Thank you, BawdyWench! I recognized the futility of veganism when I realized it would put all the then-dead tree edition books off limits... and the parchments... and modern e-book production uses computers, which uses plastic.

It lets us realize there are things we can't duplicate as well as nature has; a local museum has a science section devoted to this kind of study. I always found organic gardening superior, and had success with roses that way. It's a sound approach to problems, obviously.

Veganism for health is obviously ludicrous. Strictness is not possible if someone lives in the modern world, so it makes no logical sense. Which is why I call it a belief system, where any inconsistencies get rationalized away. Then people might get upset over the different ways people solve for inconsistency.

While I understand veganism for principle... they would actually do more good for animals if they ate humanely-raised meat.

Someone did a documentary which showed how many animals die in the fields which grow the soy and cotton. Why should vegans feel superior because they don't EAT them? That means they were "wasted" which is not part of the circle of life.

Everything in our society was at one time in a cardboard box held together with glue. So my Kindle full of ebooks would still not be vegan.

The words "humanely raised" is a start AND a goal. I don't see vegans contributing. They are actually, like JLx's friend who can't eat beef, hurting themselves: which is also betraying an ethical obligation. I don't think an ethical belief system should be about hurting anyone, including the one who holds that belief.