Veganism...why?

[Hairbear]

I noticed several people wonder if vegans would still be vegan if plants frlt pain. Decades ago science had proven that plants not only "feel" pain but that on a cellular level when you breach plant cells they emit a high pitch "scream" beyond the range of human hearing. So in the immortal words of Reel Big Fish "Save a plant eat a cow. I want beef I want it now. I'm gonna eat it cause it's red. I'm gonna eat it cause it's dead. Maybe I should eat it raw. Let the blood run down ny jaw. I'd eat people if it was legal. I'D EAT PEOPLE IF IT WAS LEGAL"

 

[prophecy2514]

Did you not even read my post? I said I was all for finding more humane methods of farming.

That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently. I just don't feel that animals fall into that category, and I'm far from alone in the matter. A quick google search will show that any conclusion about animal sentience is hotly contested.

The fact is, sentient or not, we are superior to animals, and I have no moral obligation to treat them as my equal. I would not wish for an animal to be put through unnecessary suffering, but I do not value their comfort so much that I will spend extra money, let alone put my health at risk, or force myself to second guess every meal to make sure it's not only vegan but that it also provides enough protein and minerals to replace the nutritional benefits of meat, just to save them from discomfort.

Further, anyone who says they do is lying, because if they did, they would sell their gaming supplies to donate to the SPCA or to save the tigers, or to prevent deforestation, or even going out into the wilderness to provide food and shelter to wild animals during harsh winters. Life is cruel and painful, I will not make mine more so just to make an animal's less so.

The fact it's up for debate doesn't then bother you? How would you then feel if tomorrow, a cow learned to talk our language, and said that for years they have communicated between themselves and see us as vile beings? (Ridiculous arguement, but not more so than the one of "Yeah, but if we all went vegan, what would be do with all the animals?") Having interacted with animals and seen some of the presented results, I'd say its just a matter of time before we find that "shockingly" animals are more intellegent than most people seem to give them credit for.

If meat eating was lowered at least, it wouldn't cost more, and there is no need to put your health at risk, so that only leaves simple convinience as your defence in that arguement. "It's difficult to make learn about other food and then make meals from them". It's not actually that hard to get protein from other sources, we are just indoctrinated into this attitude of NEEDING meat to be healthy. There are pro-athletes and body builders who are vegan and live just as long, if not longer than meat eaters, so it's not impossible with just a little effort.

No, not at all. I've grown up around animals all my life, they are not our equals.
If cows learned how to speak English tomorrow, I would firmly believe I was in the matrix, because that's the only logical explanation.

And yes, if meat eating was reduced, it would increase price. It's called supply, and demand. Econ 101 material right there. Further, I wasn't talking about price, I was talking about profit, and fewer sales means less revenue, means less profit. That's why price increases when demand goes down, they need to make up for that lost profit, and it doesn't account for all of the lost profit, making alternate(more humane) farming methods, which are inherently less profitable, even less appealing to farmers.

And yes, not eating meat, and particularly being a vegan(what this thread is about), does put your health at risk. yes it's possible to be healthy as a vegan, but it requires you to take much more care with your diet, and to take supplements. There is no vegan way to get essential omega 3 oils, for example, and its also much harder to get several amino acids(again, harder, not impossible).

It's not about protein, it's about the right protein to give you the right balance of amino acids. Meat is the only source which contains all 8 essential amino acids. Also, there are many things in fat, also hard to get without meat, that are good for you, like essential oils which you can't naturally get from vegan sources.

Yeah, professional athletes clearly don't put much effort into their diet, and they don't take any supplements. /Sarcasm

Why don't you try to do some research before you call me out on not doing so. You can start here, but google will provide much more info. http://nourishedkitchen.com/10-reasons-red-meat/

I was a bit overboard when I said it was impossible, but it is impossible to eat healthy as a vegan without carefully considering every single meal and taking half a dozen expensive supplements.

"And yes, if meat eating was reduced, it would increase price. It's called supply, and demand. Econ 101 material right there."
Have you ever studied economics? if the demand for good x (meat consumption) falls, the price of good x(meat) will DECREASE. when the demand for meat consumption falls, there is an oversupply of meat in the market, so the price is decreased to reduce the excess oversupply, reaching a new equilibrium price and quantity. THIS is econ101. You can extend on this depending on what assumptions you make about the structure of the meat consumption market, but what I have stated is correct in a competitive market.

"I wasn't talking about price, I was talking about profit, and fewer sales means less revenue, means less profit"

Chapter 2 econ 101. more sales does not mean more profit and in some cases it does not mean more gross revenue. This is because you have completely forgotten about the COST side of the story. I can go further and explain why if you'd like, but I'm not going to go into any more than that because of time constraints of explaining it to you.

"That's why price increases when demand goes down, they need to make up for that lost profit, and it doesn't account for all of the lost profit,

wrong again, increasing the price of meat when there is a negative shock to the demand for meat, only reduces the demand for meat further, and you'll eventually drive the market to a choke point. There are exceptions to this ( they're called giffen good) but I highly doubt this. It doesnt make up for "lost profit"

"making alternate(more humane) farming methods, which are inherently less profitable, even less appealing to farmers."

Meat produced from more humane farming methods aren't necessarily less profitable. If there is a fall in the demand for ordinary meat, but a rise in the demand for humane meat due to consumers caring more about the treatment of the animals they are eating, then the market for more humanely farmed meat MAY be very profitable BUT it depends on the marginal cost of supplying this meat to the consumer.

ordinary farmed meat and humanely farmed meat are substitutes are substitute goods, and this is why the price will also go down in the ordinarily farmed meat market, to give incentives for consumers to buy more at the reduced price despite the ethical considerations

ECON 101 lesson over. Be more careful please before making such incorrect claims.

My thoughts on veganism and vegans in general? some do have a superiority complex. But then again there are also a lot of people who aren't vegan and have a crack at vegans for being vegan... who also have a superiority complex as well. point is live and let live. I'll respect your stance if you except mine on this issue.

 

[Vivi22]

Thanks for the info, I've heard of Wheat belly before but never read it.

Would you say it's worth picking up just for a good peruse?

Definitely. Dr. Davis writing style is quite enjoyable, witty at the right moments and it's an easy read to plow through in a few nights before bed. It's also quite enlightening. I had known about things like the high GI of wheat products for quite some time, but he manages to cover a lot more than that, both based on the research he did, and the first hand experiences of thousands of patients who he counseled to give up wheat. He saw a lot of things like skin rashes, joint pains, and even hair loss go away with some patients simply changing their diets to remove wheat. Wheat linked to a lot more than I had ever realized, to the point where there may be a case for it being worse than sugar. Not to mention he goes into the actual mechanisms which cause heart disease and the role that wheat and low fat diets play in causing it which is always useful.

Definitely worth a read for how quickly you can get through the book and how much information is in there.

 

[Jammy2003]

No, you're missing my point....

Cows aren't neutral. Cows pollute, Cow Farts are pollution. So, no, contrary to your belief, a Cow doesn't have zero impact and if it isn't being used for Food for instance, it's impact will be inherently negative, especially considering that Herbivores tend to destroy entire eco systems if their populations are not controlled. A normal Human will never be a inherent drain on our systems. I've already made it pretty clear that deviations exist, the mentally handicapped for instance. I have also made it pretty clear that in some areas I consider our species too self-important. But I'm working with the average here and your argument doesn't hold up at that point.

The poster didn't build...

Actually she did.

1. She is comparing me to a animal. For that to work her theoretical Übermensch would have to belong to a entirely different species, he would have to be ridiculousy superior to me on every human level, we are talking the point where the difference would have to be so vast that it would be difficult to even quantify it. This is not the case, a comparison between myself and another human is not anything like the comparison between myself and a cow.

2. She had to create a reality in which it is possible that I am the only possible donor, this was somehow even found out and yet despite being able to do these things which at this point would be compareable to magic, a artificial heart (which we have, they aren't perfect but we have them) apparently doesn't exist despite our technological advancement otherwise being further. That is a completly fabricated version of reality built to support a argument that doesn't work to begin with. Simply because her premise that "if we use intelligence as our ethical basis here, why not do the same amoung humans?" is asinine and ignores that the differences between humans and other animals are so laughably vast that the comparison doesn't work.

You have included...

You may have misunderstood what I was trying to explain to you. You named specific animals for the given situation. It would intellectually dishonest to then assume a average person that doesn't have the knowledge as their counterparts. In other words, I'd accept you working with "the average human" in this situation if you were also working with random animals. But you know this yourself, it's why you didn't claim that a duck would be more useful then a human in the desert.

Same with the farm...

Because the animals that you named are specialised in the fields that you named.

Fair point with the cow...

Why are you assuming so much action from the mother? Why not assume that the calf simply did nothing? Even the report you posted shows that the person reporting was only told[/] why the mother had no Milk in the end. We have no further data to come to any sort of conclussion, yet she is jumping to a rather unlikely one. What if the calf was simply sickly and weak? That is why I said that the article is doing nothing but humanizing the Cow, it gives little information and promptly jumps to a conclussion. I don't think that we should inherently ascribe stupidity to the cow, but I also think we have enough experience with cows to conclude that they are pretty stupid.

My arguement was that...

True. Some animals are underestimated. But I don't really think that that causes problems, because even in all of our underestimations, when the truth comes to play nothing has been impressive in comparison to humans, so they are still stupid, even if slightly less stupid then we may have thought. What purposes are animals used for which they, in your opinion, shouldn't be?

Dog are used for food...

I know they are. But I am not in China or Korea, we do not eat Dogs here. I have no reason to believe that anyone in this Thread has eaten a Dog or a Whale or a Elephant and neither do you. Take that issue to those that do, you aren't making a point with that here.

Another thing I'd like to is that, in my experience, people don't tend to condemn the practice of eating Dogs in and of itself, they condemn some of the things they end up seeing, like Dogs being skinned alive. At the end of the day it's about the pointless brutality, I don't recall anyone here claiming in earnest that being pointlessly brutal in the process of killing your food is fine and if someone did, I'd simply consider that person a dick for a whole other laundry list of mental issues.

Same with whales and dolphins...

That is not why people object to whaling. They object to whaling because Whales are endangered. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are being eaten, but that they are being caught and killed to be eaten despite their being endangered. If the Japanese were keeping Whale Farms and breeding them for that specific purpose without further endangering the already small population, I personally would not care.

The guy is not...

I'm sorry, but I can't take your example seriously if you are going to say that you don't even know if he is mentally retarded and then pretend you know enough about him to claim that he has accomplished nothing. You are basing this off of your experiences as a clerk, it seems that you know about fuck all about this person, yet you are trying to use him as your argument. I'd also recommend that you watch your step, you're starting to come across as a misanthrope.

Correct...

I'm actually pretty sure that I've read about Nim at some point, so no biggy, I just thought I'd point that out. If Nim is the Chimp I am thinking of, then his story is that of humans utterly failing to emphasize in any way and it is a tragedy.

I would put it down to mimicry...

Some Birds have been known to adopt Human Terms into their language from escaped Pet's. That however does not mean that these Birds are using these words with their actual meaning. The same goes for the chimps, they could have simply ascribed a different meaning to what they learned from Nim. Keep in mind that teaching a ape sign language is a time consuming endeavour, even for us. That points towards it being simple mimicry.

I believe...

Like opening Jars? These are the only two tests that I know of, getting through small crevices and opening things.

Why should the chimp want to balance the object...

They were being rewarded with Fruits that they enjoy at success, that is generally how we get them to do these kinds of things.

My point...

Well obviously, as the species doing the testing we setup the goals. We define what intelligence is.

Though some exceptional...

Then I have to say that you are making it really easy for these Animals. I've also yet to see these Tests where a animal is scoring better then humans.

And so it makes me wonder...

I see no reason to be pointlessly cruel. I however also see no reason to not eat animals.

EDIT:...

I'll give it a look later, thanks.

Ah fair point, but humans pollute more with a basic existance in a western (or developed, or whatever term you want to use for the majority of people nowadays who have the choice when it comes to diet), eat many animals in their lifetime which had to be bred for that purpose. So the negative impact of a human starts off at a larger negative than a cows still anyway. I don't know where you live, but as I stated before, I live in Britain. So it means I see, at least here, people who are inherently a drain. People who contribute nothing but consume much. No job or intention of getting one, claiming and living off benefits and housing given to them. That is a drain.

True, the uber being would have to be a non-human animal, that surpasses you in every way IT judges is important, as it clearly has some position of power over us in order to demand organs be given for its use. And even if you aren't the ONLY match, what if it's you, or some other human being? And you happen to have been chosen? Does this make it more believable and as such, allow you to address it?

I get its extrapolation, or goes abstract, but these discussions always end up getting that way, and you shouldn't just ignore it, as there might be something to learn from it still.

A duck would still have more worth to me in a desert than a human, in fact pretty much any animal would. And those that aren't? They won't latch on to me, attempting to steal my supplies or anything I find. They'll go do their own thing. Human's tend to latch onto other humans making them, in this case, more burden then help.
I'm try to argue that worth is not there SIMPLY because we are human. That doesn't make you inherently more valuable than anything else, especially in current society where humans are plentiful and expendable in may peoples eyes.

Why would the calf simply do nothing? Surely survival instinct would make it go after its mother, even if she didn't hang around him? And seeing as the calf was still alive "several days later" the mother must have been feeding it, and it would have been able to walk by that point. What possible reason would it have for not following?

Personally?
I find zoo's to be one of the most depressing places to see animals (and I know about breeding efforts, I get that, I'm talking about zoo's for the sake of "Look at the pretty animals!") as the animals always look so lifeless and bored.
Circuses, particularly with elephant acts, have to be brutal in order to train the animals to their purposes.
Fur farms are pretty damn atrocious.
Animal testing (medical more on the fence about, but some tests are ridiculous), so cosmetic, washing powders, all these trivial things which usual result in animals being dead. Because companies have to cover their backsides to avoid lawsuits by testing everything, including putting different quantities in the eyes or force feeding the products.
Rodeo's and bull fighting.
Maybe more but that'll do for now.

But the issue is partly here, in the attitude it's not ok to eat dogs but it is ok to eat other animals of equal intellegence. Someone earlier was talking of going and herding cattle with his dog, and I'm sure he wouldn't dream of eating the dog. I'm pointing out the double standard.
A lot of people object to whaling and dolphin eating, because they are intellegent or cute. Maybe you not personally, but it's another example of the double standard. "These are for eating, and these aren't"

At one point, I was a misanthrope, so maybe I still slip a little, my bad. Though even if I was, it wouldn't completely invalidate my arguement, just mean you weren't going to convince me . I live in a small town/village, where everybody knows everybody, and so that's how I know as much as I know about him. He isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I didn't want to rule out the possibility of his being retarded in some way, but I have never heard that that was the case, and interacting with him, he seems fine. He is proud of the fact he has only left our town twice, to go to the local city, and lives off benefits. Apparently that has been the case for a fair while now.
My point was, regardless of his mental retardedness, his potential appears to be lower, or at least equal to that of an elephant.

Teaching an ape sign language is difficult, but the second article points out that recent tests with bonobos using a keyboard and toys instead of sign language means they can fully understand us:
"For example, when asked, for the first time, to ?make the dog bite the snake,? he takes the toy snake, puts it in the mouth of the toy dog, and closes the dog?s mouth over the snake. He does not put the dog in the snake?s mouth."
So it was supposably the first time asked to do this, not just a trained behaviour.

Ah, well I've never said to STOP eating animals, just in the quantity we currently do. The impact is too big, and it isn't sustainable. Plus as a member fo a younger generation, the generation before mine's greed and insatiable hunger is going to leave me one hell of a mess to clean up, that I didn't make. Pisses me off sometimes.

 

[Ashadowpie]

Hmm...Vegans wont eat milk or eggs eh? ...that can make cake! and cookies! and * gasp * BROWNIES.....good for them! boy are they missing out on the good stuff though, oh well more for Me! XD

 

[Jessy_Fran]

Shampoos I could see an argument against. At this point, do we really need 50 different kinds of shampoo on the market? Is there any real improvement going on? Is testing really necessary? How many lives are these shampoos saving?

But for medications, medical treatments, and even food testing, I'd say absolutely, we should test on animals first. But my reasoning is that I place the well being of humans over the suffering of animals. You could argue we could just test on willing human test subjects, but this creates a whole host of moral issues. Is it right to test on living people if we have no idea what the side effects might be because animal testing never happened? Is it right to offer experimental treatments to dying or otherwise desperate patients when the treatment might actually be worse than the disease and you're basically preying on their desperation to test your drugs? Can a person even make an informed choice when they don't know the potential risks?

I don't think they can, and I think if we're talking about questions of morality that protecting human lives and well being is more important than protecting the lives and well being of animals. People are free to feel differently about that, but it would take a pretty compelling, objective, and logical argument that didn't try to appeal to my emotions to convince me that I shouldn't value the well being of members of my species over members of other species.

Okay, I can certainly see the logic in that.

Cosmetic testing pisses me the hell off. It's ridiculous and as you say, do we need more types of shampoo?

Medical testing is certainly a difficult area to traverse but ultimately I suppose it does rely on your personal beliefs. I think that humans are no better than non-human animals and so should be treated with the same care and respect that we give to give the weakest members of our society.

I believe that even scientists have commented on vivisection as being unnesesscary and that it's results have actually set medical research back about 20 years. I haven't got the work to back that up but it's something I have read in university. Also, I live near a medical research facility and there have been a number of human deaths there in recent years. One of the bigger cases was caused by medicine (that had actually effected monkeys but not caused any deaths) being given to human volunteers. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-380395/Elephant-Man-resist-drug-test-money.html
Yes, that's a link to the Daily Mail site but I can't seem to find anything else right now.

I appreciate that this is not all cases but still. When animal testing doesn't even have an effect on whether the drug is tested on humans, what's the point?

Hmm...Vegans wont eat milk or eggs eh? ...that can make cake! and cookies! and * gasp * BROWNIES.....good for them! boy are they missing out on the good stuff though, oh well more for Me! XD

Sure we can make cake, cookies and brownies!! In fact, I make a kick-ass brownie with avocado instead of butter And I have a cookbook called Vegan Cookies Take Over Your Cookie Jar which is stuff with tasty baking recipes! And they aren't all filled with 'odd' stuff like avocado. Nom nom nom

 

[clayschuldt]

Q: How can you tell if someone is a vegan?
A: Don't worry, they'll tell you.

 

[Jammy2003]

Meat may be part of our optimum diet...

What people eat is their own choice, you can't force them to eat a balanced diet. But what I'm saying is that a Vegan diet isn't a balanced diet. There may be a lot of healthy Vegans but that's not the point I'm making. I'm saying it isn't the healthy diet people claim it is. If you were to eat a truly balanced diet you'd require some meat products or supplements. I'd rather eat the meat.

I'm sure there are unhealthy vegans...

Yea, and a person who eats a balanced diet would have a better one than he.

I'd argue about the fact cooked food...

Maybe I should have been more specific. I don't mean hitting something with a rock or using a twig to antagonise termites. I mean using plants as rope to bind a sharpened rock to a stick.

Complex tools, not to mention the development of a complex language that allowed us to pass knowledge on. None of this would have been possible if we hadn't began eating cooked foods and high calorific foods such as meat. This freed up energy that was being used for digestion and allowed out minds to develop.

Wheat may be bad for us, but that will then be a person...

You'd be surprised what damage growing crops causes.

And you may have a point about the amount of crop grown for livestock, I'd still argue it wouldn't make up for the newfound demand, especially considering that not all livestock is grain fed. A lot if not the majority of Europe's livestock grazes. New EU legislation has forced places to cut down on the amount of battery farmed livestock.

Simple conservation of energy...

Not necessarily. How much of that feed is fit for human consumption?

So because everything needs fixing, fix nothing?

That's not what I said and you know it, there's no need to be disingenuous.

What I'm saying is that there are a lot of issues with how we feed, clothe and fuel our society. Picking on just one will not change anything.

I never planned to try, I try to just do the best I can for my own life. I'm just pointing out that you can't call it a completely "personal choice", because it DOES effect me. I personally still eat some meat, but I've tried to cut it down from how much I used to eat, so it's at a sustainable level. I don't KNOW the complete ins and outs of a vegan diet in terms of nutrition, but it's not as bland and completely structured as you make it out to be, nor as full of supplements.

The only problem I have with that, is that it's similar to arguements about language or intellegence. As soon as someone finds evidence of animals doing something, the bar is raised higher again. The animal is doing something as good as a large chunk of the population could do. If you put many people nowadays in the savannah, they wouldn't know how to make rope. Besides, language in primates is still debated.

I'm not saying ALL livestock growing should be eliminated, just that the intensive conditions need to change. I've said before, and I'll say again. Got a grass hill outback? Want a couple of cows? Go ahead. I have problems with deforestation for the purposes of intensive, grain-fed cattle rearing.

And if you eliminate that, and redistribute the grain production, there isn't even a gap. Energy conservation states there would be a large surplus of food suddenly. Not all of it would be fit for human consumption, true, but if 1/3 of production worldwide is going directly to cattle feed, then that suggests that its just harvested grain, grown for the purpose of being used as feed.
"157 million metric tons of cereal and vegetable protein is used to produce 28 metric tons of animal protein."
Talking in terms of a cow's lifetime from birth to slaughter, even if this is not completely edible by humans, I'd think 75 million tons of cereal and veg protein is better than 28 tons of animal protein.

This was the one under debate, and picking on this one may at least change this one. I have views on many other things I'd like to change in the world too, but those can't happen until I become supreme overlord of the world, and that's a plan for the future.

 

[Jammy2003]

Q: How can you tell if someone is a vegan?
A: Don't worry, they'll tell you.

He says, coming into a thread asking vegans about their lifestyle.

Well done on trying to be funny, and just ending up provoking people. I hope you're proud.

 

[thiosk]

Is this true?:

Yeah either way I subscribe to the reason that you know, human's today are made to consume animals. So there is no reason against doing it.

Yeah, its true enough.
In america, I was taught in elementary school that the indians (natives) were a fantastic people because they used every part of every buffalo they killed. That we should all strive to live in such balance with nature.

I hold that modern industrial farming uses substantially more of the animals than the indians ever did. Bone jewelry? Thats nothin! We turn that bone back into corn, which we then feed back to the cows! (Or sometimes, feed the bones directly back to the cows)

Even the blood is spray dried and flaked, to be turned into fish food. Those flakes and pellets you sprinkle on the top of the fish tank? Yep.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

If people want to be vegan, fine. Go on with ya bad self. But when you have children, don't raise them vegan. The goal for global diets is to increase meat consumption in the third world and for poor children. Children need large doses of readily digestible protein, unless you want them to grow up sickly and short.

 

[Vivi22]

Also, I live near a medical research facility and there have been a number of human deaths there in recent years. One of the bigger cases was caused by medicine (that had actually effected monkeys but not caused any deaths) being given to human volunteers. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-380395/Elephant-Man-resist-drug-test-money.html
Yes, that's a link to the Daily Mail site but I can't seem to find anything else right now.

I appreciate that this is not all cases but still. When animal testing doesn't even have an effect on whether the drug is tested on humans, what's the point?

Yeah, that is kind of fucked, but I don't think it discredits animal testing necessarily. Now I want to add the caveat that results of animal tests obviously don't have perfect carry over to humans since there are obviously a few differences between mice and other animals and us, but they can be useful for informing future testing, especially if there are huge issues which arise in that phase.

The big problem with the testing of drugs and other medicines though is that it's big business for pharmaceutical companies, R&D is expensive, potential patents are worth billions, and they aren't above cutting corners and doctoring results to get to them. So I'd agree with you, if companies aren't going to take the animal test results seriously then it's kind of pointless, but the upside is, if the animal testing happened and potential side effects were readily available and known in the research community, they can be used to better fine, regulate, or file suit against companies that willfully ignore them. So I wouldn't say they're totally useless. I agree it's stupid, but prior animal testing can at least be used as evidence that companies may have willfully ignored the dangers.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Veganism is a thing because we're all unique snowflakes and different strokes for different folks and stop liking things I don't like.

 

[Jammy2003]

I never planned to try...

Everything effects everyone when we're talking about large scale production. Large crop yield probably effects you more than large livestock farming.

And a Vegan diet can only consists of crops, nuts/seeds and fruit. And if we're being totally honest, the way that crops are grown use animal by-products too. There is no such thing as a true vegan unless they grow all their own food and make all their own clothes out of hemp or something.

Animals are used in so many things that it's just completely infeasible.

The only problem I have with that...

But there's an obvious difference between say a crow dropping nutshells on a road for cars to crack, and someone making an irrigation system.

I'm not debating that no other animal but humans can be ingenious. But our ability to make highly complex tools and form complex languages came from a surplus amount of energy due to cooking previously hard to digest foods and high calorie food consumption.

Most of us wouldn't be able to make ropes out of plants now because it's not pertinent to our survival.

If you were to plonk a b.c. inhabitant infront of a PC and ask them to do a spreadsheet they couldn't do that. Knowledge has to be passed down, making a rope out of plants was something our species learnt through trial and tribulation, then that knowledge was passed down because it was important. When it was no longer required, it stopped being passed down. We still have the capability to learn how to do these primitive things if we are taught them.

And a lot of animals communicate, but you can't seriously be willing to compare base communication to even the first written languages?

I'm not saying ALL livestock

And I wouldn't argue with that, but we also need to cut down on shock agricultural farming and some forms of crop cross breeding. There's a lot we need to change, picking on one thing is counter-productive.

And if you eliminate that

You're thinking in linear terms. The cycle doesn't simply go Sun>plant>herbivore>carnivore. There's a lot of too and fro in-between that.

How do you think this mass of agriculture is fertilised? Animal faeces and by-products. Animals aren't just used for food. If you suddenly cut this supply of animals a lot of other human conveniences would disappear.

You're really not being practical if you think that freeing up the grain we use to feed some cattle is going solve all the problems that cutting the livestock industry out of the picture would create.

This was the one under debate...

It would cause far more problems than it would solve. You don't fix a broken wall by knocking out another brick.

I would argue it doesn't, because large animal farming requires crops to be grown, then fed in order to sustain and make the animals grow. How can that have less effect that just crop growing?

Why does everyone get so hung up on this idea of a "True Vegan", as if it's an all or nothing attitude? Isn't doing something constructive better than nothing at all? You're probably right, in today's society there is probably no way to cut out each and every product that has at some point had an animal product used in its development or making. It's about making the choice you can, when/if they are available to you. "Voting with your wallet" as is always thrown about on this site. That means money is put into alternative, and more products are made through other means and with other materials.

You say "When it was no longer required, it stopped being passed down", but so many traditions and "Habits" are passed down in our society that are no longer needed. Is there not the potential that eating meat is one of these? Or at least in the huge quantities now eaten? Our brain's have developed through eating cooked meat etc. yes. I'm not arguing that. I'm asking if there is any need to continue the practice, now there are alternatives which meet all requirements?

Well for one, I'm big on utilising human faeces in crop production. Its where the nutrients went, so shouldn't it cycle back from us? It wouldn't even be THAT hard to set up. But lets suppose it was impossible, and that the high yields are for some reason insustainable from man-made fertiliser and the organic stuff we do manage to get. The intensive cattle production takes up a huge space that could be used instead for additional crops, which may cover the reduced production rates.

Would this be enough? I don't know honestly, I haven't studied it, ran figures, and all of that. But it's kind of moot because it's never going to happen overnight is it? It would have to be a gradual transition in any case, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.

So far better to keep the status quo as it is, because there is some potential for it to get worse? Every change has the potential for it to be good or bad, but surely it's better to look at potential change and decide, rather than just going along with it because it's alright now. Always leave things better than or at least the same as you found them. You're right, the wall is pretty broken, and I'm all for knocking it down and starting again. Hence the plan to become supreme overlord.

 

[Thistlehart]

Because health, life, cruelty, death, leather... etc. ad nauseam.

And they don't understand what life is.

 

[Jessy_Fran]

Because health, life, cruelty, death, leather... etc. ad nauseam.

And they don't understand what life is.

Actually, we're fully aware of 'what life is', we just choose to give an animals more sanctity than most people it would seem. I don't understand why that is a thing to mock.

 

[Thistlehart]

Because health, life, cruelty, death, leather... etc. ad nauseam.

And they don't understand what life is.

Actually, we're fully aware of 'what life is', we just choose to give an animals more sanctity than most people it would seem. I don't understand why that is a thing to mock.

That attitude right there. Acting like you're doing the world a favor then turning around and playing at being martyrs. What do vegans use to hang themselves on their little crosses, anyway?

It's not the veganism that gets on people's nerves. It's the attitude of the people behind it.