Rational case for Vegetarianism/Veganism?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

According to Cornell ecologist David Pimentel, animal protein demands tremendous expenditures of fossil-fuel energy—-about eight times as much for a comparable amount of plant protein.

...

The meat industry is a major cause of fresh water depletion.

Linky. (http://www.chooseveg.com/conservation.asp)

Cattle grazing is a serious threat to endangered species, both in the western United States and in the rainforests of South America.

In the United States, grazing has contributed to the demise of 26% of federal threatened and endangered species.[1]

...

The situation is no better in South America where the rainforests are being destroyed at an alarming rate in order to clear the land for cattle grazing.

According to the United Nations, ranching-induced deforestation is one of the main reasons for the loss of plant and animal species in tropical rainforests.[2]

Linky. (http://www.chooseveg.com/extinction.asp)

A groundbreaking 2006 United Nations report found that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined [1].

Luckily, we can help fix this problem by changing our diet.

According to a 2006 study done by researchers at the University of Chicago, most Americans can reduce more greenhouse gas emissions by becoming a vegan than they can by switching to a hybrid electric car.

They found that eating a vegan diet prevents the equivalent of 1.5 tons of CO2 emissions every year, more than the 1 ton of CO2 emissions prevented by switching from a typical large sedan to a Toyota Prius [2].

Linky. (http://www.chooseveg.com/global-warming.asp)

Factory farms produce run-off that pollutes our streams and rivers, endangering not only the water supply for humans but also harming delicate eco-systems.

A U.S. Senate Agricultural Committee report concluded, “The threat of pollution from intensive livestock and poultry farms is a national problem.” [1]

According to the EPA, over 200 manure discharges and spills from U.S. animal farms between 1990 and 1997 have killed more than a billion fish.[2] Animal feedlots can contaminate nearby well water with high levels of nitrates, which have been linked to miscarriages in humans as well as “blue baby” syndrome in infants.[3]

Linky. (http://www.chooseveg.com/pollution.asp)

So I saw an advertisement for this website on the train and thought about checking it out. Of course, it has the scary videos of how we get our meat products. But it also has the information above that I have heard alluded to in other sources as well. And don't miss the statistics that are to the left of the text.

So is this a rational case for vegetarianism/veganism?

To me this is very compelling. Of course, I had a slight pro-vegetarian bias from the start in that I naturally dislike the taste of meat :p .

(I am not a vegetarian, but this has got me interested)

And, to go to a further eco-nut level, what about enforcing a tax to discourage the behaviour? I mean, wouldn't they be effected by a greenhouse gas tax?

Or to go in the animal rights extreme, should this treatment of animals be banned?

Of course, this isn't to imply that the animal rights concerns aren't rational, it is just that this data is more concrete and objectively suitable for analysis. And science is cool.

Also, they have health statistics, but I don't buy them so readily. I have studied statistics, so I know how easily they can be misconstrued :p .

[Apathia]

Try it. See if your body likes it.
Few people can do Vegan without protein supplements, and it's contraindicated in a most obvious way for growing children.

More people can do a vegetarian diet that includes some dairy.

I was a vegetarian from age 16 to 50.
At about 50 I began to feel I needed some, lets say, preprocessed protein, as my digestive system just ain't what it used to be.
Once a week I eat a fish or poultry item. I still don't consume pork or beef.

Most of the environmental damage you referenced comes from clearning rainforest land for growing cattle feed or for cattle ranches. You don't have to sacrifice your nutritional needs for for the environment. Just make better choices about what and how much animal protein you consume.

[Roboramma]

Good post tsukasa - I've often considered going veg for just those reasons. Sometimes I think I really don't have any justification not to do so, and yet, here I am, still eating meat...

On the other hand, I think that the more you do (ie. the less meat you consume) the less your impact. It's certainly not an all or nothing decision. And like apathia says, I think the best first step is to cut beef out of your diet. One can make a major impact just from that. After that, eating less meat/meal, and including it in fewer meals is also valuable.

Great, you've made me start thinking about this again...

[fuelair]

Linky. (http://www.chooseveg.com/conservation.asp)



Linky. (http://www.chooseveg.com/extinction.asp)



Linky. (http://www.chooseveg.com/global-warming.asp)



Linky. (http://www.chooseveg.com/pollution.asp)

So I saw an advertisement for this website on the train and thought about checking it out. Of course, it has the scary videos of how we get our meat products. But it also has the information above that I have heard alluded to in other sources as well. And don't miss the statistics that are to the left of the text.

So is this a rational case for vegetarianism/veganism?

To me this is very compelling. Of course, I had a slight pro-vegetarian bias from the start in that I naturally dislike the taste of meat :p .

(I am not a vegetarian, but this has got me interested)

And, to go to a further eco-nut level, what about enforcing a tax to discourage the behaviour? I mean, wouldn't they be effected by a greenhouse gas tax?

Or to go in the animal rights extreme, should this treatment of animals be banned?

Of course, this isn't to imply that the animal rights concerns aren't rational, it is just that this data is more concrete and objectively suitable for analysis. And science is cool.

Also, they have health statistics, but I don't buy them so readily. I have studied statistics, so I know how easily they can be misconstrued :p .Taste is the problem for me - most meats taste better than most plants (exceptions in both directions) and I am a very good cook so I can do a lot with spices, sauces and such (a good bit reduced if dairy/egg included) - but not enough to actually give up meat (anyone who thinks a toffuti burger/turkey tastes like - ot better than- the real thing has a taste bud problem). I do not argue the health point of a diet rich in plant life and low in meat though.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I agree that in some ways, vegetarianism is better for the enviornment, better for animals and possibly better for you.

However, I think that eating meat is what nature intended for us, don't believe that animals- who regularly kill and consume each other- should be treated as being above the food chain and love food too much to give up half to two-thirds of it.

And some vegetarians/ vegans really annoy me.

[Hokulele]

So is this a rational case for vegetarianism/veganism?


Bah, go out and hunt your own protein. Good exercise and good for the environment!

[Darat]

In many areas of the UK where sheep are raised it is land that we can't use for food crops so in those terms the sheep are the most efficient means we have of using that land to produce food.

[Bob Blaylock]

My ancestors didn't spend thousands of years fighting their way to the top of the food chain so that I could eat tofu and vegetables.

On a more serious note, I now work in a job that involves a fair amount of hard physical work here and there. In order to be strong and healthy enough to do this work, I need protein and nutrients which are not easily obtained from non-meat sources.

[Undesired Walrus]

Bacon, Beef, Fish, too bloody tasty. Sorry nature!

[Apathia]

Bah, go out and hunt your own protein. Good exercise and good for the environment!

There's abundant roadkill!

[kedo1981]

I've switched to Vaginatarianism but I'll spare you the details.

[quarky]

bacteria can save us from this dilemma.
any flavor you want; cheap to produce.

[casebro]

Is there a vegan source for Carnitine?

I don't know, I'm just asking. It seems that we do absorb some proteins intact, not just by breaking them down into amino acids. Some folks with various diseases must supplement with particular proteins, which makes me wonder if those proteins are available in veggies? I doubt if Carnitine is the only one, it's just one I take. It's needed for the mitochondria to function. Perhaps there ARE essential proteins, not just essential amino acids?

Anyway, I believe that eating a wide range of food is the best 'balanced diet'. Just for the random chance that you may NEED something in that particular food. Eat some yellow fruit, some green leafy veggies, and some red meat. Damn, next thing I know, people with be falsely accusing me of not only being a murderer, but also being a member of the Rainbow Coalition.

[robinson]

I've switched to Vaginatarianism but I'll spare you the details.

No way. You must provide details. And pictures.

[Bikewer]

From such research as I've done, I recall the following points.
Yes, the production and processing of large quantities of meat is very demanding. Not only do most meat animals eat things that humans do, they produce lots of waste products that are difficult to handle and plenty of greenhouse gases as well.

However....

A healthy vegetarian diet requires a lot of work and planning. It's often necessary to consume large amounts of very different plant foods in order to obtain the required nutrients.
Such diverse agriculture is not generally available to much of the world. Meat provides a nice, compact, nutritionally-rich package to fill in the gaps.
That's indeed the diet of much of the world; large amounts of "staple" grains with such small amounts of meat as can be obtained.

The anthropologist Marvin Harris noted in his little book "Good To Eat" that much of the world is both "meat hungry" and more essentially, "fat hungry". I believe it was Russian premier Gorbachev who said, "If I could put 2 kilos of meat on the average Russian table per week, we wouldn't have any social unrest."

The Chinese, long noted for the almost entirely vegetarian diet of the peasantry, are now becoming affluent enough to buy meat, and are doing so with gusto. I just listened to interviews with a farming family who were so poor previously that they could only eat the poorest of grains. Now, they can afford meat on a weekly basis.
Ditto for the Indians...

Vegetarianism has not historically been a matter of choice; it's a matter of poverty. Meat has always been a sought-after and desired commodity. The same Harris mentioned above talked at length about the "Potlatch" (large, generous feasts thrown by the chief or "big man") practice of many primitives. The commodity given away by the big man to his followers? Meat.

Bottom line? Vegetarianism in developed countries seems to be associated either with morality or with concerns about health, the environment, and so forth. The consumption of meat most everywhere else is more a matter of survival.

And not without historical precedence. Our primitive ancestors ate meat; and lots of it. In fact, anthropologists theorize that it was this improvement in diet that may have spurred brain growth....
Even our cousins, the chimps, eat meat whenever they can get it; they do hunt and kill small animals and eat the critters with gusto.

Converting society to vegetarianism may be desirable, but certainly would be an uphill road.

[robinson]

Not for India.

[TheDaver]

Our primitive ancestors ate meat; and lots of it. In fact, anthropologists theorize that it was this improvement in diet that may have spurred brain growth....
Doubtful. To eat large quantities of meat, we needed to hunt. To hunt, we needed weapons. To have weapons, we needed tool use. To make and use tools, we needed brain growth.

But the idea of our ancestors sneaking up on small furry animals and strangling them with their bare hands does amuse me.

[robinson]

The oldest and largest civilizations were, and still are, predominant veggie eaters. China, Japan, and India are not hunter gatherer societies. They are very old vegetarian societies.

Yes, there is fish near the oceans, as well as other seafood, but no animal husbandry. Same for China, where animal protein was a minor factor.

Rice is the reason for these civilizations. Much like corn was the reason for Mesoamerican cultures, which are not around, but were vast at one time.

Most people on the planet still live off of rice or corn. Maybe potatoes and millet. Not animal protein.

[NoisyAstronomer]

A healthy vegetarian diet requires a lot of work and planning. It's often necessary to consume large amounts of very different plant foods in order to obtain the required nutrients.
Such diverse agriculture is not generally available to much of the world. Meat provides a nice, compact, nutritionally-rich package to fill in the gaps.
That's indeed the diet of much of the world; large amounts of "staple" grains with such small amounts of meat as can be obtained.



That may be one of the more convincing arguments that I've heard for not jumping into vegetarianism full force. However, since diverse agriculture is available to those of us in the US, for example, it's not impossible to do. In fact, I have a friend who tried veganism is large part for the challenge. (She's doing great with it now, almost 6 months later.)

I could never give up delicious sushi, but I am trying to cut meat out of my diet and be much better with my fruits and veggies. Is there really something to be said, however, for focusing on free-range chicken, organic foods, etc? I do hear so many positive things about those (good for the environment, good for your health, etc) but I wonder what unforeseen, or unadvertised, negative effects there may be.

I do like local produce, however. You can't argue with high gas prices. And the food lasts much longer!

[mhaze]

Quote:
Cattle grazing is a serious threat to endangered species, both in the western United States and in the rainforests of South America.

In the United States, grazing has contributed to the demise of 26% of federal threatened and endangered species.[1]

...

The situation is no better in South America where the rainforests are being destroyed at an alarming rate in order to clear the land for cattle grazing.

According to the United Nations, ranching-induced deforestation is one of the main reasons for the loss of plant and animal species in tropical rainforests.[2]
Linky. (http://www.chooseveg.com/conservation.asp).

Clearly meat is veRy bad.

We need to all work together to solve this - it will take a while -

cow by cow, pig by pig, hamburger by hamburger, sausage by sausage...

it is possible to bite into it.:D

[Ziggurat]

The oldest and largest civilizations were, and still are, predominant veggie eaters. China, Japan, and India are not hunter gatherer societies. They are very old vegetarian societies.

Japan is not vegetarian. The only real vegetarians in ancient Japan were monks, and vegetarianism is a rarity there now. Yes, there's not a lot of beef in their diet (it's expensive), but there's plenty of fish, and a good amount of chicken, eggs, and pork. And as has already been pointed out, China is only low-meat because of poverty.

Rice is the reason for these civilizations.

In the same way that wheat is the reason for much of western civilization. But that's got nothing to do with being vegetarian - in fact, isn't rice lower in protein than wheat?

Most people on the planet still live off of rice or corn. Maybe potatoes and millet. Not animal protein.

Because of poverty. Which is why you get things like Bushmeat in Africa: it's not that most people want to be vegetarian, or even close, it's that when you're dirt poor, you don't have much choice. And a lot of those people suffer nutritionally because of this meat deficit.

Meat is inefficient compared to vegetables, especially on a calorie basis. But that inefficiency means that having meat production capacity helps a society ensure that it has extra food capacity available in case of crisis. If something really bad happens (war, massive natural disaster, plague, whatever), a society which eats meat can cut back on meat consumption and redirect livestock feed resources towards direct human-consumable crops. A society without meat production capacity lacks this buffer.

[Hooloovoo]

Something I've always wondered about is if it takes so much more energy and resources to produce a pound of beef than a pound of a vegetable crop, why are vegetarian burgers and hot dogs so much more expensive than the real deal? I'm not a vegetarian, but I like the convenience of being able to microwave a Boca Burger for lunch. They're tasty, but they're not real cheap.
Maybe we should learn to get over the ickiness factor and learn to eat insects. They can be very high in protein and low in fat. Lots of people already do that in Asia, Africa, and South America.

[Wowbagger]

I am actually a vegetarian, myself. Mostly out of personal preference. I used to think there were good dietary reasons for being one. But, the more I learned, the less that seemed to be the case.

But, perhaps I shall research this enviornmental angle. Maybe I can develop some scientifically justifiable reasons to be a vegetarian, yet!!

Something I've always wondered about is if it takes so much more energy and resources to produce a pound of beef than a pound of a vegetable crop, why are vegetarian burgers and hot dogs so much more expensive than the real deal? I think it has something to do with supply and demand.


Maybe we should learn to get over the ickiness factor and learn to eat insects. Yes, that would be feasible, if not for that stupid "ickiness" factor.

I think there were actually a few insect restaurants in the U.S. But, I don't think they lasted very long.

Of course, the insects will have to be farmed for the purpose. Insect digestive systems tend to be very primitive, and difficult to remove. The insects will need a special diet of their own, to make sure their human devourers don't take in any toxins.

That's why it's not a good idea to eat wild insects.

By the way: Lots of people eat lobsters, and they are closely related to mosquitos!

[X]

Eat insects.

ETA: Dam you, Hooloovoo!
(Hey! That rhymed!)

[Hooloovoo]

By the way: Lots of people eat lobsters, and they are closely related to mosquitos!
Bugs are less icky than clams or other delicious bivalves, which lots of people don't give a second thought to slurping down. It's all a matter of what you're used to. I bet lots of insects would be most tasty. Just avoid the free range cockroaches.

I've seen people on PBS and the Travel Channel eating live giant beetle grubs and comparing them to custard. That made me a touch queasy. Don't know if I could ever manage to eat live giant beetle grubs.

[Miss_Kitt]

Okay, I'm one of the many people who eat "less meat than I used to" for the simple reason that since about age 30, meat doesn't digest as well. I still eat it; I have no moral issues against meat; I feed my child meat--in fact, I encourage her to eat MORE, since she seldom does, and is low-weight and small for her age--but I personally consume less.

We evolved to be hunters, with a diet of mixed meat and plant matter. Certain amino acids and nutrients in animal meat and especially animal fat are important, especially in youth and adolescence, and are difficult to substitute on a vegetarian diet (and even more so on a vegan diet). After you pass prime reproductive years, some of that digestive robustness tends to fade.

As to the ecological cost of meat production, don't forget that the farming practices of South America are not tenable in the long-term. Since the rainforest land is functionally free once you clear it, people find it easier to just carve or burn out more field than to actually manage the land they already have. Land use in China is very inefficient because farmers--even farm collectives--have no title to their land. They can't use it as collateral on a loan to get fertilizer, a tractor, or even seed. And for many years, any profit made from the community farm land had to be shared; only the output of the family 'patch' was private. Thus for many years China lived mostly on the output of people's tiny gardens, meant for sustenance of a family but used for generating income.

The current structure of farm 'support' from the US government encourages wasteful and even stupid farming practices. Case in point: If you prudently plant multiple crops and rotate what you grow on which land, and the price of wheat tanks, you have to eat the loss; if you grow only wheat and the price tanks, the government will compensate you for your loss. Monoculture is ecological and economically stupid--except in the light of foolish government incentives. Thus, corn is now being grown specifically for being inefficiently, expensively, and pointlessly used to make "biofuel."

Similarly, we have such ridiculous practices as growing rice in central California, which is barely more than a desert in climate. But since the millions of acre-feet of water used by such farming has been heavily subsidized by the US taxpayers, it makes economic sense to the farmers to do it.

I suspect that the amount of land used for raising meat animals versus crops would change quite a bit if farm policy was rationalized. An earlier poster made the valid point that there is land unsuitable for growing that is used for grazing--and there would be more if the demand for lean as opposed to grain-fattened meat increased.

If you prefer to eat vegetarian, do so! And enjoy every minute. But don't try to build a moral case for it. As in so many issues, the real point of 'moral' arguements is to seek government enforcement of a change of diet. Right now, global warming is being used to justify everything from banning cars from city streets to building mass transit systems that will take more than a century to offset the carbon output from their construction--and that's just in Washington State.

I take such rationalizations with a tablespoon of salt.

[Cain]

Overall environmental impact, while somewhat in the spirit a no harm/consume less/do more philosophy, rather misses the point of moral vegetarianism, which is to refrain from violence against morally significant animals. An eco-friendly approach helps humans and non-humans but it seems beside the point. It suggests we can treat animals as biological machines provided we internalize otherwise nasty negative externalities. It's the healthy person argument -- adopting a vegetarian/vegan diet in order to extend life-span -- applied to the planet, and seems to have only one species in mind. (Compare eating locally raised "livestock" against flying in exotic vegetarian foods from overseas. According to this style of argument snuff films are less objectionable than a summer movie with a big chase scene).

There are already dozens of threads on these forums on vegetarianism. Many of the above risible arguments ("we evolved as meat-eaters, hunters") have already been addressed. Amusing as it is to see people helplessly flail in defense of the indefensible, anyone who has thought about the issue at length, subject their beliefs and traditions to contestation, will probably conclude the biggest hurdle veganism faces is not rational argument, but rational people.

[Roboramma]

First off, let me say that I agree with a good deal of what you said (that's why I snipped it, no need really to comment on it... )

I suspect that the amount of land used for raising meat animals versus crops would change quite a bit if farm policy was rationalized. You may suspect this, but what are those suspicions based upon?
It sounds to me like farm policy makes growing crops less efficient, not more so, and "rationalising" it wouldn't make it require more land to grow corn, for instance. It could mean that it require less land to produce the same amount of meat, but you haven't shown that to be the case at all.

An earlier poster made the valid point that there is land unsuitable for growing that is used for grazing--and there would be more if the demand for lean as opposed to grain-fattened meat increased. That's a valid point, but I'd be interested to know to what extent it is true.
Moveover, assuming that we want some wilderness spaces, allowing "grazing land" to return to wilderness (because it's much less efficient at producing food than other land) might be the most efficient use of that land.

If you prefer to eat vegetarian, do so! And enjoy every minute. But don't try to build a moral case for it. What if there are people, like myself, who don't want to eat a vegetarian diet, but are led to the conclusion that it may be more ecologically sustainable anyway?
In other words, what if the moral case leads to vegetarianism, rather than the other way around?
(as I said in an earlier post I'm not vegetarian, but I do see some strength in these arguments)
As in so many issues, the real point of 'moral' arguements is to seek government enforcement of a change of diet. Evidence?
Right now, global warming is being used to justify everything from banning cars from city streets to building mass transit systems that will take more than a century to offset the carbon output from their construction--and that's just in Washington State. Again, isn't it just possible that you've got the causation backwards here?
That global warming led people to being concerned about emissions, which led to changes in laws, rather than a desire to change the laws and control people led to justifying that with global warming?

Isn't it possible that people are actually motivated by doing what they think is right, rather just simply by a desire to control others for the sake of it?

[Amapola]

Darat has a good point. One thing that ruminants (such as goats, cows, sheep, yaks, reindeer, or llamas) can do really well is to take something that humans can not digest (cellulose) and turn it into something humans can digest (protein).

Now, I have no idea if it's "rational" or not, but my land produces weeds and sticks really well, so I raise goats and eat meat! I can't eat weeds and sticks, but I can eat cabrito. I imagine the arctic and sub-arctic people that use reindeer for food and subsistence feel the same way - they can't eat lichens, but the reindeer can, and there is just not a lot growing in that part of the world throughout the year. There are marginal areas everywhere on earth that can produce food right now thanks to the animals.

If some of this area "goes out of production" so to speak, I'm not sure enough grains and other vegetable foods could be grown to make up the difference. In my lifetime I've seen people pave over fields or take out orchards so they can put up strip malls or housing developments or whatever. I guess it's just easier to build on flat land that was used for farming. Unfortunately that means more land out of production.

I've always felt that humans in most of the developed world have the unimaginable luxury of being choosy about their diet. I think that is a really cool thing, that some people in that part of the world who can afford to can become vegan or vegetarian, or only eat "raw" foods, or only seafood or whatever. But why on earth do they need a reason for it? It should be good enough to say, I want to become vegan, and then do it. There is no need to justify your personal choice.

[Roboramma]

Darat has a good point. One thing that ruminants (such as goats, cows, sheep, yaks, reindeer, or llamas) can do really well is to take something that humans can not digest (cellulose) and turn it into something humans can digest (protein).

Now, I have no idea if it's "rational" or not, but my land produces weeds and sticks really well, so I raise goats and eat meat! I can't eat weeds and sticks, but I can eat cabrito. I imagine the arctic and sub-arctic people that use reindeer for food and subsistence feel the same way - they can't eat lichens, but the reindeer can, and there is just not a lot growing in that part of the world throughout the year. There are marginal areas everywhere on earth that can produce food right now thanks to the animals. This is one reason that I think that we should always have some meat production.
The question is, how much of it is efficient in this way, and how much is using land that could more productively produce other foods?


If some of this area "goes out of production" so to speak, I'm not sure enough grains and other vegetable foods could be grown to make up the difference. In my lifetime I've seen people pave over fields or take out orchards so they can put up strip malls or housing developments or whatever. I guess it's just easier to build on flat land that was used for farming. Unfortunately that means more land out of production. True - I think it's always sad when some of the most fertile land gets paved over.

I've always felt that humans in most of the developed world have the unimaginable luxury of being choosy about their diet. I think that is a really cool thing, that some people in that part of the world who can afford to can become vegan or vegetarian, or only eat "raw" foods, or only seafood or whatever. But why on earth do they need a reason for it? It should be good enough to say, I want to become vegan, and then do it. There is no need to justify your personal choice.[/QUOTE]

Sure, but what if it isn't a matter of making a justification? What if, as I said in my last post, it's about making a realisation and following to the conclusions that the individual thinks it leads to?
What if, for instance, it's about having learned about the environmental implications of eating meat and then concluding that a vegetarian diet has less of an impact, and choosing it for oneself on that basis?

[Hokulele]

Moveover, assuming that we want some wilderness spaces, allowing "grazing land" to return to wilderness (because it's much less efficient at producing food than other land) might be the most efficient use of that land.


There is a major problem on Maui where feral species (pigs, goats, and deer) have taken over much of the wilderness spaces and are decimating the native flora. The goat problem is so bad on parts of other islands that erosion is threatening to permanently destroy what used to be rain forest. Birds are affected as well, as avian malaria was unheard of until pigs and other mammals encouraged the spread of mosquitos and malaria.

The problem of unintended consequences will crop up no matter how well-intentioned policies may be.

Dinner tonight consisted of a goat stew from an animal taken in a local forest reserve. Ecologically-friendly protein. Yummy.

[automatthias]

On a more serious note, I now work in a job that involves a fair amount of hard physical work here and there. In order to be strong and healthy enough to do this work, I need protein and nutrients which are not easily obtained from non-meat sources.
Is there any evidence to support that claim? ;)

[Rocko]

A healthy vegetarian diet requires a lot of work and planning.

For common-or-garden vegetarianism, that's really not true. Veganism requires a bit more thought (especially for children), but presuming you eat a reasonable cross section of foods, vegetarians don't really have to plan their intake.

[Bikewer]

I would note that regarding our ancestors "strangling small animals"....That's precisely what the chimps do...

Also, hunting is not the only source of meat. Scavenging is always available; early humans had the ability to find predator leftovers, or even drive predators away from kills by rock-throwing and such.
Then there are simple traps, snares, pits, and so forth, easily managed by even the most primitive not-quite-humans.
One could go on and on in this vein...

[Darat]

I would note that regarding our ancestors "strangling small animals"....That's precisely what the chimps do...

Also, hunting is not the only source of meat. Scavenging is always available; early humans had the ability to find predator leftovers, or even drive predators away from kills by rock-throwing and such.
Then there are simple traps, snares, pits, and so forth, easily managed by even the most primitive not-quite-humans.
One could go on and on in this vein...

Certainly when we are looking at ancestors of modern humans there is no reason at all to assume they would have been bad hunters. They would have had much better senses and be faster and stronger than many other animals and have shared our ability to digest a lot of different foods.

[Amapola]

...snip...

Sure, but what if it isn't a matter of making a justification? What if, as I said in my last post, it's about making a realisation and following to the conclusions that the individual thinks it leads to?
What if, for instance, it's about having learned about the environmental implications of eating meat and then concluding that a vegetarian diet has less of an impact, and choosing it for oneself on that basis?

You know, this brings up an interesting point. What if people learn about the environmental implications of paving over farm land, and conclude they'd better tear it all up in order to grow food on it? I think right now some of the problems of the flooding that are going on, are occuring because there is no ground for the water to soak into - it's all pavement and roofs.

It would sure be an interesting turn of events if people conclude that they actually need the land to sustain them and quit building on farm land. If there were ever some sort of idea of going towards global vegetarianism, I would think this would at least get discussed.

[JoeTheJuggler]

However, I think that eating meat is what nature intended for us, don't believe that animals- who regularly kill and consume each other- should be treated as being above the food chain and love food too much to give up half to two-thirds of it.
Ah, so for you it's a theological argument? This deity you call "nature" has intended that humans eat meat?
:)

Also, not all animals regularly kill and consume each other. Indeed, most--dare I say "the lion's share?"-- of the "meat" humans eat are not predators. For that matter, many animals do lots of behaviors that humans would consider barbaric, uncivilized or even un-human. So I don't see do the same thing as other animals to be a compelling argument.

[hecaterin]

In terms of land use I think a low level of meat eating is the most sensible option. Some free range, pasture fed, not grain fed, animals can use land that humans can't get nutrition out of. Mixed small farming is a good thing, and I think better for us in a general sense than agribusinesses monocropping soy and corn.

Check this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm

[Herzblut]

Certainly when we are looking at ancestors of modern humans there is no reason at all to assume they would have been bad hunters. They would have had much better senses and be faster and stronger than many other animals and have shared our ability to digest a lot of different foods.
Right. I think the physical fitness of humans is enormous in terms of running endurance, perseverance. Hardly any animal would beat a trained runner in a marathon. Humans could hunt to death practically any land animal, if it's elderly, injured or somehow slighlty weakened, fatally exhausting it over many hours and days.

Together with usage of weapons and with intelligent group collaboration, this makes humans one of the most dangerous hunters I could imagine.

[robinson]

Right. I think the physical fitness of humans is enormous in terms of running endurance, perseverance. Hardly any animal would beat a trained runner in a marathon.

Except maybe, the horse, wolf, dog, bison, elephant, deer, wildebeest, caribou, elk, moose, gazelle, giraffe, camel, llama, or pig. But everything else, yeah, we can outrun them with ease.

Oh wait, hyena, goat, cattle, donkey, zebra, okapi and antelope. But other than that ...

[quarky]

Except maybe, the horse, wolf, dog, bison, elephant, deer, wildebeest, caribou, elk, moose, gazelle, giraffe, camel, llama, or pig. But everything else, yeah, we can outrun them with ease.

Oh wait, hyena, goat, cattle, donkey, zebra, okapi and antelope. But other than that ...

Actually, that's not true.
A fit human can outrun any land animal. Its probably why we evolved a large brain in the first place; so we could keep running without having to shut down the entire brain. Other land animals simply run out of oxygen to keep their brain running. We can shut down most of ours, yet still keep enough running to prevent unconsiousness.

I find my argument on this point quite unbelievable at first. I once argued that several other mammls could run further in a day than a human, but I lost the argument. Not even a dog or a horse can run further in 24 hours than a human. Its our main evolutionary advantage. Spear chucking is just the icing on that endurance cake.

(btw, I wasn't joking about bacteria. Single cell protein sources will save us.)

[ponderingturtle]

Doubtful. To eat large quantities of meat, we needed to hunt.

Wrong. We needed to hunt or scavenge.

As chimps do hunt, and some even use spears, it is not suprising that say a change in the enviroment that permitted more meat in the diet might have been needed to support a larger brain.

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, that's not true.
A fit human can outrun any land animal.

Outrun is probably the wrong word though. Humans can run those animals into the ground, for a variety of reasons, such as our gate not being tied to our breathing rate and not haveing the fixed gates of a quadraped(walk, cantor, gallop and such)

Humans could force them into ineffecient high speed movement and tire them out faster.

Now this method of hunting is not very common anymore, as humans developed other methods, but some tribes still practice it.

[Ziggurat]

I find my argument on this point quite unbelievable at first. I once argued that several other mammls could run further in a day than a human, but I lost the argument. Not even a dog or a horse can run further in 24 hours than a human. Its our main evolutionary advantage.

Yes, but it's got nothing to do with being able to oxygenate the brain while running. Rather, it's due to the fact that our gait is efficient across a wide range of speeds, whereas most animals cannot run efficiently at a slow pace (they either walk or sprint).

Oh, and most animals will overheat from running before their brains loose too much oxygen.

[Amapola]

Except maybe, the horse, wolf, dog, bison, elephant, deer, wildebeest, caribou, elk, moose, gazelle, giraffe, camel, llama, or pig. But everything else, yeah, we can outrun them with ease.

Oh wait, hyena, goat, cattle, donkey, zebra, okapi and antelope. But other than that ...

I'm sorry, that's not true. Please read this Discover article (http://discovermagazine.com/2006/may/tramps-like-us) to start with. And note, this is over long distance. Humans don't have the problems many animals face in an endurance race. Have you ever heard of the "Ride and Tie"? This is an endurance race for two humans and a horse that work as a team. One person takes off on the horse, stops and ties it to a tree, while the other person catches up, gets on the horse and then rides past the other human (who in the meanwhile continued running down the course) and so on. Those two people can easily run the horse to the ground, so there are vet checks along the way for the HORSE. No doctor checks for the humans.

By working together the way wolves work together, humans can outrun prey animals. If it were just a matter of "who wins the sprint", wolves couldn't catch anything either. Caribou can outrun them in a short sprint. But they can't keep going against a pack of wolves; the wolves take turns, and tire the prey so they can capture and kill it.

ETA: Whoops, took too long to reply and many others did while I typed!

[ponderingturtle]

By working together the way wolves work together, humans can outrun prey animals.
I am not sure cooperation is needed. I have seen in a documentary(I believe it was Life of Mammals) showing a single runner running down an antelope

[Amapola]

I am not sure cooperation is needed. I have seen in a documentary(I believe it was Life of Mammals) showing a single runner running down an antelope

I think that's true and agree with you... but even old, fat out-of shape humans can do it if they cooperate.

There is also the point that prey animals tend to circle when chased. A smart human could figure this out (I know I did fairly early) and shorten the distance by cutting through the large circle. This little trick saves me a lot of unnecessary walking when I have to catch a difficult horse in a large area.

[robinson]

I find my argument on this point quite unbelievable at first. I once argued that several other mammlas could run further in a day than a human, but I lost the argument. Not even a dog or a horse can run further in 24 hours than a human.

Oh, well that very well may be true. I read that humans could "outrun" any mammal. Not the same thing at all.

If you put man and animal on a closed track, even ground, we can no doubt outrun over time, any animal. According to Running through the ages, By Edward S. Sears, a trained runner can do 140 miles in around 20 hours.

This no doubt exceeds any animal on the planet.

That is not the same thing as running down game in the real world. Which my examples were to point out. It would be great if we could outrun any animal in the real world. Nobody would ever worry about wolves, hyenas, or wild dogs. Just out run the suckers. It's easy!

But in the wild their is the problem of brush, the bush, sand, rock, uneven ground, mountains, water obstacles, heat, cold, all kinds of things that make running an animal to ground a little more difficult than running a marathon.

It is an interesting situation however. In the long run, a well trained, very fit man, can outrun anything.

I wonder if diet would matter.

[Retrograde]

When I hear vegetarians give their reasons, there's one that never seems to come up: they like vegetables.

I often order a vegetarian meal when I'm out with people: the inevitable comment is, I didn't realize you were a vegetarian. No, I don't have any moral or ethical objections to meat (and I do eat it, and I like organ meats now and again): I just prefer vegetables.

Now it's off to start the corn chowder for dinner.

[robinson]

Checking further, (and yes, it could be considered off topic, this running thread), sled dogs can do 50 miles in less than 8 hours. 25 in 3 hours is an easy run.

I can't find exact info on wolves, but they can do 30 miles without even running, on a normal day. I don't know if anyone has ever checked to see, but I don't think a man can run a wolf to ground. It is an interesting sidetrack.

[robinson]

Checking further, (and yes, it could be considered off topic, this running thread), sled dogs can do 50 miles in less than 8 hours. 25 in 3 hours is an easy run.

I can't find exact info on wolves, but they can do 30 miles without even running, on a normal day. I don't know if anyone has ever checked to see, but I don't think a man can run a wolf to ground. It is an interesting sidetrack.

[Ziggurat]

I don't know if anyone has ever checked to see, but I don't think a man can run a wolf to ground.

There's also the issue of habitat: most wolves don't live on the open plane, so if they can get enough distance between themselves and a person, then they can simply hide. You can't run down what you can't find, and we don't have the noses to track.

[Roboramma]

There's also the issue of habitat: most wolves don't live on the open plane, so if they can get enough distance between themselves and a person, then they can simply hide. You can't run down what you can't find, and we don't have the noses to track.

Good point.
It's worth mentioning, though, that while we may not track with our noses, we do a pretty good job with our eyes, hands, and brains.

[Herzblut]

Oh, and most animals will overheat from running before their brains loose too much oxygen.
Yeah, perspiring beats panting big time.

[Herzblut]

Oh, well that very well may be true. I read that humans could "outrun" any mammal. Not the same thing at all.

Come on, mate. You don't read that in my post, you write it in yours. My post was crystal clear, and your answer was inaccurate, to say the least.

[Herzblut]

But in the wild their is the problem of brush, the bush, sand, rock, uneven ground, mountains, water obstacles, heat, cold, all kinds of things that make running an animal to ground a little more difficult than running a marathon.

No animal beats man in running, swimming and climbing combined.

[casebro]

We would have a hard time evading predators with their super-human bursts of speed.

But running down prey animals would not be too extreme, since they evolved to evade those sprinting predators, not us jogging humans. Wolves/dogs also run down prey with long endurance and smarts- one dog chases slightly to one side, pushing the prey in a circle. His pack mates can rest up, and jog across the circle to take over. Hmmm, I'll bet this is the intuitive 'heel' that dogs do today?

[robinson]

I did some checking. An average wolf (not a highly trained one for distance) can cover sixty miles at a trot, which for a wolf is 8 to 10 miles an hour. That isn't running. They have been clocked at 40 mph for over two miles, when they run.

I very much doubt a human could match a wolf in a marathon. Very few humans can run 60 miles in a night, at a speed of 8 to 10 miles an hour.

Much less over broken terrain. And that is just the wolf trotting, not running. A wolf can still run after trotting all night.

I was skeptical of the claim man can outrun any mammal in a marathon. I am certain humans can not outrun a wolf at this point, unless maybe you bump it up to 120 miles for the marathon. But lone wolves are known to travel 550 miles at a time. Which makes it more complicated.

Interesting, very interesting. The "brain overheating" stuff means very little when you are running at very low temperatures. Wolves don't seem to have an overheating problem.

[fishkr]

Indeed, I had venison chili tonight from a deer I shot last Fall not far from where I live. The transportation cost was a bit of back-breaking work, never fun but well worth the effort.

Aside from the seafood I buy as a luxury and for purported health benefits, almost all of the meat I consume comes from hunting and hauling by foot and hand. Thanks to refrigeration of course. Without the freezer it would need to be consumed quickly, or salted or smoked.

In mountain cultures like where I live, there is a lot of structured sharing. One doesn't necessarily get to kill an elk every year. But your friends may, and on average, we share the work of hauling meat from a hunt, and share the benefit. A very old tradition, but born of simple facts and phenomenon.

Oh, and it is very very good. Free range and all that. A lot of work to obtain, but I wouldn't trade an ounce of deer tenderloin for a pound of beef.

M

[Amapola]

...snip...

Oh, and it is very very good. Free range and all that. A lot of work to obtain, but I wouldn't trade an ounce of deer tenderloin for a pound of beef.

M

Aw, come on - how about swapping for some goat meat? It's lean, young and tender... ;)

Hey... I had to try. I love venison!

[fishkr]

Aw, come on - how about swapping for some goat meat? It's lean, young and tender... ;)

Hey... I had to try. I love venison!

I love goat meat! There is an "artisan/eco" trend around here favoring goats, in fact a friend of mine contracts goat herders to do weed control on cattle ranches and farms, they are fantastic eliminators of knapweed, thistle, etc. As you noted goats eat all kinds of otherwise un-utilized plant material and sometimes destructive noxious weeds. And old hats. But they taste good nonetheless. The goats, I mean.

What I've tried is very lean, so I like this way to cook them:

Goat flanks marinated in lime juice, olive oil, tamari, garlic, some chilis, cilantro, crushed pine nuts for a crust, grill on a wood coal fire. I'd swap you with pleasure. We could Fedex meat back and forth, or "meat" half way and invite Jreff members to a cook-out?

Globalization at it's best!

Mark

[fishkr]

sorry, double post

[fishkr]

Aw, come on - how about swapping for some goat meat? It's lean, young and tender... ;)

Hey... I had to try. I love venison!

And a friend from Oregon has been promising to make me venison stew with fire roasted Hatch green chilis. We could invite her too.

M

[Miss_Kitt]

Except maybe, the horse, wolf, dog, bison, elephant, deer, wildebeest, caribou, elk, moose, gazelle, giraffe, camel, llama, or pig. But everything else, yeah, we can outrun them with ease.

Oh wait, hyena, goat, cattle, donkey, zebra, okapi and antelope. But other than that ...

So sorry, Robinson, but one of the most interesting films I saw in school (back when we had real film projectors, that had to be threaded and occasionally had rrrreeeaabblbyy bbaddbd sssoundddd) include a group of African natives--I don't remember which tribe, sadly--hunting down and killing a giraffe. They snuck up on it and got the first spear in; then they just ran the damned thing into exhaustion and killed it. We're not as fast as the critters on your list in the short haul; but we can track them, injure them, run them ragged, and eat them. It's the combination of teamwork, brains, and stamina that adds up to extraordinary lethality. Even with weapons limited to rocks and sticks, we were effective hunters.

Nor is the advantage of language required. Caribou are faster than wolves, but wolves still eat caribou. They take turns running after the target animal until it's too tired to escape. Similar tactics are sometimes used by lionesses.

Just had to nitpick, since reading "giraffe" on your list instantly reminded me of the grizzled, barefoot tracker pointing out trail sign to the hunting party in that long-ago educational film.

[Hokulele]

And a friend from Oregon has been promising to make me venison stew with fire roasted Hatch green chilis. We could invite her too.

M


The trick to an exquisite venison stew is to use some tomato sauce in the base. Currently we have boar, venison, and goat in the freezer. May I request an invite to the potluck?

Does anyone else find it ironic that a thread on vegetarianism has derailed so completely?

[Miss_Kitt]

To several commenters on my early post:

When I speak of 'rationalising' farm policy, what I mean is getting rid of most of it. The government has no business telling farmers how many of them should be planting what; nor should they subsidize them growing particular crops; nor, especially, should they be paying them not to grow crops. (I swear I'm not making this up: The US government does this.) Farm policy should at this point be about phasing out farm management by distant bureaucrats. I can see having regs concerning health issues, both in terms of food chain and in terms of types of fertilizer, pesticides, etc. that may be damaging when it enters the water supply or just hits the local lake. But the whole "let's manipulate the foodstuffs market so we can Keep The Family Farm" is ridiculous, counterproductive, and a waste of taxpayers' money.

On the subject of Global Warming being the excuse and not the reason for various wrong-headed projects and legislation, I'm old enough to remember when these same projects and laws were proposed for other reasons. Not to mention that there's no rational basis for having an executive order stating that by 2030 the "number of passenger car miles being driven should be half of what it is today" if the goal is emissions reduction. If that were the motive, you'd be talking about emissions. As written, the executive order would demand removing absolutely clean electric vehicles (most of the Northwest's power is hydro, so it doesn't generate carbon like coal-fired plants); cars that get 87 miles to the gallon; vehicles used only for carpools that run on hydrogen...you see my point.

Now, for the sentence where I make lots of you hate me: I don't think that there's a moral case for living "green". It might make you feel good; it might be smart; it might be a prudent choice for a long-term thinker. But that's being smart, not being moral. I don't see the choices as either: 1) Being a heedless generator of earth, water, and air pollution who shoots buffalo to eat the tongues and leaves the rest to rot; or 2) Living "carbon neutral" and eating only plants that volunteer for it. There's a whole continuum between blatant disregard for the rights of your neighbors and your grandkids, and being so Green that you put your nosehair trimmings in the compost bin.

I believe we need to be aware of the choices we're making, what the longterm and short-term impacts are; and I think we need to be prudent. But there's also a cost-benefit analysis that needs to be made, which most "moral" arguments sidestep. If we could stop putting out greenhouse gases tomorrow, at the cost of killing 65% of humanity, would that be moral? If we can reduce manmade carbon in the atmosphere by 3%, at the cost of 70% of global GDP, would that be worthwhile? (I'm pulling these numbers out of thin air, of course; but they serve to demonstrate the point.) Most arguments for green living operate off the implicit assumption that subsistance farming is the preferred condition for the human race. Given how hard the people who live that way are trying to get out of that lifestyle, I think you should question that assumption.

If eating vegetarian makes you feel better, great. But without knowing what farming practices are used to grow your veggies; how, and how far, they are transported; what the actual status of your trace mineral, iron, calcium, potassium, etc. values are--don't jump to the conclusion that it's necessarily an intelligent, reasoned choice.

I have a very hard time believing that it can be construed as moral in any sense. The only moral argument for vegetarianism is to say, "All animals are morally equivalent to humans, so meat is murder!" And I don't buy that one at all. (That whole argument is for another day, and most likely another thread.) Again, I don't mean by that that wanton cruelty to living creatures is moral, proper, or smart; it's not an either/or question.

Also, to whomever wrote that they wondered why liking vegetables was not advanced as a reason for vegetarianism: I also tend to eat veggie in restaurants. I don't need a whole lot of animal protein in my diet to do well, and I'd rather fill up on some gorgeous vegetables and top it off with something lovely for dessert. And, yeah, I get asked if I'm vegetarian, too.

Thanks for letting me have my say, Kitt

[fishkr]

The trick to an exquisite venison stew is to use some tomato sauce in the base. Currently we have boar, venison, and goat in the freezer. May I request an invite to the potluck?

Does anyone else find it ironic that a thread on vegetarianism has derailed so completely?


I agree with you about the stew. I like to use tomato paste sometimes as well (Muir Glenn organic is my personal fav) and yes, you are invited!

Bring some Boar. Haven't had it in a long time, last time was in the Czech Republic, where wild boar are considered pests. Nice problem to have if you have a gun, not so nice if you need to wrestle them to death.

Regarding Veganism, I tend to think of vegetables as "the slow, uncomplaining, multi-coloured meat".

Ironic, yes, but one wouldn't expect a lot of moral outrage from a bunch of atheist skeptics, eh? :)

XO,

Mark

[Herzblut]

Does anyone else find it ironic that a thread on vegetarianism has derailed so completely?
Right. Why not open a thread on paleo diat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

[Hokulele]

I agree with you about the stew. I like to use tomato paste sometimes as well (Muir Glenn organic is my personal fav) and yes, you are invited!


Yay!

Bring some Boar. Haven't had it in a long time, last time was in the Czech Republic, where wild boar are considered pests. Nice problem to have if you have a gun, not so nice if you need to wrestle them to death.


Absolutely a gun. We want to cull/eat the invasive species, not torture them.

(Mini-rant, people who do not learn how to shoot to kill as quickly and humanely as possible before going out into the field, or who think that repeatedly stabbing/wounding an animal is "sporting" need to have their hunting license revoked. Forever.)

Smoked boar is better than bacon any day.

Ironic, yes, but one wouldn't expect a lot of moral outrage from a bunch of atheist skeptics, eh? :)


One thing I have learned over the past year or more, I should never assume what to expect from the bunch that posts here. :D

XO,

Mark


And right back atcha!

[Roboramma]

To several commenters on my early post:

When I speak of 'rationalising' farm policy, what I mean is getting rid of most of it. The government has no business telling farmers how many of them should be planting what; nor should they subsidize them growing particular crops; nor, especially, should they be paying them not to grow crops. (I swear I'm not making this up: The US government does this.) Farm policy should at this point be about phasing out farm management by distant bureaucrats. I can see having regs concerning health issues, both in terms of food chain and in terms of types of fertilizer, pesticides, etc. that may be damaging when it enters the water supply or just hits the local lake. But the whole "let's manipulate the foodstuffs market so we can Keep The Family Farm" is ridiculous, counterproductive, and a waste of taxpayers' money. I agree with most of that - I don't think it's because "the government has not business", but rather, because it's counterproductive for the government to interfere - at least in the way that it has been. So, again, basically, I agree. :)

On the subject of Global Warming being the excuse and not the reason for various wrong-headed projects and legislation, I'm old enough to remember when these same projects and laws were proposed for other reasons. That doesn't show that this time it's not for the reason given - or even that it wasn't in the past.
I'm not saying you're wrong - just that you may be - we'd have to discuss individual laws to make that judgement, and the thing is that for some laws, polices, whatever, you're likely right - politicians often take advantage of the issues of the day to advance their agendas - that doesn't mean that everything they do is.

Not to mention that there's no rational basis for having an executive order stating that by 2030 the "number of passenger car miles being driven should be half of what it is today" if the goal is emissions reduction. If that were the motive, you'd be talking about emissions. As written, the executive order would demand removing absolutely clean electric vehicles (most of the Northwest's power is hydro, so it doesn't generate carbon like coal-fired plants); cars that get 87 miles to the gallon; vehicles used only for carpools that run on hydrogen...you see my point. Your point is that it's not the optimal strategy, and I likely agree. That doesn't mean that it won't have some affect. That governments enact sub-optimal policies toward their goals doesn't mean that they aren't interested in those goals - it just means they're ineffecient.

Now, for the sentence where I make lots of you hate me: I don't think that there's a moral case for living "green". It might make you feel good; it might be smart; it might be a prudent choice for a long-term thinker. But that's being smart, not being moral. So, what is moral, then? If someone is choosing to live their lives a certain way, not for the sake of their own happiness or comfort, but because they think it's right, what would you call that?

I don't see the choices as either: 1) Being a heedless generator of earth, water, and air pollution who shoots buffalo to eat the tongues and leaves the rest to rot; or 2) Living "carbon neutral" and eating only plants that volunteer for it. There's a whole continuum between blatant disregard for the rights of your neighbors and your grandkids, and being so Green that you put your nosehair trimmings in the compost bin. Neither do I, nor, I think, does anyone else I've ever interacted with.
What does that have to do with whether people who care about their affect on the envirnoment (perhaps because they know that these indirectly affect other people, or for other reasons) and who because of that try to limit their affect, aren't making a moral decision? What kind of decision is that if not a moral one?
And when I say that I'm not putting any value judgement on it - it could be that they are misinformed, or not. It could be the right decision, or not. But clearly it's one based on a moral viewpoint.

I believe we need to be aware of the choices we're making, what the longterm and short-term impacts are; and I think we need to be prudent. I agree.
But there's also a cost-benefit analysis that needs to be made, Well, of course there is! which most "moral" arguments sidestep. If we could stop putting out greenhouse gases tomorrow, at the cost of killing 65% of humanity, would that be moral? If we can reduce manmade carbon in the atmosphere by 3%, at the cost of 70% of global GDP, would that be worthwhile? (I'm pulling these numbers out of thin air, of course; but they serve to demonstrate the point.) I don't understand your point here - is anyone suggesting that we should do this?
The only thing I've seen suggested in this thread is that choosing not to eat meat could have a beneficial affect on the environment. If you can show a negative affect (either envirnomental, humanitarian, economic, or otherwise) then do so. I have no interest in ignoring negative consequences, but before you suggest that we're ignoring them, please show what they are.

Most arguments for green living operate off the implicit assumption that subsistance farming is the preferred condition for the human race. Given how hard the people who live that way are trying to get out of that lifestyle, I think you should question that assumption. Some people do feel that way. I certainly don't, and I don't see that it's implied by the argument that choosing to eat less meat is a good thing from an environmental perspective.

If eating vegetarian makes you feel better, great. But without knowing what farming practices are used to grow your veggies; how, and how far, they are transported; what the actual status of your trace mineral, iron, calcium, potassium, etc. values are--don't jump to the conclusion that it's necessarily an intelligent, reasoned choice. Why not? That's how we make choices all the time - if eating meat is on average more damaging than not eating meat, then it's an intelligent choice. Now, if I want to spend more time, I can find out more and maybe make an even better choice, but that's a cost, and I'm only willing to spend so much on my decision making process.

I have a very hard time believing that it can be construed as moral in any sense. What else is it?

The only moral argument for vegetarianism is to say, "All animals are morally equivalent to humans, so meat is murder!" And I don't buy that one at all. Well, neither do I, as it's ridiculous.
Luckily, it isn't the only moral argument. For instance, one could say "while other animals don't have the same moral standing as humans, they do have some moral standing, and as such I think it's wrong to be responsible for their suffering." One could even add sophistication to the argument by pointing out, "some animals have more moral standing than others, thus I'm less worried about the suffering of fish (which may have less mental capacity for suffering) than that of sheep."
But as you say:
(That whole argument is for another day, and most likely another thread.) Again, I don't mean by that that wanton cruelty to living creatures is moral, proper, or smart; it's not an either/or question. I agree - I don't know why you presented it as an either/or question just a moment ago, however.

But as you said, that's outside the scope of the thread. I only want to suggest that the "eating meat is murder!!" idea may be held by some, but it's certainly not held by all those who make a moral argument for vegetarianism, nor is it the only possible one.

[quarky]

Sucking blood from other mammals without killing them is the moral high ground of meat eating.
Try some today!

[robinson]

Tell it to the mosquitoes buddy.

[robinson]

*ahem*

The best trained human on the planet can not beat a wolf in a marathon. Even if it was on paved ground, straight course.
























Something most people know from a long history of people being eaten by wolves.

[robinson]

double post~

Oh well, I should qualify that. Beat, in this case, doesn't mean outrun. Or run farther. Something a well trained athlete might be able to do. Except the wolf would eat him long before that.

[quarky]

*ahem*

The best trained human on the planet can not beat a wolf in a marathon. Even if it was on paved ground, straight course.
























Something most people know from a long history of people being eaten by wolves.

Not sure about that, in regards to 24 hrs.
That's where the humans shine. The longest run.

I was under the impression that humans could manage such endurance feats because they had a large enough brain to handle consciousness when conditions would ensure a smaller brained mammal would pass out.
(worded poorly)

I hope you'r right, actually. I'm not comfy with the crown of creation thing on my head, eveny by proxy.

I've heard that wallabies have a very efficient top speed. (old scientific american article). Perhaps they could beat us too.

But what's up with the idea that wolves were ever trying to eat us?

back on topic:

Being vegetarian can be a technological choice.
Like riding a bicycle to work.

What % of meat-eaters have ever killed a cow?
I find it repugnent to kill other animals.
Hence, vegetarian. Not moralist. I dig tahini.

[Amapola]

...snip...

So, what is moral, then? If someone is choosing to live their lives a certain way, not for the sake of their own happiness or comfort, but because they think it's right, what would you call that?

Neither do I, nor, I think, does anyone else I've ever interacted with.
What does that have to do with whether people who care about their affect on the envirnoment (perhaps because they know that these indirectly affect other people, or for other reasons) and who because of that try to limit their affect, aren't making a moral decision? What kind of decision is that if not a moral one?
And when I say that I'm not putting any value judgement on it - it could be that they are misinformed, or not. It could be the right decision, or not. But clearly it's one based on a moral viewpoint.

...snip...
.

Sorry for chopping up your post, Roboramma... if I have changed your point, I'm sorry, and please point it out.

But I thought this was rather curious. I think people can do things that are "right" without them being "moral'. For example, I personally don't think that 2+2=4 is moral. But I do think it's right. I don't think that a person is necessarily making a "moral"decision if they decide to do something that is "right".

Sucking blood from other mammals without killing them is the moral high ground of meat eating.
Try some today!

Ahh - you must be alluding to the Maasai tribe. They are known to drink cow's blood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai#Diet) as part of their diet. I well remember having a high school teacher who was able to state their case so well, and to show their attitude towards us so well, that for a minute there I had to wonder about milking cows instead of opening the jugular as was right and proper. :)

And @ fishkr and Hokulele: YES! Let's do a barbecue. :D That would be a lot of fun. I live so far out in the country, and have enough land, that we could do it here and never bother anyone, no matter how hard we tried.

[Herzblut]

Something most people know from a long history of people being eaten by wolves.
There is no such history.

[Roboramma]

Sorry for chopping up your post, Roboramma... if I have changed your point, I'm sorry, and please point it out.

But I thought this was rather curious. I think people can do things that are "right" without them being "moral'. For example, I personally don't think that 2+2=4 is moral. But I do think it's right. I don't think that a person is necessarily making a "moral"decision if they decide to do something that is "right".

Well, I probably shouldn't have used the word right - but as with most words it has more than one meaning. When I said "doing what they think is right" I basically mean, doing what they think is good or moral. I don't mean, "doing what they think is objectively true" - though their opinion of what's moral may be based on what they think is true, it has to be more than that - as is almost cliche to point out, you can't get an ought from an is.

When, at the end of what you quoted, I referred to "it might be the right decision" I mean "it might be that their conclusions are justified".

My basic point is that if people are making a decision because they think that it will cause them to do less harm, regardless of whether that conclusion is accurate, the decision is based on a moral viewpoint. It may turn out that it's a flawed moral viewpoint but its certainly a decision made for moral* reasons.

*I'm not saying "good" reasons. Distinguish here between moral as in "pertaining to morality" - which is what I mean, and moral as in "morally correct" which I'm not saying.

[robinson]

Not sure about that, in regards to 24 hrs.
That's where the humans shine. The longest run.


Yeah, but to win that race, you have to make it to the finish line. :wackywink:

[robinson]

There is no such history.

Of course not. Wolves don't attack and kill people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_wolf_attacks#cite_note-SAM-9), any more than bears do. It is silly to say wolves attack people (http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/general/columns/story?columnist=swan_james&id=3113247).

And lions. There is no history of people being killed by lions.

[robinson]

As to the topic, it is quite rational to not waste resources (which includes money) on feeding crops to animals then eating them. But most people don't base their choice of diet on rational reasons.

If we went by science and reason, meat would be avoided because of the increase in health risk associated with it.

[Roboramma]

As to the topic, it is quite rational to not waste resources (which includes money) on feeding crops to animals then eating them. But most people don't base their choice of diet on rational reasons.

If we went by science and reason, meat would be avoided because of the increase in health risk associated with it.

I disagree with this - science and reason are only tools that we can use toward our goals, they don't determine them. Sometimes they help us clarify out goals, sure.

So, regarding what you said - there's no rational reason to prefer more efficient farming practices (more calories/acre, for instance) over better tasting food.

To make that determination we have to determine what matters to us. That may be a question that science can shed light on, but it can't answer it on it's own.

[showofhands]

I've been lurking on these forums for a while (I find them very informative--you're a really bright group of people), and I logged in for the first time just to comment on this.

I'm a vegetarian, and have been since 2003. I was originally converted by a PeTA apologist who did a presentation for a Philosophy class I took in college. Lame, I know...but that's how it happened.

The argument from environmental impact has come to be one of my primary reasons for staying vegetarian, combined with the fact that I've simply lost my taste for meat.

Anyway, a more relevant point:
A professor in an anthropology class I took once told the class that the PeTA nuts and Ted Nugent crowd both have it wrong--our ancestors were neither vegan berry-pickers, nor were big-time carnivores. Apparently, archaeological evidence suggests that our ancestors were more scavengers than anything else, with diets of opportunity. This means the occasional fish caught in a tidal pool or marrow from the remnants of a lion's kill.

Domestication made it possible for people to eat meat much more often. I think we've seen the impact of that, in terms of environmental impact and negative health effects.

Additionally, I don't necessarily support the "animal rights" argument for vegetarianism, but I think that killing should be distasteful on some level, even when it's done out of necessity. Hunt a deer if you need to, or catch and gut a fish, but I feel the scale and method of daily operations in the modern meat industry are out of hand.

I accept the nutritional value of some meat products eaten in moderation, but I find it difficult to support the industry and am perfectly happy (and healthy, more importantly) as a vegetarian.

[robinson]

If you had to raise the food to feed it, house it, raise it, kill it, dress it, cure it and cook it, most people would eat Tofu.

[Herzblut]

Of course not. Wolves don't attack and kill people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_wolf_attacks#cite_note-SAM-9), any more than bears do. It is silly to say wolves attack people (http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/general/columns/story?columnist=swan_james&id=3113247).

Yes, it is. Provide well-documented reports of wolf attacks on humans in scientific literature. How many attacking wolves were demonstrably not rabid?

How many wolves were killed by men?

[casebro]

SNIP (and healthy, more importantly) as a vegetarian.

Maybe it is good for you. One PETA whacko I know went vegetarian first, but had a knotted intestine that needs lots and lots of fiber. One more anecdote, I guess.

Got any studies that show this for the general population?

The developed countries of todays world eat more meat, and live to about 75 years. Sri Lanka is the most vegetarian, and has an average life span of 39. Please link to some studies with alternative findings.

That's the whole point of this topic- Is there any rational point for making the choice? None proven scientifically.

[Roboramma]

The developed countries of todays world eat more meat, and live to about 75 years. Sri Lanka is the most vegetarian, and has an average life span of 39. Please link to some studies with alternative findings.

I'm the last person to argue for vegetarianism as a health choice - I don't think it's healthier. It's still easy to eat a poor diet as a vegetarian, it's harder to get adequate protein, etc.

On the other hand, what you say above is ridiculous. There are so many other factors (having less food, not just less meat, poor medical care and many more infectious diseases, social strife (and violence), etc. etc. etc.) that to suggest this as an argument for eating meat is ridiculous.

[Herzblut]

That's the whole point of this topic- Is there any rational point for making the choice? None proven scientifically.
From a nutrition perspective, there's one clear-cut rational point to be made: against cereal grains.

[Herzblut]

From: The Paleolithic Diet and Its Modern Implications, An Interview with Loren Cordain:

Loren Cordain: ...the fossil record and ethnological studies of hunter-gatherers (the closest surrogates we have to stone age humans) indicate that humans rarely if ever ate cereal grains nor did they eat diets high in carbohydrates.

Because cereal grains are virtually indigestible by the human gastrointestinal tract without milling (grinding) and cooking, the appearance of grinding stones in the fossil record generally heralds the inclusion of grains in the diet.

The first appearance of milling stones was in the Middle East roughly 10-15,000 years ago.
...Consequently, diets high in carbohydrate derived from cereal grains were not part of the human evolutionary experience until only quite recent times.

Because the human genome has changed relatively little in the past 40,000 years since the appearance of behaviorally modern humans, our nutritional requirements remain almost identical to those requirements which were originally selected for stone age humans living before the advent of agriculture.

Robert Crayhon: What happened to our health when we switched from a hunter-gatherer diet to a grain-based one?

Loren Cordain: The fossil record indicates that early farmers, compared to their hunter-gatherer predecessors had a characteristic reduction in stature, an increase in infant mortality, a reduction in life span, an increased incidence of infectious diseases, an increase in iron deficiency anemia, an increased incidence of osteomalacia, porotic hyperostosis and other bone mineral disorders and an increase in the number of dental caries and enamel defects.

Early agriculture did not bring about increases in health, but rather the opposite. It has only been in the past 100 years or so with the advent of high tech, mechanized farming and animal husbandry that the trend has changed.

Robert Crayhon: Is there enough evidence to suggest that a diet that includes a large amount of grains is a step down nutritionally, and one that is far from optimal for humans? And how much of the prehistoric diet was animal, and how much was vegetable?

Loren Cordain: The fossil evidence as well as the ethnographic evidence from groups of hunter-gatherers studied in historical times suggests that the diet of pre-agricultural humans was derived primarily from animal based foods.

It is difficult to quantitatively determine from the fossil record the proportion of plant to animal food that was included in the diet of prehistoric humans. However, we do know that hunting of game was an important part of all pre-agricultural societies. Most prehistoric humans followed large game herds, and manufactured tools and weapons which were used to regularly kill and butcher these animals.

Ethnographic studies of living hunter-gatherer societies represent the best surrogate we have for estimating quantitatively the plant to animal subsistence ratios of stone-age humans. We have recently compiled ethnographic data from 181 worldwide societies of hunter-gatherers showing that the mean plant to animal subsistence ratio in terms of energy was 35% plant and 65% animal.

Thus, the fossil and ethnographic data suggests that humans evolved on a diet that was primarily animal based and consequently low to moderate in carbohydrate, high in protein and low to moderate in fat. This is in contrast to the low fat, high carbohydrate, plant based diet which is almost universally recommended by modern day nutritionists.

Clearly, humans can adapt to many types of diets involving multiple macronutrient combinations with varying amounts of fat, protein and carbohydrate. However, our genetic constitutions, including our nutritional requirements were established in the remote past over eons of evolutionary experience.

Human health and well being can be optimized when we use the evolutionary paradigm as the starting point for present day nutrition.

http://www.mercola.com/article/carbohydrates/paleolithic_diet.htm

[EHocking]

If you had to raise the food to feed it, house it, raise it, kill it, dress it, cure it and cook it, most people would eat Tofu.Is it elitist to know that you're not "most people" (according to robinson)?

If so, I'm glad I'm not, and have not been from an early age.

On the contrary, I've found that if you source your food yourself, you tend to appreciate, even "respect", it more and have a higher consideration than "most people" for maintaining it's environment and treating it humanely (if animal).

.... and I'm a city kid ...

[casebro]

From: The Paleolithic Diet and Its Modern Implications, An Interview with Loren Cordain:

Loren Cordain: ...the fossil record and ethnological studies of hunter-gatherers (the closest surrogates we have to stone age humans) indicate that humans rarely if ever ate cereal grains nor did they eat diets high in carbohydrates.

Because cereal grains are virtually indigestible by the human gastrointestinal tract without milling (grinding) and cooking, the appearance of grinding stones in the fossil record generally heralds the inclusion of grains in the diet.
[/B]http://www.mercola.com/article/carbohydrates/paleolithic_diet.htm

Geez, didn't the authoer ever here of the primitive processing method known to most of us, and still popular today? It's called CHEWING!

[quarky]

Chewing raw grains is counter-productive.
Starving to death from poverty usually implies a no meat diet prior to the starving...it certainly shouldn't be an indictment of a meat-less diet.

Vegetarianism, minus poverty, has passed the test. It will improve your survival rate.
Animal husbandry is an echo of slavery. We have the technology to avoid such murky waters.

Cruelty needn't be endorsed nor justified. Vegetarians, in my expereince, are less self-righteous than meat-eaters, though the opposite is often mentioned.

Hopefully, animal husbandry will fade away, like the internal combustion engine.
And more land will be allowed to provide wilderness.

(I like the wild)

[luchog]

Try it. See if your body likes it.
Few people can do Vegan without protein supplements, and it's contraindicated in a most obvious way for growing children.

Wrong. Most Americans and Europeans several times more protein than they need. Protein is not a problem. The only real, verifiable problem with a purely vegan diet is vitamin B12; which needs to be supplemented. The reason so many vegans have deficiency issues is that they're not doing the research and eating a properly-balanced diet. Most of them are into various food fads like raw-foodism; or eliminate valuable foods from their diet because of radical political issues, or medical woo (like the soy/phytoestrogen nonsense).

A vegan diet is not contraindicated for growing children, it simply requires more effort to ensure proper nutrition. And looking at American and Australian children, it's obviously that very few of them are eating anywhere near a healthy diet.

[luchog]

On a more serious note, I now work in a job that involves a fair amount of hard physical work here and there. In order to be strong and healthy enough to do this work, I need protein and nutrients which are not easily obtained from non-meat sources.
Soy has an ideal amino acid balance, combined with both a higher concentration and higher bioavailability of said amino acids than any animal product except eggs, which are roughly equal to soy. There are no other nutrients except vitamin B12 which are not easily available from purely vegetable sources.

[luchog]

Is there a vegan source for Carnitine?

I don't know, I'm just asking. It seems that we do absorb some proteins intact, not just by breaking them down into amino acids. Some folks with various diseases must supplement with particular proteins, which makes me wonder if those proteins are available in veggies? I doubt if Carnitine is the only one, it's just one I take. It's needed for the mitochondria to function. Perhaps there ARE essential proteins, not just essential amino acids?

No, there are no essential proteins. While the human body can absorb some small-chain proteins intact, it does not need to do so. All of the proteins used in the body are synthesized from amino acids.

Carnitine is synthesized in the human body from lysine and methionine. Both are available in high concentrations from soy and amaranth. Lysine is highly available from legumes. Methionine is highly available from grains, some dark green leafy vegetables (such as spinach), and some root vegetables (like potatoes).

A diet sufficiently based on soy (1-1.5 cups per day), amaranth (1.5-2 cups per day) or a combination of legumes and grains (1-1.5 cups of each per day) will provide more than adequate amino acid levels for the majority of adults. (Note, these are the amounts necessary to get 100% of the necessary amino acids exclusively from the specified sources, and does not include amino acids available from other foods.)

[quarky]

I think the b-12 issue is exaggerated, to some extent.
The amount needed (sub-milligram) is so small, an occasional bug will do.
I was vegan for 20 years without problems, or much thought on balancing my intake.
I've been vegetarian for 40 years. Nutritional yeast is part of my diet now; mostly because it tastes so good.

I'm not bragging; my health isn't great, but diet isn't the problem. I'm old; I smoke and drink and don't exercise enough. Meat wouldn't help me. Unless it has nicotine and ethanol.

[robinson]

heh

I love nutritional yeast. Fantastic on popcorn.

The dogs love it as well. Seems to keep the bugs away from them. I should do an experiment to see if that is a real effect or not.

[luchog]

I think the b-12 issue is exaggerated, to some extent.
The amount needed (sub-milligram) is so small, an occasional bug will do.

No, it's not really exaggerated, though it may be over-emphasized at times.

Although the amount needed is on the microgram level, it's still a highly critical nutrient, one which many vegans neglect.

The problem with B12 is that, unlike most other water-soluble vitamins, the body actually stores substantial amounts, so it can take years of deprivation before the deficiency is noticible. And by the time symptoms manifest, the damage is already being done, and may be irreversible if not caught soon enough. It's also difficult to diagnose, and is often misdiagnosed as other disorders; most frequently folic acid deficiency (treatment for folic acid deficiency can mask and exacerbate B12 deficiency).

So a vegan can manage for years without supplementing before deficiencies become a problem. This is probably the main reason why so many vegans revert to an ovo/lacto-vegetarian or omnivorous diet after a few years.

There is only one single vegetarian source for B12, but as noted before, many vegans are also prone to a substantial amount of dietary and medical woo which prevent them from supplementing their diet. Some eat a more restricted diet consisting only of "unprocessed" foods (raw food diet), which do not typically include nutritional yeast supplementation.

Because of the limited availability of vegetarian sources for B12, many pre-prepared vegan foods supplement it. However, this involves different issues; as many (most?) pre-prepared vegan and vegetarian foods include trans fats or naturally-occuring highly saturated fats such as coconut oil or palm kernel oil.

[Herzblut]

I've been vegetarian for 40 years. Nutritional yeast is part of my diet now; mostly because it tastes so good.

Vegetarianism seems to include fungi, tacitely.

[Skeptic Guy]

Mmm, a charbroiled on the grill, medium-rare, soy-steak...now that says "summer"!

[ponderingturtle]

From:[I][B] The Paleolithic Diet and Its Modern Implications, An Interview with Loren Cordain:

I would question many of its assertions.

I don't think you can say that there is a specific diet for hunter gatherors. Because the diet you could have in the amazon vs the artic is so divergent as to be meaningless.

And this mistakes the idea that the diet people evolved on is in some way the best.

It also ignores relative populations.

[robinson]

I agree with the turtle.

Speaking of, extinction of species is a good reason to stop eating some animals.

[Herzblut]

I don't think you can say that there is a specific diet for hunter gatherors. Because the diet you could have in the amazon vs the artic is so divergent as to be meaningless.

Not really. I see two common aspects

1. Diat includes meat.
2. Diat excludes cereal grains.

[Roboramma]

I would question many of its assertions.

I don't think you can say that there is a specific diet for hunter gatherors. Because the diet you could have in the amazon vs the artic is so divergent as to be meaningless. Good point. I do think, though, that it's likely that for most of our evolution, there are some things that we can say about diet, and that the selection pressures applied during those times, and thus the adaptations that arose from them, have not been swamped by post-agricultural changes (though these certainly have had some effect - see lactose tolerance, for instance).

I don't know that the authors mentioned have done so, however.

And this mistakes the idea that the diet people evolved on is in some way the best. Agreed - for instance, increasing caloric intake to a minor degree over that present through much of our evolution is almost certainly better for health (say 5-10%).
Not going through periods of abundance followed by periods of near starvation is another thing that's probably good - yet such a rythm is typical of hunter-gatherers.

Nevertheless, I think that there are things to learn about how the human body functions in relation to diet by looking at the environment in which it evolved. Trying to mymic that environment, on the other hand, seems like a bad idea to me.

[Herzblut]

Wrong. Most Americans and Europeans several times more protein than they need. Protein is not a problem.

So, what's no problem for the rich, is no problem. Like Kwashiorkor. Very interesting standpoint, indeed.


A vegan diet is not contraindicated for growing children, it simply requires more effort to ensure proper nutrition.

A vegan diet is contraindicated for growing children.


And looking at American and Australian children, it's obviously that very few of them are eating anywhere near a healthy diet.

And looking at African and Asian children? Only if you don't mind to look away from the rich and beautiful for a moment, of course.

[Segnosaur]

All of us posters here who do eat meat should be willing to sponsor a vegetarian...

What does it mean to sponsor a vegetarian? It means that you have to find someone in your life who's a really big pain in everyone's *ss every time you want to go out to eat, and then you commit yourself to eating THREE times the amount of meat you'd normally consume to make up for all the meat that your vegetarian buddy isn't eating.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor

[Roboramma]

All of us posters here who do eat meat should be willing to sponsor a vegetarian...

What does it mean to sponsor a vegetarian? It means that you have to find someone in your life who's a really big pain in everyone's *ss every time you want to go out to eat, and then you commit yourself to eating THREE times the amount of meat you'd normally consume to make up for all the meat that your vegetarian buddy isn't eating.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor

Why?

[robinson]

Same reason you should drive extra miles to make up for those idiots riding bikes and walking and stuff.

[fishkr]

And @ fishkr and Hokulele: YES! Let's do a barbecue. :D That would be a lot of fun. I live so far out in the country, and have enough land, that we could do it here and never bother anyone, no matter how hard we tried.

Sounds extremely good. So you're inviting us to N.M? Can we, in turn invite selected friends from Jreff? Or forgo "selection" in favor of natural selection? Make it an open invitation, then . . . when the time comes for culling the herd . . . I hope Plumjam is on hand.

We shouldn't do it on a date that would compete with Burning Man though. Just a suggestion.

M

[fishkr]

And regarding the PETA nonesense, I invite anyone informed on the processes involved in the monoculture of vegatables to name a crop that can be grown, harvested, processed and consumed without the rampant killing of animals.

You can't, unless you are farming by hand, using no pesticides or fertilizers, displacing no wildlife, driving no vehicles or using motorized impliments. Probably not even then. While one may delude one's self into thinking no animals are killed for tofu, this is simply not the case. You may not be ingesting meat but you are still slaughtering fauna to put tofu on your table.

[fishkr]

sorry another double post

[trvlr2]

As to the topic, it is quite rational to not waste resources (which includes money) on feeding crops to animals then eating them. But most people don't base their choice of diet on rational reasons.

If we went by science and reason, meat would be avoided because of the increase in health risk associated with it.

If we went by science and reason, we would control our population.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

And regarding the PETA nonesense, I invite anyone informed on the processes involved in the monoculture of vegatables to name a crop that can be grown, harvested, processed and consumed without the rampant killing of animals.

You can't, unless you are farming by hand, using no pesticides or fertilizers, displacing no wildlife, driving no vehicles or using motorized impliments. Probably not even then. While one may delude one's self into thinking no animals are killed for tofu, this is simply not the case. You may not be ingesting meat but you are still slaughtering fauna to put tofu on your table.

Eh, I've never considered that to convincing.

I mean, from an ethical point, look at it utilitarianly (Yay for making up words!).

You are killing a lot less animals than you would from meat eating, and you are not raising a large number of animals in cages to suffer just to slaughter and waste resources.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If we went by science and reason, we would control our population.

That is a rather different topic if you are referring to government mandates like China.

And a lot of people do try to control the population in their own personal way :p .

[trvlr2]

TB - No gummint intervention!
What I thought I was responding to,was the concept of individuals applying moral precepts to their reproductive behavior.
Having a whole lot fewer people here, makes this discussion wholly propositional.
Underlying global warming, starvation, deforestation, etc., is a large population of H. Sapiens?.

TB-"And a lot of people do try to control the population in their own personal way ."
Does this mean that you are a cereal killer?

[bokonon]

I think that eating meat is what nature intended for us, don't believe that animals- who regularly kill and consume each other- should be treated as being above the food chain and love food too much to give up half to two-thirds of it.
I don't think chickens, turkeys, cows, or pigs regularly kill and consume each other. Maybe you could make a case for fish...

I'm not a vegetarian, but the quest for more fiber and fewer calories means there is less meat and more plant products in my diet these days.

[robinson]

If we went by science and reason, we would control our population.

Not really. Having lots of offspring is better for survival than having one or two kids.

[Roboramma]

Not really. Having lots of offspring is better for survival than having one or two kids.

Not necessarily.

And what's survival got to do with how many children we should have?

[robinson]

In many countries, children still die with startling regularity. Having lots of them ensures some will survive. It also benefits the parents (and extended family) because in some countries children still take care of their parents, as well as each other.

Having lots of siblings is a survival trait. Even in industrial countries large families have an advantage, and not just for pure survival reasons.

[robinson]

Getting back to the topic, is a diet of mostly plant products rational for a large family?

If food is scarce, and there are many mouths to feed, what is the best use of limited resources of time, energy, and most importantly, land and water?

Could a country like India ever reach the population it has without a vegetarian diet? Or China? Both cultures depend on rice, not beef and pigs and chickens and maybe lamb. If you have a rice paddy to support your family, does it make any sense to try to raise cattle or pigs to feed everyone? I don't think it can even be done.

Animals, especially cattle, take a lot of land and water to raise. If resources are scarce, or just land is limited, eating dead animals makes little sense. Especially if you need the buffalo to pull the plow.

[Herzblut]

If food is scarce, and there are many mouths to feed, what is the best use of limited resources of time, energy, and most importantly, land and water?

Anything, but rice.

[robinson]

Why would you say that? In countries with Monsoons seasons, you can't hardly grow anything else. Much less raise animals to eat. Rice is the perfect food crop when it rains like crazy, you have lots of hands to work the fields, and a buffalo to pull a plow.

I would venture that is exactly why rice is the staple of many countries.

[automatthias]

On a more serious note, I now work in a job that involves a fair amount of hard physical work here and there. In order to be strong and healthy enough to do this work, I need protein and nutrients which are not easily obtained from non-meat sources.

Evidence?

Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian#Protein):
Protein intake in vegetarian and vegan diets is only slightly lower than in meat diets and can meet daily requirements for any person, including athletes and bodybuilders.
Reference: Peter Emery, Tom Sanders (2002). Molecular Basis of Human Nutrition. Taylor & Francis Ltd, p 32. ISBN 978-0748407538.

[Herzblut]

Why would you say that? In countries with Monsoons seasons, you can't hardly grow anything else. Much less raise animals to eat. Rice is the perfect food crop when it rains like crazy, you have lots of hands to work the fields, and a buffalo to pull a plow.


The monsoon season is just four months, correct me if I'm wrong. And, when you can have cattle to pull a plow, why can't you have some more for nutrition or business?

You mentioned China. China's agricultural economy is one of the most varied in the world, and the biggest by far.

[fishkr]

Eh, I've never considered that to convincing.

I mean, from an ethical point, look at it utilitarianly (Yay for making up words!).

You are killing a lot less animals than you would from meat eating, and you are not raising a large number of animals in cages to suffer just to slaughter and waste resources.


Just to be clear, I'm referring to the "by-catch" of monoculture, somethig that city and PETA members rarely think about. Trillions of animals are ground up by combines and tractors, poisoned by pesticides, dispaced from their natural environment, harmed indirectly by oil production used by agribusiness machinery, killed on the road during transportation.

Are you really killing less by eating vegatables? I suspect that this would be a more difficult calculation than you might at first think. Take just one step in the process of a meat crop vs vegatable crop production; The Harvest. With meat you round up the animals, walk them into pens, or trucks, and either slaughter them there or transport them. Vegetables, in most cases require vast areas of ground to be mechanically raised to stubble, or in the case of root vegatables, turned over. Harvest is cataclysm to animals that dwell on that land.

And which killing is worse? Less ethical? Killing an animal crop that has been raised as a food source that will be completely utilized, or killing countless sentient animals in thoughtless waste, leaving them to suffer and rot in fields or alongside roads?

There is a lot of "Free Range" beef production in Idaho. Cows eating grass in the open country. Compared to monoculture it is idyllic, both for cows and (if properly managed) the land.

M

[robinson]

The monsoon season is just four months, correct me if I'm wrong. And, when you can have cattle to pull a plow, why can't you have some more for nutrition or business?

Looking at India, they do and apparently always have used cattle for nutrition. They use the milk, in many forms, having figured out various ways to preserve milk products in the stifling heat and humidity of the climate.

No doubt due to some practical value in not slaughtering animals, but keeping them alive, to both do work and provide nutrition.

The amount of land required to graze or feed cattle may prevent a large population in a tropical climate from eating lots of meat. It is an interesting situation.

China and Indochina are a very interesting subject, on many levels.

[quarky]

There's lots of talk about food lately, on talk radio shows, in magazines, on the news.
I get the feeling that an increasing number of people have really no idea what to eat.
Overly processed foods have come under a lot of scrutiny of late, as has factory raised meat and agro-corp veggies. Even wild fish are suspect as a good food in some places.

As food prices rise and re-calls continue, the confusion is likely to increase.

Its very difficult to decide what to eat when we have an abundance.
I'm more confused about diet than at any time in my life, possibly because I'm more open minded than I was.
perhaps parameters are needed, however non-scientific, simply to reduce confusion?

I'd like to try a diet (for a while) that was completely from trees. i wonder if its do-able?
There are some tropical trees that have edible leaves.

Does anyone know what to eat?
What's for dinner?

[Roboramma]

Just to be clear, I'm referring to the "by-catch" of monoculture, somethig that city and PETA members rarely think about. Trillions of animals are ground up by combines and tractors, poisoned by pesticides, I thought that's what you were talking about.
Those things, though, are equally, and actually more, true for grain-fed meat. We still have to grow those grains that they're fed on, and so those same problems occur. And concidering that feeding a cow grain, then eating the cow requires ten times as many calories as you would get out of just eating the grain itself, this problem is only hightened by grain-fed meat.

Of course, for pasture raised meat, the problem is different, but:
dispaced from their natural environment, harmed indirectly by oil production used by agribusiness machinery, killed on the road during transportation. These issues all still apply. Changing from a vegetarian diet to a meat diet won't mean that there is no "by-catch", it won't even limit the "by-catch" as far as I can see, in fact, because meat production requires more land for the same number of calories, it only increases it.

Are you really killing less by eating vegatables? I suspect that this would be a more difficult calculation than you might at first think. Take just one step in the process of a meat crop vs vegatable crop production; The Harvest. With meat you round up the animals, walk them into pens, or trucks, and either slaughter them there or transport them. Vegetables, in most cases require vast areas of ground to be mechanically raised to stubble, or in the case of root vegatables, turned over. Harvest is cataclysm to animals that dwell on that land. Do you really think, though, that more animals are displaced by the same number of calories of vegetable production as meat production? On average?
Turning vegetation in to meat, then eating the meat is inherently less efficient than simply eating the vegetation.

Now, it's true that same land can be more efficiently used to produce meat than other crops. On the other hand, as I said earlier, if we want to have some wilderness, it's more efficient to leave that land as wilderness, because the amount of food we can get from it is less than good cropland.

Nevertheless, I still think a mix of meat and vegetable food sources is the way to go - I just think that we should limit meat, at least if we're interested in our natural environment.

And which killing is worse? Less ethical? Killing an animal crop that has been raised as a food source that will be completely utilized, or killing countless sentient animals in thoughtless waste, leaving them to suffer and rot in fields or alongside roads? Isn't this off-topic? The topic isn't about whether vegetarianism is more ethical from the perspective of animal suffering or killing, but whether it's more environmentally sound.
Anyway, it's odd the way you phrase it - "killing an animal crop that has been reaised as a food source that will be competely utilized" vs
"killing countless sentient animals in thoughtless waste, leaving them to suffer and rot in feilds or alongside roads"
It's funny that the first is put in completely emotionless language, while the second is... not.
For instance, that "animal crop" consists of "countless sentient animals" just as much as your "by-catch" does.
I might also point out that you've skipped over the issue of how the animals are treated while they're alive, which I think is at least as important.

There is a lot of "Free Range" beef production in Idaho. Cows eating grass in the open country. Compared to monoculture it is idyllic, both for cows and (if properly managed) the land.
Agreed - it sounds wonderful. On the other hand, how long do they stay there? Many cows are born in such an environment, and later sent to "factory farms" to be fattened as quickly as possible.
How much more food could be produced on the same amount of land if it were vegetable crops?

[volatile]

A post of mine from an old thread that might be of interest here:

I became vegan because I examined diet sceptically.

First, I stopped asking why vegetarians were vegetarian and instead turned the question on myself. The real sceptical question seemed to be "Why did I eat meat?"

I found I couldn't really answer that question, as I had never given my dietary choices any serious thought. They were as ingrained, and as unquestioned, as my earlier, lazy theism was. I had simply never sat down and weighed up the relative benefits of each possible dietary choice, starting from a neutral position. I don't think many people have.

So, that's what I did. I started to list the reasons why I should choose meat eating over vegetarianism. I couldn't think of a single one, other than "Meat tastes good", and that wasn't enough. I'll guide you through my thought process:

1) Health. Is vegetarianism / veganism "healthier" than an omnivourous one? Even if it isn't, it's at least as healthy, according to the ADA. There are lots of studies pointing out the relative health risks of red meat, processed meat and all the rest, but dietary studies are notoriously unreliable, so let's leave that aside and assume that the ADA is right and cutting animal products out of your life is at least not harmful. Of course, you need to eat a balanced diet, but even omnivores don't always achieve this.

2) Environment. "Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation." and "70% of all grains grown in the US are fed directly to farm animals, unnecessarily adding enormous levels of pesticides, herbicides, and petrochemical fertilizers to the Earth year after year, and consuming more fresh water than any other human endeavor." (Source (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html)). It seems to me that meat consumption is more harmful to the environment than the alternative, plant-based diet. There are plenty of other ways this is borne out, particularly when you consider how wasteful it is to grow food to feed to cows to then eat! See also: over-fishing.

3) Animal suffering. I am not dogmatic or evangelical about this, and I do not believe that a) it is always wrong to kill animals, b) that animals and humans are equivalent or c) that killing animals for food is metaphysically, or morally, wrong. Nevertheless, I believe it is undoubtedly the case that animals do suffer in the production of food. Cows, pigs and chickens all feel pain. I wouldn't kill a cat or a dog or a horse for food, and so I believe that if avoiding animal suffering for other species is possible, it should be pursued wherever possible. This seems to be at least a generally tenable position given laws on animal cruelty etc. If I can live as healthily as I can on a meat based diet, but eliminate unnecessary suffering, then why shouldn't I? In this sense (and in many others), veganism just seems a sensible extension of my broader ethical stance.

4) Convenience. As I said, I am not dogmatic about my veganism, and I am certain that in some cases, having a small-holding and being self-sufficient is a "better" choice. Nevertheless, I buy my food at stores. I do not hunt, or grow my own vegetables. If the soy milk and the regular milk are right next to each other on the shelf, why should I pick the animal milk, given points 1, 2 and 3 above? If the dairy free and the real mayonnaise are right next to each other on the shelf and pretty much indistinguishable from each other, why pick the animal product given 1, 2 and 3 above?

Now, don't get me wrong - I love the taste of meat. It's just that, having considered the relative merits of both diets, I can't justify eating it. I also love driving my car really fast, but I don't because my personal preferences aren't always sufficient to justify potentially harmful behaviour. And in any case, I'm not starving or denying myself anything at all. There are vegan alternative and analogues to pretty much everything these days.

People always ask me why I'm vegan. I always turn it round and ask them why they eat meat, because when I asked myself that question I never had the answer. It's just about thinking about the way you live your life, and why you hold the beliefs you do. In my humble opinion, non-dogmatic veganism is the logical and rational dietary choice; though if anyone can make the case as to why I should eat meat, please do.

[EHocking]

I'd like to try a diet (for a while) that was completely from trees. i wonder if its do-able?...Mmmm,

Arboreal Menu de Jour

Sloth Bisque
* * *
Monkey Burgers
* * *
Pangolin Pie
* * *
Kopi Luwak

[dakotajudo]

Just to be clear, I'm referring to the "by-catch" of monoculture, somethig that city and PETA members rarely think about. Trillions of animals are ground up by combines and tractors, poisoned by pesticides, dispaced from their natural environment, harmed indirectly by oil production used by agribusiness machinery, killed on the road during transportation.
Trillions?

Only if you make the PETA position a strawman argument for the ethical treatment of insects.

The PETA position is pretty much limited to vertebrates, so let's consider:

Combines and tractors are pretty slow moving, so vertebrates are pretty rarely ground up. Pesticides are generally targeted to insects, not vertebrates.

Displaced, yes, that's true - but that's not slaughter on a large scale as you imply.

Killed on the road during transport? Not really; but that transport is necessary, regardless of food type - you don't live where your food is grown, do you? Beef can be hauled half-way cross-country between slaughter and sale.

The only real valid point you have is in the production of fuel, but, then again, that's a cost shared among all foods.


With meat you round up the animals, walk them into pens, or trucks, and either slaughter them there or transport them.
Slaughter them there? Where? And transport - well, we covered that.

And these pens you speak of? Bare dirt - nothing lives there with cattle walking all over, except the cattle.


Vegetables, in most cases require vast areas of ground to be mechanically raised to stubble, or in the case of root vegatables, turned over.
Meh. Fauna seem to survive the harvest, in the stubble, well enough; at least, that's my experience with grains. (Raised to stubble? What does that even mean? Crops are cut to stubble several inches off the ground - if you run the combine head at ground level you risk breaking teeth on rocks).

Harvest is cataclysm to animals that dwell on that land.
Little bit melodramatic, aren't we?


And which killing is worse? Less ethical? Killing an animal crop that has been raised as a food source that will be completely utilized, or killing countless sentient animals in thoughtless waste, leaving them to suffer and rot in fields or alongside roads?

Have you actually been in the field during harvest? There's more road kill out there because of commuter traffic than harvest vehicles.

Tractors a big, noisy and slow, cars quieter and faster; animals dodge the tractors much easier.

Crop fields - especially small grains - are largely undisturbed for most of the growing season, when animals are reproducing. Hay land, in contrast, may be multiply harvested during the time when fauna are reproducing (pheasants nesting in late May, early June, for example). There may be some slaughter of birds moving in to grain fields just prior to harvest, but, then, they move in because of all food (insects and seeds) in those fields just prior to harvest. That extra feed adds to the animal population, so what's the net cost?

And, of course, the only reason to put up hay is to keep the cattle fed over the winter. Don't have that problem with crops.


There is a lot of "Free Range" beef production in Idaho.Compared to monoculture it is idyllic, both for cows and (if properly managed) the land.
Lot here, too. Cattle (or ranchers) have displaced coyotes, rabbits, skunks, badgers, on and on ...; it's not like Bambi and Thumper in the forest out there.

And, of course, pasture land can be just as intensely managed as crop land - pesticides applied to control insects (grasshoppers will strip grass, too). There is actually very little native grassland anymore; it's all planted grasses. You can, of course, manage pasture land with very little input, but I doubt there's enough of that to maintain the some 100,000,000 head of cattle in this country.

Really, the only way to make land fauna-friendly is to take it out of production entirely. No crops, no cattle, no people. But as long at the human population continues to increase, we have to add to land in production.

On the positive side, though, crop yields, per acre, have been increasing pretty steadily since the green revolution - more people can be fed per acre than ever before. Some of that is agronomic inputs (fertilizer and the like), but much is due to breeding and improved genetics (harvest index has increased, which means more biomass harvested and less left in the field).

I'm not sure about beef yields - that's not my area of expertise. Has the efficiency of cattle production kept pace with crops?

[dakotajudo]

volatile, your post is for the most part well thought out. But I have a couple of concerns.


1) Health. Is vegetarianism / veganism "healthier" than an omnivourous one? Even if it isn't, it's at least as healthy, according to the ADA. There are lots of studies pointing out the relative health risks of red meat, processed meat and all the rest, but dietary studies are notoriously unreliable, so let's leave that aside and assume that the ADA is right and cutting animal products out of your life is at least not harmful. Of course, you need to eat a balanced diet, but even omnivores don't always achieve this.
This is the big one. Is a strictly plant-based diet balanced?

My reading of the literature suggests that plant-based diets should be supplemented with some animal products - eggs or milk, if not meat - to replace nutrient deficiencies associated with plant-only diets. B12 and iodine, calcium to some extent (in that while plant material can be high in calcium, it's not available calcium - tends to be bound in the cell wall).

Do you have a reference for the ADA? I can find references to a position paper about vegetarian diets, but I can't find the paper itself, so I'm not sure if vegetarian means "plant only" or "meatless"

There are plenty of other ways this is borne out, particularly when you consider how wasteful it is to grow food to feed to cows to then eat!
On the other hand, is it possible to grow locally a complete diet based only on plant material? Does the need for variety in a vegetarian diet create a potential for waste as well?

That is, corn yields ~ 140 bushels per acre; soybeans ~ 50, dry beans ~ 30. While most corn goes to cattle, the same ground wouldn't produce the equivalent mass of feed for humans. There's waste in converting nitrogen to protein; the difference between corn yield and dry bean yield is just that.

I'm not arguing that converting nitrogen to cattle protein isn't to some degree wasteful, just pointing out that it might not be as wasteful as you think.

If the soy milk and the regular milk are right next to each other on the shelf, why should I pick the animal milk, given points 1, 2 and 3 above? If the dairy free and the real mayonnaise are right next to each other on the shelf and pretty much indistinguishable from each other, why pick the animal product given 1, 2 and 3 above?
I don't think soy milk and regular are equivalent. For example, less calcium is absorbed from soymilk than from dairy milk. How do the amino-acid profiles compare?

Does mayonnaise have dairy? I thought mayo was just oil and egg white?

[volatile]

This is the big one. Is a strictly plant-based diet balanced?

It certainly can be - and there are non-animal sources for pretty much every nutrient (including B12) except maybe DHA. If you read dietary studies of balanced vegan diets, they show no deficiencies (particularly in things like calcium, which is abundant in the vegetable kingdom - "Fortunately, many good sources of calcium exist. These include seaweeds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaweeds) such as kelp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelp), wakame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakame) and hijiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijiki); nuts and seeds (like almonds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almond) and sesame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame)); blackstrap molasses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molasses); beans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beans); oranges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oranges); figs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figs); quinoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinoa); amaranth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaranth); collard greens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collard_greens); okra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okra); rutabaga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutabaga); broccoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broccoli); dandelion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelion) leaves; kale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kale); and fortified products such as orange juice and soy milk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy_milk)". (wiki)).

These are not as bio-available, sure, but vegans should be eating all of the above (particularly greens etc.) in vast quantities anyway. I seem to recall a study testing things like bone densities of long-term vegans vs omnivores and finding no differences. I'm off out, but I can dig the reference out for you if you'd like. It'll be on PubMed or Google Scholar, I'm sure.

Do you have a reference for the ADA? I can find references to a position paper about vegetarian diets, but I can't find the paper itself, so I'm not sure if vegetarian means "plant only" or "meatless"

Well, you probably found the reference at http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/adapaper.htm. There is a reference to the same in a USA Today article that says ""Appropriately planned" vegetarian and vegan diets have nutritional advantages, including low levels of saturated fat and cholesterol, says a 2003 position statement from the ADA" - http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/painter/2008-01-27-your-health_N.htm and, as far as I can tell, no evidence at all that a planned and balanced vegan diet is detrimental to health in any way.

On the other hand, is it possible to grow locally a complete diet based only on plant material? Does the need for variety in a vegetarian diet create a potential for waste as well?

The answer to the first question is "Probably", and the answer the the second is "probably not any more than an omnivorous one", I'd imagine, though these are hunches. As I said in my post, I don't doubt that an entirely locally-produced (or even self-produced) omnivorous diet is 'better' by some of the criteria I take into account. Nevertheless, it's not possible for me, right now, to eat an entirely locally-produced or self-produced diet, and so I have to work with what I have, in which system veganism makes more sense.


That is, corn yields ~ 140 bushels per acre; soybeans ~ 50, dry beans ~ 30. While most corn goes to cattle, the same ground wouldn't produce the equivalent mass of feed for humans. There's waste in converting nitrogen to protein; the difference between corn yield and dry bean yield is just that.

I'm not arguing that converting nitrogen to cattle protein isn't to some degree wasteful, just pointing out that it might not be as wasteful as you think.

Oh, again I'm well aware of that. But there is little doubt that a large amount of food edible by humans is instead fed to cows, and little doubt that animal farming (and fishing) have enormous impacts on the environment. As Darat pointed out earlier, and as Rolfe pointed out in another thread, of course not all (maybe not even most) land used to feed livestock can be converted to produce edible food crops. I'm not really working within the paradigm of everyone in the Western world going vegan overnight (which would, of course, be catastrophic), but simply from a rationalised and logical personal point of view.

I don't think soy milk and regular are equivalent. For example, less calcium is absorbed from soymilk than from dairy milk. How do the amino-acid profiles compare?

No idea. I'd be interested to know.

Bear in mind that most soy milk has calcium added, anyway, and that the relative health benefits / risks of soy vs cow's milk are not just based on their relative calcium levels.

Does mayonnaise have dairy? I thought mayo was just oil and egg white?[/quote]

I was counting egg under the broad heading of "dairy". My apologies for being unclear.

The reasons you seem to be suggesting I should eat meat (or at least, eat omnivorously) are the following, then:

1) Veganism is not as healthy; possibly more dangerous.

In refutation, I have not seen one single study nor heard the opinions of one nutritionist which support this view. In fact, all the evidence I've seen seems to suggest that a planned and balanced vegan diet is as healthy and as nutritionally-complete as as an omnivorous one.


2) "Supermarket" Veganism is not as "good" as an omnivorous diet based entirely around local, organic produce.

I concede this (and did in my original post), but suggest that this type of farming would probably be largely unsustainable today if required to feed everyone, and further that such a diet is currently less easily available than the regulated vegan alternative.

[Herzblut]

Looking at India, they do and apparently always have used cattle for nutrition. They use the milk, in many forms, having figured out various ways to preserve milk products in the stifling heat and humidity of the climate.

Asians drink lots of milk?


The amount of land required to graze or feed cattle may prevent a large population in a tropical climate from eating lots of meat.

What a bizarre idea. A climate that supports an incredible growth rate of foliage plant is ideal for livestock.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

People always ask me why I'm vegan. I always turn it round and ask them why they eat meat, because when I asked myself that question I never had the answer. It's just about thinking about the way you live your life, and why you hold the beliefs you do. In my humble opinion, non-dogmatic veganism is the logical and rational dietary choice; though if anyone can make the case as to why I should eat meat, please do.

Great post.

But I have one challenge!

How much does it cost to be vegan? You know, pocket book wise. Because that is the common criticism I hear from people.

[volatile]

Great post.

But I have one challenge!

How much does it cost to be vegan? You know, pocket book wise. Because that is the common criticism I hear from people.

No more expensive than meat eating, as far as I can tell. Especially if you're a vaguely ethical meat eater who finds the idea of a $3 chicken worrisome.

[fishkr]

Trillions?

Trillions?

Only if you make the PETA position a strawman argument for the ethical treatment of insects.

The PETA position is pretty much limited to vertebrates, so let's consider:

?

You have a lot of good points here (truncated your post and too many for one cogent reply), but many of them hinge on what I would consider an aesthetic distinction, and why I tend to think of PETA as a bunch of silly persons - the separation of vertebrate/invertebrate when considering the ethical dimensions of diet - the human tendency to have more empathy for organisms which most resemble us is something I find . . . dumb. Kill 1000 grasshoppers on the way to an anti-hunting rally? (not to mention the 50 voles and 3 ground squirrels . . . Life is life. It can all be respected or ignored, depending on one's tastes, but erecting anthropocentric distinctions about which species deserve our compassion and which do not is ridiculous to me.

I live in farm country and see the same things you do. And "trillions" is a vast understatement if one includes invertebrates.

It's probably all off thread, since this is Science, Tech, Math, etc., and my position on the subject rests, for the most part, on aesthetic/ethical considerations.

The argument in favor of a vegetarian diet, in terms of food production efficiency is hard to deny. This is not my interest at all.

Bottom line for me is that I fear, as species/populations tend to expand their number until outside forces such as famine, disease, territorial conflict, etc. curtail the "boom" population level, then acting and making policy, even personal behavior, based on maximum carrying capacity is scary. Something will always perturb the "maximum", and the innevitable result seems to be mass suffering. And for some strange reason as a species we seem to make policy or create behavior based on the "good times". (another topic entirely)

Why should an individual base his behavior on considerations that may lead a population to doom? (another topic entirely)

I was raised in SoCaL, and near the end of my time there (late 80's) I left my garden hose open all the time, using as much water as I possibly could. The more I used, I reasoned, the more expensive and difficult it would be for developers to make fake lakes and new subdivisions. I reasoned that the resource would be exploited until maximum carrying capacity was exceeded, and my intentional wasting of water would skew the tipping point toward the negative, if only by a billionth of a degree.

For the record, I rarely buy meat, mostly I eat what I've killed and a lot of
"imported" vegetables. I' convinced that the vegetbles have a greater environmental cost than the deer/elk I take from the hills near here and which sustain my protein needs. I also understand that if all of the 300 million humans in North America dispersed to the point of hunter gatherer status we would be in big trouble. So I'm not making any case based on lifestyle.

I worry about thinking about making decisions based on what the absolute maximum number of humans that can possibly exist on the planet is. I would hate to live on that planet, and I think most of would as well. But mixing ethics and science and agribusiness and PETA is probably a recipe for a very tangled and unproductive thread. Sorry for my part in that.

M

[Roboramma]

You have a lot of good points here (truncated your post and too many for one cogent reply), but many of them hinge on what I would consider an aesthetic distinction, and why I tend to think of PETA as a bunch of silly persons - the separation of vertebrate/invertebrate when considering the ethical dimensions of diet - the human tendency to have more empathy for organisms which most resemble us is something I find . . . dumb. Kill 1000 grasshoppers on the way to an anti-hunting rally? (not to mention the 50 voles and 3 ground squirrels . . . Life is life. It can all be respected or ignored, depending on one's tastes, but erecting anthropocentric distinctions about which species deserve our compassion and which do not is ridiculous to me. I don't think they're antropocentric - I would have more concern for an octopus, for instance, than for a cameleon, though the latter is more like us than the former.
Plants are life, and so are humans, yet it's clear that we should respect the latter more than the former, and I think for the same reasons. I think that there are some things about our capacities for suffering, for happiness, for understanding our lives even, that are valuable, in a moral sense. I don't think those things are true of plants.

You may disagree that that's a valid moral distinction - I don't think this is the thread for that discussion - but it's certainly not obviously false to the point of being hypocritical to take it, to value one sort of life more than others.


Bottom line for me is that I fear, as species/populations tend to expand their number until outside forces such as famine, disease, territorial conflict, etc. curtail the "boom" population level, then acting and making policy, even personal behavior, based on maximum carrying capacity is scary. Something will always perturb the "maximum", and the innevitable result seems to be mass suffering. And for some strange reason as a species we seem to make policy or create behavior based on the "good times". (another topic entirely)

Why should an individual base his behavior on considerations that may lead a population to doom? (another topic entirely) That's actually a good point - I started thinking along similar lines only a few weeks ago. Not really sure what I think at this point, but if we're maximizing the efficiency of our use of resources only so that we can use more of them, that's a little scary to me, and as you say may only maximize the damage we do in the long run.

On the other hand if we approach these things with intelligence and foresight, it doesn't have to be that way, we could use the savings we make with efficiency to increase the amount of wilderness we have, for instance...
Somehow, however, I think you're right - it's not likely to go that way.

[fishkr]

Plants are life, and so are humans, yet it's clear that we should respect the latter more than the former.

And why is this a given?