Veganism...why?
- Thread starter Secret world leader (shhh)
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I happen to know a vegan, who just so, happens to be slighly preachy(ie, everytime I try to enjoy a chicken salad sandwich or a BLT, he has to add if I'm enjoying eating little chicks/piggies), and from my experience with vegans, its kind of the same reason for as to why people are hipsters.
Just because.
Or because someone famous does it, or maybe they're just misleaded/ easily persuaded, they might just employ such a way of life in the same way that one might decide to change one's religion because they came across the idea(on a whim basically).
I don't hate vegans, but in the end, it's my choice at the end of the day(regarding what I want to eat).
Also their "milk is produced by raping cows" point of information is false; cows produce said substance naturally.
And just in case the vegans are still preaching, I can just say that my blood type demands that I eat meat, and a truly vegan world would result in a genocide that would cull over 1/3 of the world's population.
Just because.
Or because someone famous does it, or maybe they're just misleaded/ easily persuaded, they might just employ such a way of life in the same way that one might decide to change one's religion because they came across the idea(on a whim basically).
I don't hate vegans, but in the end, it's my choice at the end of the day(regarding what I want to eat).
Also their "milk is produced by raping cows" point of information is false; cows produce said substance naturally.
And just in case the vegans are still preaching, I can just say that my blood type demands that I eat meat, and a truly vegan world would result in a genocide that would cull over 1/3 of the world's population.
I wouldn't say the industry isn't changing, I'm saying it needs more pressure to have bigger changes and quicker. Not an overnight reform, I know that would be devastating to all sort of things, but more.Abandon4093 said:
And if those 5-10% ate meat we would be less wasteful? More would still be produced (maybe it wouldn't HAVE to, but it still would) as it would be more convinient than being less wasteful.
It doesn't need decades, not we were inclined to find them. If a fraction of the worlds military budget went to finding these alternatives, they would be found pretty quickly (not gonna happen, I know, but the idea still holds). If it is important enough to people, it will be found quicker as more effort will go into finding them.
But it still can be done, meaning it can BE a balanced diet. It's difficult, in no way am I suggesting it wouldn't be, just that it is possible. And to be on par with the average persons' diet? It's not really that difficult at all, probably easier in some ways.
I don't think I know anyone who claims it's healthier than a balanced diet involving good quality meat, if that diet is looked at. Probably are some, but none I know. I do know people who argue it's much easier to have an average diet without obesity which is a growing (excuse the pun) problem.
You believe it isn't an overpopulation problem? Fair enough, I do. Waste is also a huge factor, don't get me wrong, and it would help a great deal, but even if actual population isn't a problem, the rate of growth means it soon while be. So something needs to be done.
Hmmm, it's a dodgy mindset I have to choose not to believe. It's difficult at times. Might have to let this lie soon anyway to work.
Ah, wrong terminology on my part, by cycling I meant leaving fields to fallow, not rotating the type of crop on them. I also assumed you were actually talking about producing all animal by-products in labs as in artificially growing crap for fertiliser. If you mean growing meat and vegetation in labs, I consider that too far away to wait around for the coming of the saviour piece of technology.
I'm unsure about feeding a dog vegan, but it was to prove the point it CAN be done. Personally my dog is pescetarian, but that's due to his being a poor example of a dog and being allergic most sorts of meat, dandilions and various other things that make his fur fall out.
We would already have alternative sources of power if it wasn't for certain vested interests that have held us back over the years... But that's another thread. And politics. *shudder*
I'm for the UK, farming statistics of the US are just easier to obtain and hold a larger chunk of the market, so more impact.
I think it does need to be brought to the mass public concern, along with a large number of other things. The population of my country seems incredibly docile to me, with no interest in much. Oh except reality TV, they get good and hyped about that! But farming standards and international economics? Not so much...
You mention potential problems, as neither of us is fully backing everything we say with hard facts and statistics. It still gets infuriating to not have any alternative suggestions come with the criticism though. And I do beleive that by lowering the number of products I buy so they don't need to be made for me, I am having a positive impact. Maybe you disagree, but I really don't see how it has 0 effect as is often thrown about. If everyone when omni tomorrow and that 5-10% started eating meat it would have an effect on the demand surely?
Well, easier said than done. It's tiring to always choose positively. I used to want to be a weapons designer, would be far easier to make and sell those than efficiency improvements for solar energy...
Thanks, but I've spent enough time on the internet to handle myself. Besides, if you'd read the rest of the thread I've already apologised for that post and made some fairly decent contributions to the discussion.hazabaza1 said:
Meh, you get preachy vegans, you get preachy everyone. As a meat-eater I still can't understand the fuss about bacon, and get pretty tired about hearing about it. The meat is somewhat tasty but hidden in fat and that stuff's just nasty to me!Akichi Daikashima said:
Though you're wrong about milk, cows produce it after giving birth, and to artificially inseminate cows they are put onto a "rape rack" (Industry term, I shit you not!) in order to impregnate them using a stick covered in sperm. Kinda a rapey vibe to me, though I guess that's up to you to decide if you feel the same way.
Most vegan's argue from the view point of as it can be considered no longer nesseccary for people to eat meat then you shouldn't, I doubt pretty much any of them expect you to die in order to though. What blood type are you to need that?
Well, yeah, I am aware of artificial insemination; I just assumed that my country's production of milk (au naturel happens more often that AI) happened worldwide, I apologise for that.Jammy2003 said:
, also I was misinformed, and I thank you for your input.
Also, meat does work as a sort of universal supplement of proteins, amino acids , so in order to substitute the rare and valuable nutrients that you get from meat, you would have to splash money on expensive supplements/specialist diets, those that couldn't afford such things wil likely starve under a "vegan regime", especially people in developing countries and the working class.
Also, blood type A positive, as well as O are reliant on animal protein/ large ammounts of amino acids/proteins that basic, non-exotic plants couldn't provide.
Just a note for anyone who thinks cows suffer in farms more than in the wild:
Cows can't pretty much survive in the wild, at least not the farm ones. Darn, some types of cows can't even reproduce in the wild. And, to put it bluntly, are pretty stupid. But then, there are a lot of pepole who are less clever than a common cow.
Cows can't pretty much survive in the wild, at least not the farm ones. Darn, some types of cows can't even reproduce in the wild. And, to put it bluntly, are pretty stupid. But then, there are a lot of pepole who are less clever than a common cow.
Hey, I know you're not interested in following these but I figured I'd just give you some examples of vegan eating that is healthy but not expensive!Akichi Daikashima said:
http://vegan.tribe.net/thread/cab726e5-4ab7-488a-b06d-6764bfd3e292
http://myvega.com/resources/7-day-meal-plan
http://cost.ezinemark.com/you-too-can-be-a-vegan-on-a-3-a-day-budget-16fbf6dabca.html
http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Vegan-4-00-Day-Conscious/dp/1570672571
These are all ways to eat well on a $3-4 a day budget. I personally live on about £17 a week (so about $26) which is more than enough for me
That's without supplements too.Also, I know people who live in Thailand and South Africa who live on a mainly vegan/veggie diet because it's cheaper a lot of the time. It's actually easier for me to eat when I'm over there because their dishes are so full of fresh vegetables and such that meat isn't always important!
Thanks, though in the past I used to be unreasonably hostile over this subject.Secret world leader (shhh) said:That's...a very interesting way of looking at it. Tell me your secrets, oh wise one! That i may see the world the way you doTreblaine said:
I guess what I didn't like about the concept of veganism was the dogma that seemed almost masochistic or monastic, denying meat as some sort of sill non-religious purity ritual. But I've since realise my problem was the reasons people chose to be vegan, not the actual veganism itself. I guess it's a case of doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons.
Anyway, I'm doing more research into the possibility of a "meat free society" though for the time being I'm going to keep eating animals and using animal products. There are a few major issues, like how we need dogs for things like guide dogs and sniffer dogs yet they really need a meat-based diet. Also whether it is more efficient to use waste biomass for cows to easily get milk AND fertiliser or focus more on producing bio-ethanol. It's tricky, but interesting.
I realise that if humanity ever hopes to explore the stars (and ultimatley conquer the inevitable death of our Sun), any spaceship would have to be vegan. It simply would not be practical to have cows and chickens on agriculture deck twenty three of the USS Enterprise, you've have to fix the exhaled CO2 from the air and very efficiently turn it back into edible and nutritious food. No need to be a smug git about it, it's pure practicality, I'm sure if Captain Picard beamed down to a planet and he was offered a cheese burger by a local tribesman he wouldn't be an uppity git and refuse it... though he might find it quaint that they had to eat other animals that ate plants that take energy from the sun.
Human nature. Most humans are moderate, generalized folk; they believe in the existence of a supreme being but don't see the hand of that being in every action they take. They tend to fall into either a Centre-Liberal or Centre-Conservative mode of thought, but don't assume their mode of thought is the only one that's worthwhile. They enjoy in moderation the things they enjoy; they might buy a DVD or BluRay that has extra features on it, they may go to a website to find more info about the item, they may even ghost in a forum or two once in a while. Some people don't eat much meat, either for medical reasons or personal reasons.Secret world leader (shhh) said:Why is veganism a thing?
I understand that there are moral and nutritional reasons behind vegetarianism, but veganism just seems...unnescary? Is that the word? (EDIT: as so many of you kindly pointed out, unnecessary was the word
Anyway, if someone could explain this to me it would be much appreciated.
Then you get humans who are more concentrated, more extreme. Fundamentalists in various religions. Partisans in politics. Your average poster here on the Escapist. Vegetarians. They set themselves apart from the moderates and often will intentionally draw attention to themselves. (Though not always!)
And finally you get the crazy human beings who are extreme in their views. Extremist fundamentalists in proselytizing religions. Partisans who believe that any side but theirs is utterly evil and must be entirely destroyed. Otaku, hardcore LOST fans and people who must always be right on the Internet. And Vegans. Most of the time there is just no point in getting into a debate with someone at this level of concentration; the amount of effort it takes to stay at this level makes it nigh-impossible for them to see it from another vantage point.
So, summation: Vegan = Hardcore LOST fan. (I thought about going with Vegan = Browncoat, but Mrs. Makt has told me to stop poking the Browncloaks with shiny sticks.)
This is all rather interesting. However, your hypohetical sitatuation doesn't seem to take into account the possibility/inevitibility of such spacefaring communities growing their own meat.Treblaine said:
Really? I find that a little hard to believe...Jiggy said:Fun Fact: Cows can't really digest Grass.Digesting grass? I don't know, I'm not a cow, I don't know what they consider important
And we have a winner. That is why I cannot be compared to a Cow. Because they just are so fundamentally different.
Wrong. We have totally been deeper then a Whale could go. James Cameron was just recently.
Because gap between me and a cow or me and the theoretical being isn't the only contributing factor. What I am capable of is also important. It causes some key differences. Like I already explained, a Cow doesn't have a concept of life and death the way we have, so regardless of how much better the being is, it would still be a completly different experience for me then it is for a cow.
What footage would that be? Pretty much every Animal has a fight/flight instinct, that however is not equivilant to the way we look at life and death. If you have footage that in any way illustrates that a cow has something similar, I might give you that point. On regard of "streching my brain" the thing is, in comparison to you, judging by some of the things you have been saying, I have a better idea of what I am talking about. I am by no means a expert, but these kind of things interest me, I enjoy reading about them and watching videos and what not. I'm not just throwing random ideas into the wind. When I say that I know of nothing meaningful a animal can do that we as a species can't do better, I am not joking. We've been to the deepest spots of the ocean, we've been to space, we tunnel through entire mountains and that's when we aren't climbing the things. To me it seems that you don't have the best concept of what incredible feats our species can accomplish.
Wait, we are counting insects too? I wasn't actually thinking of insects, especially since you know, nobody thinks twice about just squashing them, seemed too easy to bring them up to me, it's also why I haven't mentioned Mice or Rats either.
Also, just as a tip, while we may physically be good at alot of thing in proportion to our size (we are for instance porportionately stronger then elephants), I wouldn't assume that you could outrun most of the predators that you will encounter. Especially since outrunning wouldn't be enough, you'd have to have a large enough distance to begin with if you don't want something that is just plain faster then you just catching up before it runs out of steam.
I'd wager that I myself have read enough about the kind of thing that I could be pretty useful, it wouldn't surprise me if I would end up saving your butt
Even on a individual basis a given human has more potential then any given animal. The fact that we are a highly adaptive species cannot be ignored because teaching and building upon each others ideas is what makes us the best of the best of the best. No other animal can do that the way we can. We are one of the few species that sees a failing in ourspecies and then instead of waiting around for natural selection, we just augment the situation to our advantage. And while a few other species do that kind of thing, no other species does it anywhere near as effective as we do.
I don't believe in some kind of choosen race, but we all come from the same basis, we've all had the same amount of time to evolve. not only are we at the top of the food chain, we rule that thing with a iron fist. We are, and nothing you say can refute this, the pinnacle of evolution up until this point and it really doesn't look like anyone else will be catching up anytime soon.
Consider the following. We are currently having ethical discussions about designer babies. Do you comprehend what that means? It means, we are pretty close to being able to enter realities God Mode Cheat and controlling our own evolution. And that would pretty much be the human singularity.
Yes, tons of possibilities. That the Cow reasoned that the calf would be taken away and even reasoned that the Owner would know something was up if she showed without any calf at all, is probably the least likely of reasons. I'm not sure if it's entirely impossible, but at the very least it's extremly improbable.
I'm too lazy to look that up right now, so I'll just take your word for it.
I don't want to eat a Dog. I don't give a shit if someone in China does. I do give a shit if the Dog is being subject to pointless cruelty.
See? Whether I would want to eat it or not has no bearing on the actual reason why I don't think some others should. You'll find this applies to most people, because they have no actual reason to otherwise even pretend they give a shit.
Would you like to hear a personal story about the truth content of gossip?True, it is exaggerated, but with my nan having been a town gossip and also having lived in that town all of her life, I heard a lot about some people. But fine, I hold to it, you disagree, that's allowed
I happend to work with one of the gossip chicks in our area. Somehow, suddenly rumors started sprouting up that I was gay (because she didn't know I had a girlfriend) and that I was planning on shooting up a school that I used to go to (based on me liking video games and not being that talkative type [in comparison to her ofcourse] ). I'm now engaged to said Girlfriend and if I'd shoot some School up I wouldn't be here discussing with you, I'd be either dead or behind bars. People that spread gossip tend to be very boring people, so they make up stories about other people so that somebody might be interested in giving them the light of day.
No problem, misunderstanding are bound to occur.
Time and place man, time and place, you have to pick your battles, otherwise you'll just end up disillusionised. It's a issue, but it is nothing in comparison to alot of our more pressing issues, we need to take care of the stuff that can truely fuck us for good before we worry about the more minor stuff. Helping animals live a better life isn't going to do much good if that life is on a dying planet.
Just because it's different doesn't mean it can't be compared, otherwise how do we test their intellegence compared to ours to conclude they aren't intellegent?
You can't claim they are completely different to us, so you can't be compared to them, but then compare them to us.Huh, curious, last I remember hearing was that it was only unmanned probes but google proves you to be correct. Hmm..... Cows are better at getting on with one another than people? They don't bomb each other or invent atomic bombs? (Unless that's a new name for cow pats I haven't heard of).
I guess the footage I have seen, I give the reactions different meaning. I've seen chickens grieving, same with cows, seal mothers and birds. Without having a common language how would you show to me that you have a understanding of life and death such that it fills that criteria? Or even know you are meant to be showing me it?
How can you test an animal for emotions with judging which "expressions" they do to display those emotions? As we have both said, they are fundamentally different, and so how can we tell without "Humanising" them?
I know about the great stuff humanity has done, I guess I just see the bad stuff too. But I don't see why animals have to be able to do something better than us to be considered worthy of consideration. I'm somewhat new to these concepts to myself, and still have to sort them out in my own head before I can describe them, so maybe I don't come across as clearly as I could. And maybe it's because I used to spend more time dwelling on the atrocities that humans have commited that I'm more forgiving of animals apparent shortcomings. Recovering misanthrope here remember?
I have to always try see the best of things, the most potential, or it all goes to shit... And that probably skews my views somewhat.Haha, I didn't consider them until I started considering my chances against any animal out there, but that pretty much decided it for me
Unless it's a large enough predator that is actually likely to be aggressive from the get go and not just run away from me as I run away from it, then my chances wouldn't be too bad. And I read a fair number of bits and pieces, though you may be able to help. But it's 1 in 8 billion I'd get you out there in the desert, just as much chance I'm there with George Bush, whom I don't imagine to be the most helpful of people!
We are headed that way, which will be a good thing I hope. We did reach the top, and I wouldn't argue that point, just that it still doesn't determine worth, at least not to me. I still prefer to do it on an individual basis, on each persons contribution personally and not in relation to everything humans have accomplished. Guess that's just the way I have to look at it.
Hmm, most people I know, those that it's been idly brought up around them, have been pretty violently against the eating of dog, and not just that they wouldn't want to. There seems to be a general attitude of scorn to those who do even in some cases, as it seems to relate too closely to Lassie over in the corner. But maybe that's different where you are
It's probably a debated statement anyway, there is always evidence to back up both sides, or there wouldn't be an arguement in the first place.
Most people on this site have been the victim of vicious gossip, so I'm sorry to hear that. I guess I give that point as hearsay then, but the fact he couldn't read or count still stands in my eyes with regards to intellegence compared to elephants. Just in that they are closer to humans than many would care to admit.
I am trying to pick my battles to those things I can influence. I used to get bogged down in all the huge things, everything that politics entangles and makes impossible for me to really have any effect upon. I'm studying Physics in the aim to either help renewable energy, or work on robotics connected to the nervous system (deus ex, here we come!), and I'll help in those areas as I can. I can vote with my wallet in terms of how I want my food produced and other aspects. Can I really do anything to help solve the economic crisis? Not that I'm aware of, so I'll go with what I can have an effect on, as small as it may be.
Well that raises an interesting paradox.Secret world leader (shhh) said:
Veganism is usually defined as not eating either the flesh of animal nor the any products from them.
But if you grow meat in a petri dish, or in some other chemical vat process, that was completely newly created and never came from any animal. Would you still fit the definition of vegan to knowingly and willingly eat that? There are a lot of meat substitutes made entirely from plant matter that are very meat like. Not steak, but sausages and mince and similar such, you can still be considered vegan eating those.
But there is a similar problem with growing steaks in a vat as growing the whole animal. The space problem is greatly solved and is much more efficient but you still have to "fix" carbon in the air (CO2 form) to organic carbon before it can be added to the synthetic steak to absorb the nutrients. The steak must absorb the same nutrients that you and I need, and the Carbon must be fixed by some sort of plant. So so the synthetic steak process is an extra step of inefficiency, might as well go straight from the carbon fixed in a plant to a meal.
Unless...
Unless the carbon fixed is by some sort of disgusting algae that no human can drink without retching. But instead the algae is regularly purified, blended and then fed into the synthetic steaks which change the nutrients into something much more palatable.
Maybe then. But by then the definition of "meat" will have to be modified. Today you cannot get meat without an animal dying to get it. But it's different in so many ways when you grow the meat without the animal.
I actually made a similar argument for a paper. Got an A.Secret world leader (shhh) said:
OT:Of the vegans I've known they do it to protect animals. I also love animals and find them delicious.
Captcha: Moveable Feast - Another name for cows.
It comes down to food economics. Farmers basically spend all day thinking about ways to maximize profit, so they wouldn't just throw away a valuable resource for no reason. As chicks, roosters haven't consumed much, if any, food. If they grow they will have to be separated from all of the hens, and from each other at enormous expense, otherwise they will kill each other and impregnate all of the hens (no useful eggs), and the probably kill some of the hens too. What i'm getting at is that roosters are assholes.BiscuitTrouser said:
Intelligence. The thing we value most is intelligence. Lets pretend that there is only enough room in a life boat for one more person. Do you take the able bodied but severely retarded person, or do you take Stephen Hawking, who was on a cruise for some reason. People matter because they are capable of reason.peruvianskys said:
Lets apply this logic to animals. Do you save the 100 jellyfish stranded on a beach or one dolphin (given the choice)? Even though their intelligence is debatable, a dolphin, great ape, problem solving octopus, etc. is much more valuable than other creatures because of their relative ability to reason.
Heck, when you look at the low end of the scale, animals aren't much smarter than plants.
A very large percentage of the population is unaware of the benefits of vegetarianism and veganism. The moral reasons are irrelevant; they're no different than any other morals, neither right nor wrong.
It's the nutritional reasons that matter. There's a lot of evidence suggesting that animal proteins are harmful to human beings. They're attributed to everything from diabetes to cancer. I'm not going to claim that it's definite but there's enough research there for a serious consideration, and no one should disregard it because of prejudice. For a summary, watch the film Forks Over Knives, but not as a convincer ? find out for yourself.
I will say that the claim that humans have evolved to eat animal foods like we do today is an untruth. Animals have only been domesticated for a few thousand years, which is very short on an evolutionary time scale, certainly not enough for any significant adaptation to take place. More importantly, before then, we sustained ourselves primarily on plant foods. It was a lot more practical to eat fruits, nuts, vegetables and the occasional bird egg, rather than fashioning a weapon, going out to hunt, killing and preparing an animal for eating.
In more recent history, for the last 500 years or so, the majority of the population didn't eat meat; it was considered a delicacy more or less exclusive to the nobles. It was only after the industrial revolution that we were able to treat meat as any other part of our diet.
On another tangent, the human population eats far too much meat than it should. It's not environmentally safe to consume animal products at our current rate. Admittedly, this is hard given the size of the population but we would be able to eat significantly less meat and more plant foods, thus being a lot nicer to the environment, if only the will was there.
So, there are plenty of good empirical reasons. The moral ones, well, they don't amount to anything substantial. There's no point in arguing whether eating animals is wrong.
It's the nutritional reasons that matter. There's a lot of evidence suggesting that animal proteins are harmful to human beings. They're attributed to everything from diabetes to cancer. I'm not going to claim that it's definite but there's enough research there for a serious consideration, and no one should disregard it because of prejudice. For a summary, watch the film Forks Over Knives, but not as a convincer ? find out for yourself.
I will say that the claim that humans have evolved to eat animal foods like we do today is an untruth. Animals have only been domesticated for a few thousand years, which is very short on an evolutionary time scale, certainly not enough for any significant adaptation to take place. More importantly, before then, we sustained ourselves primarily on plant foods. It was a lot more practical to eat fruits, nuts, vegetables and the occasional bird egg, rather than fashioning a weapon, going out to hunt, killing and preparing an animal for eating.
In more recent history, for the last 500 years or so, the majority of the population didn't eat meat; it was considered a delicacy more or less exclusive to the nobles. It was only after the industrial revolution that we were able to treat meat as any other part of our diet.
On another tangent, the human population eats far too much meat than it should. It's not environmentally safe to consume animal products at our current rate. Admittedly, this is hard given the size of the population but we would be able to eat significantly less meat and more plant foods, thus being a lot nicer to the environment, if only the will was there.
So, there are plenty of good empirical reasons. The moral ones, well, they don't amount to anything substantial. There's no point in arguing whether eating animals is wrong.