Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Does being a vegetarian/vegan make you more ethical?
#1
This is a claim I've encountered both online and in real life many many times, and to be honest I find it laughable at best. The main reason why vegetarians/vegans think they may claim to be more humane and more ethical than the average meat eater is because they don't contribute to the suffering of animals that are kept and raised for commercial purposes. Since they're two very different diets, I'll address them separately, I'll look into the moral aspects and health aspects of each.

First things first, for a vegetarian to think they're not contributing to animal suffering by choosing not to eat meat lacks a bit of ignorance to me. Vegetarians have no qualms about consuming dairy products and eggs for example, and we have no reason to believe that animals kept in a commercial setting for their milk or eggs are treated any differently to those kept for their meat. Let's look at chicken, not only do we have no reason whatsoever to believe that layers (chicken raised for their eggs) aren't treated much differently to those raised for their meat (A.K.A broilers), but in many cases once the chicken is no longer laying eggs it's slaughtered anyway:

"Commercial hens usually begin laying eggs at 16–21 weeks of age, although production gradually declines soon after from approximately 25 weeks of age.[7] This means that in many countries, by approximately 72 weeks of age, flocks are considered economically unviable and are slaughtered after approximately 12 months of egg production"

And really, how the animal is being treated has more to do with the farm/producer than with what the chicken is being raised for:

"Free-range poultry farming allows chickens to roam freely for a period of the day, although they are usually confined in sheds at night to protect them from predators or kept indoors if the weather is particularly bad."

"American meat chickens are bred and fed to be big. Hens are “eating machines,” Conner says. They’re usually kept and fed in farm houses. At some farms, like that of Joel Salatin, owner of Polyface Farms in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, chickens lead a freer life. Salatin says it’s vital to expose chickens to a natural environment including bugs, worms, green grass and sunshine as well as corn feed."

If you're interested in reading more about living conditions for commercial chicken I'll direct you to The Street's article on the topic "From egg to plate". In any case, it's more or less the same for cows, once a dairy cow is longer producing quality milk, it's slaughtered for beef and I'll direct you to the business insider's article on the topic, here's a quick quote:

"But here's the weird thing: at the end of their lives, both factory farm and organic farm cows are sold for cheap and mixed up with commodity meat, which is produced on an industrial scale."

And of course treatment does vary depending on the farm:

"Life is considerably better for cows raised by pasture-based, organic dairy producers. They live their whole lives roaming and grazing pasture. They generally aren't sickly."

So to sum it up, if you chose to become a vegetarian out of your desire to feel better about yourself, and claim more ethics, then your decision is based on no facts. It would be far more effective to only buy your groceries from producers who have been verified to treat their animals humanely, and that would certainly be a much better way to contribute to less animal suffering. I would happily tip my hat in respect to those.

It's also worth mentioning that being a vegetarian doesn't seem to have major negative effects on one's health. While white meat that is low in fat like chicken breast is certainly important, it's not unfeasible for the average person to fill in the gap with dairy and eggs. In fact many studies have found that, while the claims that vegetarians live longer that meat eaters are largely baseless, they do compare favorably to the average person healthwise. I suspect that's because the kinds of meat many people consume are far removed from what's generally considered healthy. For further reading I'll refer you to a study by Key TJ, et al. published in NCBI in 2006:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16...75/related

The same however cannot be said about vegans, who usually do not eat no animal products. They're generally advised to take fortifications or supplements as per a study by the American journal of clinical nutrition, the diet is certainly not healthy:

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/89...7S/4596952

The problem is that man made supplements are still under evaluation believe it or not, with regards to whether they can completely substitute the natural thing.

Overall, eating no meat because you don't want animals to suffer seems to me about as smart as walking around naked because some factories employ 8 year old children. Just find an alternative!
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply
#2
No, because plants also have lives and also feel pain.
Reply
#3
(06-14-2019, 11:56 AM)Mustang Wrote: First things first, for a vegetarian to think they're not contributing to animal suffering by choosing not to eat meat lacks a bit of ignorance to me.
I think most vegetarians are fully aware of this and just doing the best they can. Diary products are, imo, harder to avoid than meat, as they require a more rigorous reading of recipe lists.
Still, if you cancel flights, you are doing something good for the climate, even if you still drive a car.


Quote:The same however cannot be said about vegans, who usually do not eat no animal products. They're generally advised to take fortifications or supplements as per a study by the American journal of clinical nutrition, the diet is certainly not healthy:
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/89...7S/4596952
Your study takes a very nuanced view over whether veganism is healthy and certainly does not support your conclusion of vegans being unable to live healthily. The abstract alone makes it clear that there are risks and benefits.

Quote:The problem is that man made supplements are still under evaluation believe it or not, with regards to whether they can completely substitute the natural thing.
This sounds very interesting, I'd like more details.
As far as I know, supplements are produced by the same kinds of bacteria as those in herbivore guts (just in a laboratory), so I don't see why there should be any problems (plus, your paper doesn't see any either).
That being said, a lot of omnivores do not mind consuming foods that are "under evaluation" either as long as veganism doesn't come up. It is not clear if red meats cause cancer, but no-one seems to care.
Moreover, the health risks of veganism have nothing "Does being a vegetarian/vegan make you more ethical?". Taking a personal risk in order to make the world better is not is not what makes someone lose my sympathy. Maybe this would be a good point if the debate topic was "Should we all go vegan?", but not if this is about individual choices and how this reflects on people.

Quote:Overall, eating no meat because you don't want animals to suffer seems to me about as smart as walking around naked because some factories employ 8 year old children. Just find an alternative!
Like what?
As you said, "some" factories employ 8 year old children.
Which existent meat producers are not responsible for animal suffering?
Reply
#4
"Still, if you cancel flights, you are doing something good for the climate, even if you still drive a car."

This is a terrible analogy imho and with all due respect of course. Reason being that the same cow that produces milk (which you're contributing to when you buy dairy products) will likely be slaughtered for beef eventually. It's like saying I won't drive from the airport but I'll take a taxi when my plane lands. You're really not changing much. If you instead spend some time to do some research and find out which producers treat their animals fairly, then only buy from those, even if they're pricier or harder to come across then that's a meaningful sacrifice that's contributing way way more. In other words, base your decisions on knowledge, not on emotions.

Also regarding that study, I respectfully don't think anyone on this forum has the background to critique an academic study not out of disrespect for their person, but simply because criticizing a study in the grand scheme of things requires performing your own research that has a better methodology (with explanation as to why it is better) and then coming up with contradicting or at least different results. I don't think anyone here has the capacity to do so. In any case, like I explained a completely vegan diet might have some benefits compared to the diet of your average McDonald's consuming, bacon loving modern Western dude. But compared to eating healthy meat and low sugar low fat dairy products the vegan diet is lacking on many fronts. Nature intended you to be an omnivore, and you have evolved for hundreds of thousands of years for that lifestyle, you're not reversing that in one lifetime.

As for why supplements aren't as good as the natural thing:

"Both Dr. Sesso and Dr. Lo advise that you try to improve your diet before you use supplements. That's because nutrients are most potent when they come from food. "They are accompanied by many nonessential but beneficial nutrients, such as hundreds of carotenoids, flavonoids, minerals, and antioxidants that aren't in most supplements," says Dr. Lo."

From Harvard research: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-h...upplements

Another one from Science daily:

"When sources of nutrient intake (food vs. supplement) were evaluated, the researchers found:

The lower risk of death associated with adequate nutrient intakes of vitamin K and magnesium was limited to nutrients from foods, not from supplements;
The lower risk of death from CVD associated with adequate intakes of vitamin A, vitamin K, and zinc was limited to nutrients from foods, not from supplements; and
Calcium intake from supplement totals of at least 1,000 mg/day was associated with increased risk of death from cancer but there was no association for calcium intake from foods.
In addition, the researchers found that dietary supplements had no effect on the risk of death in individuals with low nutrient intake. Instead, the team found indications that use of vitamin D supplements by individuals with no sign of vitamin D deficiency may be associated with an increased risk of death from all causes including cancer. Further research on this potential connection is needed."

Overall, I would be very surprised if you could find a single reputable source that would recommend supplements over natural foods.

Of course, that is to state my opinion, which is based on facts, it's not too ridicule those who choose such diets. People are free to choose whatever they want as long as they're doing you no harm, but freedom is a 2 way steam and I believe it's my right to criticize what I believe is a bad dietary plan.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply
#5
Being vegan more depends on the individual. Some of us are better suited and adapted, for whatever reason, to being vegans, while others are not. It’s just individualism.

Take this one person for example:
https://blog.bulletproof.com/humans-vegan-omnivore/
[img=0x0]http://i68.tinypic.com/5u3d6w.jpg[/img]
Reply
#6
(06-15-2019, 02:31 AM)Mustang Wrote: This is a terrible analogy imho and with all due respect of course. Reason being that the same cow that produces milk (which you're contributing to when you buy dairy products) will likely be slaughtered for beef eventually. It's like saying I won't drive from the airport but I'll take a taxi when my plane lands. You're really not changing much. If you instead spend some time to do some research and find out which producers treat their animals fairly, then only buy from those, even if they're pricier or harder to come across then that's a meaningful sacrifice that's contributing way way more. In other words, base your decisions on knowledge, not on emotions.
Admittedly, if they just substitute their meat with more diary and eggs, then yeah, it doesn't make much of a difference. But under the premise that the average vegetarian does not eat more milk, cheese or eggs than the average omnivore, cutting down meat 

Quote:Also regarding that study, I respectfully don't think anyone on this forum has the background to critique an academic study not out of disrespect for their person, but simply because criticizing a study in the grand scheme of things requires performing your own research that has a better methodology (with explanation as to why it is better) and then coming up with contradicting or at least different results. I don't think anyone here has the capacity to do so.
I wasn't criticizing the study though.
Quote:In any case, like I explained a completely vegan diet might have some benefits compared to the diet of your average McDonald's consuming, bacon loving modern Western dude. But compared to eating healthy meat and low sugar low fat dairy products the vegan diet is lacking on many fronts.
If you want to compare the best-case omnivore diet with an average vegan diet (which is in and of itself kinda rigged), you should probably not rely on a study which compares average omnivore diets with average vegan diets.
Quote:Nature intended you to be an omnivore, and you have evolved for hundreds of thousands of years for that lifestyle, you're not reversing that in one lifetime.
First, nature did not "intend" anything. Even if it did, humanity has done a lot nature did not "intend". For starters, nothing we eat is natural. Where does milk come from? From an aurochs?
Have you ever seen how tiny natural pears are? Or bananas?

While I know that this is only a short sentence, but your opposition to veganism seems to be ideological in nature (pun not intended). Evolution is not a benevolent God, but a blind one. It designed us not for our benefit, but to be just good enough to pass on our genes.
Quote:As for why supplements aren't as good as the natural thing:

"Both Dr. Sesso and Dr. Lo advise that you try to improve your diet before you use supplements. That's because nutrients are most potent when they come from food. "They are accompanied by many nonessential but beneficial nutrients, such as hundreds of carotenoids, flavonoids, minerals, and antioxidants that aren't in most supplements," says Dr. Lo."

From Harvard research: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-h...upplements
So, to sum it up:
1. Supplements can lead to overdoses.
2. Supplements can be very expensive.
3. They don't contain beneficial nutrients, such as flavonoids and antioxidants.
4. Supplements aren't regulated like pharmaceuticals, so well-known brands are recommended.

As for 1-2, a lot of vegan products are enriched with appropriate doses B12 which should both solve the overdoses and the cost problem. 3 is not an issue for most vegans and 4 is more of a recommendation than an issue.
Quote:Another one from Science daily:

"When sources of nutrient intake (food vs. supplement) were evaluated, the researchers found:

The lower risk of death associated with adequate nutrient intakes of vitamin K and magnesium was limited to nutrients from foods, not from supplements;
The lower risk of death from CVD associated with adequate intakes of vitamin A, vitamin K, and zinc was limited to nutrients from foods, not from supplements; and
Calcium intake from supplement totals of at least 1,000 mg/day was associated with increased risk of death from cancer but there was no association for calcium intake from foods.
In addition, the researchers found that dietary supplements had no effect on the risk of death in individuals with low nutrient intake. Instead, the team found indications that use of vitamin D supplements by individuals with no sign of vitamin D deficiency may be associated with an increased risk of death from all causes including cancer. Further research on this potential connection is needed."
All this says is that you shouldn't take supplements when you have 
Even so, while this differentiates between different types of supplements, none of it is related to vitamin B12, even though vitamin B12 supplements are some of the most variable ones you can find.

Or are they all the same as they are all unnatural and hence bad?
Quote:Overall, I would be very surprised if you could find a single reputable source that would recommend supplements over natural foods.
The study in the American journal of clinical nutrition you posted before recommends them for vegans fairly uncritically.

But beyond that, there is no inherent difference between vitamin B12 produced in a lab and vitamin B12 produced in a cow gut. Both have the same molecular structure and are produced by the same bacteria. Your articles talk about risks from for example overdoses, but all of these are avoidable (especially if you use fortified foods; your articles seem to be more focused on these capsules).
Quote:Of course, that is to state my opinion, which is based on facts, it's not too ridicule those who choose such diets. People are free to choose whatever they want as long as they're doing you no harm, but freedom is a 2 way steam and I believe it's my right to criticize what I believe is a bad dietary plan.
It's just a bit odd if your criticism has little to do with the topic title.
Reply
#7
I’d also like to point out that being vegan is a “luxury” in 1st world countries, and people who aren’t wholly a part of these countries really don’t have much in the way of choice regarding what they eat. I remember some Twitter post about how a Mongolian couple died to the Black Death by reportedly eating a roadkilled rat, and someone said it wouldn’t have happened if they were vegans which is pretty callous and no more “ethical” towards a fellow person than the people who eat a more omnivorous diet without particular care. When I find the retort I’ll post it.
[img=0x0]http://i68.tinypic.com/5u3d6w.jpg[/img]
Reply
#8
Maybe a 100% meat (and other animal product)-free diet is indeed a luxury, but as a rule of thumb, poorer countries tend have a lower meat consumption per capita:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...onsumption
In many of these countries, meat is seen as a luxury and a sign of status.
Reply
#9
Just a quick point, the environmental impact of producing Vegeatables and Crops is often ignored.
[Image: wildcat10-CougarHuntingDeer.jpg]
Reply
#10
^ True, as is the fact that plants are also reactive, living entities, ( some of which will also be needfully consumed).

Ethical treatment of all living things is fair enough, I dislike seeing pot-plants sadly withering due to lack of attention.
Reply
#11
(06-16-2019, 06:56 AM)Mondas Wrote: ^ True, as is the fact that plants are also reactive, living entities, ( some of which will also be needfully consumed).

Ethical treatment of all living things is fair enough, I dislike seeing pot-plants sadly withering due to lack of attention.

The point i was trying to make is vast areas of the earths surface are cleared for crop production, which once were areas that wild animals lived in.
[Image: wildcat10-CougarHuntingDeer.jpg]
Reply
#12
^ Also true, & a fair point, too.

Along with rapacious 'unlimited growth' targets for humankind, (both in numbers of people & 'activity footprint'),
has been a callous disregard for other lifeforms deemed 'non-productive', or 'harmful', even if they really are not...
Reply
#13
(06-15-2019, 03:35 AM)Jinfengopteryx Wrote:
(06-15-2019, 02:31 AM)Mustang Wrote: This is a terrible analogy imho and with all due respect of course. Reason being that the same cow that produces milk (which you're contributing to when you buy dairy products) will likely be slaughtered for beef eventually. It's like saying I won't drive from the airport but I'll take a taxi when my plane lands. You're really not changing much. If you instead spend some time to do some research and find out which producers treat their animals fairly, then only buy from those, even if they're pricier or harder to come across then that's a meaningful sacrifice that's contributing way way more. In other words, base your decisions on knowledge, not on emotions.
Admittedly, if they just substitute their meat with more diary and eggs, then yeah, it doesn't make much of a difference. But under the premise that the average vegetarian does not eat more milk, cheese or eggs than the average omnivore, cutting down meat 

Quote:Also regarding that study, I respectfully don't think anyone on this forum has the background to critique an academic study not out of disrespect for their person, but simply because criticizing a study in the grand scheme of things requires performing your own research that has a better methodology (with explanation as to why it is better) and then coming up with contradicting or at least different results. I don't think anyone here has the capacity to do so.
I wasn't criticizing the study though.
Quote:In any case, like I explained a completely vegan diet might have some benefits compared to the diet of your average McDonald's consuming, bacon loving modern Western dude. But compared to eating healthy meat and low sugar low fat dairy products the vegan diet is lacking on many fronts.
If you want to compare the best-case omnivore diet with an average vegan diet (which is in and of itself kinda rigged), you should probably not rely on a study which compares average omnivore diets with average vegan diets.
Quote:Nature intended you to be an omnivore, and you have evolved for hundreds of thousands of years for that lifestyle, you're not reversing that in one lifetime.
First, nature did not "intend" anything. Even if it did, humanity has done a lot nature did not "intend". For starters, nothing we eat is natural. Where does milk come from? From an aurochs?
Have you ever seen how tiny natural pears are? Or bananas?

While I know that this is only a short sentence, but your opposition to veganism seems to be ideological in nature (pun not intended). Evolution is not a benevolent God, but a blind one. It designed us not for our benefit, but to be just good enough to pass on our genes.
Quote:As for why supplements aren't as good as the natural thing:

"Both Dr. Sesso and Dr. Lo advise that you try to improve your diet before you use supplements. That's because nutrients are most potent when they come from food. "They are accompanied by many nonessential but beneficial nutrients, such as hundreds of carotenoids, flavonoids, minerals, and antioxidants that aren't in most supplements," says Dr. Lo."

From Harvard research: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-h...upplements
So, to sum it up:
1. Supplements can lead to overdoses.
2. Supplements can be very expensive.
3. They don't contain beneficial nutrients, such as flavonoids and antioxidants.
4. Supplements aren't regulated like pharmaceuticals, so well-known brands are recommended.

As for 1-2, a lot of vegan products are enriched with appropriate doses B12 which should both solve the overdoses and the cost problem. 3 is not an issue for most vegans and 4 is more of a recommendation than an issue.
Quote:Another one from Science daily:

"When sources of nutrient intake (food vs. supplement) were evaluated, the researchers found:

The lower risk of death associated with adequate nutrient intakes of vitamin K and magnesium was limited to nutrients from foods, not from supplements;
The lower risk of death from CVD associated with adequate intakes of vitamin A, vitamin K, and zinc was limited to nutrients from foods, not from supplements; and
Calcium intake from supplement totals of at least 1,000 mg/day was associated with increased risk of death from cancer but there was no association for calcium intake from foods.
In addition, the researchers found that dietary supplements had no effect on the risk of death in individuals with low nutrient intake. Instead, the team found indications that use of vitamin D supplements by individuals with no sign of vitamin D deficiency may be associated with an increased risk of death from all causes including cancer. Further research on this potential connection is needed."
All this says is that you shouldn't take supplements when you have 
Even so, while this differentiates between different types of supplements, none of it is related to vitamin B12, even though vitamin B12 supplements are some of the most variable ones you can find.

Or are they all the same as they are all unnatural and hence bad?
Quote:Overall, I would be very surprised if you could find a single reputable source that would recommend supplements over natural foods.
The study in the American journal of clinical nutrition you posted before recommends them for vegans fairly uncritically.

But beyond that, there is no inherent difference between vitamin B12 produced in a lab and vitamin B12 produced in a cow gut. Both have the same molecular structure and are produced by the same bacteria. Your articles talk about risks from for example overdoses, but all of these are avoidable (especially if you use fortified foods; your articles seem to be more focused on these capsules).
Quote:Of course, that is to state my opinion, which is based on facts, it's not too ridicule those who choose such diets. People are free to choose whatever they want as long as they're doing you no harm, but freedom is a 2 way steam and I believe it's my right to criticize what I believe is a bad dietary plan.
It's just a bit odd if your criticism has little to do with the topic title.

"If you want to compare the best-case omnivore diet with an average vegan diet (which is in and of itself kinda rigged), you should probably not rely on a study which compares average omnivore diets with average vegan diets."

What do you mean by average vegan diet? Unlike meat, vegetables are kinda harder to wreck and produce in a way causing its consumption to do more bad than good. The purpose of this article is illustrate that if you want to live healthy while doing animals less harm at the same time, then blindly picking a vegan/vegetarian diet isn't the answer. That's kinda hard to do if your omnivorous diet isn't healthy to begin with.

"First, nature did not "intend" anything. Even if it did, humanity has done a lot nature did not "intend". For starters, nothing we eat is natural. Where does milk come from? From an aurochs?

Have you ever seen how tiny natural pears are? Or bananas?"

That's a faulty statement in every way, your species has evolved a certain diet over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, how is it not intended to consume that? Also, while what we eat today it's a far cry from the natural thing, I don't see how that justifies going one step worse and eliminating it altogether.

What you said about evolution being blind makes no sense to me too with all due respect, it ain't blind, otherwise it wouldn't be called natural selection, and natural selection isn't blind at all on the grand scheme of things, it allows the individuals best suited for the survival of the species to continue existing and pass their genes, calling that blind is certainly incorrect or inaccurate.

I have addressed the supplements point and posted a couple studies to back it up, and boiling down everything to vitamin b12 is certainly lacking as it is far from being the only thing you get from animal barred foods that's difficult to live without it obtain from plant based food.

My disagreement with vegan and to a lesser extent vegetarian diets stems from the fact that they're either harmful or useless or both as I explained in details. Dunno how that could be interpreted to be ideological.

(06-16-2019, 02:23 PM)Taipan Wrote:
(06-16-2019, 06:56 AM)Mondas Wrote: ^ True, as is the fact that plants are also reactive, living entities, ( some of which will also be needfully consumed).

Ethical treatment of all living things is fair enough, I dislike seeing pot-plants sadly withering due to lack of attention.

The point i was trying to make is vast areas of the earths surface are cleared for crop production, which once were areas that wild animals lived in.

Very important point indeed, I missed that one. Deforestation for agriculture is a huge issue that likely have similar or worse impacts on the planet than keeping domestic animals in commercial settings.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/orde...your-hands

An article emphasising what Taipan said
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply
#14
(06-19-2019, 12:24 AM)Mustang Wrote: What do you mean by average vegan diet? Unlike meat, vegetables are kinda harder to wreck and produce in a way causing its consumption to do more bad than good.
An average vegan diet would be one that is poorly balanced. While it is hard to get the wrong vegetables, it is easy to get not enough of the good ones.
Quote:That's a faulty statement in every way, your species has evolved a certain diet over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, how is it not intended to consume that?
Because intent requires a conscious agent.
Quote:Also, while what we eat today it's a far cry from the natural thing, I don't see how that justifies going one step worse and eliminating it altogether.
Eh, it was supposed to argue against the notion that "unnatural" means bad. Or do you think it was bad to breed plants and animals into what they are now? Even if you think, would you say it is wrong to industrially clean food (which is certainly unnatural)? If so, is it also wrong to cook it? If the answer to any of these is "no", I wonder how "unnatural" and "bad" can be equated.
Whether something is natural or not tells you to if humans were involved, nothing more and nothing less. That people romanticize the natural so much has more to do with our culture than anything else.

Quote:What you said about evolution being blind makes no sense to me too with all due respect, it ain't blind, otherwise it wouldn't be called natural selection, and natural selection isn't blind at all on the grand scheme of things, it allows the individuals best suited for the survival of the species to continue existing and pass their genes, calling that blind is certainly incorrect or inaccurate.
It is blind in the sense that if evolution were a conscious agent, it would be one with values very alien to us.
Mankind strives for optimization while evolution makes us just good enough to survive. Stephen Jay Gould compared natural selection to a drunk man walking through a corridor and only the walls keeping him from going in the wrong direction. If it went fully as the man wanted, he would just walk straight and sober. The moral of the story is that as long as there is room above us, artificial ain't always bad.

Quote:I have addressed the supplements point and posted a couple studies to back it up, and boiling down everything to vitamin b12 is certainly lacking as it is far from being the only thing you get from animal barred foods that's difficult to live without it obtain from plant based food.
Most of your articles warn from overdoses of from using supplements to fix diets which just can't be fixed. Your one study (the one by the "American journal of clinical nutrition") that does talk about supplements for vegans in no way (not even in a subtle dig) condemns them or tells vegans that they should just eat a steak or two.

Besides, it's not just about supplements. What about fortified foods (who often avoid the issues above). I've just done a ctrl + f search in this document and whenever they were mentioned, they were generally listed as every bit as legitimate as their "natural" counterparts:
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/201...elines.pdf


Quote:Dunno how that could be interpreted to be ideological.
I did not call your general opinion about veganism ideological, but how it seems to stem from a more broad (and in my opinion unjustified) view that mankind must return to its natural roots.
Quote:
(06-16-2019, 02:23 PM)Taipan Wrote:
(06-16-2019, 06:56 AM)Mondas Wrote: ^ True, as is the fact that plants are also reactive, living entities, ( some of which will also be needfully consumed).

Ethical treatment of all living things is fair enough, I dislike seeing pot-plants sadly withering due to lack of attention.

The point i was trying to make is vast areas of the earths surface are cleared for crop production, which once were areas that wild animals lived in.

Very important point indeed, I missed that one. Deforestation for agriculture is a huge issue that likely have similar or worse impacts on the planet than keeping domestic animals in commercial settings.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/orde...your-hands

An article emphasising what Taipan said
"To produce protein from grazing beef, cattle are killed. One death delivers (on average, across Australia’s grazing lands) a carcass of about 288 kilograms. This is approximately 68 per cent boneless meat which, at 23 per cent protein equals 45kg of protein per animal killed. This means 2.2 animals killed for each 100kg of useable animal protein produced."

"At least 100 mice are killed per hectare per year (500/4 × 0.8) to grow grain. Average yields are about 1.4 tonnes of wheat/hectare; 13 per cent of the wheat is useable protein. Therefore, at least 55 sentient animals die to produce 100kg of useable plant protein: 25 times more than for the same amount of rangelands beef."

The fact that a cow needs its own crop fields is completely ignored by this absurd equation. Even if you assume that cows are much more efficient than us and can use 100% of the wheat while we can only use 13%, beef cattle still only convert less than a tenth (about 1/40th, actually) of the protein they are fed into protein usable for us.

Meat based diets require much more land use than vegetarian ones:
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/660S/4690010


Even disregarding that, articles like yours make it sound like it's best to eat as much meat as possible which is certainly not healthy either.
Reply
#15
"An average vegan diet would be one that is poorly balanced. While it is hard to get the wrong vegetables, it is easy to get not enough of the good ones."

Not really. Your statement makes it sound as though if just eating more would magically solve the issue of vegan diets being lacking in nutrients which is simply not the case.

"Because intent requires a conscious agent."

That's stepping into the realm of cherry picking, I'm pretty sure that it was obvious that I didn't mean to use intended here in that way.

"Eh, it was supposed to argue against the notion that "unnatural" means bad. Or do you think it was bad to breed plants and animals into what they are now? Even if you think, would you say it is wrong to industrially clean food (which is certainly unnatural)? If so, is it also wrong to cook it? If the answer to any of these is "no", I wonder how "unnatural" and "bad" can be equated.
Whether something is natural or not tells you to if humans were involved, nothing more and nothing less. That people romanticize the natural so much has more to do with our culture than anything else."

I really don't see why we would want to discuss any of that, sure modern lifestyle requires processing some foods in a certain way to make producing them more financially feasible or to make them safe for human consumption. I don't see how eliminating an important part of your diet just to feel better about yourself falls into either category. I'm not using natural in an emotional way here.

"Most of your articles warn from overdoses of from using supplements to fix diets which just can't be fixed. Your one study (the one by the "American journal of clinical nutrition") that does talk about supplements for vegans in no way (not even in a subtle dig) condemns them or tells vegans that they should just eat a steak or two."

I dunno what you're trying to say here? I was telling you that b12 isn't the only thing you miss but not consuming no animal based food. I think you just need to lookup what consists the bulk of nutrients you get from animals that aren't readily available in plants. I'll post that as soon as I find the time

"I did not call your general opinion about veganism ideological, but how it seems to stem from a more broad (and in my opinion unjustified) view that mankind must return to its natural roots."

Then it seems that you misread the whole post, as not only you're the only person who seems to have gotten that vibe, but I don't have such beliefs at all. My point is to say that most people who make the choice to become vegan/vegetarian do so for silly reasons and go about it the wrong way, how is that turning humans back to primitives?
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)