I grew up in southwest Iowa, on a 10-acre plot of ground. We had a vegetable garden, potato patch, raised our own chickens, pigs and cattle and had a milk cow. We were semi-independent, in terms of food supply. I say this so people will understand my perspective. 

The earth’s food web has a marvelous balance. Prey-creatures often eat food that their predators can’t digest or can’t catch. 
These predators then become prey to other predators, and the food web continues toward humans, who are at the top of the food web, by virtue of being able to capture any animal and able to destroy all life on planet earth.

Andrew Mateskon, works at Legacy Polyculture: 
“The earth feeds 7 billion people on 3.8 billion acres of arable and permanent cropland. You can more than triple this figure if you include rangeland for meat. This is about 0.5 acres of cropland per person, or over 1.5 acres per person if we include rangeland. Some systems are vastly more efficient than others. If there were no "externalized" inputs, industrial monocropping would be the most efficient system ever seen. However, some other systems are able to feed many people with much smaller negative impact. Traditional and contemporary Chinese Agroforestry provides some of the best techniques. China imports an incredibly small amount of food, yet feeds their people to the tune of around 20 per acre. They grow carp in the ditches under fruit and nut trees with crops and herbs between trees and chickens running around. An ancient polyculture of carp, rice, and ducks is practiced in some areas. This increases the yield of the rice, plus adds two more yields to the equation, plus reduces inputs of fertilizer and pesticide.” 

We have to decide how to use the earth to feed the people that live on it. 
While some may say “We can use the ocean.” Can we afford the plant-food grown from the ocean? 

What about Eskimo and Inuit peoples? Eating meat from the ocean makes life possible in ecosystems with short growing periods. Plus, veganism would go a long way toward destroying a culture that is intimately woven into fishing. 

How many species of animals and ecosystems would we need to destroy, to crreate enough tillable acres to support the earth’s growing population? Again, humans eat grazing animals that eat food we can’t digest. Would we have to destroy the habitat of grass-eating animals to grow vegetables and grains? 

And of course, I have trouble engaging with someone who is vegan for the sake of animal rights, yet is proabortion. 
I am certain that a percent of vegans, are vegans, who simply, subconsciously, are trying to atone for the guilt they feel from having had an abortion. This is the case with many types of social activism. 

Now let me take you on a tangent that where PETA/veganism intersects with global warming and 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. Tabasco heir McIlhenny imported to Louisiana a South American rodent, Nutria (Myocastor coypus). He proposed that these larger fur-bearing rodents would breed easily and create an economic boost to people in the area. They got loose, and being rodents, bred voraciously. 

Trappers kept them in check until the antifur movement took the bottom out of the fur market, now, some say nutria are destroying Louisiana’s coastline. Bounty is paid to kill them, but the furs are wasted. Nutria destroy coastland because they overgraze coastland vegetation, speeding up coastal erosion. Being water-friendly vegans, their digging instincts weaken levees and even leads them into toilets. A main argument of the global warming faction is that we are losing our coastlines. 

Nutria are a problem around the world. How much coastline loss is due to nutria, not global warming? 
 Again, erosion is being fought by paying locals a bounty to kill them. 

So what will happen to the Louisiana coastline if guns are outlawed? 
This issue pitches environmentalists against gun control advocates. 


Eric J. Rose