Vegetarian Glastonbury?

[russycarps]

Yeah, I've read this nonsense before "resource-guzzling meat diets have bled the planet so dry".

OK, lets ban meat generally, there some immediate consequences.

1. The countryside is left with no animals, no sheep, no cows, etc. in some areas you will simply returning the land to the wild like the uplands of Britain, you can't grow crops on it but you can keep sheep and other suitable livestock on it.

2. You still have to kill animals to stop them eating the crops. Rabbits, deer etc.

3. You have to find a way of replacing all the animal by-products that we use, wool, leather, milk, eggs, bonemeal, etc.

If you stop people eating meat, it only delays the depletion of food resources. The truth is there are just too many homo sapiens on the planet. As someone who does eat vegetarian food a lot at festivals and elsewhere but still love to eat meat I think some of the aggressive preaching of the veggie brigade is over the top. And I'm not saying that "GETOFFAMYLAWN" is doing so, but I've heard all before and I've taken his quote out of context to illustrate my point. (So nothing personal dude!)

Let's take Haloumi as an example, veggies love it, I love it. It is made from Goat and Sheep milk. Goal milk production is the worst offender of any food group. There is a growing demand for goats' milk but less demand for meat. Quick biology lesson - only girl goats produce milk. The young male goats are often killed straight after birth as there is no demand for the meat. Actually more accurately there is a small demand but not an economic one, because Goat tastes a lot like sheep but the animal is slower growing it is almost impossible to make money on producing Goat meat.

How about Venison? In this country deer have no natural predators since we killed all the Lynx and the Wolves. We may at some point reintroduce the European Lynx but it is impossible to foresee the wolf coming back any time soon. In the meantime we have to cull deer. The alternative is to let them starve as they over breed and over graze their environment. Oh and to anyone who hasn't tasted it, Venison is delicious! Much nicer than steak. And if it helps to salve your conscience they are shot in the field not herded into a slaughterhouse so they are happily grazing and them boom, dead.

The peccadilloes and moral stance of vegetarianism and veganism is illogical. I have no problem with anyone choosing not to eat meat and indeed I think we would all be a lot healthier if we ate less meat and particularly removed intensely farmed meat from our diet. But to blame the ills of the world on meat eaters is simply abrogating your own part in the rape of this blue jewel.

Responsible and ethical meat production and consumption is a good thing. And tasty.

Nature will find a way of solving consequences 1&2, human ingenuity consequence 3.

Meat eaters are simply too selfish to consider changing their lifestyle so always come out with these absurd 'consequences' to justify their selfish stance.

It was ever thus.

Just be honest. The reason you won't give up meat is because you can't be bothered, and to hell with the real consequences: the accelerated decline of the planet and the horrificly brutal existence for billions of animals.

[kidpresentable]

I'd be delighted! But then, I'm vegetarian.

[Quark]

As a vegan, if you didn't go to Happy Maki's vegan sushi by William's Green then my absolute condolences.

Dammit I never tried that one!

 

Anyhoo, aside from the rights / wrongs on meat eating, vegetarianism etc, would it work at Glastonbury?  Sounds like it used to be that way back in the early days, but what about now?

 

How many of the people that apply for tickets, if they were told that there would be no stands selling meat at the festival, would actually decide not to bother?  People can cope with paying £250 without knowing which bands they'll see, but I reckon there would be some who'd find 5 days without meat the final tipping point!

 

But I don't think you'd end up with less than full capacity.  Be interesting to see what effect it would have on the demographic of attendees.

[Rumblestripe]

Nature will find a way of solving consequences 1&2, human ingenuity consequence 3.

Meat eaters are simply too selfish to consider changing their lifestyle so always come out with these absurd 'consequences' to justify their selfish stance.

It was ever thus.

Just be honest. The reason you won't give up meat is because you can't be bothered, and to hell with the real consequences: the accelerated decline of the planet and the horrificly brutal existence for billions of animals.

"Nature will find a way"

 

No it won't. Nature's way is that animals eat vegetables and each other, left alone there will be a balance, the need to feed the human populace means that an artificial balance must be enforced. A natural balance cannot exist whilst there is an an unchecked homo sapiens infestation. The traditional way of reducing the human pest problem is war, and frankly from what I know of it, that doesn't seem like a good idea at all.

 

"Meat eaters are simply too selfish to consider changing their lifestyle" not so, I've stated that we should reduce our consumption of meat but that animals are still required for food and to manage the landscape but they should remain part of food production. A wild unmanaged ecosystem might support roughly one tenth of the current human population. I would turn that phrase round and say that "Evangelical Vegetarians" (to distinguish them from those who don't think that no-one should eat meat) are the ones who are selfish in their outlook. they refuse to address the potential consequences of their beliefs.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Rumblestripe