While I agree with the sentiments expressed, your article broadly represents what's wrong with the modern conservationist movement. I speak of course, of "survival of the cutest". Never mind that millions of insects and lizards die every day because of human activity (looking at you, logging), it's the cute baby lambs that need saving!

Like I said, I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying, but conservationism is rather hypocritical. But then I suppose a crying aphid doesn't bring in charity donations like a sad-looking baby chicken...

Yes insects do die everyday due to us walking around, we cant exactly help that, and at least they died in a natural evironment as opposed to a shed where they were tortured before murdered. Yes exactly the same, clearly

I think the idea about this article is that these are animals that we are going to kill regardless but they shouldn't have to suffer unnecessarily beforehand.. though i think i would donate to a crying aphid!

If cost is an issue, I've found that since becoming vegan I spend less on food than when I ate meat. It's a myth that veganism/vegetarianism is the preserve of the middle-class or well-off, you just need to look for the right stuff.

Cieran, I'm not sure that I agree that conservationism is hypocritical. I understand the feeling though that people are affected more by the 'cute factor' than anything else, but sometimes that's the shock you need to get going. Different people campaign for different issues under the umbrella of conservationism, whether it be lizards or lambs, but it doesn't make one hypocritical if the personal focus is on one and not the other. Also, a vegan lifestyle can be very all-encompassing in that many vegans reject not only animal products but any products of unethical activity, like your example of logging (other examples, sweatshop-made clothes etc.) Although one person can't do everything, you can try to think of the big picture. Some people may be unsure how we could save animals whose habitats are being destroyed by logging, but feel that quitting meat is a positive action that you can do fairly easily, and could be the first step.

You know what else could benefit from a couple of pounds? UNICEF.

Really it was more of a rant on the constant focus on "saving the pandas" when human action is harming others elsewhere that we're not considering. I know it's not possible to be fully ethical, even vegans will accidentally kill insects or contribute indirectly to other such things. Really it was more of an opportunity to rant. For the record, I'm omnivorous (and not carnivorous, as many meat-eaters claim ), but hardly a "steak and eggs for breakfast" kind of guy...

I try and buy as ethically as possible on a student budget - no battery farmed eggs for example. The cost of meat is prohibitively expensive at the moment anyway. And I am very much a steak and eggs for breakfast sort of guy but I would like my animals ethically treated because a stressed caged animal pumped full of hormones doesn't taste half as nice

In general, good advice is to go for the Co-op for ethical stuff. Though go for the Hull Road one, Tang Hall's is extortionate. Though always check their cakes, my housemate found out to his chagrin that the eggs used in their cupcakes ARE from battery hens

• Sun, 1st May 2011 6:23am - Edited by the author

I think the "survival of the cutest" point is very pertinent, really. Even when it comes to comparing mammals to fish. I really don't understand pescetarianism (sp?), at least not on moral grounds - as there's actually more that's objectionable about commercial fishing than farming. Even with battery farmed chickens there's no risk of extinction or other creatures being harmed in the process. And yet, somehow a picture of a cod just doesn't seem as evocative as a wee lamb.

Even with Vegetarianism I think the focus can be off. In many ways it would be making a bigger statement to give up milk. The idea of the actual slaughter of a cow may not appeal. However, relatively speaking beef cows spend their lives in open fields eating grass until that occurs. Dairy cows however spend their time hooked up to machinery or in calf and are often slaughtered anyway and used for cheaper beef products. Which life sounds better?

• Sun, 1st May 2011 3:06pm - Edited by the author

A rather interesting point about dairy cattle, my vegan friend informs me, is that when they reproduce, the male calves are often killed, since they're useless for meat-bearing purposes. A similar thing happens with chickens, egg-laying hens will often have male chicks destroyed (I'm told by being put in a sack together with other males and then bludgeoned to death, but this was from a rather militant vegan, so take it with a pinch of salt), though this could well only be battery hens. I'm sure someone keeping chickens for their own use wouldn't do such a thing, but I don't know how a vegan would react to that...

I think it was on the PETA website (could be wrong though) that I found another method used to kill male chicks was literally shredding them. Sounds extreme/not entirely believable; video footage is available though.
Anyway, I think another pertinant point is that even if you buy 'ethical' meat - free range etc. - make sure you're comfortable with the processes going on around it - what do they do with the sick or underdeveloped animals? What do free-range egg farmers do with male chicks? If it turns out they live up to your standards, you'll come away reassured; if not, you'll have avoided putting money into the pockets of unethical people.