Vegetarianism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

i tried go vegetarian for a few months a while back. i didnt notice any beneficial health affects so i gave it up.

---

What did your vegetarian diet consist of?

Quote:

---

My argument wasn't about the ethics of destruction of life and I wasn't trying to put forward a plan for perfectly eco-friendly farming. All I was trying to do was refute the idea you seemed to be putting forward that, if we switched as a global population to a vegetarian diet, it would be very difficult to meet the world's needs. The point is, land used for farming plants can feed many many more people than land used for farming animals and there is a direct relationship between the demand, in wealthy countries, for meat, and food shortages in poorer countries.

Did I? You'd replace very low-yield farmland with very high-yield farmland.

That rich countries have a very high demand for meat is what perpetuates this. Take away the demand and the practice would stop.

---

I'm not saying it would be much more difficult, I'm saying it's not going to be easier. Imagine the amounts of vegetables needed to replace animal products given the difference in calories. Not any kind of soil is good for fruit & vegetable-growing, so not everything that's now a meadow can turn into orchards. Oats fields can perhaps be replaced by other cereals, but I wouldn't consider processed grains among the healthiest of foods, and I don't think you refer to them either as a meat-replacing source of nutrients.
The example about the rainforests is pretty unique. I'm not sure about the related statistics there, but in my country at least most deforestation comes from the lumbering industry.
Ideally, natural grasslands can support heards of ruminators with less impact on the environment than if these areas were to be turned into crops; after all large herbivores have natural ecosystems too.

Not to mention that many "green" products in the marketplaces today may come from genetically altered plants and are certainly treated with pesticides and fertilizers in order to ensure plentiful harvests.

Quote:

---

The only thing? Sorry, but this is a simplistic argument and it touches on subjects too big to go into here. Suffice it to say, populations increase most rapidly in conditions of poverty. In wealthier countries, indigenous populations are actually in decline. Ergo, increase wealth in the poorer countries and the likelihood is, populations would shrink there too. How to do this is what's too big to go into here.

---

Wrong! Populations grow rapidly when the future looks brighter than the present and there are little worries about resources. That this is apparent in hopeful third world countries today may be decieving. Realistically, having Africa catch up to America and Europe consumption-wise and growing in numbers all the while would already be unsustainable.

Quote:

---

OK, it's true you can't eat just any veggie diet and be OK. You need to make sure you get your basics: protein, B12, iron, calcium etc. But that's not that hard and a lot cheaper than getting it from meat. Anyway, tons of meat eaters are malnourished because they don't know the right things to eat either. Just making sure you've got a lot of meat in your diet is not the way to ensure health.

---

And I remind you I never said that we should only eat meat. I support a balanced diet, but saying that meat should be removed entirely from the menu of a vast majority of the world's population is an untopian and unjustified exaggeration.

Quote:

---

'increasing the rate of growth for human population'? Er, so what you're saying is, a global veggie diet might be too beneficial for humanity? I'm really really tempted to break Godwin's law at this point. No, wait, I can get around it: Well hark at you, Mr. Malthus.

The following piece, by a leading environmentalist, tackles the population question head on and deals specifically with the question of food production near the end, backing up my points about the wastefulness of large-scale meat production. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf....greenpolitics

---

A lead environmentalist with a subtly populist flavour... just what we need to save the world. ;) You can blame the rich for hoarding the wealth all you want, but it's human nature to aspire at that... take their heads, spread the loots, and in a short while another "elite" will rise again, most likely from the very ranks of the previously poor. You will never achieve balance promoting strict control over billions while they lean on the brink of unsustainability and each of them yells for his desires to be met. The only way our societies can work is if we have enough to spare.

Another thing that comes to mind is that, wasteful as they are, the rich do not actually eat more than a normal person; so even if economic value would be more equitably spread, that doesn't mean Earth can sustain enough vegetal and animal nutrients for everybody to have access to a healthy and diverse diet.

Quote:

---

That's flat-out not true, etc..

Could you point to where these finding occur in that paper? I didn't even see any reference to vegans.

---

Make sure to check the tables, particulary Tabel 7, "Mortality in 5 diet groups", for both stomach cancer ratios and vegan reference.

Quote:

---

There's nothing natural about current industrial farming practices of either animals or vegetables and they have very little to do with food chains or bio-diversity in general. You'd be on a stronger footing if you pointed out that domesticated animals such as cows and pigs wouldn't survive in the wild at all. The only reason they're alive at all at this point is because they're farmed to be used for meat and dairy. None of that, however, addresses my points about the environmental harm of meat farming, as compared with that of farming crops.

---

Both are comparably harmful I would say, more or less depending on circumstance. I don't think switching to vegetarianism would help with our eco problems, though. I still stand by an educated decrease in both consumption and human population. Educate people about the risk of overpopulation, don't encourage families to have lots of children through enticing social ensurance for mothers (I mention that because in some countries, mine included, legislation allows for poor women to become pregnant as a source of income), don't ostracize singles, let the gays go their merry unfertile way, legalize abortion, educate children about safe sex, legalize prostitution as a means to vent sexual urges in a controlled environment, increase wealth without burning non or slow-regenerating resources and coerce clients to take periodic medical exams, allow the terminally ill to opt for euthanasia, think politics and investments from a green and long term perspective, and humanity will sort itself out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

i tried go vegetarian for a few months a while back. i didnt notice any beneficial health affects so i gave it up.

i still rarely eat meat, mostly bc i dislike doing dishes (at least not right away after a meal and leaving greasy meat pans around is stanky) and cooking meat involves just that.

ethically, which should be synonymous with physiologically, there is nothing wrong with eating meat. its kingdomism to consider consumption of veggies more ethical than consumption of beast.

as far as overpopulation goes, type of food has nothing to do with it. people need to stop ****ing. we can still have our fun, but come on...there's ways around planting a seed

---

Vegetarianism is good for your health and for the health of the animals you do not eat. :D


What is kingdomism?

Don't you see a flaw in the argument: "Plant life is sacred too, so let's eat animals"?

For me, the real issue with proposing vegetarianism as a measure which can improve social/enviromental standards in the third world is that it is a lot more difficult than many other measures which would be easier to implement, and would probably be inffective without those measures anyway.

If you think that as soon as people stop eating meat in the west, it will solve food shortages elsewhere, you're being naive. There will probably be more grain production, but that will only push prices down and hurt farmers. Besides, there's more than enough production capacity in the world; I remember being taught about the grain mountains and wine lakes of Europe. You have to remember that more grain = lower prices, and that hits farmers hard.

As a result, they'll turn to cash crops, just as they've always done, or go bust, with their land going with it. When you simplify things and say 'less grain used for producing meat, more for feeding people', you lose sight of the real issues, which is the way trade is carried out. The way food markets work is the problem, and vegetarianism is not a solution.


That said, most westerners eat too much meat and too little veg, from a simple health point of view. Mum & Dad were right: you need to eat more greens.

Meat tastes too good to give up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NEEMAN

For me, the real issue with proposing vegetarianism as a measure which can improve social/enviromental standards in the third world is that it is a lot more difficult than many other measures which would be easier to implement, and would probably be inffective without those measures anyway.

If you think that as soon as people stop eating meat in the west, it will solve food shortages elsewhere, you're being naive. There will probably be more grain production, but that will only push prices down and hurt farmers. Besides, there's more than enough production capacity in the world; I remember being taught about the grain mountains and wine lakes of Europe. You have to remember that more grain = lower prices, and that hits farmers hard.

As a result, they'll turn to cash crops, just as they've always done, or go bust, with their land going with it. When you simplify things and say 'less grain used for producing meat, more for feeding people', you lose sight of the real issues, which is the way trade is carried out. The way food markets work is the problem, and vegetarianism is not a solution.


That said, most westerners eat too much meat and too little veg, from a simple health point of view. Mum & Dad were right: you need to eat more greens.

---

You are right that there is enough food to sustain this population. But as Petronius pointed out, it could not happen suddenly, at best it would happen gradually. A gradual increase of food available for the population wouldn't devastate farmers, I wouldn't think.

But the problem is that people seem to believe there is a shortage of food. There isn't. There's loads of it; the problem is related to the distribution of wealth and peoples access to food. It's a question of buying power; people in the west have more of it.

Today, there is more than enough food to feed people across the globe, and in terms of capacity, based on current technology, we could feed a population of somthing like 15 billion people.

All I'm trying to say is that this is infinitely more complex than simply reducing the amount of grain we use to produce meat. Unlike in Europe, third world governments do not guarantee farmers a price for food. If the supply increases or demand decreases, farmers will leave the land; they have no safety net.

Ya know, it always slays me the way that the topic of vegetarianism and veganism become such heated arguments (even within my own family for gawdsakes).

I am a vegetarian who rarely eats egg, but I like cream in my coffee and the occasional slice of marble cheese. I also eat seafood once in a while, so maybe I am a hyprocrite, maybe not. I just hate the idea of slaughter, I love cows, pigs, deer, the list goes on.

I thought I'd come forward as Nik should not have to stand alone, nor anyone else who has adopted this lifestyle. It is admirable, healthy and not that difficult to adhere to, once you come up with some good menu planning. More and more restaurants are catering to vegetarianism.

blp, you have given good information with the discussion -- bravo. :)

I do not believe in vegetarianism anymore, I am a vegan. All others choice still depend in the suffering of poor animals.

Yes, it's hard, especially when you're just beginning, I miss milk, eggs, cheap lotions and shampoos and a bunch of other stuff, but it's still worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aBIGsheep

Meat tastes too good to give up.

---

Amen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoope

Oh God Nikolai! ... Do u mean eating Meat is not good ?
Even chicken :-( ............i love grilled chicken but lamb meat not much i can stop that .

well .. lets get to the point ! Ok i agree with the idea that eating more vergetables is healthier & better for us ( medical side ) But that doesn't mean we should stop eating meat at all.. our body need special proteins that are present in meat, components that we need for our survival that are not available in vegetables. Now that is why Eating meat was never forbidden, eating other animals might be quite harsh but its not a crime . And God has created all these creature for helping human being .
Though , I guess its not hard to stop eating meat & becoming a vegetarian. But honestly i have never tired so, nor i met someone who is.?
Do vegetarian eat egg ? lol ( well i know they don't eat chicken but what about the egg) .

---

Yes, we should use animals for different things, but we should not slaughter them! For instance there is an old idea from Hinduism which is that the bull and the cow are like our father and mother. The bull has the strength to plow our field, and we drink the cow's milk to help sustain us. Since the cow gives us milk, she is like our mother, and so to kill her is very wrong. Chickens are not as sacred to us because we don't have such a close relationship to them, but we should not kill them either.

I understand that your religion and the people in your life might not advocate vegetarian, but I urge you to consider it.

Quote:

---

Yes, we should use animals for different things, but we should not slaughter them! For instance there is an old idea from Hinduism which is that the bull and the cow are like our father and mother. The bull has the strength to plow our field, and we drink the cow's milk to help sustain us. Since the cow gives us milk, she is like our mother, and so to kill her is very wrong. Chickens are not as sacred to us because we don't have such a close relationship to them, but we should not kill them either.

---

But we would still be using them. The bull doesn't plow on his own free will, nor does the cow decide to share her calf's milk out of kindness. We control their lives, their breeding - what would we do with the young since we need more cows than bulls?
What if the animal grows old or sick, and dies of natural causes? Throwing away the meat that could feed others would be terribly wasteful.
What is your opinion of carnivores then, who have to kill in order to survive? Should such species be wiped out for the well-being of wild herbivores? Why should an oxen have more rights than a buck, and why would a buck have more rights than a tiger, and the grass that's chewed at none at all?
I think it is hypocrisy to deplore the killing of animals while promoting slavery and inequity. Sacred cows for hindus is a religious choice; it has no bearing with other cultures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiz_paws

blp, you have given good information with the discussion -- bravo. :)

---

Thanks, kiz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

But we would still be using them. The bull doesn't plow on his own free will, nor does the cow decide to share her calf's milk out of kindness. We control their lives, their breeding - what would we do with the young since we need more cows than bulls?
What if the animal grows old or sick, and dies of natural causes? Throwing away the meat that could feed others would be terribly wasteful.
What is your opinion of carnivores then, who have to kill in order to survive? Should such species be wiped out for the well-being of wild herbivores? Why should an oxen have more rights than a buck, and why would a buck have more rights than a tiger, and the grass that's chewed at none at all?
I think it is hypocrisy to deplore the killing of animals while promoting slavery and inequity. Sacred cows for hindus is a religious choice; it has no bearing with other cultures.

---

It's logically absurd to argue that we should not subjugate animals at all at the same time you think we should breed them in pens, and then slaughter them for food. In other words, you cannot argue for veganism and for meat-eating at the same time. Yet sometimes meat-eaters will do this-- as an insult? Saying to Vegetarians "You eat animals, but what aobut plants? Do you think it's okay to eat plants?" Meat-eaters are complicit with slaugtherhouses, where living, breathing, feeling animals are killed for food. So they can't argue for veganism at the same time.

I suppose your shackles have already been raised at this point, though I sincerely hope not. But to address a couple of your other questions: I am not an expert about cow-herding, so I cannot answer all of your questions perfectly. I do not know the right answer to what is done with all of the bulls. But as for inequality and subjectivity; a bull is not harmed by helping us farm, not if we treat them well. Cows can be milked humanely, without separating their calf from them. I will research this more when I have a bit more time, but I think that's the case. And again; and this I take exception with, in your reasoning... my position is that it's ethically wrong to slaughter cows (very wrong). It's a contradiction to say that it's okay to slaughter them, but also that it's not okay to "not slaughter them, although they are kept in subjectivity, because they should not be kept in subjectivity." Keeping them in subjectivity and slaughtering them is keeping them in subjectivity .So which is it?

And lastly, in response to this statement "I think it is hypocrisy to deplore the killing of animals while promoting slavery and inequity." You people need to learn what hypocrisy is. Hypocrisy is when you say one thing and do another. If I said it was wrong to slaughter cows but then I ate hamburers, that would be hypocrisy. Saying that bulls and cows can give us their labor and milk, if we do so humanely and respectfully, and do not hurt them, is not hypocritical. Please look up the definition of hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

What is kingdomism?

Don't you see a flaw in the argument: "Plant life is sacred too, so let's eat animals"?

---

randomly choosing the animal kingdom as more sacred than the plant kingdom.

elaborate the flaw if you will