Veganism...why?

[CarlMin]

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.

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.

Animals are not much smarter than plants? Where did you learn your biology? Plants don't even have a central nervous system, and they are not even comparable to complex bacteria. Mammals and birds on the other hand, have a highly developed intelligence not comparable to anything else on earth. So on the grand scale, the difference between let's say a human being and dog, is almost insignificant. But in the end, there is no proper, objective or scientific way to measure intelligence across species, and the very term concept of intelligence is extremely ambiguous and subjective.

However, intelligence is irrelevant. There is no reason to believe that animals experience pain any differently from human beings just because they are less intelligent, then there is reason to believe that a human with lower IQ experience pain differently then one with a higher IQ.

In fact, many scientists believe that other mammals might suffer more psychologically from distress and physical trauma than human beings as they might not be capable of developing as complicated mental coping strategies.

 

[CarlMin]

Veganism is a way for idiots to think they're doing something good for animals.

Don't call people idiots.

I'll call whoever I want an idiot.

These people are acting on there moral compass and trying to do what they think is right, that's an honorable way to live a life.

Anyone who blindly follows their moral compass without thinking about how doing so might do MORE damage than if they did nothing at all is a fucking idiot. People who buy Priuses on moral reasons are idiots, as those things do more environmental damage before they're ever purchased than an SUV does over 20 years of heavy use. People who call themselves vegans and buy nothing but mass produced produce are idiots, as their mass produced produce kills far more and in far more painful ways than livestock farming.

Wait what? What on earth is produced produce? And how can it kill more and in more painful ways that factory farming? The meat industry slaughters at least 58 billion animals every bloody year, and that's just the registered numbers. Did you get that? 58 billion.

The ways the animals are slaughtered are often less than ideal. Boars are castrated without sedatives in many american slaughterhouses, and let's not even talk about the cows and chickens. In america, attempts have been made to establish a standard in animal welfare at the slaughter houses, a standard that very few "factories" meet, but even those who do still treat their livestock in ways that can only be described as animal cruelty.

It is estimated that 90% of all pigs raised for food are confined at some point in their lives. Pigs are highly social, affectionate and intelligent creatures, and suffer both physically and emotionally when they are confined in narrow cages where they cannot even turn around.

It's okay if you eat meat, but if you are planning to attack those who don't you'd better at least do some research.

 

[CarlMin]

You mean you live in some backwoods-ass part of the world that doesn't know what the combine harvester is?
Mass produced produce is produce produced on a scale many times over and above what that farm's local area needs. See: The grain industry in America. We make so much of that shit we can feed the world several times over. It's mass produced.

Yeah, but that's irrelevant. What I reacted on was your sentence doesn't make sense. ?People who call themselves vegans and buy nothing but mass produced produce are idiots?

What, do you really believe that a few american combine harvesters collectively slaughter more animals per annum than the repugnantly towering number of 58 billions?
I don?t see how you can say produced produce kills far more and in far more painful ways than livestock farming (of the reasons I described in my earlier post and you conveniently ignored) Even if it was, it still wouldn?t be an example of hypocrisy on the vegans part.

 

[Jammy2003]

Yeah, like I said, it's just a fun fact.

You may not be suggesting that, Vegan Doodler on the other hand was, I remind you that it was her example that sparked this. I'm just pointing out that her example doesn't work.

Yes, Spiders aren't as good as Cows are. That's why we mostly consider them pests and kill them simply because we don't want them around, this is in spite of them having useful properties.

I draw the line at humans. From a "can I eat it" perspective everything else is fair game as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't mean you should, it just means that I don't really care unless we are talking about endangered species and that's mostly because the impact that might have on the entire ecosystem could be difficult to foresee. If they were to "farm" said animals, as in raised for the express purpose of eating them, it doesn't really bother me. I also see no sense in being pointlessly cruel, killing them is inevitable, but they should atleast be given a decent life to compensate.

Well I guess we end up with similar, if not completely the same perspectives on this then. I don't believe that eating meat is inherently wrong, I just believe in a certain quality of life leading up to the point of eating. And as what is offered isn't up to the my standards, I don't want to hand over money for it thereby supporting it. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be as massively developed as we are, and the whole "raising for the express purpose of eating them" wouldn't be needed. I'd actually be more for communal area's for hunting, with controlled access thereby meaning the population of animals inside could be monitored. But I've always preferred a more literal take to "survival of the fittest" than most... Basically, if you want meat, you go get it and have to put the effort in. If you aren't good enough, or aren't that way inclined, then no meat for you.
But that's idle wishing, we have too many people for it to happen.

The word you are looking for is sapient, it doesn't really bother me that you used sentient, but others will get on your ass for it.

Obviously, I don't know what would happen. At this point your theoretical beings would be like early humans, I don't think we would enslave them, as I've already brought up, we've already learned the enslaving sapient beings is bad. We will however certainly study them, which would require a few of them, some preferably dead. I doubt that given time nobody would eat one of them, but we also have cannibals, so that is to be expected, would we eat them in general? I don't think so. I assume we would probably offer them knowledge and a general better standard of living, uplift them if you so will. Depending on precisely where we however stand by that point, what would want from them, if anything at all, is questionable. Aside from a couple of them for study purposes that is. I wouldn't equate that to slavery by the way, more like a Job, except for the dead ones, that would be (I assume that this would be necessary) to desect them.

I wanted more your opinion than what you think might happen. Besides, we learnt enslaving humans is bad, these wouldn't be humans. You drew the line at humans, not at sapient beings.

There are no health benefits.

The objection to industry standards is "won't somebody think of the animals!"

and pollution is a general problem with industry, I see no reason to dwell on pollution in the meat industry, especially when it tends to be the same people that have huge issues with atomic power.

Not compared to a perfect meat diet maybe, no. But comparing the average diet of a meat-eater to the average diet of a vegan there is a significant health benefit, particularly as lots of meat contains so much crap. If you raise your own animals, or get them from a source that doesn't use hormones, and take in a balanced diet of your quality meat and other bits. Then yes, there is no health benefits. But meat today is not of that quality usually.

So comparing the 2 ideal diets? I have no idea if one would ultimately be better than the other or not, but in the current situation for the average person, comparing the 2 sides average diets, veganism usually turns out healthier.

I guess I was meaning more "industry practices" than "industry standards", my mistake, which extends to more than just the conditions of the animals.

I'm all for lowering all types of pollution, not just meat industry, but this is the one relevant to the topic at hand, veganism. It's not more prevalent than coal-power plants in china, (or world-wide, but china's the biggest user), but it's the one that does change by making demands when it comes to your food.

Why exactly would you say that? Let's go with a different Animal, Cows don't live in the wild, so they aren't the best example here. Let's take Lions for instance. Lions kill each other for mating purposes, Lions will kill the offspring of another Lion. Would you judge a Lion for doing so? No? Then why would you try to uphold a Human to "values" you falsly percieve in animals? Animals aren't bothered by killing, they just don't have the means or motivation to do it on the scale we do. This is another case of "humans are different dude".

In regards to "wasted" potential. The only wasted potential that could be named in general for humans would be those with disabilities and simply because they could have potentially not had disabilities. I don't quite see what you are considering wasted potential. Is a Teacher wasting their potential as a human because they became a teacher and not a brain surgeon? Hardly. How about a waste management professional? Is that person wasting their potential as a human despite the fact that we need waste management professionals? You could perhaps argue that they personally could have aspired to be more, but the only person squandering their potential is someone who kills themself.

Ah, but I'm answering why cows are supposably better, not lions. And you still get wild herds of cows, they aren't all domesticated, and in any case why does the idea they don't live in the wild make them not the best example? Humans don't live in the wild usually either. I don't judge the lion for doing so, no, but I expect that if Humanity wants to take the claim that it is inherently better or worth more than a lion, they have to show that they are. I don't have a problem with killing, I have issue with the way it is conducted. Not just the extreme cases, the fact that as it needs to be done on such a scale, it has to be done so sloppily.

Have you actually informed yourself about bovine behavior studies? They exist, I don't have to actually look it up, they have to exist.

I haven't been greatly informed on them no, when I attempt to look I find mostly bovine behaviour in terms of milk yield/quality, and same with meat.

Assuming you are right about nobody actually studying them, but you aren't right about that, you can't be, they would have to be studied even if only to be able to use them the way we do.

Why? We started using them way before behavioural studies existed and has there ever been a point when we would have been able to just stop if tests came back with significant results? The common attitude is cows are stupid so we can do what we like with them.

It alone isn't, it's the notion that we actually think about that and other things like it, we are simply on a entirely different mental level, I am simply trying to convey to you that a Death to a Cow is not the same as Death to a Human.

Again, my point earlier, there is no way of testing if a cow thinks about these things. Maybe as we fiddled with sticks and came out on top of the food chain, they already figured it out and have stopped wondering. And even if it doesn't, even if it is an entirely different mental level, and Death to a Cow is different to Death to a Human. Our concept of death may be different but does it make the act of dying somehow different?

So, you are a believer on some kind? If not, you should know that atheism doesn't say much about what you do believe, only what you do not. Being a atheist does not mean you do not have any beliefs. I personally believe that everything just stops and my consciousness will cease to exist, but I don't know that to be truth, so it's a belief. I also don't believe in this percieved huge increase in Atheists, I believe that the Internet allows us to be more outspooken, so you are just now noticing.

Not really, if I was going to join any organised religion, it would probably be Buddhism. They sound closest to correct in my mind, but I need to sit down and read more sometime. Ok, but my point still stands, perhaps more so if some people have always been Atheists. You have decided what you think will happen after death, and so you are no longer actively thinking about it. If we had no common language and you didn't know I was wanting to know what you thought about, how would you tell me your concepts of life and death.

Yes, it would. But the Meat Industry is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is population. And the problem with population is not birth rate, but longevity. In short, one of our biggest problems is that we have too many old people that use resources without contributing anything. Getting rid of the Meat Industry as a answer? I doubt it. We need to up our general efficiency, that will help.

And Abandon, in the other thread, tells me its not population, its waste management. I personally think it's a combination of all of these things. We are too wasteful, live too long without contributing, the population rate will soon make population a problem, and the attitude of how much people eat are all problems, and addressing all of these things would help. I'm not saying it'll solve everything, but it helps. It's a positive step.

Once more, Cows are not Humans. A Cow has no concept of slavery. But if we must do this, like I've already mentioned, specifically without predators, herbivores would just eat and breed, eat and breed until they destroy a entire ecosystem and starve. Their numbers would increase faster then the ecosystem would allow, very much a similiar problem to what humans are facing, the difference being that we are smart enough to notice it.

We wiped out wolves, the predator. And even if on Britain this wouldn't work, elsewhere it would eventually balance out. If humans all disappeared tomorrow, the world would not end. Predator numbers grow for the large amount of food now available, and the livestock numbers decrease, thereby lowering the number of predators as there is now less food. Unless you're talking about releasing ALL the animals currently bred as livestock, in which case there would be problems. But I was suggesting reducing, rapidly yes but not overnight, livestock, not freeing them to roam the hills.

Just because we notice the problem doesn't mean we are solving it, some still insist it's not a problem at all. That it's not economically viable to fix. All sorts of other crap.

If Cows were Humans perhaps, but we've already established that they aren't. That isn't a assumption, it's a fact.

Slaves of the day weren't considered real humans, they were considered beasts of burden, an ox to pull your plow, that was a fact of the time. Facts change with more knowledge, and with changing definitions. I never suggesting that cows are human.

Even then, his status as a Ex-US President mean a significant amount of people with sufficient technology would be looking for him and by extension you.

Bad example on my part then, I was looking for a whipping boy we could agree on, but fine. On random selection, you are more likely to get someone unhelpful than helpful.

Follow that line of reasoning and you will notice the Butterfly effect and notice that it cannot be neglected. You can be a terrible person and just how terrible you are may make the world a better place because people do not want to be you. It's not a redeeming quality on a personal level, it doesn't have to be. There is no clear divide here. I can't say "Person X was Bad and therefore, if we had the possibilty, we should go back in time and stop them from existing" <-- That would have unforseeable consequences.

I'm not even starting Butterfly effect arguements because otherwise we are going into the realm of there is no sense in changing anything as it could just blow up in your face. It leads to exactly the kind of abstract alternative realities you complained about earlier. My line of reasoning is not that they shouldn't have existed, only that if someone could have become a brilliant medical professional and cured cancer, but instead as their way of thinking didn't relate well to early education, they never made it to higher education and to those discoveries. That is wasted potential. I'm talking about things they cause to happen at least vaguely directly.

Instead of why not, because I can see that. I'm just kind of wondering, why would that be a goal you would want to pursue?

Meh, ever guy has to have a goal. I was younger, I liked the idea of travelling places and trying new things, so why not? Obviously not my life ambition, just something along the way.

Phisi is wrong and I disagree. But that's ok, people can be wrong sometimes, you've been wrong plenty of times too

Much. Thank you.

Everyone is sometimes. Glad it's better.

If it really can count, yes. Like I said, I'm not prepared to simply believe that, I'd need some better proof and I'd want it to be demonstrated that the Elephant that cannot] count is a exception. Otherwise I'm not going to start saying Elephants in general can count.

I agree with that being messy. I however have also long since said that keeping heavily retarded people alive is pointless beyond the emotional spectrum, I just don't tend to mention it often, people don't like hearing those kinds of truths.

I'm not saying in general they can, but with training they can. Just as humans with training can, it's not some inate ability. Therefore they are similar enough in mental capacity that I consider them close.

Agreed, it's not a popular opinion, though I share it.

I personally think that we are doomed if we don't eventually give up on the notion of countries, preferably sooner then later. Communication is one of the barriers that I see making that difficult.

Might have just been better if Rome hadn't fallen, and we didn't end up with dark ages in the middle... Alas, wishful thinking, gotta go from the now.

 

[Fluffythepoo]

Bloody hippies.

Goddamn hippies!

 

[Jammy2003]

It makes perfect sense. People don't seem to realize just how many animals suffer in the production of common, mass produced produce. If they want to go vegan on moral grounds they had best be growing their own food using equipment and methods that doesn't do that sort of damage. If they don't, if they happily buy produce grown on mass farms and claim they're doing the morally right thing they're idiots for making sure their 'morally right thing' is actually morally better than the wrong thing.


I also don't suppose I should mention how much wildlife lacks a habitat things to the enormous farms such equipment enables...

And I suppose America is the only country in the world that uses them, right? I mean, Europe and Asia totally can't have common, mass-produced farm equipment that has existed for 60+ years and has the capability to boost output per acre exponentially, right?

You forget that a large percentage of cattle is grain fed, using up 1/3 of the worlds grain production. So even then, it still results in more deaths. We need less farming, but lowering meat production would actually assist that, as its not being fed to the cow instead of people.

 

[Naeras]

The reason I'd say veganism is something people in general should do, is because of how much less energy it takes to grow plants compared to raising animals. If the meat production got drastically reduced and the crops used to feed animals went to humans instead, we'd solve a lot of the hunger problems the world currently has, given proper distribution, of course. It would also reduce CO2 emissions by quite a lot, as livestock is a pretty massive source of greenhouse gases(no, I kid you not, this would actually have a serious impact).

Then again, this isn't going to happen unless governments provide heavy subsidiaries to farmers who don't spend crops on raising animals, and/or heavily tax meat to make it less attractive to buy. Individuals going vegan doesn't help the slightest in that sense.

Oh, and the "ZOMG HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF THE ANIMALS ATE YOU, MEAT-EATERS ARE MURDERERS"-moral-implications-thing: No, I honestly don't give a damn. We're omnivores. We eat widdle animawlz with salad and mustard, and we've done so a long time. If you want to not contribute to that, feel free, as I can sympathize with not wanting to contribute to animals being killed. However, I'm going to enjoy my delicious steak anyway.

 

[manic_depressive13]

-snip-

It's very disingenuous to suggest that a vegan diet causes greater suffering than an omnivorous one. The majority of animals we eat are completely grain fed and even those that are allowed out to pasture have their diet subsidised to some extent. This means that not only are the adorable little woodmice turned into sprinkles by the combine harvesters, but the grain is then fed to cows and pigs which are in turn horrifically slaughtered. Thus, cutting out the middle man does reduce overall suffering and is the morally superior option.

 

[Thistlehart]

You think that discriminates between grassland wildlife, wayward day laborers and the target crop?

Lemme spoil the story for you: It doesn't. It sucks in whatever is in front of it. It doesn't care if that happens to be the crop being harvested, weeds, inattentive day laborers, the wife's Lexus, woodland critters, a bicycle. It doesn't care. It just sucks it all in and chops away with equal abandon. The only thing that keeps it from sucking in anything that wanders in front of it is the driver seeing that, and the driver cannot see small critters below the crop.

So true. My Dad and uncles are always upset when they hear that shriek and squish and then had to stop the tractor to pull a mangled, still twitching fawn out of the swather. One more good use of a pocket knife (y'know, since some of the poor little buggers are still alive when the guys get back there).

However, if they ever found a rattlesnake in a round-bale, they'd laugh and cuss in equal measure. Laugh because they hate those snakes, and cuss because it could end up poisoning the cattle.

 

[Vivi22]

You forget that a large percentage of cattle is grain fed, using up 1/3 of the worlds grain production. So even then, it still results in more deaths. We need less farming, but lowering meat production would actually assist that, as its not being fed to the cow instead of people.

You seem to be assuming that diverting that grain used by animals to human consumption, or even replacing that 1/3rd of grain grown for animals with other crops could take the place of the animals raised using it in the human diet. While I am quite in favour of eating animals raised on foods closer to their natural diet instead of grains, I'm not sure enough could be raised without them to meet human nutritional requirements. And having people eat more grain and less meat than they already do would be a public health disaster on a level I don't even want to think about. You think obesity and heart disease are a problem now?

It's very disingenuous to suggest that a vegan diet causes greater suffering than an omnivorous one.

I don't believe that's what he's suggesting. What I think he is getting at is that if Vegans are going to claim some moral superiority for eating a diet that doesn't involve harming or killing animals, they damn well better be able to back up that sense of moral superiority. If they eat food that is mass produced using large farming equipment, then they are likely fooling themselves into believing they aren't harming anything when it's not really the case. It's not a matter of one causing more harm than the other, but rather a matter of someone claiming to cause no harm had better be walking the walk.

 

[Jammy2003]

You forget...

You seem to be assuming that diverting that grain used by animals to human consumption, or even replacing that 1/3rd of grain grown for animals with other crops could take the place of the animals raised using it in the human diet. While I am quite in favour of eating animals raised on foods closer to their natural diet instead of grains, I'm not sure enough could be raised without them to meet human nutritional requirements. And having people eat more grain and less meat than they already do would be a public health disaster on a level I don't even want to think about. You think obesity and heart disease are a problem now?

Yes, conservation of energy means that it couldn't be less effective, and if people are getting on fine with the current level, they can only get on better with that. Besides, I said lowering, not eliminating. Eliminating grain-fed perhaps, doesn't eliminate all meat.

People eat far more meat than they need to. I ate a plain cheese pizza a couple of days back with 160% of my RDA protein for one meal. Besides, as you just said, it wouldn't have to be grain, it could be other crops, and I think a lot of people in this world could do with a lot less meat, and a lot more veg.
You don't see people living off McDonalds getting fat because of the salad now do you?

 

[Calibanbutcher]

I just wanted to drop in real quick, because someone was going on about the health benefits of a vegan diet:
There are none.
The only thing that surely awaits you, the moment you decide to go on a purely vegan diet without supplements, is death by Vitamin B12 deficiency.

 

[CarlMin]

Yeah, but that's irrelevant. What I reacted on was your sentence doesn't make sense. ?People who call themselves vegans and buy nothing but mass produced produce are idiots?

It makes perfect sense. People don't seem to realize just how many animals suffer in the production of common, mass produced produce. If they want to go vegan on moral grounds they had best be growing their own food using equipment and methods that doesn't do that sort of damage. If they don't, if they happily buy produce grown on mass farms and claim they're doing the morally right thing they're idiots for making sure their 'morally right thing' is actually morally better than the wrong thing.


I also don't suppose I should mention how much wildlife lacks a habitat things to the enormous farms such equipment enables...

What, do you really believe that a few american combine harvesters collectively slaughter more animals per annum than the repugnantly towering number of 58 billions?

And I suppose America is the only country in the world that uses them, right? I mean, Europe and Asia totally can't have common, mass-produced farm equipment that has existed for 60+ years and has the capability to boost output per acre exponentially, right?

You're avoiding the issue. I still find it hard to believe that the entire world's harvesters manage to kill that many animals annually. Firstly, the only animals small enough to not be visible to the driver (and I assume that the majority of Combine harvester drivers are not psychopathic individuals that would run over a big, fully visible cow if they saw one) must be rodents and reptiles. These animals aren't "mass produced" like livestock certainly is, and my guess is that if 58 billion of them died each year from combine harvesters alone, they'd be extinct by now. Or well, maybe not extinct, but they'd certainly depopulate rapidly wherever the combine harvester hazard exists. Keep in mind that I don't include instincts as I couldn't care less for those.

So no, I don't think that this earth's number of active combine harvesters can produce over 58 billion non-human animal deaths each year.

But even so, it still isn't a logical argument on your part. Think about it, you are trying to prove vegans hypocrites for caring about animals, whilst simultaneously causing them harm. That's ad hominem, not an reasonable argument against their stance. And it's not even a proper example of hypocrisy, seeing as for a vegan to be a hypocrite when telling you that supporting the meat industry is unethical, the vegan would have to eat meat, which he or she be definition can't. Hypocrisy is doing the very thing you tell other's not to.

I could still say however that it shows a certain inconsistency in the vegan's ethical reasoning if he or she is against factory farming, but still supports the harvesting industry which kills large amounts of animals. Be that as it may, but that just means that they contribute to one problem, whereas you still contribute both to the unfortunate animal deaths caused by harvesting, but also the animals who died in factory farming. The vegans negative impact on the lives of animals would still be less than that of yours.

In fact, this kind of reasoning is a common logical fallacy. We all inevitably cause suffering for other humans and animals. It's all about what you can do as an individual to minimize this suffering, whether it's buying fair trade items, minimizing your environmental impact or not eating meat.

 

[CarlMin]

I just wanted to drop in real quick, because someone was going on about the health benefits of a vegan diet:
There are none.
The only thing that surely awaits you, the moment you decide to go on a purely vegan diet without supplements, is death by Vitamin B12 deficiency.

Yeah, I guess that it doesn't matter that vegans have lower rates of heart disease and some forms of cancer than non-vegetarians, and statistically live longer than meat eaters? Not to mention the decreased risk of colorectal, ovarian, and breast cancers, diabetes and obesity and lastly hypertension.

Also, how can you know so very little of something that you at least took the trouble posting a comment about? I mean, finding these facts took me about 30 seconds. Also, these facts are not from some hippie animal-liberation website. They are from the freaking American Dietetic Association.

 

[Jammy2003]

I just wanted to drop in real quick, because someone was going on about the health benefits of a vegan diet:
There are none.
The only thing that surely awaits you, the moment you decide to go on a purely vegan diet without supplements, is death by Vitamin B12 deficiency.

Comparing average meat-eater diet to the average vegan one? Yes, there are. No eating the crap that is commonly in meat. Not eating the large amount of saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease and cancer.
Compared to the ideal meat-eater diet with good quality meat and a controlled diet making sure you get exactly what you need? I don't really know if there is any benefits then, but how many people follow that?

Because you can't get B12 from all the vegan products that are fortified to cover that problem, such as soy milk or cereals. Jesus, I live with a no supplement vegan, they haven't been collapsing or dying yet. Why the hostility bro?

Yeah, I guess that it doesn't matter... -snip-

Or/and what he said.

 

[Vivi22]

Yes, conservation of energy means that it couldn't be less effective,

Human nutrition doesn't work that way. Replacing meat with grains does not get them the protein, saturated fat, or other nutrients which we need and can get most efficiently from animal sources. It would also introduce more of a food into the human diet which wreaks havoc on blood sugar levels and human hormones and is causally linked with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease just to name a few things on the tip of the iceberg.

Human nutrition is not a simple matter of calories in minus calories out, source of said calories be damned. The source does matter, hormones and the diets interaction with them, insulin in particular, are what cause obesity, and such a gross oversimplification as cutting out the middle man tries to apply conservation of energy to an extremely complex system where energy is not the sole concern, but also the source of that energy, and the nutrition that comes along with it. Using strict conservation of energy to try and back up your point is not only something which isn't supported by nutritional science, it flat out obfuscates the truths of human nutrition behind the veil of misapplied scientific principles.

Besides, I said lowering, not eliminating. Eliminating grain-fed perhaps, doesn't eliminate all meat.

But many people already fail to eat enough meat because decades of misinformation and bad science have them worried more about saturated fat than sugar and grains. A myth which has exacerbated obesity, diabetes and heart disease in the first world.

People eat far more meat than they need to. I ate a plain cheese pizza a couple of days back with 160% of my RDA protein for one meal.

Government nutritional recommendations are rarely based on good science, and a one size fits all prescription rarely fits anyone. The government recommendations for protein are pretty much in line with the bare minimum people should be getting if they don't want to lose muscle mass and/or die. In actuality, people should be getting quite a bit more than the government recommends, particularly if they're active.

Besides, as you just said, it wouldn't have to be grain, it could be other crops, and I think a lot of people in this world could do with a lot less meat, and a lot more veg.
You don't see people living off McDonalds getting fat because of the salad now do you?

You're operating under the assumption that eating too much meat causes people to get fat and develop heart disease. It doesn't. If you want to find the real culprit you can kindly direct your attention to wheat based products and sugars. You want to improve the nutrition and overall health of every single person in the western world? Stop farming grain and use that land to raise either vegetables or animals. Because we've had decades of people attacking meat and fat consumption and it's gotten us nowhere. All the while government has been subsidizing the real problem causers such as wheat producers and HFCS.

Yeah, I guess that it doesn't matter that vegans have lower rates of heart disease and some forms of cancer than non-vegetarians, and statistically live longer than meat eaters? Not to mention the decreased risk of colorectal, ovarian, and breast cancers, diabetes and obesity and lastly hypertension.

Show me some studies comparing vegan diets to paleo or other low carb diets including meat instead of the diet of the average American which is filled with grains, sugars, vegetable oils andother processed garbage and these statistics will be more meaningful. I've yet to see studies which actually compared vegan diets to those types instead of just stacking the deck in favour of vegan diets by comparing to one of the worst diets in human history.

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

words

Ok, can I ask what is so laughable about my valid point?

I'm not suggesting you stoop to the level on intellegence of a cow, I'm saying, where do you draw the line? Is it just everything below our level?

You may not be suggesting that, Vegan Doodler on the other hand was, I remind you that it was her example that sparked this. I'm just pointing out that her example doesn't work.[/quote]
Ummmmmm... My be I'm just not getting the right context here but I never sujested you stoop to the level of a cow, and when you are referring to "her", I'm actually a dude, yeah.