I created an account on the Wiki, with the same username as here (Canastenard).brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:55 pmThat's a great idea!Canastenard wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:22 amThis is a follow-up to my last post which inspired me to suggest something: adding a section about sustainable agriculture in the Wiki. That page would describe what agriculture would look like in a vegan world, and the evidence based practices to make sure we get a sustainable agriculture which provides people their nutritional needs while minimizing environmental damage. Obviously widespread veganism would imply a massive shift from agriculture as it currently exists, with animal agriculture being a large part of it, so if we want to advocate for veganism then we must show how a world without slaughterhouses would sustain its food suply.
Can you get it started? If you can sign up to the wiki, and let us know your username, we'll give you permissions.
I'm not an expert in agricultural science, but I've learned a little bit with my own research to start a stub. I'd be glad to get criticism and correction from people who know better than be on certain points at least.
I think it's important to describe how agriculture would look like in a world that takes animal ethics into account, because it will make sure everyone can see in their mind how society would look like without slaughtergouses, and also because domestic animals being harmed is obviously not the only thing to know about when talking about farming.
Although I've seen the table of contents, I don't see where an article about sustainable agriculture would fit... While learning about it would benefit everyone because popularization of knowledge about evidence-based sustainable agriculture can only be a good thing, farmers would be the only one to put these in practice. Maybe in ethical issues?
And asides from working on the sustainable agriculture section, I'm really interested in contributing to the pages "Bad Arguments for veganism" and "All the arguments against" just for one thing: the appeal to nature. I just dislike that fallacy so much and would have a lot of fun debunking it for both sides