissible as long as it accomplishes a means that could be accomplished through natural breeding processes. Tell me, what is so bad about genetic modification which overrules the good that it can accomplish under the circumstances I just mentioned? You also say that your ideal form of animal farming "incompasses the reduction of land wastage". However, free range farming of animals, which as you said is what you promote, takes up vastly more space than common practices today (See the statistics from my last post). I also made an argument that an omnivorous diet is natural, but since I already made it I am not not about to repeat it. Though it may not have been the most tactful thing I could have said, I merely asked about factory farming because I wanted to check your consistency. In your last post, you made the assumption that I was a vegetarian, which is just that: an assumption. I am not, and I am not talking about my moral principles in my argument. I simply wanted to show that vegetarianism is an economical, safe, accomplishable thing, and that in the end, one's moral ideals should be the deciding factor when deciding whether to be a vegetarian or not. Here, let's make a deal, since we won't change each other's minds: We won't prolong this argument any further.

Why plants

Oki Tue Feb 21 2006

Sam, i could counter all your arguments again and again, but i'm gonna step back here and sayto any other person reading this post to make thier own minds up. p.s i knew you weren't a vegetarian anyway as if you were you would most definetly made that clear in your fist post and free range animals in a natural environemt looks far more pleasant than a group of wind farms!! Finished.

Why plants

Sam Bottman Wed Feb 22 2006

One last thing: actually, you basically implied you thought I was a vegetarian when you said: "which perhaps is not something which you yourself have said directly but is certainly a view held by some vegetarians". This in itself is an assumption, as I said in my last point.

Why plants

Oki Thu Mar 2 2006

Can you imagine from one single idea everything appeared here? That makes my point crystal clear.

Why plants

Sam Bottman Thu Mar 2 2006

No seriously Oki, lets just stop arguing.

Why plants

eduardo Sat Mar 4 2006

oki, you were the idiot who decided to post a comment in response to someone who uses caps for 'emphasis' when their content thins. BAD OKI!! that was a waste of energy and obviously not in keeping with permaculture systems.

Why plants

bad oki Sun Mar 5 2006

eduardo, your crazy, did i ever tell u that??

Why plants

Riptide Sun Mar 26 2006

And i think its just about time for a big STFU! Notice the caps. And to think i came here for information and intelligent discussion. Instead i find two old hens plucking at each other's chest feathers and dominating an entire website page in order to be the one who is "right". And in case you are wondering what "stfu" stood for in the first place (someone asked earlier and no i was not the one who posted it)...shut...the...*blank*...up......and i'm sure you can figure out the rest on your own. I'm going to go hug a tree or an animal right before i go eat either because its far more productive than dealing with this. Good day.

Why plants

Some Guy Sun Mar 26 2006

Well, I guess that I just look at it more as debating, and seeing what other people's viewpoints are, Riptide.

Why plants

Some Guy Sun Mar 26 2006

Also, if we don't allow other people to question our own beliefs, then we won't be able to fix them and try to develop better, more logical beliefs.

Why plants

Sadhu Govardhan Wed Mar 29 2006

Hi everyone, I am amazed how many dogmas are still considered to be "the truth". Since the dogmas I found amongst the comments could fill a book, and I don’t have the time to deal with each and everyone, I just want to comment on the first one I noticed: "Humans are omnivores". Says who? If you really want to find out what nature intended humans to eat, you have to look at the parts of the human body that are related to food consumption: the means to get food (= type of body, hands), the means to eat food (= jaw, teeth), the means to digest food (=digestive tract). What can you naturally capture with your hands? How does your jaw work? What can you naturally eat with your teeth? How is your digestive tract designed? The human body in general, his jaw, teeth and digestive tract are *exactly* like those of an herbivore. Our body's natural "hunting capacity" is...almost zero. Carnivores have not only the speed and power to hunt – we don’t – but also the required type jaw (can't move sidewise like ours) and teeth: sharp fangs (which we certainly don't possess). The digestive tract of carnivores is very short, and the level of digestive acid very high, which allows a carnivore to eat and digest meat without problems. Our digestive tract is extremely long in comparison and our digestive acids are low. These biological facts are evidence that nature has equipped us with a perfect body for a vegetarian diet. If well balanced, it is the healthiest and most powerful diet for humans (did you know that Bruce Lee was vegetarian? Source: testimony of his daughter). Stamina and long-term power comes from vegetarian diet. Proof: the strongest animals on the planet have the highest level of stamina, endurance and continuous strength or power. Carnivores in comparison may be more aggressive, but their power is a short term power. After hunting down and eating their prey, carnivores are exhausted and need time to digest and rest. No carnivore could carry loads for extended periods of time like an elephant, a bull or other herbivores: they have by far more stamina and power. Why do most humans still think they are omnivores and that meat eating is "ok"? Just like pigs are able to eat more or less anything including their own excrements, humans can misuse their free will and defy their actual nature by eating almost any crap under the sun (even “regular” meat eaters would be shocked to hear about some “foods” that are eaten by humans); that however, does not make them omnivores by nature. The main reason behind meat eating is a highly subsidized industry who are expert in selling the lie of "the need for meat". Eating meat doesn't have a single advantage, only disadvantages, and many of them. Here a few: a) it is unethical, b) causing an environmental and economical disaster (by misusing land and important edible food crops and by losing almost 1000% of calories by not directly eating the plant sources that serve animals for food – in other words, we could feed several billion more people if we wouldn’t waste valuable food crops for fodder and only get very small percentage of calories back) and c) it is unnatural and d) unhealthy: most of our modern diseases can be traced back to meat consumption. The two foremost diseases that are proven to be directly related to meat consumption are cancer and heart diseases: the two main killers of today's mankind. To debate issues can be fun and interesting, to cling to foolish dogmas, spread by people who have no conscience if it comes to taking innocent lives, has little to do with being interesting or funny: its simply ignorant and abominable. Whether everyone understands it or not, a slaughter house culture is the most dangerous culture on earth because it is a culture without dignity, conscience or evolved ethics. In fact, based on the literal meaning of the “culture", this term can’t possibly be used for people who promote killing....and who force their own children to eat corpses. Anyways, this was my first and last time visiting this site, so I am sorry for any angry murderer who wants to entangle me with arguments that defend “the need” for more ruthless shedding of blood and innocent, defense- and offense-less lives. Have fun guys, and please do yourself the favor and don’t fall for dogmas like the "omnivore" one. Sadhu

Why plants

Some Guy Thu Mar 30 2006

I pretty much agree with Sadhu

Why plants

ernest morry Mon Apr 10 2006

coz they r kool

max max

Why plants

keeley Tue Apr 11 2006

why do we need plants its for my science assinment!???

Why plants

steve oxbrow Wed May 17 2006

So! I've been vegetarian for most of my life, right through WW2 included and some 12 years ago, finding that this was not suffiently eco-friendly became vegan. 7 stone weakling or matchstick man I am not! 15 stone built like a brick sh** house more like. At 68 still growing most of my own food, having not used chemical fertilisers or animal muck in the last 35 years, i think I have demonstrated that the syystem works.

Why plants

CM Sat Jun 17 2006

What Sadhu has said could not have been said better I am vegetarian and trust me I am stronger than most of my non - veggie friends. look at the enrgy chain and u will find it decreases as we move up the order secondly malnutrion please dont joke natural balnces everything yes everything u can get all your nutrition from veggies. thirdly u get least pollutant in your system when u eat plants but max pollutants when u eat animals cause pollutants tend to accumulate in fats. btw pollutants can be washed off (though not 100%) from plants by rinsing them or soaking them but not from animals atleast not to the best of my knowledge.

Why plants

Dingbat Wed Jul 5 2006

What is this that I keep hearing about "cruelty" to farmed animals. Most of the animals we farm are completely iunept at survival. Let them out into the wild and see what happens! We do them a favor, if you think about it. We protect them from all of the nasty things like preadators and the like. In exchange, we eat their tasty flesh. Sure, I like my assorted veggies, but meat is a reliable source of food. as for Sadhu's "reasons" of humans not being suited to hunt, I beg to differ. The reason why humans were not eliminated early in their existance is because humans have a capacity for community. When surrounded by twenty individuals, prey does not usually survive from a massive barrage of stones. Even large and powerfull prey would not be able to survive human group tactics. These qualities of community and adaption are how humans managed to get to the top of the food chain without claws, horns, sharp teeth, and other traits that conventional preadators have.

Why plants

Sun Aug 6 2006

True, most of the animals we farm are inept at survival. However, they wouldn't be affected by the great pain and suffering that we put them through, if we didn't farm them in the first place. If we didn't farm them, it's not like they would be harmed by predators. Rather, they wouldn't exist in the first place. So you see, we only farm them--create them--to, in the end, put them through a long process of pain and cruelty. As for all the talk about humans not being suited to hunt, that's not even relevant in our day and age. We're disconnected from that aspect of our nature now, in our age of limitless technology. So, what's relevant in our consideration of farming animals isn't our need, or lack thereof, to hunt, it's the ethics of the matter. And, as for meat being a reliable source of food, of course it is--but alternative sources are just as reliable and nutritous, if not more so.

Why plants

NF Sun Aug 6 2006

True, most of the animals we farm are inept at survival. However, they wouldn't be affected by the great pain and suffering that we put them through, if we didn't farm them in the first place. If we didn't farm them, it's not like they would be harmed by predators. Rather, they wouldn't exist in the first place. So you see, we only farm them--create them--to, in the end, put them through a long process of pain and cruelty. As for all the talk about humans not being suited to hunt, that's not even relevant in our day and age. We're disconnected from that aspect of our nature now, in our age of limitless technology. So, what's relevant in our consideration of farming animals isn't our need, or lack thereof, to hunt, it's the ethics of the matter. And, as for meat being a reliable source of food, of course it is--but alternative sources are just as reliable and nutritous, if not more so.

Why plants

Cooper Tue Nov 28 2006

The digestive tract of carnivores is very short, and the level of digestive acid very high, which allows a carnivore to eat and digest meat without problems. Our digestive tract is extremely long in comparison and our digestive acids are low. These biological facts are evidence that nature has equipped us with a perfect body for a vegetarian diet.

Community health and conflict resolution theory Conflict resolution tips, decision making ethics, cross cultural solutions for community health

Why plants

Susannah Wed Nov 29 2006

This is quite an interesting topic. Over 100 years ago, Ellen G. White pointed out that the animal world had become so diseased that soon it would be dangerous to eat the flesh or consume the by-products, of any animal,namely dairy and eggs. What is one to do about yeast? I like my bread. With all of the diseases linked to the highly concentrated protein and fat in the animal products, it is much more practical and safe to escape the trap of conventional western diet and rediscover the diet given to the pair in Eden at the beginning. I believe there is a God Who created this earth for man, wouldn't it be wise to refer to the Manufacturer's Handbook? I am a relatively new gardener and--- the V-word--- and this is all quite wonderful. Thank you each for your differing ideas. Also, on the animal ethics side, I am reading a small book by Matthew Priebe, called,"Animals, Ethics, and Christianity". Kind of puts a lot of things into a different perspective. I mean, how people have twisted the "dominion" thing. Plants were made to be food for us. Certain kinds, of course, and your database is wonderful. I am trying to figure it out (not the brightest bulb in the package, but still, not the dimmest!)I've digressed. Animals and people were not made to dwell in large numbers together as they often have, i.e. cities, zoos, production farms. That is one of the longest standing social ills-promoters. As it stands today, there is enough habitable land for every one of our 6+ billion to have plenty of "yarden-garden" and family-growing space. Your project seems to be a noble endeavor. Remember your Creator.

Why plants

Susannah Wed Nov 29 2006

This is quite an interesting topic. Over 100 years ago, Ellen G. White pointed out that the animal world had become so diseased that soon it would be dangerous to eat the flesh or consume the by-products, of any animal,namely dairy and eggs. What is one to do about yeast? I like my bread. With all of the diseases linked to the highly concentrated protein and fat in the animal products, it is much more practical and safe to escape the trap of conventional western diet and rediscover the diet given to the pair in Eden at the beginning. I believe there is a God Who created this earth for man, wouldn't it be wise to refer to the Manufacturer's Handbook? I am a relatively new gardener and--- the V-word--- and this is all quite wonderful. Thank you each for your differing ideas. Also, on the animal ethics side, I am reading a small book by Matthew Priebe, called,"Animals, Ethics, and Christianity". Kind of puts a lot of things into a different perspective. I mean, how people have twisted the "dominion" thing. Plants were made to be food for us. Certain kinds, of course, and your database is wonderful. I am trying to figure it out (not the brightest bulb in the package, but still, not the dimmest!)I've digressed. Animals and people were not made to dwell in large numbers together as they often have, i.e. cities, zoos, production farms. That is one of the longest standing social ills-promoters. As it stands today, there is enough habitable land for every one of our 6+ billion and the animals to have plenty of "yarden-garden" and family-growing space. Your project seems to be a noble endeavor. Remember your Creator.

Why plants

Sundari Thu Jan 25 2007

The vegetarianism stunts your growth argument is a bit strange. There are several studies (sorry can't cite here and now) that show that meat-eating inhibits calcium uptake. My son (now 15) has been vegetarian (not vegan) since conception and he is 6 feet tall and has uk size 13 feet. Nice, but costing a fortune. Another health issue with meat-eating is that uric acid is produced and this is extremely difficult to excrete. The body stores this in muscle tissue, contributing to inflexibility. As a yoga teacher, I can observe this effect of meat-eating. If you stop eating meat, (and especially if you take up yoga) your body will slowly be able to release this toxin. Life is hard and angry enough without taking in pain and sorrow through dead domesticated animals. Best wishes for a happy healthy meat-free life

Why plants

Tue Jan 30 2007

Yeast is a fungus, not an animal. So, bread isn't a by-product of animals and by that logic shouldn't be "dangerous" to eat.

Why plants

Kae Wed Mar 14 2007

If you are eating meat, you are just believing any misguided propaganda created by the meat and dairy industries. Obviously you aren't going to be promoting a vegan lifestyle whilst consuming animal products. There are more reasons for a plant based diet than a book can fill. About 85% of agricultural land is used for animal farming. We are not the only species on earth. We should share. Why do you believe that animals don't deserve the same rights as you do? If you don't care about the environment or about animal welfare, the least you could do is do it for your health. A well balanced vegan diet provides all of your dietary requirements. A teaspoon of sesame seeds contains 8 times the calcium than a glass of milk. There are numerous ways to obtain iron, green leafy vegetables being a great source. I have higher iron levels as a vegan than when I was an omni. I DONT take any supplements or vitamins. Being a vegan gives you so much more energy as it isn't loaded with animal protein that takes tremendous amounts of energy to break down. Lions sleep about 20 hours per day, whilst gorillas sleep about 6 hours per day. I'd rather go with the gorillas plant based diet thanks. There is ever increasing scientific evidence that shows the enormous health benefits from a plant based diet. It is irrelevant what humans ate in the past. What is relevant is what the best diet is for us now that we have the knowledge and scientific evidence. The only people who have ever died from lack of protein are people who are seriously malnourished and not eating enough. SO many people die each day from a diet with too much protein. A healthy vegan diet will prevent most diseases. A vegan diet contains NO cholesterol. I find it absurd that my taxes have to pay for the health system because of the millions of people who get cancer, diabetes, heart attacks, high-blood pressure amongst the many others because they eat dairy eggs and meat. Don't believe everything society tells you. Question everything.

Add a comment/link:

Discussion Monitor

To have posts to this page mailed to you enter your email address here:

(Your email address will not appear on the webpage or be passed on to third parties).