Vegan political parties?

>be meateater capitalist
>be on FB
>see's newly launched "Animal welfare political party"
>see's that they are in full support of abolishing trading of animals/animal products
>see's that they want to abolish animal farms and food production companies
>see's many people supporting them

>point out that this would not be wise for the countries economy and will take many people out of jobs


...

They laugh at me, get angry, say it won't and insult me.

Why don't these people not know supply and demand and basic economics?

We had a legalise cannabis party, as well as an internet party. Idk if they gonna be around next election though

Written by DeepFriedUnicorn, 27.02.2019 at 17:37

>be meateater capitalist
>be on FB
>see's newly launched "Animal welfare political party"
>see's that they are in full support of abolishing trading of animals/animal products
>see's that they want to abolish animal farms and food production companies
>see's many people supporting them
>point out that this would not be wise for the countries economy and will take many people out of jobs
They laugh at me, get angry, say it won't and insult me.
Why don't these people not know supply and demand and basic economics?

Animal farms (factory farms at least) are going to go away on their own, through the rise of artificial meat. The presence of artificial meat will greatly reduce demand for naturally grown meat, cutting animal farm revenues down by a great amount unless they also have moved to artificial meat. Also jobs isn't really an excuse lol, if the job is causing a lot more damage (environmental in this case, along with suffering for the animals). It doesn't matter if those workers lose their job, if losing them means society can advance. In any case the AWPP will have almost zero impact, but those aforementioned workers will mostly lose their jobs anyways in 20 years or so when artificial meat becomes feasible on a mass-produced scale. Perhaps they will exit the factory/small animal farming industry and will move into the artificial meat industry, losing their old job for a better one

Written by Player 999, 28.02.2019 at 10:30

Written by DeepFriedUnicorn, 27.02.2019 at 17:37

>be meateater capitalist
>be on FB
>see's newly launched "Animal welfare political party"
>see's that they are in full support of abolishing trading of animals/animal products
>see's that they want to abolish animal farms and food production companies
>see's many people supporting them
>point out that this would not be wise for the countries economy and will take many people out of jobs
They laugh at me, get angry, say it won't and insult me.
Why don't these people not know supply and demand and basic economics?

Animal farms (factory farms at least) are going to go away on their own, through the rise of artificial meat. The presence of artificial meat will greatly reduce demand for naturally grown meat, cutting animal farm revenues down by a great amount unless they also have moved to artificial meat. Also jobs isn't really an excuse lol, if the job is causing a lot more damage (environmental in this case, along with suffering for the animals). It doesn't matter if those workers lose their job, if losing them means society can advance. In any case the AWPP will have almost zero impact, but those aforementioned workers will mostly lose their jobs anyways in 20 years or so when artificial meat becomes feasible on a mass-produced scale. Perhaps they will exit the factory/small animal farming industry and will move into the artificial meat industry, losing their old job for a better one

Artificial meat? Why would anyone pay for that? I'd pay more money for natural food than cheap and nasty fake food.

Written by DeepFriedUnicorn, 28.02.2019 at 11:46

Artificial meat? Why would anyone pay for that? I'd pay more money for natural food than cheap and nasty fake food.

By artificial meat I don't necessary mean "fake" meat; artificial meat refers to meat that is grown from animal specimens in a lab. So it is 100% meat, but uses less resources and eliminates the need for animal suffering. Instead of having an animal be born into slavery and raised in terrible conditions just to be butchered, we can grow meat from animal cells and eliminate animal suffering while at the same time greatly reducing human environmental impact. It's a compulsory thing if we want the environment to not be wrecked when the rest of the world develops and starts to have resource usage like the US and other resource-intensive countries

Written by Player 999, 28.02.2019 at 23:09

Written by DeepFriedUnicorn, 28.02.2019 at 11:46

Artificial meat? Why would anyone pay for that? I'd pay more money for natural food than cheap and nasty fake food.

By artificial meat I don't necessary mean "fake" meat; artificial meat refers to meat that is grown from animal specimens in a lab. So it is 100% meat, but uses less resources and eliminates the need for animal suffering. Instead of having an animal be born into slavery and raised in terrible conditions just to be butchered, we can grow meat from animal cells and eliminate animal suffering while at the same time greatly reducing human environmental impact. It's a compulsory thing if we want the environment to not be wrecked when the rest of the world develops and starts to have resource usage like the US and other resource-intensive countries

Still sounds fake though... once you slap on that "It's grown in a lab" it sounds fake

I don't care if an animal dies so someone can keep their job and provide for their family and i'd still pay more for natural foods.

I don't care for animals in general, I'm already a meat eater, I worked in a chicken factory before 70 people worked with me, I'm never going to vote for a party that would just kick them out of a job and doesn't care for them, infact that actually doesn't like them. I'm sure many of them wouldn't vote for that Party either.

And then the fisher men around the world? Many of them wouldn't vote for that party either.
And over population on this planet? Where are we going to keep all these animals? In the wild? Well...We need the wild so we can build houses/expand for us because over population.

Written by DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.03.2019 at 05:05

Still sounds fake though... once you slap on that "It's grown in a lab" it sounds fake

I don't care if an animal dies so someone can keep their job and provide for their family and i'd still pay more for natural foods.

I don't care for animals in general, I'm already a meat eater, I worked in a chicken factory before 70 people worked with me, I'm never going to vote for a party that would just kick them out of a job and doesn't care for them, infact that actually doesn't like them. I'm sure many of them wouldn't vote for that Party either.

And then the fisher men around the world? Many of them wouldn't vote for that party either.
And over population on this planet? Where are we going to keep all these animals? In the wild? Well...We need the wild so we can build houses/expand for us because over population.

Honestly if saving the environment and stopping the deaths of tens of billions of farm animals a year requires kicking some random butchers out of their jobs, I don't mind. And animal over population of livestock occurs because they are being kept for meat.... If there is a lower demand for meat from livestock, then they wouldn't be bred as much lmao. Chickens/pigs/cows.etc. would not be bred in the tens of billions as they are now.

I suppose this is a value issue, I value the environment and technological/ethical progress over some random people off in a rural area making money off of animal suffering, while you value their jobs over the environment and technological/ethical progress. Agree to disagree.

Written by Player 999, 01.03.2019 at 13:07

Written by DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.03.2019 at 05:05

Still sounds fake though... once you slap on that "It's grown in a lab" it sounds fake

I don't care if an animal dies so someone can keep their job and provide for their family and i'd still pay more for natural foods.

I don't care for animals in general, I'm already a meat eater, I worked in a chicken factory before 70 people worked with me, I'm never going to vote for a party that would just kick them out of a job and doesn't care for them, infact that actually doesn't like them. I'm sure many of them wouldn't vote for that Party either.

And then the fisher men around the world? Many of them wouldn't vote for that party either.
And over population on this planet? Where are we going to keep all these animals? In the wild? Well...We need the wild so we can build houses/expand for us because over population.

Honestly if saving the environment and stopping the deaths of tens of billions of farm animals a year requires kicking some random butchers out of their jobs, I don't mind. And animal over population of livestock occurs because they are being kept for meat.... If there is a lower demand for meat from livestock, then they wouldn't be bred as much lmao. Chickens/pigs/cows.etc. would not be bred in the tens of billions as they are now.

I suppose this is a value issue, I value the environment and technological/ethical progress over some random people off in a rural area making money off of animal suffering, while you value their jobs over the environment and technological/ethical progress. Agree to disagree.

No no, I understand you perfectly. It's just not that many people care enough for the environment so much that they would just give up their job, just like that.

Also people are very weary if their food that's meant to be natural, Is coming from, "Some lab somewhere or something"

It's like, I do care for the environment, but if an electrical car is more expensive and less efficient than a non environmental friendly one. I'm going for the cheaper and more efficient one for me, taking that I'm middle class and it's more logical for my use.

But yeah, I guess my attitude is "Fuck you jack, I'm alright" but sure, I'm not rich, so I can't be ALL for environmental friendly needs and wants. I'll be it to an extent, sure. But regarding efficient and affordable things, like a car, natural meat, affordable flights and jobs. I'm going for them.

Written by Player 999, 01.03.2019 at 13:07

If nothing, there is some salad on it?

Written by Player 999, 01.03.2019 at 13:07

Written by DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.03.2019 at 05:05

Still sounds fake though... once you slap on that "It's grown in a lab" it sounds fake

I don't care if an animal dies so someone can keep their job and provide for their family and i'd still pay more for natural foods.

I don't care for animals in general, I'm already a meat eater, I worked in a chicken factory before 70 people worked with me, I'm never going to vote for a party that would just kick them out of a job and doesn't care for them, infact that actually doesn't like them. I'm sure many of them wouldn't vote for that Party either.

And then the fisher men around the world? Many of them wouldn't vote for that party either.
And over population on this planet? Where are we going to keep all these animals? In the wild? Well...We need the wild so we can build houses/expand for us because over population.

Honestly if saving the environment and stopping the deaths of tens of billions of farm animals a year requires kicking some random butchers out of their jobs, I don't mind. And animal over population of livestock occurs because they are being kept for meat.... If there is a lower demand for meat from livestock, then they wouldn't be bred as much lmao. Chickens/pigs/cows.etc. would not be bred in the tens of billions as they are now.

I suppose this is a value issue, I value the environment and technological/ethical progress over some random people off in a rural area making money off of animal suffering, while you value their jobs over the environment and technological/ethical progress. Agree to disagree.

Actually, it's not even that I'm being "Fuck you jack, I'm alright" or spiteful or mean. It's just more beneficial to me at that current time.

Written by Player 999, 01.03.2019 at 13:07

Written by DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.03.2019 at 05:05

Still sounds fake though... once you slap on that "It's grown in a lab" it sounds fake

I don't care if an animal dies so someone can keep their job and provide for their family and i'd still pay more for natural foods.

I don't care for animals in general, I'm already a meat eater, I worked in a chicken factory before 70 people worked with me, I'm never going to vote for a party that would just kick them out of a job and doesn't care for them, infact that actually doesn't like them. I'm sure many of them wouldn't vote for that Party either.

And then the fisher men around the world? Many of them wouldn't vote for that party either.
And over population on this planet? Where are we going to keep all these animals? In the wild? Well...We need the wild so we can build houses/expand for us because over population.

Honestly if saving the environment and stopping the deaths of tens of billions of farm animals a year requires kicking some random butchers out of their jobs, I don't mind. And animal over population of livestock occurs because they are being kept for meat.... If there is a lower demand for meat from livestock, then they wouldn't be bred as much lmao. Chickens/pigs/cows.etc. would not be bred in the tens of billions as they are now.

I suppose this is a value issue, I value the environment and technological/ethical progress over some random people off in a rural area making money off of animal suffering, while you value their jobs over the environment and technological/ethical progress. Agree to disagree.

Its a resource, everything on this planet should be used twards the betterment of humanity, eventually as we advance and expand we will require most biomes to be completely utilized to our advantage. It is a natural order that some species evolve and prosper and those who can not die. Most species of wild animal will one day be allocated to zoos for continued study and research, and animals such as cows, and chickens will continue to feed the populace, because in reality most people simple do not care about them.

Written by Helly, 04.03.2019 at 05:52

Its a resource, everything on this planet should be used twards the betterment of humanity, eventually as we advance and expand we will require most biomes to be completely utilized to our advantage. It is a natural order that some species evolve and prosper and those who can not die. Most species of wild animal will one day be allocated to zoos for continued study and research, and animals such as cows, and chickens will continue to feed the populace, because in reality most people simple do not care about them.

In this statement you suggest that the better of humanity is simply resource allocation and management, ie continuing an agricultural surplus as a core country or even in semi-peripheral ones. What you have not considered is the pricniple by which an agricultural surplus yields in increase in population, and subsequently a larger need for resource allocation; There will come a day when there are too many mouths to feed and not enough mouths doing anything of value towards civilization, not to mention the quality of life for said individuals decreasing as rampant urbanization and encroachment of natural environments favors collective living situations.

Written by Guest, 04.03.2019 at 13:40

Written by Helly, 04.03.2019 at 05:52

Its a resource, everything on this planet should be used twards the betterment of humanity, eventually as we advance and expand we will require most biomes to be completely utilized to our advantage. It is a natural order that some species evolve and prosper and those who can not die. Most species of wild animal will one day be allocated to zoos for continued study and research, and animals such as cows, and chickens will continue to feed the populace, because in reality most people simple do not care about them.

In this statement you suggest that the better of humanity is simply resource allocation and management, ie continuing an agricultural surplus as a core country or even in semi-peripheral ones. What you have not considered is the pricniple by which an agricultural surplus yields in increase in population, and subsequently a larger need for resource allocation; There will come a day when there are too many mouths to feed and not enough mouths doing anything of value towards civilization, not to mention the quality of life for said individuals decreasing as rampant urbanization and encroachment of natural environments favors collective living situations.

I just did not delve into that, i was simply stating the conservation of wild life is a losing battle and not necessary to our further advancements.

Written by Guest, 04.03.2019 at 13:40

Malthusian economics has been disproven; people tend to have less children as the economy gets more developed. Look at Japan, Europe, Usa etc; their populations are shrinking every year and are only getting propped up due to immigration. The world population will reach a peak at around 2060-2070 at 10 billion, and will start a slow decline. There isn't any risk of overpopulation in the future, as we have learned in recent decades that people will have less kids as their economic situation improves. And the world is rapider getting richer every day, in every country.

The real risk, of course, is resource allocation as you stated. Richer countries use up much more resources than poorer countries per capita, and correspondingly hurt the environment at a higher rate per capita. So, humanity will need to look for ways to improve resource efficiency as the world's populations gradually becomes richer. Lab-grown meat is one of those ways. I don't think you disagree with me on that point. But in response to the malthusian viewpoint in your post, history has proven it wrong. Overpopulation won't be an issue.

I saw "vegan" I knew it was a boring/shitty topic zz

Written by Froyer, 04.03.2019 at 17:21

I saw "vegan" I knew it was a boring/shitty topic zz

I saw the creator of the thread and before even reading the title I knew that.

Written by Player 999, 04.03.2019 at 16:54

Written by Guest, 04.03.2019 at 13:40

Malthusian economics has been disproven; people tend to have less children as the economy gets more developed. Look at Japan, Europe, Usa etc; their populations are shrinking every year and are only getting propped up due to immigration. The world population will reach a peak at around 2060-2070 at 10 billion, and will start a slow decline. There isn't any risk of overpopulation in the future, as we have learned in recent decades that people will have less kids as their economic situation improves. And the world is rapider getting richer every day, in every country.

The real risk, of course, is resource allocation as you stated. Richer countries use up much more resources than poorer countries per capita, and correspondingly hurt the environment at a higher rate per capita. So, humanity will need to look for ways to improve resource efficiency as the world's populations gradually becomes richer. Lab-grown meat is one of those ways. I don't think you disagree with me on that point. But in response to the malthusian viewpoint in your post, history has proven it wrong. Overpopulation won't be an issue.

I believe as well that overpopulation will not occur en masse for some time, I was rather responding to Helly's point about utilizing the environment to its fullest; I do believe however the populations will continue upwards the bell curve trend we currently see specifically in South Asia and Africa, possibly South America. There will be a drop off like you said, but I believe it should be sooner rather than later. Good post.