Fourth Task Critical And Creative Thinking
If you want to save the world, veganism isn’t the
answer
Comments
1. What Isabella and her husband have done at Knepp is
beautiful. But we simply cannot use it as a general justification for eating
meat. The Knepp estate supplies 0.0075% of the beef the UK eats, and there is
nowhere else like it.
So
what if everywhere was like Knepp, producing 54kg of meat/hectare? The UK's
17.2m ha of farmland would produce slightly less beef than the UK eats. And
nothing else. Knepp is wonderful. But as a general model it's a formula for
starvation.
As
you know, I strongly support rewilding - of infertile and unproductive land. I
do not support rewilding as a substitute for productive crop-growing. The
amazing thing about a plant-based diet is that it uses far less land, releasing
more for rewilding. According to the estimates by Simon Fairlie (himself a
small livestock keeper), a vegan diet could feed all the UK's people on just 3m
hectares of land. Alternatively, all the productive farmland in the UK could be
used to support 200m people.
By
contrast, if Knepp-style production was applied across all the UK's farmland,
it would supply the UK's population with around 75 kcal per person per day -
roughly 1/30th of what we need to survive.
This is an argument because the reader states a
fact and give support to it by posting percentages and actual facts.
2. Seems odd to attack the 5% of people who
choose to be vegan, rather than the much larger percentage who choose to eat
intensively produced food, whether veg or meat.
This is a disagreement because
he simply is showing he does not agree on what the author of the article says.
3. You had me at "soil biota".
Thank you for this great article. I understood only half of the scientific
terms but I got the gist. Copy what nature did; that is the best farming
philosophy; the way of the future! Thank you, thank you!
PS. You forgot the goats; goats are the best;
kids the cutest, make farming more fun!
This is an agreement because
she is showing satisfaction with what the article is about but she does not
give reasons stating data or percentages.
4. I ditched dairy a
couple of years ago now, after being Vegetarian for a long time, I've never
felt better nor more energised.
You just don't need to
eat meat, you can get all the protein you need from Vegan products. And you
don't get all the health problems associated with eating meat.
This is background knowledge from the reader who
gives an overview of what being vegan has been for him.
5. Such a coincidence to
read this. I was only pondering on this yesterday.
We need livestock to
keep the land in production
This is simply a point of view or a position
because he does not give specific reasons to support his position.
6. We are evolved as omnivores and that
has to be the healthy way to live. This approach tells us that, as a species we
need to rebalance our diet and reduce our numbers. Farming started about 4,000
years ago, it has only recently become damaging.
This is a conclusion because the
reader is taking into account the information to make a reflection on what the
article is about.
If you want to read the article check the link below!
So what if everywhere was like Knepp, producing 54kg of meat/hectare? The UK's 17.2m ha of farmland would produce slightly less beef than the UK eats. And nothing else. Knepp is wonderful. But as a general model it's a formula for starvation.
As you know, I strongly support rewilding - of infertile and unproductive land. I do not support rewilding as a substitute for productive crop-growing. The amazing thing about a plant-based diet is that it uses far less land, releasing more for rewilding. According to the estimates by Simon Fairlie (himself a small livestock keeper), a vegan diet could feed all the UK's people on just 3m hectares of land. Alternatively, all the productive farmland in the UK could be used to support 200m people.
By contrast, if Knepp-style production was applied across all the UK's farmland, it would supply the UK's population with around 75 kcal per person per day - roughly 1/30th of what we need to survive.
This is an argument because the reader states a fact and give support to it by posting percentages and actual facts.
2. Seems odd to attack the 5% of people who choose to be vegan, rather than the much larger percentage who choose to eat intensively produced food, whether veg or meat.
This is a disagreement because he simply is showing he does not agree on what the author of the article says.
3. You had me at "soil biota". Thank you for this great article. I understood only half of the scientific terms but I got the gist. Copy what nature did; that is the best farming philosophy; the way of the future! Thank you, thank you!
PS. You forgot the goats; goats are the best; kids the cutest, make farming more fun!
This is an agreement because she is showing satisfaction with what the article is about but she does not give reasons stating data or percentages.
4. I ditched dairy a couple of years ago now, after being Vegetarian for a long time, I've never felt better nor more energised.
You just don't need to eat meat, you can get all the protein you need from Vegan products. And you don't get all the health problems associated with eating meat.
This is background knowledge from the reader who gives an overview of what being vegan has been for him.
5. Such a coincidence to read this. I was only pondering on this yesterday.
We need livestock to keep the land in production
This is simply a point of view or a position because he does not give specific reasons to support his position.
6. We are evolved as omnivores and that has to be the healthy way to live. This approach tells us that, as a species we need to rebalance our diet and reduce our numbers. Farming started about 4,000 years ago, it has only recently become damaging.
This is a conclusion because the reader is taking into account the information to make a reflection on what the article is about.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario