Veganism and Ethics

[Phantastica]

the production of eggs and dairy products does not nessecarily require the torture of animals, so fortunately this is mostly a theoretical dilemma.

Hey dragonrider, I agree that egg and dairy production doesn't have to involve torture. However this is not a theoretical dilemma, because a large majority of eggs and dairy come from factory farms. Even most free-range farms are not cruelty-free, because at the end of the day, they are companies, and their bottom line is maximizing profit.

With dairy products it is often the case, that it just tastes a lot better when the cows or goats providing the milk, are having a good life. Stress definately has a negative effect on the quality of the milk. And mass-produced cheese is often made with strains of bacteria or fungi that most of all let cheeses ripen very quickly.

Yes this is probably true - I can see how stress can affect the taste and components of the milk.

So in terms of personal convenience you don't nessecarily have to make big sacrifices if you care about animal wellbeing. You only have to accept that many dairy products are seasonal.

Yes it is possible to be very mindful of milk consumption, but one can only be sure of this if you know the source of your milk or if the cow is your own pet.
I'm curious about where you buy your milk from?

If you live in a warm enough climate that you can eat local plant food all year round, good for you, but many of us can't.

Hi Jagube Can you tell me in exactly which places/cities plant foods aren't available?
And if you don't mind sharing, where is it that you live where you can't find plant foods?

The avocado from Argentina would probably cause more suffering than the eggs from your neighbor as Dreamer suggested, which you didn't address.

I did address it. If you prefer eating eggs from your neighbor over transported avocados, I see no problem there. I only see a problem if one kills the chicken or exploits it by genetically selecting breeds that lay 300 eggs per year (which is not natural or healthy for the chicken).

You'd choose the option you believe is healthier for you, even if it causes more suffering. That's understandable - we all want to be healthy.

I would choose the option which I scientifically know to be healthier, yes, because the need to be healthy is inherent within us. Also, it's not that I would choose my personal health over the suffering of another being. That depends. If I had to eat unhealthy french fries to save the life of a chicken, I would do that.

Also, wanting to be healthy is perfectly understandable, biological and justified. Because if we over-prioritize environment over our personal well-being, we might as well kill ourselves and stop existing, because that's a great way to have a zero carbon footprint.

By the same token, many people eat meat because they believe it's healthier than being vegan and risking nutritional deficiencies.

Yes, this I can understand. Many people eat meat because they think it is healthy - that doesn't mean that meat is actually healthy. This is where we must heavily depend on science and research.
Also, any kind of diet runs the risks of nutritional deficiencies - wouldn't you say? So eating meat doesn't mean that one is not risking nutritional deficiencies.

The cholesterol in eggs is not bad at all if you eat them in moderation and as part of a diverse diet. On the other hand, relying on avocados (or anything for that matter) as some kind of vegan superfood is, and that's a trap many vegans fall into (not saying you do).

Eggs are full of bad cholesterol and no amount of moderation makes them healthy. The best you can do is eat it with plants to counter the negative effects of egg-consumption:

Freedom of Information Act documents reveal that the U.S. Department of Agriculture warned the egg industry that saying eggs are nutritious or safe may violate rules against false and misleading advertising.

Watch this short video - you will enjoy it.

As for killing animals, every animal dies eventually and I don't see why killing for food would cause more suffering than letting it die of cancer or old age (which in nature generally doesn't happen - it would be eaten by a predator before reaching that age). But I can see reasons why it would be the other way around.

The thing is Jagube, we're not killing for food (i.e. survival). We're killing for taste and convenience. Moreover, these animals aren't living "in nature." They're being bred on a mass scale for the sole purpose of being slaughtered.
Would it be okay if I killed your pet dog for eating, since it was going to die soon anyway?

IMO what's more important is how the chicken lived.

So a well-lived life justifies killing?
It sounds like you're saying that "humane killing" is okay (which is actually the biggest oxymoron), so I'll quote my previous response from this thread to get your views:

What is your definition of "reasonably-raised" meat? Do you mean "humane meat"?
I'd say that the way to determine whether something is "humane" or not is to ask if we would want that same thing to be done to ourselves.
If you believe in "humane" killing (especially when we have healthy alternatives), what are your views on "humane" rape?

Is it 'wrong' that I eat the aphids off the plants in my garden? What about roadkill?

Hi, if you want to eat roadkill, that's fine, because you didn't inflict suffering or death. I'll also quote myself from before:

This also demands the question if it would be more sustainable to eat our pet dogs after they die..? What about humans? The reason we don't eat our pet dogs and fellow humans is out of respect of what they meant to us. It is a form of love. This leads me to pose you another question, which I posed earlier in this thread:
Would you eat your own pet dog (especially when you have plant-based alternatives)?
I ask this, because I want to know if it is possible to love an animal and eat it at the same time (especially when alternatives exist)..?

And vegan cheeses! Allow me to open a portal into a new dimension here. These are the top of the line products

Looks like the usual, plastic-packed, industrial crap dross to me. Looks like the usual, plastic-packed, industrial crap dross to me.

Do you speak from personal experience?
Can you provide some food examples of what doesn't look like "plastic-packed industrial crap dross"?

eggs are unhealthy due to high amounts of cholesterol

That's something of a fallacy, I think you'll find.

I've stated this above in my response to Jagube already, but eggs being unhealthy for humans is a scientific fact.

By the way, I was vegan for ten years and if there's one thing it taught me it's that preachy dogmatism about food is socially unhealthy.

That's awesome May I ask what made you go vegan in the first place - was it because of animal rights, health or environment?
Also, what made you give up veganism?

I agree that preaching is not a good form of communication. I would accept veganism as a dogma if other forms of social justice issues like racism and sexism are also considered dogmas. One can easily claim that discussions about abolishing slavery were socially unhealthy.

Edit: HERE'S a cheese worth trying! :want:

I'm curious about what happens to these dairy cows after they stop lactating.. Most dairy farms work hand in hand with the beef industry. I wonder if that is also the case here.

I don't consider myself "vegan" or "vegetarian" but I've been eating a raw plant/fruit based diet for about 8 years now with great results. However my approach is definitely not ordinary, and my reasoning was for the most part entirely different than most peoples, but I'll get to that.

That's awesome! I'm sure you've had great results as this is what one would expect based on current medical literature on nutrition. I don't think labeling oneself is so important as our actions.

When it comes to environmental sustainability... as local as possible and as plant-based as possible is obviously the best bet imo, but not at the expense of your health if you have poor access or ability to grow food.

Totally agreed, though poor access to plant food would be a very rare exception in today's modern age.

The term "vegan" has so much baggage and applies to such a wide variety of diets (including completely crap ones) and people that I stay away from it entirely.

Yes, it does have baggage. I personally tend to think though that it's important to stick with this term, because no other term captures the essence of what "veganism" means other than "veganism." And it wouldn't help to re-create a new term when we already have one (because any new term might also acquire baggage due to its counter-cultural component)

Instead of "diet", try thinking of what we are eating as unimaginably complex biomolecular engineering...because it is. This is what builds and runs the most complex neural tissue in the known universe, from uterus till death, on a sub-cellular level, and there's some good evidence that it had something to do with how we got in this situation of being a strange naked primate with an unusually large and complex neural system with all sorts of strange traits and dormant "higher" states and abilities (savants, psychedelic states etc).

Yea, we're very complex biomolecular machines. The engineering 101 logic is important. Fortunately for us, science and research simplify nutrition.

Ignore the lame title the podcast gave to this video and give it a listen if you have the time

I'll listen to it universecannon :d Thanks for sharing that!

All of my blabber converges back to my main two points:

1. Who is to say that plant/fungus/bacteria suffering is "lesser" than that of animal suffering, especially when we cannot really know what it is like to be any of those organisms and plants and fungi can actually be alive when we eat them versus animals that are dead? If you claim we should derive all of our food from inorganic, nonliving sources or develop human photosynthesis, then I will agree.

Even if plants are sentient and capable of feeling pain, an average meat-eater still kills more plants, bacteria and fungi than an average vegan. Endlessness already explained why, but I'll also quote myself from before:

We use a lot more land to grow a lot more plants (soy and corn) for raising animals and the amount of mice, frogs, gophers, etc. that this process kills is a lot higher. Veganism is about choosing a more sustainable option that minimizes harm as much as possible.

2. For something to be morally justified, I like to take the Rawlsian approach of using the veil of ignorance, which is essentially that a system is only justified if you are willing to be any random participant in that system. I would be willing to be a cow on a Kobe beef farm, living a life of luxury and a peaceful death before being eaten, so therefore I will eat Kobe beef. Also, I would rather be dead while being eaten myself versus alive and potentially suffering, which makes it harder to justify eating live plants/fungi/bacteria that could be suffering.

Allow me to pose questions as per the proposed logic:
If I feel suicidal and want to kill myself, does that mean it is right and justified for me to kill anyone I'd like?
If I'm willing to be raped by hot women, am I allowed to rape them?
Do you see the fallacy of this logic?

A very important component that is missing from this logic is the perspective of the victim. Your Kobe beef example and my counter examples both have a victim at the end of the decision. Here's the thing RAM - we cannot understand oppression from an oppressor's point of view. In order to understand what's wrong with slavery, we have to look from the eyes of the victim (i.e. the black slaves); in order to understand what's wrong with the Holocaust, we have to see the situation from the perspective of the victim (i.e Jews); and in order to see what's wrong with killing animals, you have to see the situation from the perspective of the victim (i.e. animal). If the animal could talk, it would tell you that it would rather not die.

In your Rawlsian approach, you are perceiving the situation from your own standpoint (not from the victim's standpoint). That is the fallacy of this approach.

Also, if I may ask, where do you get your meat from? And how do you confirm that it was raised in a manner that you'd be willing to accept yourself (as per this Rawlsian approach)?

How many people who are currently vegetarian or vegan would eat a product like lab grown beef, pork or chicken? There is no brain or CNS, so no consciousness or pain center to content with, so no moral or ethical problems there. Also no problems with antibiotics, soil depletion, deforestation or any of problems typical with farmed meat production. I'm curious if people would eat this alternative meat and why or why not. If it is healthy for you and inexpensive what would the problem be in eating it? Would vegans embrace this? Why or why not?

As a vegan I see absolutely no ethical problem here, because of the very reasons you mentioned Mitakuye. I personally wouldn't consume it though because animal tissue grown in labs will still contain cholesterol, naturally-occurring hormones and so on - from a nutritional perspective, it still wouldn't be healthy as meat and dairy are linked to many types of diseases.

My observations have been that often people will come into a clinic with long term chronic health problems who have been strict vegans for many years, these health problems can look a number of different ways, but generally these people's health will improve when they start to incorporate some animal products back into their diets.

I find this odd based on all the research into nutrition I've looked into. If you simply browse through the Google Scholar search results (1.7 million search results), you will find a huge majority of research studies confirming that animal products are in fact unhealthy.

There also is a tendency so eat a whole lot of carbohydrates as the bulk of one's calories on a plant based diet, which can lead to issues with blood sugar regulation.

Research has shown that blood sugar regulation is not caused by carbohydrates, but rather because of the clogged arteries (caused by meat and dairy). The clogged arteries make the break down and absorption of carbohydrates inefficient, which leads to diseases like diabetes.
Could I ask you to watch the documentary What The Health to get your views on it?

Just as an example, there was a comment earlier about how it is better not to eat eggs because they are rich in cholesterol. I would just like to point out that cholesterol is the source material for the creation of the vast majority of hormones (including vitamin D, a nutrient that is deficient in the majority of humans in the modern world) within the human body and is also an important part of the phospholipid bilayers that make up all the cell walls within the body. While too much cholesterol may be detrimental to health (this is debatable I think) having some cholesterol in the diet is really important for overall health.

Please see the video link above in response to eggs being unhealthy. Yes cholesterol plays an important role in health, but only that cholesterol which is produced by the human body. Human body is able to make its own cholesterol and doesn't need cholesterol from animal sources (which have an ill effect on health).

Considering animals are very inneficient in terms of gram of protein per resources used, and considering all the animals will have eaten plants to grow, then if the argument is that all life is sentient and plants too, and if we want to avoid killing those sentient life forms, then we should eat less meat

Exactly

Phantastica, I have a question to you.. If you saw a wounded animal that you knew was going to suffer an agonizing death for a long time, what do you think is the more ethical choice to make: Kill him to end his suffering, or let him die 'naturally' but suffering more?

This is easy - First I'd try to save the animal. But given your two choices, I would kill the animal to end its misery, though that would be a very difficult and painful thing to do.

 

[Jagube]

Hi Jagube Can you tell me in exactly which places/cities plant foods aren't available?

Pretty much anywhere excepting the tropics and the warmer Mediterranean climates.
For example, in Europe, only the southernmost parts of Spain grow food on a large, commercial scale in winter, and that's only through the use of intensive agriculture and plastics, so that the rest of the continent can enjoy relatively fresh tomatoes in January.

Here is what it looks like:

(I've lived there, but now I'm at a much higher latitude)

Eggs are full of bad cholesterol and no amount of moderation makes them healthy.

That's not true.

The best you can do is eat it with plants to counter the negative effects of egg-consumption

Plant based foods are notoriously low in certain nutrients, the best you can do is eat them with animal products to make sure you're getting everything.

The problem is many people eat mostly animal products and not enough plant foods. That doesn't mean animal products are unhealthy. The whole idea of 'unhealthy' foods in an absolute sense, without any qualifiers or quantifiers, is wrong. There is no such thing as an unhealthy food. Even Coke is not unhealthy; it contains water, which can save your life when you're severely dehydrated. So there are situations when Coke is a very healthy thing.

A good diet tells you what to include, not what to exclude. People suffer health problems not because of what they're eating, but because of what they're not eating.

The thing is Jagube, we're not killing for food (i.e. survival). We're killing for taste and convenience. Moreover, these animals aren't living "in nature." They're being bred on a mass scale for the sole purpose of being slaughtered.

We're killing for our own health, and you just said you're ok with prioritizing our health and would do it yourself.
How the animals live depends on where our meat comes from... it can be anything from cages to free-range farms (which are close to nature) to wild game.

IMO what's more important is how the chicken lived.

So a well-lived life justifies killing?

Our desire to live and be healthy justifies killing.
A well-lived life is the best thing we can give the animal (which, BTW, if not for our farming, wouldn't have been born to begin with).

I know I'll eventually be eaten by bacteria or worms and I don't see any injustice in this.

 

[downwardsfromzero]

I'm still really interested to know what you think about eating aphids, as they are basically parthenogenetic clones which, left unchecked, would kill my plants off.

That's awesome May I ask what made you go vegan in the first place - was it because of animal rights, health or environment?
Also, what made you give up veganism?

I went vegan for all three reasons - but chiefly the environment - plus an element of peer-group conformity. As we shared a lot of our food anyhow this was a straightforward thing to do. We would eat non-vegan food that was salvaged from skips (dumpsters), though. I still prefer to eat a plant based diet but my garden is not yet up to speed to realise this to its fullest extent.

I gave up veganism when I went to a Greek Easter party. There was a roast lamb there. It was simply heavenly. It made me realise I had been being dogmatic unto myself and that this form of neurosis had caused my health to suffer. It was with a great sense of relief that I realised I could participate in social eating in a context beyond my otherwise limited range of interactions.

Can you provide some food examples of what doesn't look like "plastic-packed industrial crap dross"?

Regarding "crap dross", if it comes in a packet with ingredients on it that tends to be a bit of a giveaway. Some of it does taste nice, though But to answer the actual question, do you really want me to post photo's of the fruit and veg available at my local weekly market, or some of the farms and smallholdings in my area?

 

[urtica]

"I find this odd based on all the research into nutrition I've looked into. If you simply browse through the Google Scholar search results (1.7 million search results), you will find a huge majority of research studies confirming that animal products are in fact unhealthy."

I generally tend to trust evidence that I have seen with my own eyes in human bodies over generalized statistics & surveys. It is really easy for information to be skewed in scientific experiments. Also the number of hits you get in a search engine is not really a compelling number to me, sorry.

"Research has shown that blood sugar regulation is not caused by carbohydrates, but rather because of the clogged arteries (caused by meat and dairy). The clogged arteries make the break down and absorption of carbohydrates inefficient, which leads to diseases like diabetes.
Could I ask you to watch the documentary What The Health to get your views on it?"

I would be really curious to know where you found this research. Equally compelling research has shown this to not be true, and indeed the concept that fat clogs the arteries has been largely discredited in favor of the idea that inflammation leads to clogged arteries, often from sugars in the diet and indeed from pro inflammatory oils such as vegetable oil. Some animal fats (fish oil & grass fed cow/lamb fat) actually reduce inflammation in the body and can be helpful with clogged arteries. Also, efficiently breaking down carbohydrates turns them into sugars, I think that inefficiently breaking them down might even be better for the human body since it would act more like insoluble fibers & etc and therefore function as a prebiotic or as bulk to help with moving material through the colon. I also fail to see how having clogged arteries would lead to carbohydrates being inefficiently broken down, as this process occurs in the stomach & intestines not in the arteries. Perhaps restricted blood flow would hamper digestion but if your arteries are so clogged that your digestion is being directly hampered than you are having a really hard time/maybe are dead.

Also, sugar itself is a carbohydrate, so you are telling me that blood sugar regulation has nothing to do with how much sugar a person eats? I wonder why people with diabetes are encouraged to cut down on carbs and simple sugars while being encouraged to eat a more meat & vegetables type diet? Also again I have watched people change their bodies from a pre diabetic type state to more 'normal' blood sugar levels (as in observed a person's diary of their blood sugar readings using a glucometer go from diabetic numbers, like over 200, to 'normal' numbers, under 100) by switching from a carbohydrate heavy vegetarian diet to a diet that consisted almost entirely of meat and vegetables. I have not seen the reverse be true.

Sorry, I won't watch that documentary. I have seen documentaries and read books that will tell me all about how a purely plant based diet is the most healthy for the human body and the planet. I have also read books and watched documentaries that tell me that a diet rich in animal fats is the best for the human body and the planet. I once read two of these book at the same time (Diet for a New America vs. Nourishing Traditions) and marveled at how much they contradicted one another while also being able to cite scientific studies & etc 'proving' their points.

I generally distrust documentaries and books that are clearly written with the express purpose of convincing me that a specific diet is the very best one. It is a simple thing to play with numbers and statistics to make things appear a certain way. I try to base my own dietary choices on direct observation of my own body and the bodies of others. Also each body is unique and the idea that there is one diet that will be the most healthy for all people is simply not true.

 

[urtica]

Also @ Endlessness-

My arguments around the sentience of plants is not to say that by eating meat you are consuming less plants, but more to point out that I think the idea that it is possible to eat at all and 'cause no harm' is not true. You have to kill living sentient organisms to eat, there is no way around it.

And yes, more of the rainforest is cut down to raise cows, that is true. I will give an example of the impact of raising vegetables on the landscape that is pretty close to home for me: The central valley in California. This area was once a vibrant wetland/riparian ecosystem. It has been transformed into a total desert wasteland that produces the majority of the vegetables that are grown for the non organic American market. Also the majority of almonds and other nuts that are grown in the USA come from the central valley. The entire valley is deeply dependent on imported water and extremely high levels of chemical fertilizers to produce as much food as it does. If you drive through it in the off season it is a really spooky lunar landscape, nothing moves, only dust, no living beings.

When I compare situations like this to, say grazing cattle in the grasslands of Eastern California, where they live on perennial grasses that are naturalized to the desert environment & do not take more water than the rains provide to grow, I think that raising cattle in that way is more sustainable and easier on the landscape. I acknowledge that the majority of cattle are not raised in this way and that even cattle raised in this way are hard on some of the native plants and that water does need to be brought in for the cattle to drink.

 

[endlessness]

Hey dragonrider, I agree that egg and dairy production doesn't have to involve torture. However this is not a theoretical dilemma, because a large majority of eggs and dairy come from factory farms. Even most free-range farms are not cruelty-free, because at the end of the day, they are companies, and their bottom line is maximizing profit.

That argument could be used against any labelled vegan product too

Hi Jagube Can you tell me in exactly which places/cities plant foods aren't available?
And if you don't mind sharing, where is it that you live where you can't find plant foods?

I dont think he meant food isnt available, but rather that it needs to be imported or grown in resource-intensive greenhouses

On the other hand as a counter argument, if he lives in a place where greenhouses or importing of plants are needed in winter, then probably for the animals this is the same

I did address it. If you prefer eating eggs from your neighbor over transported avocados, I see no problem there. I only see a problem if one kills the chicken or exploits it by genetically selecting breeds that lay 300 eggs per year (which is not natural or healthy for the chicken).

Natural isnt necessarily good and genetical selection isnt necessarily bad. Pretty much ALL the plants you eat have also been genetically selected. Have you ever seen how corn originally was?

I would choose the option which I scientifically know to be healthier, yes, because the need to be healthy is inherent within us. Also, it's not that I would choose my personal health over the suffering of another being. That depends. If I had to eat unhealthy french fries to save the life of a chicken, I would do that.

I think you are contradicting yourself there. First you say that you chose the healthier option, but then you say you would chose an unhealthy option for the life of a chicken. I also think this is the black and white thinking some people mentioned earlier. If you are eating french fry from mcdonalds vs, say, chicken frmo your neibhbour, i'd wager that you caused more suffering to the planet (including animals and humans), but at face value it may seem otherwise.

Yes, this I can understand. Many people eat meat because they think it is healthy - that doesn't mean that meat is actually healthy. This is where we must heavily depend on science and research.

Ive linked earlier a research that has shown that diet that includes some meat is as healthy as a vegetarian diet, no differences noticed.

Also, any kind of diet runs the risks of nutritional deficiencies - wouldn't you say? So eating meat doesn't mean that one is not risking nutritional deficiencies.

Depends on which deficiencies. Generally vegan diets are low on vitamin b12, heme iron, and omega 3 (DHA/EPA).. Where do you get those from, if I may ask?

Eggs are full of bad cholesterol and no amount of moderation makes them healthy.

Please quote a scientific publication that says eggs in moderation are unhealthy.

The thing is Jagube, we're not killing for food (i.e. survival). We're killing for taste and convenience. Moreover, these animals aren't living "in nature." They're being bred on a mass scale for the sole purpose of being slaughtered.

Back to the ' technology isnt necessary for survival either and yet you are using it' argument.. We can all make choices, maybe you decide your choices for being a vegan help the planet, maybe someone else here eats just a bit of meat from local sources and never bought technology but only gets second hand product and they feel this is their way to contribute, etc... Maybe you eat french fries and think thats better than eating a local chicken, maybe someone else here decides eating local chicken is more sustainable. Its not clear IMO that being vegan = always the best way.

So a well-lived life justifies killing?
It sounds like you're saying that "humane killing" is okay (which is actually the biggest oxymoron), so I'll quote my previous response from this thread to get your views:

Do you or have you ever lived in a farm and had to deal with animals eating your garden, seen animals dying around you, predators killing other animals etc? It might change your views if you didnt yet and get to live through that for a while.

Hi, if you want to eat roadkill, that's fine, because you didn't inflict suffering or death. I'll also quote myself from before:
This also demands the question if it would be more sustainable to eat our pet dogs after they die..? What about humans? The reason we don't eat our pet dogs and fellow humans is out of respect of what they meant to us. It is a form of love. This leads me to pose you another question, which I posed earlier in this thread:
Would you eat your own pet dog (especially when you have plant-based alternatives)?
I ask this, because I want to know if it is possible to love an animal and eat it at the same time (especially when alternatives exist)..?

The reason we dont eat humans id guess is not respect, but Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (and social taboo, which might both be connected).

I do think you can love an animal and still eat it , and this happens routinely in many farms where people have connection to the animal and they sacrifice with utmost respect and eat the animal. If they didnt eat the animal, it would die a much worse death.. As an example a nexian once gave, he had a farm with cows, and he loved his cows and when time was right, he would kill them and that would be a lot of food for his whole family. Had he not killed them, they would get older and weak, some would break their leg crossing a river for example and die an agonizing death. If your aim is to diminish suffering, in that case, killing the animal to eat would not only diminish their suffering but also feed his whole family and in turn he wouldnt have to buy food which would mean further ecological costs and suffering for other lifeforms.

I find this odd based on all the research into nutrition I've looked into. If you simply browse through the Google Scholar search results (1.7 million search results), you will find a huge majority of research studies confirming that animal products are in fact unhealthy.

That is a problematic and untrue sweeping generalization. Not all animal products are unhealthy, not all vegan products are healthy. French fries, as you mentioned yourself, contains trans fats which are very unhealthy. Fish contains fatty acids and protein and other nutrients which are very healthy, and if they aren't large fish that acumulated heavy metals, there is no evidence AFAIK that they are in any way unhealthy, and way more evidence it is very healthy. High fructose corn syrup is as vegan as it gets but isnt the most healthy food in the world.

Research has shown that blood sugar regulation is not caused by carbohydrates, but rather because of the clogged arteries (caused by meat and dairy). The clogged arteries make the break down and absorption of carbohydrates inefficient, which leads to diseases like diabetes.
Could I ask you to watch the documentary What The Health to get your views on it?

Please link the mentioned research (not a documentary's take on said research)

This is easy - First I'd try to save the animal. But given your two choices, I would kill the animal to end its misery, though that would be a very difficult and painful thing to do.

Yes it IS very painful, I've lived through that and am not sure it was actually the right choice in the end, at least the way it happened to me..

That being said, as mentioned earlier, if diminishing suffering is the end goal, then quickly killing animals would make them suffer less than leaving them to be..

Also, what is your take on nature's suffering and intervening? Lets say for example you see a lion killing a zebra.. Would you think we should separate them? Would it be better ethically, according to you, to avoid that killing by separating them two? Lets say for example I could create a huge fenced area where I'd separate lions from zebras, and I'd feed the lion only with roadkill or lab-grown meat.. now you dont have killing anymore, and the fenced area is large enough that they dont even notice they are closed in.. Is that better than what nature already provides, with the suffering included? Or does nature somehow get a free pass on suffering, and if so, what is the reasoning? If not, to what extent should we intervene to create a happy life for all animals, if we had the resources should we go into the jungle and separate all predators from preys, make rounded corners and remove thorns from plants to diminish suffering even more, etc etc ?

(all food for thought here, as mentioned before, I dont think things are black and white and sometimes answers are hard to find. Some suffering is a natural part of life, and to what extent we have to change that in each context is very complex to define.)

Lastly, I'm not sure if I missed your answer, Phantastica, but what are your main reasons for being a vegan, in order of most important if that's possible?

 

[dreamer042]

1) I'm interested in knowing what made you go vegan in the first place (in the past)? Was it mainly because of animals, health or environment?
2) Exactly what new information did you discover that made you stop being vegan? For example, you mentioned a "good grasp on nutrition." What do you mean by this? Did you find that vegan food is not healthy?

1)Naivety, paired with propaganda/misinformation and peer pressure. I thought I was making the right choice on three of those counts, turns out the realities of all three situations are infinitely more complex than switching to veggie burgers.

2) If I may quote, I think dfz nailed it:

It made me realize I had been being dogmatic unto myself and that this form of neurosis had caused my health to suffer.

Maintaining optimal nutrition while adhering to a completely plant based diet is significantly more difficult and requires immensely more reliance on imported sources of nutrition than including a few ethically sourced local or homegrown animal products in one's diet.

Let's consider other issues of social justice for a moment - slavery, rape, racism, feminism, sexism, heterosexism - In these cases, is a middle path better or complete abolition?

Since you decided to repeat yourself, I'll address this by simply noting that I politely decline to engage with your attempts to derail the topic with strawmen and loaded questions.

Would you agree that unnecessary killing of animals is unethical?

More loaded questions. Please do expound upon difference between necessary and unnecessary killing and your qualifications for being the arbitrator of those decisions.

an average vegan person has more than 50% lower carbon footprint than an average meat-eater.

I'm going to start by reminding you of this section of the forum attitude, then I'm going to ask you to provide a legitimate and reliable source (ie. not a cherry picked quote from a biased documentary) for that information.

eggs are unhealthy due to high amounts of cholesterol

See previous paragraph.

I would personally prioritize the life of a living being over the pollution caused by transportation of the avocado.

Kinda goes back to that old thought experiment, would you let an entire building full of strangers perish to save one member of your family? There isn't a right answer on this one, and it's a good demonstration that morality is relative and something we each have to grapple with on an individual level. One of the biggest lessons I learned in my time experimenting with veganism is that attempting to push one's personal morality on others is as futile as it is foolhardy.

Would you agree that killing an animal for food (if local plant-based alternatives exist) would be unethical?

No I would not. This is an example of that black and white thinking I noted previously and relates back to the morality discussion of the last paragraph. Maybe in my eyes it's more compassionate to kill that old laying hen who's had a long and happy life and is now experiencing the decline of old age than it is contribute to the adverse effects Glyphosate is having on my local waterways, and insect populations, and livestock, and my fellow humans by eating processed soy foods.

Would you eat your own pet dog (especially when you have plant-based alternatives)?
I ask this, because I want to know if it is possible to love an animal and eat it at the same time (especially when alternatives exist)..?

So many loaded questions. I'll address this one though because, shortly before I went vegan, I actually ate dog at a rainbow gathering. Yeah I'm clearly a monster, how I could I? So on and so forth. Goes to show once again that your morality is not my morality.

91% of Amazon Rainforest destruction happens because of animal agriculture. Also consider these additional important stats:
1) 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions comes from livestock and their byproducts (whereas only 13% comes from all forms of transportation combined - worldwide)
2) A plant-based diet cuts down your carbon footprint by more than 50%
3) It takes 660 gallons of water to produce one single hamburger (equivalent of 2 months of showering)
4) 1/3 of land is desertified due to animal agriculture
5) Meat and dairy industries use 1/3 of Earth's fresh water.

1) That's funny, the EPA website only shows 24% of greenhouse emissions come from the entire agriculture, forestry, and land use sector including both livestock and crop cultivation.

2) At least one recent study would contradict that claim. The clickbait title of the article in Scientific American regarding this study really drives that point home.

3) I suppose it's possible this is the case in commercial confined feeding operation, but even in that situation, I'm skeptical of that number. University of Georgia suggests 1-2 gallons of water per 100 lbs of body weight and notes "Cattle grazing lush growth that contains 75 percent water need much less additional water than cattle fed dry feeds or hay containing only 10 percent water." Say you have 1000 lb cow that takes 2 years to grow to full size. 2 g/100 lb * 1000 lb = 20 gallons of water per day * 2 years to raise to maturity = 14,600 gallons over the cows lifetime. Assume 50% of the carcass as harvested meat. 14600/500 = 29.2 gallons water per lb of beef. Quite a lot less than 660 gallons, and this is assuming maximum amount of water and dry feed, not cattle grazing on pasture near natural water sources.

4) This is more hyperbole. As always, the causes of desertification are multiple and varied and poor crop cultivation practices, fuel and resource gathering, and weather/climate change are contributing just as much as overgrazing. I'll throw in another clickbait Scientific American article here as well.

5) According to the United States Geological Survey total use of water in irrigation is a whopping 57.5 times that used for livestock.

To take a deeper look into the environmental impact of animal agriculture, take a look at this infographic I linked above (or better yet, consider watching the documentary called Cowspiracy)

I've seen Cowspiracy, like most other documentaries pushing the vegan agenda it's loaded with misinformation and cherry picking of facts and studies that can be easily refuted with a few quick google searches (see above). I'd suggest taking time to do independent research and fact checking before taking everything you see in a documentary at face value.

So which do you think is turning lands into monocultures more - animal agriculture or vegan alternatives? Again, veganism is not about perfectionism, but about minimizing our impact and harm.

As the cited statistics show, our current industrial monoculture system of raising crops is the largest contributor to environmental devastation. The majority of those crops are processed and fed to livestock (even vegans can't eat Monsanto corn till it's processed) under the current industrial system of commercial confined feeding operations. This needs to change, but the idea of the entire world suddenly deciding to go vegan is a delusion. The idea of switching those giant corn fields back to well managed pasture land and raising smaller amounts of higher quality meat is actually economically and culturally viable. Granted there is strong resistance and it's not likely, it is a solution rooted in the reality of the situation.

I'd like to ask on what grounds do you think the statistic is propaganda? The statistic makes it clear that we're talking about the amount of land it takes to grow food for an average meat-eater and vegan. That's not propaganda, but rather a statistical fact, unless you have sources that show otherwise.

See above for cited sources refuting uncited propaganda.

From a sustainability viewpoint, free-range farms are worse than factory farms. Here's why (source: Cowspiracy documentary):
It takes 23 months for a grass-fed cow to grow to the size and age when it is ready for slaughter. Whereas a grain-fed cow takes 15 months. That’s an additional 8 months of water use, land use, feed, waste. In terms of carbon footprint, it’s a huge difference.

You don't see the fallacy in these numbers? A cow raised on pasture eats pasture grasses, the amount of feed input = 0. The cow raised on pasture drops it's fertilizer on the pasture where it breaks down and builds healthy soil, the amount of waste output = 0. See above where the fact that a cow eating pasture grasses at 75% water content requires much less water than a cow fed on dry food. Land use, well yeah providing 2 acres of pasture land per cow for 2 years just isn't ever going to compete with raising 1000's of head of cattle in a giant warehouse on just a few acres of land in a little over a year.

Also, grass-grazing cows emit considerably more methane than grain-fed cows. (Source)

This peer reviewed study by the National Trust in the UK suggests the opposite. That NY Times article provides no references or citations to support the authors claims and like the documentaries, doesn't really satisfy the quality of information stipulation required for academic debate.

Do you think that if you stopped eating fish (and other animal products) you'd be participating in less harm?

No I don't, for the simple reason that if I was to go back to being full vegan I would need to substantially increase the amount of imported food items and supplements I purchase to maintain adequate nutrition. Algea and phytoplankton based DHA supplements from the crystal clear Altantic waters of Northern Europe have a bigger impact both on my carbon footprint and wallet size than heading up the mountain with my fishing pole or visiting the local aquaponic grower at the farmers market. I used to spend hundreds of dollars ordering vegan certified supplements online to make sure my B-12 and D-3 levels didn't fall to the point where I started experiencing deficiencies. I'd pay a huge markups to make sure my multivitamin contains only plant sourced ingredients and isn't packed in a gelatin capsule. Now I throw a few bucks toward my neighbor's daughter's piano lessons and meet those nutritional requirements with a few eggs from their vegetable scrap and insect fed free ranging backyard chickens.

Not only am I healthier overall, I go easier on myself and get a lot more enjoyment out of life in not having to limit myself and in being able to try new things. I know exactly where my food comes from and how it was produced and have good direct relationships with the people (and animals) that produce it. My food dollars stay local and benefits my community and we've collectively established a resilient food web that will sustain in the event of political or environmental disasters that may interrupt resource distribution. It may not meet the vegan ideal, but I feel like it's enough to help offset my disgraceful carbon dense imported banana and mango addiction. :twisted:

 

[OrionFyre]

but I feel like it's enough to help offset my disgraceful carbon dense imported banana and mango addiction. :twisted:

You disgust me if you think your pathetic attempts at minimizing your carbon footprint even begin to offset your mango habit.

Although I am happy that you are single handedly propping up the economies of 5 separate foreign economies because of mango

 

[dreamer042]

You disgust me if you think your pathetic attempts at minimizing your carbon footprint even begin to offset your mango habit.

Although I am happy that you are single handedly propping up the economies of 5 separate foreign economies because of mango

You got me there

I feel like I come off as very anti-plant-based diet in my retorts. I want to emphasize that I'm not, at all. I found through trial and error that it was not the best diet for me personally, but if others want to explore it, I fully support that choice. I gained lots of skills that have served me well in my foray into veganism. I learned to read labels and take the time to look up and understand what all those crazy chemicals actually are and do. I learned how to cook and prepare food from scratch. I learned how to track down quality local food providers and to understand the bigger picture of food production and make discerning choices in supermarket fare. For the majority of people, a plant-based diet is undoubtedly both healthier and more sustainable than their current diets.

I do have a couple issues with the 'vegan' label and those that claim it however.

1. I did it at first too, so I don't have a lot of room to critique, I understand the excitement, but... What if I told you that you can be vegan all on your own, quietly making your own choices, without having to proselytize and turn everyone else in the world into a vegan too? In my personal experience when I finally shut the hell up about it and just starting minding my own personal dietary and purchasing choices, that's when people began taking notice and becoming interested in what I was doing and started the process of self-examination and opening up to the idea of changing their own habits, based not on my words but on my example.

2. No animal products, assistance, or exploitation at all, ever, in any of our endeavors, is an impossible standard. Adopting that ideal and pasting that vegan label on ourselves is an incredibly limiting action. It gives some level of group identification, I understand that, but I'd suggest that overall, it's not necessarily a healthy one. We are the people that define ourselves by what we don't do. Since this whole thing is supposed to be about compassion, let's drop the labels and start with ourselves and one another. We can only strive to do our very best to adhere to our own understandings and principals and we can recognize that others are doing the same in their own way, offering up encouragement and kudos along the journey, rather than condemnation and disdain will help us all progress much more harmoniously.

 

[Chan]

I wanted to avoid adding any more fuel to this vigorous, verbose conflagration, but it's an important topic, and it pains me to see it tackled like medieval theology...believe, or burn, basically.

Apologies for quoting myself, but a while back, I tried to sum it up thus:

Now here's the thing: the vegan/carnivore dichotomy is yet another arbitrary, unhelpful distinction to make you feel crap about yourself. As someone who has travelled this road a few times, and has now settled at the vegetarian end, I invite you to consider someone who:

1. Eats whatever appeals, usually mass-produced, and meat-based.
2. Eats whatever appeals, but prefers dishes where meat is used as a flavouring. Ham on pizza, for example.
3. Eats whatever appeals, but tries to avoid meat, unless raised locally/non-industrially.
4. Eats whatever appeals, but mostly vegetarian now.
5. Eats whatever appeals, but tries to avoid dairy.
6. Eats whatever appeals, but avoids dairy, unless raised locally/non-industrially.
7. Eats whatever appeals, but not dairy of any kind, and has become a vegan.

Now, I am not a vegan anymore, and do not know if I would become one again, so please do not assume I am implying that veganism is the goal. It is not, unless you reach that conclusion yourself, independently.

What I am trying to show, is how diet can exist on a continuum. Each step on the ladder is preferable (for a host of reasons, not just about you) to the one before it. If you can, and want to, see how far you can progress... You can go stepwise, and it will still be a big improvement all round. Your cooking skills will improve too. And, if you slip back one (drunken) night or whatever, just remember it's no biggy, people slip up all the time. Just resume when you are ready.

Gradual steps are easier, and more sustainable in the long-term, than "faddism". "Hey everyone, I'm a vegan from today!" are the least convincing words, ever. IME, a lot of people find themselves basically trapped at 1. because the only diet-based dialogue they ever encounter is the hate-filled ranting of the people at 7. But I contend that all the steps are valid, each is an improvement, and each can be made by anyone, easily.

I have a feeling the elves would be happy with this compromise too...they're all about the long-term results. Thumbs up

The problem I have with the OP of the current thread, is his approach comes perilously close to deriving almost a kind of caste-system from my arbitrary scale, which is unlikely to be helpful or productive in the long term, among the wider population. To stick with my 'scale' I contend that if everybody can move up even just one level, perhaps only a couple of times in their entire life, the overall situation will improve dramatically. There is infinitely more benefit to the animal population, in just one person going from Level 1 to Level 2, say, than there is for a bunch of people going from Level 6 to Level 7...and that's just maths. No moral interpolation required.

If I was writing that again, I would probably include a Level 8: vegan, local, non-industrial/processed. Just to stop the top tier gettin' too crowded, y'understand?! The last thing anybody needs right now is more f'kin priests! :twisted:

And finally...

Vice: We asked vegan restaurant-workers what they thought of their customers...

 

[Psilosopher?]

I ain't a mod, but this thread seems to be tending towards the "out of control" realm.

My 2c...

I think a lot of people have a problem with vegans, because they generalise the entire movement. They have been exposed to the elitist vegan, or the extremely picky vegan, and therefore assume all vegans are like that.

I've met a bunch of people that tried to become vegan/vegetarian. Most of them didn't last a month. So i asked them why they decided to go that route. A lot of them said "to help animals" or something along that line, or that it was environmentally friendly (which it isn't, speaking about the mass produced stuff). A shocking number of them said because their friends are doing it. So i jokingly asked them "if your friends jump off a cliff, would you do the same?", they retorted "Of course not!". So i said "and that's why you only lasted a month."

Also, they planned their transition poorly. They had no idea what to substitute their protein with. So they languished and "starved", or gave into their cravings and started eating meat again.

I posted somewhere here, that i went from hardcore meat eater to strictly vegetarian overnight. And stayed that way for 7-9 years (i don't remember years anymore). Not once did i give in and gorge on some meat. It all happened because i saw cruelty and sadism towards animals right before my very eyes. That has more gravitas than a "social trend", or just "hearing" about the cruelty towards animals.


I have a lot more respect for a hunter who only eats meat that they hunted themselves and utilises every part of the animal, so that nothing goes to waste, rather than an elitist militant vegan who is really just bragging about how great and elevated they are from the rest of humanity for going vegan. You want people to become vegan/vegetarian? Convince them to eat less meat first.

 

[Jagube]

Good points about slow transition and eating less meat as opposed to quitting it completely.
It's probably easier to get 100 people to eat less meat than it is to get one person to go vegan, so it's a more realistic goal and a more beneficial route from the point of view of the suffering of animals and the environment.

When I was more strictly vegetarian / vegan I found it hard to keep up while traveling. Sometimes the only food served on the plane is a sandwich with ham, and in some parts of the world vegan food is hard to come by. It helps being flexible and willing to make exceptions.

On one occasion I was staying at a hostel in Central America and while I was preparing some fruit in the kitchen, someone offered me pasta with tuna which they'd made too much of and were ready to dispose of. I first turned it down on the basis of vegetarianism, but then realized it would actually be unethical to let it go to waste, so I changed my mind and accepted the offer.

 

[dragonrider]

That vice article is funny.

 

[Chan]

Good points about slow transition and eating less meat as opposed to quitting it completely.
It's probably easier to get 100 people to eat less meat than it is to get one person to go vegan, so it's a more realistic goal and a more beneficial route from the point of view of the suffering of animals and the environment.

What's the difference between relativists and absolutists? The former are content to be relatively happy, and the latter absolutely are not!

I first turned it down on the basis of vegetarianism, but then realized it would actually be unethical to let it go to waste, so I changed my mind and accepted the offer.

Buddha rebuked some of his followers when they refused alms-food containing meat, saying it was karmically worse to reject that which was freely offered, especially from those who had little in the first place. I've occasionally attempted to explain that to non-lacto guests when they recoil from, say, the organic sour cream, I've served alongside the bean-chili. But it never works..."So, you're basically saying even Buddha was a hypocrite, then?" was probably the most high-handed response I ever got.

 

[pitubo]

And finally...

Vice: We asked vegan restaurant-workers what they thought of their customers...

I have worked in an all-volunteer operated vegetarian restaurant for several years. My experience mirrors some of that Vice article. I guess that about half of the restaurant's visitors were full time vegetarians. The vegetarians generally were all nice and friendly, as were the non fulltimers. What stood out were the vegans who'd occasionally come by. Some were really kind and nice people, but a noticeably large proportion of the vegans were obnoxiously demanding.

 

[RAM]

Even if plants are sentient and capable of feeling pain, an average meat-eater still kills more plants, bacteria and fungi than an average vegan. Endlessness already explained why, but I'll also quote myself from before:
We use a lot more land to grow a lot more plants (soy and corn) for raising animals and the amount of mice, frogs, gophers, etc. that this process kills is a lot higher. Veganism is about choosing a more sustainable option that minimizes harm as much as possible.

You know, that makes a lot of sense. It's not like we feed animals using mostly synthetic foods. However, you have to admit that eating artificially synthesized foods, if possible one day, would eliminate any question of ethical concerns of eating anything living. Maybe this would be a good area to focus our scientific energies one day.

Allow me to pose questions as per the proposed logic:
If I feel suicidal and want to kill myself, does that mean it is right and justified for me to kill anyone I'd like?
If I'm willing to be raped by hot women, am I allowed to rape them?
Do you see the fallacy of this logic?

A very important component that is missing from this logic is the perspective of the victim. Your Kobe beef example and my counter examples both have a victim at the end of the decision. Here's the thing RAM - we cannot understand oppression from an oppressor's point of view. In order to understand what's wrong with slavery, we have to look from the eyes of the victim (i.e. the black slaves); in order to understand what's wrong with the Holocaust, we have to see the situation from the perspective of the victim (i.e Jews); and in order to see what's wrong with killing animals, you have to see the situation from the perspective of the victim (i.e. animal). If the animal could talk, it would tell you that it would rather not die.

In your Rawlsian approach, you are perceiving the situation from your own standpoint (not from the victim's standpoint). That is the fallacy of this approach.

Also, if I may ask, where do you get your meat from? And how do you confirm that it was raised in a manner that you'd be willing to accept yourself (as per this Rawlsian approach)?

Whoa, slow down. John Rawls was a renowned philosopher whose ideas have changed the world. Essentially, Rawls envisioned a political system where to support a certain policy, you would have to be willing to "risk" being in the least disadvantaged position created by that policy. This is often applied to political decisions: a Republican wants to cut welfare, but likely wouldn't if they had to risk being the poor person on the other end. Therefore, they should not cut welfare according to Rawls. This is trying to do exactly what you are talking about: see the situation from the oppressed point of view.

Your questions misconstrue this line of thinking. If you are suicidal and believe suicide is moral and should be allowed for example, essentially you would just have to be willing to live in a society where you could risk being the most disadvantaged person due to the allowance of suicide. So let's say this person is the child of a suicidal single parent, the parent kills his or herself, then the child starves, is abducted, etc. Would you be willing to be that child? Probably not, so it might be better not to support suicide across the board, or at least place certain restrictions on it.

As for the murder example, let's say you wanted rape to be permissible. Then you would have to be willing to be the person who can get raped by any random stranger. Yes, you might want to be raped by some hot woman, but would you be willing to be on the receiving end of rape by a totally random, maybe male, stranger? Probably not.

I have never seen Rawls' veil of ignorance and original position (Original position - Wikipedia) applied across species, but I think the logic would still hold. Doesn't it make sense that we should only support the production of meat if we would be willing to be the least disadvantaged stakeholders in that situation? Obviously we would not want to be the chickens, pigs, and cows in those crazy slaughterhouse videos online. If I had to be a cow - I am assuming here that we would always pick being human over being another animal, but since interspecies conversion is not possible (yet), we can only think of being one species at a time - I would be willing to be a Kobe beef cow.

However, even with all of this, you (and other posters here) have got me and my roommates thinking. To be perfectly honest, the meat we eat now is organic but not ethically raised. If I was a chicken, I would not want to be the chicken that turns into my organic frozen chicken nuggets. Because of this, we are going to try going at least vegetarian/pescatarian and maybe vegan in my apartment for a couple weeks to see how it goes.

We all have vegans in our families and live in an area with a ton of vegan offerings. So, good job on making us think about our consumption and debating with me! However, I will not yield on ethically raised, well-treated animals whose by-products we can consume, nor exceptions for poor folks who cannot afford or find vegan/vegetarian options. It is good to make people think about their choices but not to berate them if they cannot afford or reasonably eat differently.

 

[dragonrider]

I believe btw, that many people are sort of in denial about the moral dilemma's considering meat.

Many people for instance, believe that animals are not counscious.
Primate researchers like jane goodal and frans de waal have often being critisized for projecting too many human traits on primates. For 'humanising' chimps, gorilla's and oerang oetans.

But these people realy are kidding themselves. The argument they often use, is that we don't have 100% certainty that animals are counscious.

I find this argument so incredibly stupid that i don't even want to bother explaining why.

But most people who use these kind of arguments, do present themselves as very rational human beings, with very materialist views.
The point is though, that if you believe in materialism (the brain generates counsciousness), then you should accept that all animals that have brains like us, must be counscious like us as well. So ofcourse there are differences between the human brain, and the brains of chimpansees or other primates, or highly social and intelligent animals.
Moreover, many animals that have brains like us, show behaviour that requires these brains to function like our brains. They can solve complex tasks that require planning ahead, delay of gratification, theory of mind, etc.

Logically, the burden of proof would be on you, if you would realy want to claim that animals are not counsious. Because with all the evidence, it is much more likely that they are, then that they are not.

 

[Loveall]

Wow, what a great discussion.

I just want to add my personal experience for whatever it is worth.

In my case I decided to stop eating meat once I became aware of how much animals suffer. This coincided with my engagement with teacher plants and general awareness increase.

I understand the good points made that some plant based food sources are an issue and cause in some cases more destruction than a meat choice. However, that is an odd circumstance of human affairs. All else being equal, more effective natural energy use, lower suffering, and better health are all achieved through plants in my experience and current understanding..

My philosophy is that those with the privilege to choose plant based food should do so. The work does not end there. Understand where the plants come from. Avoid what does not make sense (being plant based is not sufficient, but arguably necessary to be an enlightened choice). Also, if you have land grow your own food and medicine. If you have an HOA that does not allow this, fight your HOA. Compost to replenish the soil. Care for your plants and thank them for providing for body and mind.

One thing to avoid is to lie to oneself and say '...well since there are these counter examples where the plant choice does not work, it does not make sense to try the plant based diet...'. I'm not claiming anyone here is lying to themselves, and maybe the meat eating arguments are perfectly valid as my understanding of reality is limited. However, I will say that for many years I lied to myself about the reasons I kept on eating dead animals that had lived all their life in a tiny cage and were (presumably) smarter than dogs.

At the end of the day do your best and try to be honest with yourself along the way. We are all connected and part of a greater oneness - even when we eat each other.

 

[JustATourist]

Please quote a scientific publication that says eggs in moderation are unhealthy.

Meta-analysis on the topic:

Egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: A meta-analysis


"In this meta-analysis of 14 studies involving 320 778 subjects, we found a positive association between egg consumption and the risk of CVD (the trend seemed to be more obvious in separated diabetes patients) and diabetes. Furthermore, the dose–response analyses was evident. An increment of 4/week of egg intake could possibly increase risk of CVD by 6% (40% in separated diabetes patients) and diabetes by 29%."


Eggs contain high amounts of dietary cholesterol and saturated fat, increasing LDL cholesterol, and so on.

Also, chicken and eggs are the animal products that require the most amount of deaths (unless you have backyard chickens who randomly lay eggs, then I see no ethical problems in eating those eggs), compared to everything else. And that's only the number of deaths, there is also the amount of suffering during their entire life, before getting killed, which happens in relatively small farms too.

So for anyone who doesn't have backyard chickens thinking of reducing animal suffering without going vegan or vegetarian, maybe consider avoiding chicken and eggs.

For a discussion and a summary of the debate in the literature on estimates of the average amount of animals killed in each industry:

http://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc

 

[Phantastica]

PART 1/3

Hey everyone! I've had a super busy week so was unable to respond to this thread until now This is post is divided up into 3 parts. I hope it will be meaningful for this community. Also, I would like to thank everyone for having such a respectful and intellectual discussion on this topic.

Hi Jagube Can you tell me in exactly which places/cities plant foods aren't available?

Pretty much anywhere excepting the tropics and the warmer Mediterranean climates.
For example, in Europe, only the southernmost parts of Spain grow food on a large, commercial scale in winter, and that's only through the use of intensive agriculture and plastics, so that the rest of the continent can enjoy relatively fresh tomatoes in January.

The photo you've posted is something new to me as I haven't seen this large-scale cultivation of plant-foods before. Very cool - thanks for sharing that
From what I understand, the food (grass, corn, soy, etc.) that is fed to livestock also doesn't grow all year round in such places. So one would still need to import food for the livestock, right?

Eggs are full of bad cholesterol and no amount of moderation makes them healthy.

That's not true.

I will list sources:

Y Levy, I Maor, D Presser, M Aviram. Consumption of eggs with meals increases the susceptibility of human plasma and low-density lipoprotein to lipid peroxidation. Ann Nutr Metab. 1996;40(5):243-51.


R M Weggemans, P L Zock, M B Katan. Dietary cholesterol from eggs increases the ratio of total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in humans: a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 May;73(5):885-91.

E. L. Richman, S. A. Kenfield, M. J. Stampfer, E. L. Giovannucci, J. M. Chan. Egg, red meat, and poultry intake and risk of lethal prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen-era: Incidence and survival. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2011 4(12):2110 - 2121.

E. L. Richman, M. J. Stampfer, A. Paciorek, J. M. Broering, P. R. Carroll, J. M. Chan. Intakes of meat, fish, poultry, and eggs and risk of prostate cancer progression. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010 91(3):712 - 721.

L. Radzevivcienė, R. Ostrauskas. Egg consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a case-control study. Public Health Nutr. 2012 15(8):1437 - 1441.


Z. Shi, B. Yuan, C. Zhang, M. Zhou, G. Holmboe-Ottesen. Egg consumption and the risk of diabetes in adults, Jiangsu, China. Nutrition 2011 27(2):194 - 198.


Steinmetz KA, Potter JD. Egg consumption and cancer of the colon and rectum. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1994 May;3(3):237-45.

Zhang J, Zhao Z, Berkel HJ. Egg Consumption and Mortality From Colon and Rectal Cancers: An Ecological Study. Nutr Cancer. 2003;46(2):158-65.


Tse G, Eslick GD. Egg consumption and risk of GI neoplasms: dose-response meta-analysis and systematic review. Eur J Nutr. 2014 Oct;53(7):1581-90.


There are hundreds more studies on effects of egg consumption that I haven't included here in hopes that the amount of studies provided above will be sufficient enough to encourage further exploration on your own.

The best you can do is eat it with plants to counter the negative effects of egg-consumption

Plant based foods are notoriously low in certain nutrients, the best you can do is eat them with animal products to make sure you're getting everything.

Could you please cite your source? Because as per this source, and this source, plants reduce the ill effects of LDL cholesterol. It is an established medical fact that 1) LDL cholesterol is unhealthy and 2) Animal products raise LDL cholesterol levels.

The problem is many people eat mostly animal products and not enough plant foods. That doesn't mean animal products are unhealthy. The whole idea of 'unhealthy' foods in an absolute sense, without any qualifiers or quantifiers, is wrong. There is no such thing as an unhealthy food. Even Coke is not unhealthy; it contains water, which can save your life when you're severely dehydrated. So there are situations when Coke is a very healthy thing.

I agree that coke can save a life of someone in a desert. But that doesn't make it healthy. It simply means that it had enough nutrients to help one survive that particular situation. The whole point of research into nutrition is to discover the optimal diet - i.e. the diet on which the human body performs the best. Would you still drink a coke if healthy alternatives are available? We have choices in our modern world.

The thing is Jagube, we're not killing for food (i.e. survival). We're killing for taste and convenience. Moreover, these animals aren't living "in nature." They're being bred on a mass scale for the sole purpose of being slaughtered.

We're killing for our own health, and you just said you're ok with prioritizing our health and would do it yourself...Our desire to live and be healthy justifies killing.

If you sincerely believe that meat is good for your health and that you are eating meat for health purposes, then that's fine. I must point out however that it is a misinformed opinion that is counter to what the majority of medical research shows. We can exchange research studies if you'd like. I can guarantee that for every 1 research study you find showing that meat is healthy, I will find 3 that show that it is unhealthy. The balance of medical literature is heavily in favor of plant-based diet.

I would also like to ask a question - Do you think that one can live a healthy life on a plant-based diet (if one tried)?

How the animals live depends on where our meat comes from... it can be anything from cages to free-range farms (which are close to nature) to wild game.

This brings me back to the ethical component of the issue. I'm proposing that even if an animal lived a good life, killing is still unjustified, because alternatives are available.
Also, why is it called wild "game"?

I know I'll eventually be eaten by bacteria or worms and I don't see any injustice in this.

I agree there's absolutely no injustice in this, because here, there is no purposeful infliction of pain or death.

I'm still really interested to know what you think about eating aphids, as they are basically parthenogenetic clones which, left unchecked, would kill my plants off.

I think killing the aphids in this situation is justified because they are threatening your food production, which you need for sustenance. For the same reason, killing a mosquito that is sucking your blood or spreading typhoid is justified in my opinion. Cows, chickens and pigs on the other hand are innocent beings who did nothing wrong to us to deserve the fate we have decided for them.

I went vegan for all three reasons - but chiefly the environment - plus an element of peer-group conformity. As we shared a lot of our food anyhow this was a straightforward thing to do. We would eat non-vegan food that was salvaged from skips (dumpsters), though. I still prefer to eat a plant based diet but my garden is not yet up to speed to realise this to its fullest extent.

That's amazing I wish you and your garden all the luck for realizing it's fullest extent!

I gave up veganism when I went to a Greek Easter party. There was a roast lamb there. It was simply heavenly. It made me realise I had been being dogmatic unto myself and that this form of neurosis had caused my health to suffer. It was with a great sense of relief that I realised I could participate in social eating in a context beyond my otherwise limited range of interactions.

The social aspect can be a genuine concern. I've lived in some Eastern European countries where the primary diets are meat-based and it was difficult for me to eat out with friends due to this.
I'm interested to know how exactly your health suffered? Was it a nutrition deficiency, lowered social interactions, or psychological neurosis?

Can you provide some food examples of what doesn't look like "plastic-packed industrial crap dross"?

Regarding "crap dross", if it comes in a packet with ingredients on it that tends to be a bit of a giveaway. Some of it does taste nice, though But to answer the actual question, do you really want me to post photo's of the fruit and veg available at my local weekly market, or some of the farms and smallholdings in my area?

Hehe, the goal of that question was to point out that only fruits and vegetables don't look like pre-packaged crap. I support fruits and vegetables

I find this odd based on all the research into nutrition I've looked into. If you simply browse through the Google Scholar search results (1.7 million search results), you will find a huge majority of research studies confirming that animal products are in fact unhealthy.

I generally tend to trust evidence that I have seen with my own eyes in human bodies over generalized statistics & surveys. It is really easy for information to be skewed in scientific experiments. Also the number of hits you get in a search engine is not really a compelling number to me, sorry.

Hi Urtica, the research is not random statistics and surveys. These are randomized, double-blind, control-group and peer-reviewed scientific studies published in prestigious medical journals. Perhaps clinical herbalism follows a different protocol, but any true scientific endeavor must rest on a foundation established by the scientific method.

Also, it's apparent that the 1.7 million search results are not representative of the actual number of research studies into this field. However, if you simply browse through the first 10 pages, you will find that a vast majority of research shows that meat is unhealthy. Check it out yourself and please tell me if I'm wrong.

Research has shown that blood sugar regulation is not caused by carbohydrates, but rather because of the clogged arteries (caused by meat and dairy). The clogged arteries make the break down and absorption of carbohydrates inefficient, which leads to diseases like diabetes.

I would be really curious to know where you found this research.

Here are my sources:

Greger, M.D, Michael "What Causes Insulin Resistance?" NutritionFacts.org video. Volume 33. January 6th, 2017


"Diet and Diabetes: Recipes for Success". Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine


Barnard, Neal, et al "Meat Consumption as a Risk for Diabetes". Nutrients. 2014 Feb: 6(2) 897-910


InterAct Consortium, B Bendinelli, D Palli, G Masala, SJ Sharp, MB Schulze, M Guevara, AD van der, F Sera, P Amiano, B Balkau, A Barricarte, H Boeing, FL Crowe, CC Dahm, G Dalmeijer, B de Lauzon-Guillain, R Egeberg, G Fagherazzi, PW Franks, V Krogh, JM Huerta, P Jakszyn, KT Khaw, K Li, A Mattiello, PM Nilsson, K Overvad, F Ricceri, O Rolandsson, MJ Sánchez, N Slimani, I Sluijs, AM Spijkerman, B Teucher, A Tjonneland, R Tumino, SW van den Berg, NG Forouh, C Langeberg, EJ Feskens, E Riboli, NJ Wareham. Association between dietary meat consumption and incident type 2 diabetes: the EPIC-InterAct study. Diabetologia. 2013 Jan;56(1):47-59


M Peppa, T Goldberg, W Cai, E Rayfield, H Vlassara. Glycotoxins: a missing link in the "relationship of dietary fat and meat intake in relation to risk of type 2 diabetes in men". Diabetes Care. 2002 Oct;25(10):1898-9

Equally compelling research has shown this to not be true, and indeed the concept that fat clogs the arteries has been largely discredited in favor of the idea that inflammation leads to clogged arteries, often from sugars in the diet and indeed from pro inflammatory oils such as vegetable oil. Some animal fats (fish oil & grass fed cow/lamb fat) actually reduce inflammation in the body and can be helpful with clogged arteries.

Many research studies have established that meat and dairy cause inflammation in the body. Some of the studies linked above in regards to the association between meat and diabetes discusses this. But I'll quote from How Not To Die by Michael Greger and list the source below:

Certain foods, such as meats, appear to harbor bacteria that can trigger inflammation dead or alive, even when the food is fully cooked. Endotoxins are not destroyed by cooking temperatures, stomach acid, or digestive enzymes, so after a meal of animal products, these endotoxins may end up in your intestines. They are then thought to be ferried by saturated fat across the gut wall into your bloodstream, where they can trigger the inflammatory reaction in your arteries.

Erridge C. The capacity of foodstuffs to induce innate immune activation of human monocytes in vitro is dependent on food content of stimulants of Toll-like receptors 2 and 4. Br J Nutr. 2011;105( 1): 15– 23.

Hey dragonrider, I agree that egg and dairy production doesn't have to involve torture. However this is not a theoretical dilemma, because a large majority of eggs and dairy come from factory farms. Even most free-range farms are not cruelty-free, because at the end of the day, they are companies, and their bottom line is maximizing profit.

That argument could be used against any labelled vegan product too

Certainly! However, unlike a vegan company, if a meat/dairy company tries to maximize profit, they will place their animals in smaller cages, have a faster turnover of slaughters, etc. - and that is exactly what happens.

Hi Jagube Can you tell me in exactly which places/cities plant foods aren't available?
And if you don't mind sharing, where is it that you live where you can't find plant foods?

I dont think he meant food isnt available, but rather that it needs to be imported or grown in resource-intensive greenhouses

Yes I had misunderstood Jagube.

On the other hand as a counter argument, if he lives in a place where greenhouses or importing of plants are needed in winter, then probably for the animals this is the same

Indeed - the same thing came to my mind. In fact, a larger amount of food would need to be imported in comparison to if the food was only imported for humans. This is because "energy decreases as it moves up trophic levels, since energy is lost as metabolic heat when the organisms from one trophic level are consumed by organisms from the next level."

Natural isnt necessarily good and genetical selection isnt necessarily bad. Pretty much ALL the plants you eat have also been genetically selected. Have you ever seen how corn originally was?

True - most of the plant foods (if not all) are genetically selected. I agree that genetic selection isn't necessarily bad - I have no problem with this. I only have problem with pain, suffering and death. For example, "broiler" chickens are genetically selected to grow so big and fast (in addition to receiving growth-promoting drugs) that by the end of 6 weeks, they can barely walk or stand under their own weight. Their legs often break beneath them and this rapid growth is associated with acute heart failure.

I would choose the option which I scientifically know to be healthier, yes, because the need to be healthy is inherent within us. Also, it's not that I would choose my personal health over the suffering of another being. That depends. If I had to eat unhealthy french fries to save the life of a chicken, I would do that.

I think you are contradicting yourself there. First you say that you chose the healthier option, but then you say you would chose an unhealthy option for the life of a chicken. I also think this is the black and white thinking some people mentioned earlier. If you are eating french fry from mcdonalds vs, say, chicken frmo your neibhbour, i'd wager that you caused more suffering to the planet (including animals and humans), but at face value it may seem otherwise.

I was unclear in my communication and typed in a manner that seems contradicting. Allow me to clarify - I prefer eating a healthy diet because it is an inherent drive within me. However, I believe that love is also an inherent drive within me. It is a matter of balancing the two drives. If I had to choose between a salad and fries, I would choose salad (this is my inherent drive to be healthy). If I had to choose between fries and killing a chicken, I would choose fries (this is my inherent drive of love and empathy). Being human often involves choosing the best out of given options while managing our various number of inherent drives, desires and emotions.

Ive linked earlier a research that has shown that diet that includes some meat is as healthy as a vegetarian diet, no differences noticed.

Yes mate, I've looked at the studies you've linked - they're interesting. I will re-state though that since research in this field often reaches opposite conclusions, it is important for us to take in to consideration the number of research studies from each side. If you browse through Google Scholar pages, you will find out very quickly that the majority of research shows that meat and dairy are associated with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, atherosclerosis and a host of other problems.

But the research you linked actually shows:

eating a lot of meat is neither associated with health. Some studies (e.g. 1 , 2 ) Ive read have pointed people can be healthy with a vegan and vegetarian diet (in some cases it even offers protective effects), though it seems a bit harder with vegan diet since special care must be taken to supplement vitamin b12, omega3 fatty acids and other nutrients

Having established that meat and dairy are not necessary for health, we are brought back to to the ethical component of the issue.

Also, any kind of diet runs the risks of nutritional deficiencies - wouldn't you say? So eating meat doesn't mean that one is not risking nutritional deficiencies.

Depends on which deficiencies. Generally vegan diets are low on vitamin b12, heme iron, and omega 3 (DHA/EPA).. Where do you get those from, if I may ask?

Actually it's not as low as propaganda from meat and dairy industries make it out to be. I get my nutrients from any of the below-listed sources:

Vitamin B12: Mushrooms, Nutritional Yeast, Soy, Tofu, Fortified foods, Seaweed, and B12 Supplements

Iron: Soybeans, Lentils, Spinach, Tofu, Chickpeas, Tempeh, Lima beans, Black-eyed peas, Swiss chard, Kidney beans, Black beans, Pinto beans, Turnip greens, Potato, Prune juice, Quinoa, Beet greens, Tahini, Peas, Cashews, Bok choy, Raisins, Apricots, Watermelon, Kale, Sunflower seeds, Broccoli, Millet, Soy yogurt, Tomato juice, Sesame seeds, Brussels sprouts, etc.

Omega-3's: Soy, Kale, Chia Seeds, Basil, Mint, Walnuts, Flaxseeds, Oatmeal, Brussel Sprouts, Pumpkin Seeds, Hemp Seeds, Mustard Oil, Seaweed, Beans, Winter Squash, Leafy Greens, Cabbage, Berries, Herbs and Spices, Mangoes, Honeydew Melon, etc.

Eggs are full of bad cholesterol and no amount of moderation makes them healthy.

Please quote a scientific publication that says eggs in moderation are unhealthy.

I have provided a list of sources above in response to Jagube.

The thing is Jagube, we're not killing for food (i.e. survival). We're killing for taste and convenience. Moreover, these animals aren't living "in nature." They're being bred on a mass scale for the sole purpose of being slaughtered.

Back to the ' technology isnt necessary for survival either and yet you are using it' argument.. We can all make choices, maybe you decide your choices for being a vegan help the planet, maybe someone else here eats just a bit of meat from local sources and never bought technology but only gets second hand product and they feel this is their way to contribute, etc... Maybe you eat french fries and think thats better than eating a local chicken, maybe someone else here decides eating local chicken is more sustainable. Its not clear IMO that being vegan = always the best way.

This is a good example endlessness. It's true that we all contribute in our own different ways. I believe that a vast majority of people are inherently good and do what they can.
People do have and should have freedom of choice in deciding if they want to contribute, and if so, how they want to contribute. I'm just saying that it is important to know what we are participating in and what the consequences of our actions will be. This way, we can make better decisions that are more aligned with our core values.

So a well-lived life justifies killing?
It sounds like you're saying that "humane killing" is okay (which is actually the biggest oxymoron), so I'll quote my previous response from this thread to get your views:

Do you or have you ever lived in a farm and had to deal with animals eating your garden, seen animals dying around you, predators killing other animals etc? It might change your views if you didnt yet and get to live through that for a while.

I haven't lived in a farm yet and I haven't seen animals dying around me either. I'm sure that it would change my views, although it might also desensitize me towards feeling empathy for these animals. In my current view, such desensitization wouldn't be a good thing.
I'd also like to mention that I do know people who are now vegan, who were raised on farms around dying animals.

The reason we dont eat humans id guess is not respect, but Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (and social taboo, which might both be connected).

This disease was unknown to me and I just looked it up. Thanks for sharing that. I agree that social taboo plays a big role and the prevention of disease may as well. Respect may even be a social construct, though I think Love is both - social construct and an inherent phenomenon. I'm not sure if I would eat humans if I was raised in a cannibalistic culture or not - all I can say is that right now (in my current culture and state of mind) I would not eat a dead human being, unless it was a desperate matter of survival (in which case I may or may not eat the dead human).

I do think you can love an animal and still eat it , and this happens routinely in many farms where people have connection to the animal and they sacrifice with utmost respect and eat the animal. If they didnt eat the animal, it would die a much worse death.. As an example a nexian once gave, he had a farm with cows, and he loved his cows and when time was right, he would kill them and that would be a lot of food for his whole family. Had he not killed them, they would get older and weak, some would break their leg crossing a river for example and die an agonizing death. If your aim is to diminish suffering, in that case, killing the animal to eat would not only diminish their suffering but also feed his whole family and in turn he wouldnt have to buy food which would mean further ecological costs and suffering for other lifeforms.

If it is for survival, I agree that one can love the animal and still eat it. If no other healthy alternative is available, I agree that one can love the animal and still eat it. But in our modern world (unlike in the example of the Nexian you mentioned), we do have healthy alternatives. In this case, if one was to kill a cow because he likes the way her leg tastes, it is not love. Is it?

I find this odd based on all the research into nutrition I've looked into. If you simply browse through the Google Scholar search results (1.7 million search results), you will find a huge majority of research studies confirming that animal products are in fact unhealthy.

That is a problematic and untrue sweeping generalization. Not all animal products are unhealthy, not all vegan products are healthy. French fries, as you mentioned yourself, contains trans fats which are very unhealthy. Fish contains fatty acids and protein and other nutrients which are very healthy, and if they aren't large fish that acumulated heavy metals, there is no evidence AFAIK that they are in any way unhealthy, and way more evidence it is very healthy. High fructose corn syrup is as vegan as it gets but isnt the most healthy food in the world.

There is absolutely no doubt that unhealthy vegan food exists - most such foods are processed foods, such as french fries and high-fructose corn syrup.
It is also true that fish for example contains some healthy nutrients. However, it is more important to look at the Risk to Benefit Ratio. Right now, fish (both farmed and wild-caught) have become sponges for mercury, PCB's and dioxins - and are thus associated with some serious diseases, as you're already aware of.
I haven't researched much into if fish is still healthy when no human toxins are introduced into the environment. I would love to see any study showing this or showing otherwise on the subject of the effects of fish (without toxins) on humans.
However, from what I have researched so far, I'm led to believe that such a thing as "non-toxic" fish doesn't exist anymore.

Research has shown that blood sugar regulation is not caused by carbohydrates, but rather because of the clogged arteries (caused by meat and dairy). The clogged arteries make the break down and absorption of carbohydrates inefficient, which leads to diseases like diabetes.
Could I ask you to watch the documentary What The Health to get your views on it?

Please link the mentioned research (not a documentary's take on said research)

I've provided a list of sources above in response to Urtica.

This is easy - First I'd try to save the animal. But given your two choices, I would kill the animal to end its misery, though that would be a very difficult and painful thing to do.

Yes it IS very painful, I've lived through that and am not sure it was actually the right choice in the end, at least the way it happened to me..

I'm sorry to hear that brother. It must've been very painful and difficult. You did your best to ease the suffering of this animal at the expense of a very difficult decision. I admire that.

That being said, as mentioned earlier, if diminishing suffering is the end goal, then quickly killing animals would make them suffer less than leaving them to be..

Yes quickly killing an animal is better than leaving it to suffer and letting it die a painful death.