The Veganism Thread

[Odinson]

I'm rallying against the untruths of veganism.

 

1. It is not unethical to eat meat.

2. Veganism is not healthy.

3. Veganism is not better for the environment.

 

These are the three pillars supporting the vegan argument. They are myths.

 

My basic argument is that the massive human population explosion is the root cause of all the problems we are facing today, and not the fact that we eat meat.

 

In the same way that I have supported those three pillars, please do the same to base your claim that they are 'myths'. 

 

Regarding the population human population, this is irrelevant, no? Neither you nor I can make a difference in the fact that we'll be sitting at 10billion in 2050. I have yet to see any national or international organisation really start addressing curbing population growth. It's going to happen, unless some superbug or other global event results in a large die-off of the human population. 

 

So, if we accept that the population growth is going to happen, we cannot continue down the path of driving food habits based on animals. It is not ethical, healthy, or sustainable. 

[Edition 507]

I say it need not be so exponential if we ate less meat.......

money gears have turned so has the demand for meat ....

we can (like right here) try to change some ideals away from meat consumption.....

Growing animals in the worst conditions specifically to kill .......... 

I have extracted some valid points you have made for further discussion.

 

It is really only the middle to upper class or 'privileged' people that can adopt a vegan diet by choice. The lower class, the underclass and the poverty stricken don't actually give a flying f*ck for the environment, their day to day focus is essentially one of survival. These population strata are also the least educated and least educable. Unfortunately they are also the very humans that are causing the population explosion. So to say that we should eat less meat is very noble but pretty much pointless as the population segment that will hear your message, could afford to do this and is in a position to make this kind of ‘educated’ choice is so small as to be negligible.

 

Secondly, if we eat less meat our calorie intake will have to be supplemented with other foodstuffs. If it is plant based foodstuffs then we will have to eat so much more to equal the calorie dense value of meat. Eating more will mean growing more which means needing more arable land, more water etc. This is going to have a knock on effect on every single component of the food chain. This is not an inconsequential decision.

 

Thirdly, I do concede that the meat industry is not the nicest of industries but it has come about due to our success as humans in breeding and generating wealth. We could ensure that all meat is produced from natural, ethical, organic, sustainable, green and humane sources, but of course that would make meat unaffordable to all but the rich. It would also scale down the meat industry to a fraction of what it is today. So who has the right to place billions of people into a position of potential malnutrition, or to put millions of people out of a job?

 

Lastly, who has the right to determine whose ideals are to be adopted? Who has the right to even decide that someone’s ideals are wrong? Who has the right to impose their ideals on another? Essentially you are manipulating what people can or can’t eat or how they should spend their money. This is fundamentally Orwellian in concept.

 

Odinson are these your rights as a vegan?

Edited February 6, 2019 by 6th Mass Extinction

[Odinson]

I have extracted some valid points you have made for further discussion.

 

It is really only the middle to upper class or 'privileged' people that can adopt a vegan diet by choice. The lower class, the underclass and the poverty stricken don't actually give a flying f*ck for the environment, their day to day focus is essentially one of survival. These population strata are also the least educated and least educable. Unfortunately they are also the very humans that are causing the population explosion. So to say that we should eat less meat is very noble but pretty much pointless as the population segment that will hear your message, could afford to do this and is in a position to make this kind of ‘educated’ choice is so small as to be negligible.

 

I get where you're coming from with this approximation of Maslow's hierarchy, but you need to make the distinction between developed and developing countries. Those with little food security and those on the brink of starvation are mostly found in the developing countries. Developed countries are the main contributors to greenhouse gas emissions (incl. those from intense animal agriculture), so by having people in those countries switch to a plant-based diet will have a big benefit. So, no, I don't agree with your argument. 

 

Secondly, if we eat less meat our calorie intake will have to be supplemented with other foodstuffs. If it is plant based foodstuffs then we will have to eat so much more to equal the calorie dense value of meat. Eating more will mean growing more which means needing more arable land, more water etc. This is going to have a knock on effect on every single component of the food chain. This is not an inconsequential decision.

 

No, you're wrong. So much arable land is dedicated to livestock feed. Also, eating a plant-based diet does not mean stuffing your face the whole damn day. Three squares and that's it. 

 

Thirdly, I do concede that the meat industry is not the nicest of industries but it has come about due to our success as humans in breeding and generating wealth. We could ensure that all meat is produced from natural, ethical, organic, sustainable, green and humane sources, but of course that would make meat unaffordable to all but the rich. It would also scale down the meat industry to a fraction of what it is today. So who has the right to place billions of people into a position of potential malnutrition, or to put millions of people out of a job?

 

If I sent you back in time, would you have also rallied against the machines with the Luddites or bemoaned the coach horse breeding business when the car was brought to market? Markets evolve over time and the same will be for changes in consumer demands. Many farmers are already preparing for these kinds of changes.   

 

Lastly, who has the right to determine whose ideals are to be adopted? Who has the right to even decide that someone’s ideals are wrong? Who has the right to impose their ideals on another? Essentially you are manipulating what people can or can’t eat or how they should spend their money. This is fundamentally Orwellian in concept.

 

Didn't we all collectively decide as modern societies that women should be allowed the vote, that homosexuality is not a crime and that people of colour should be afforded the same rights and opportunities as their paler skinned brothers and sisters? Cultural values, norms and ideals shift over time. Same with diet. As we see the effects that our food choices have on our health, the planet and the animals, we are seeing greater social and ethical awareness of our food choices. It's not about dictating a moral path, it's about having people realise that our post-WWII food system is untenable.  

 

Odinson are these your rights as a vegan?

Edited February 6, 2019 by Odinson

[Dubber]

I'm not vegan and don't plan to be.  What people eat is their choice.  We can debate which diet is more healthy for humans and which is less damaging to the planet until the cows come home (see what I did there) - and whether these two points can co-exist.

 

The issue I have is that 'Veganism' is receiving a lot of mainstream media coverage at the moment.  This coverage is not simply because it is the 'best way to eat' - it is no more than Big Food running a media campaign to sell more processed food.

 

Walk into a supermarket, take away the one or two fridge isles containing meat and pretty much everything else in the store can be labeled as vegan.  (I'm not saying that a responsible vegan would eat all that crap, but from a marketing point of view it offers a whole lot more scope for Big Food to sell stuff).

 

If you are vegan or are considering the lifestyle, make sure you see through this bull, don't take all the propoganda at face value and make an informed decision.

[Patchelicious]

No sorry Odi. Women being allowed to vote, racial equality or homosexuality not being a crime, is a matter of equality. It’s a matter of freedom of choice, which is not the same as trying to turn everybody vegan.

 

Letting people choose their own diet is the same as letting them choose if they they want to vote, or letting them choose who they want to date.

 

I can see what you were trying to say, but those attempted approximations missed the mark a bit.

 

And honestly, using woman’s rights, racial equality or gay rights to substantiate a pro vegan stance is a little cheap.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Patchelicious

[Chris_]

I have extracted some valid points you have made for further discussion.

 

It is really only the middle to upper class or 'privileged' people that can adopt a vegan diet by choice. The lower class, the underclass and the poverty stricken don't actually give a flying f*ck for the environment, their day to day focus is essentially one of survival. These population strata are also the least educated and least educable. Unfortunately they are also the very humans that are causing the population explosion. So to say that we should eat less meat is very noble but pretty much pointless as the population segment that will hear your message, could afford to do this and is in a position to make this kind of ‘educated’ choice is so small as to be negligible.

 

Secondly, if we eat less meat our calorie intake will have to be supplemented with other foodstuffs. If it is plant based foodstuffs then we will have to eat so much more to equal the calorie dense value of meat. Eating more will mean growing more which means needing more arable land, more water etc. This is going to have a knock on effect on every single component of the food chain. This is not an inconsequential decision.

 

Thirdly, I do concede that the meat industry is not the nicest of industries but it has come about due to our success as humans in breeding and generating wealth. We could ensure that all meat is produced from natural, ethical, organic, sustainable, green and humane sources, but of course that would make meat unaffordable to all but the rich. It would also scale down the meat industry to a fraction of what it is today. So who has the right to place billions of people into a position of potential malnutrition, or to put millions of people out of a job?

 

Lastly, who has the right to determine whose ideals are to be adopted? Who has the right to even decide that someone’s ideals are wrong? Who has the right to impose their ideals on another? Essentially you are manipulating what people can or can’t eat or how they should spend their money. This is fundamentally Orwellian in concept.

 

Odinson are these your rights as a vegan?

 

Right, lets see. I find your first paragraph a bit of a mish mash of issues. Education of 'rich' people is an issue, still. Education of the poor brackets you mention are an even bigger issue. That's an entirely different debate and dare I say it - even more important. You could argue though that properly equipped better life decisions could be more easily made regardless of vegan/carnivore propaganda. Ultimately health is health and if you can't afford it, its lose lose. I think we can agree that if you're eating to survive, yes you eat what you can. But, lets not forget the barely-fit-for-human-consumption chicken that is thrust upon these bottom LSM people. IF you can only eat whatever is put in front of you, who's to blame? 'Educated' people at the top? You mentioned ethics as a main sticking point earlier. Lets also agree its impossible to nail down ethics, but perhaps globalization/corporate greed (we've covered this) is a good place to instill such common goals.

 

Also, I feel our conversational tactics change according to whom we have these debates with. I speak differently wrt cutting meat out with say my parents, my work colleagues, the Hub - maybe we speak a little generally at times but lets remember the context to which we say certain things. I assume everyone here is able to substitute cuts of meat for alternatives, I assume we're similarly bracketed near the top % of earners in this/most countries. If we challenge eachother its because we could constructively make a change, I'm going to help my maid (PC?) in other ways before I challenge her on changing food habits. 

 

In a roundabout way to answer your first point, I think the change needs to happen with the small group of have-it-alls, this/any way of life will flow down just because of the different choices we make in businesses and the broader community. When I now go to a church thing handing out food to the poor - I'm going to give them some veg creation as opposed a chicken leg and stodgy bread. If I'm fully committed to the veg cause it'll firstly taste delicious, and secondly perhaps change just one point of view. And one at a time is enough.

 

I think Odin's son answered your second point. Its just untrue. You simply don't need that much more to eat. If 1 vegan needs 1 piece of farm land to eat off. 1 meat eater needs 1 unit of land for their meat to live, and 6 parts of land for plants to grow to feed your animal. Grahams article was the first I'd seen disputing such facts to be honest, I'll read it properly soon, but you can surely see the multiplication of land usage to raise livestock? Again, this is the exponential point I've spoken through. I'm sure no efficiency - water usage, transport, land usage favours livestock over crops. 'Ethics' aside.

 

The jobs one is a challenge - to existing livestock farmers. But lets look at the industry that has sprung up filling the need for vegan products. Food science, veg protein products and the like is a rapidly growing space. So in a less personable but also far less defeatist way, I would say we're moving the jobs spectrum, its not just cutting thousands of livestock farmers out, its also creating a million new jobs which never existed before.

 

Lastly, no one has any right to tell you what to do. Nor do you have to listen to it. Lets keep this in topic because lets not forget thats exactly what a government is (?) humans deciding what other humans MUST do, (or face death... ) But regarding your diet. You do you. The point I raised about changing ideals was more in a sharing of info, and again challenging eachothers (perhaps) old staid belief system. You can never learn too much.

[cfcjim]

If you can't get on board with not eating animals (or their periods... I know, I know, avians are not mammals). Why not try this:

 

http://theworstthingsforsale.com/2019/02/06/the-no-food-astral-energy-diet/

 

[Odinson]

No sorry Odi. Women being allowed to vote, racial equality or homosexuality not being a crime, is a matter of equality. It’s a matter of freedom of choice, which is not the same as trying to turn everybody vegan.

 

Letting people choose their own diet is the same as letting them choose if they they want to vote, or letting them choose who they want to date.

 

I can see what you were trying to say, but those attempted approximations missed the mark a bit.

 

And honestly, using woman’s rights, racial equality or gay rights to substantiate a pro vegan stance is a little cheap.

 

This is my take on it. 

 

Those examples I used include an element of equality, but at their core it was about acknowledging that people from different backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, etc. all had the right to dignity, life, freedom of movement, etc. Abolitionism was not about slave holders - it was about the slaves. The suffragette movement was not about men, it was about the women. In the same way, veganism is not concerned with people - it's a social justice movement, an ethic, concerned with the plight of the oppressed, subjugated and exploited - the animals. In that way, veganism sets out to to have people acknowledge that the animals that we share this planet with have a basic right to life, dignity and freedom from exploitation. Once you view it from the perspective of the victims, you'll understand why I've made this comparison. 

 

I've alluded to this before, but in 2019, given what is going on, we cannot eschew social responsibility in favour of the unbridled freedom to choose what to eat. We have laws in place to prevent and prosecute people who choose to drink and drive, because we have collectively decided that it is socially irresponsible/dangerous to do so. Why should we not emphasize and entrench social responsibility in regards to our food system? 

[Patchelicious]

This is my take on it.

 

Those examples I used include an element of equality, but at their core it was about acknowledging that people from different backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, etc. all had the right to dignity, life, freedom of movement, etc. Abolitionism was not about slave holders - it was about the slaves. The suffragette movement was not about men, it was about the women. In the same way, veganism is not concerned with people - it's a social justice movement, an ethic, concerned with the plight of the oppressed, subjugated and exploited - the animals. In that way, veganism sets out to to have people acknowledge that the animals that we share this planet with have a basic right to life, dignity and freedom from exploitation. Once you view it from the perspective of the victims, you'll understand why I've made this comparison.

 

I've alluded to this before, but in 2019, given what is going on, we cannot eschew social responsibility in favour of the unbridled freedom to choose what to eat. We have laws in place to prevent and prosecute people who choose to drink and drive, because we have collectively decided that it is socially irresponsible/dangerous to do so. Why should we not emphasize and entrench social responsibility in regards to our food system?

Well I don’t agree, sorry.

 

You don’t need to grasp at these straws to make a good argument for veganism.

[Odinson]

Well I don’t agree, sorry.

 

You don’t need to grasp at these straws to make a good argument for veganism.

 

You don't have to. 

 

Like I said, my take. 

[Odinson]

I'm not vegan and don't plan to be.  What people eat is their choice.  We can debate which diet is more healthy for humans and which is less damaging to the planet until the cows come home (see what I did there) - and whether these two points can co-exist.

 

The issue I have is that 'Veganism' is receiving a lot of mainstream media coverage at the moment.  This coverage is not simply because it is the 'best way to eat' - it is no more than Big Food running a media campaign to sell more processed food.

 

Walk into a supermarket, take away the one or two fridge isles containing meat and pretty much everything else in the store can be labeled as vegan.  (I'm not saying that a responsible vegan would eat all that crap, but from a marketing point of view it offers a whole lot more scope for Big Food to sell stuff).

 

If you are vegan or are considering the lifestyle, make sure you see through this bull, don't take all the propoganda at face value and make an informed decision.

 

 

I'm a little bit perplexed by your concern regarding the media coverage surrounding veganism. I assume that you consider these foods to be unhealthy (or at least less healthy than non-vegan foods), otherwise why the concern? 

 

If Lay's tomorrow releases two new flavours of chips, one of which is vegan, is your concern only for the vegan one? 

 

Let's get some perspective on marketing spend: in 2017 McDonald's spent $1.5billion in the US alone on marketing, a big chunk of which is targeting children. Imagine what companies like Tyson, Cargill, Enterprise, Uvox, etc. spend on advertising processed meat products - a Class A carcinogen. Should that not be of more concerning than a small fry vegan cheese producer or burger joint getting coverage? 

 

When big producers and retailers start producing vegan product lines, you'll see some $ being spent on marketing, but very, very few vegan producers have the ability to compete with the big producers of meat, dairy, processed foods. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you that if someone is considering veganism or a plant-based diet, that they should go in with eyes wide open and do some research to make informed choices. 

[Odinson]

 

Unilever will debut vegan variants of all their ice creams: 

 

Ben & Jerry, Magnum, Ola, etc. 

 

For those who can Dutch / Google Translate: https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/economie/artikel/4600346/vegan-ijs-magnum-unilever-veganist-hip?fbclid=IwAR0d_qLEGvukjwpDXAG35xqp6Q-h7xFP4VsOCJvqK4UywOjknbWsbia-ALA

[Odinson]

Humans' meat consumption pushing Earth's biggest fauna toward extinction

 

 

At least 200 species of large animals are decreasing in number and more than 150 are under threat of extinction, according to new research that suggests humans' meat consumption habits are primarily to blame.

Findings published today in Conservation Letters involved a study of nearly 300 species of "megafauna."

Of those species' populations, 70 percent are in decline, and 59 percent of the species are threatened with disappearing from the globe, said the study's corresponding author, William Ripple, distinguished professor of ecology in the Oregon State University College of Forestry.

"Direct harvest for human consumption of meat or body parts is the biggest danger to nearly all of the large species with threat data available," Ripple said. "Thus, minimizing the direct killing of these vertebrate animals is an important conservation tactic that might save many of these iconic species as well as all of the contributions they make to their ecosystems."

Ripple and colleagues in the College of Forestry were part of an international collaboration that built a list of megafauna based on body size and taxonomy -- qualifying for the list were species unusually large in comparison to other species in the same class.

The mass thresholds the researchers decided on were 100 kilograms (220 pounds) for mammals, ray-finned fish and cartilaginous fish and 40 kilograms (88 pounds) for amphibians, birds and reptiles since species within these classes are generally smaller.

"Those new thresholds extended the number and diversity of species included as megafauna, allowing for a broader analysis of the status and ecological effects of the world's largest vertebrate animals," Ripple said. "Megafauna species are more threatened and have a higher percentage of decreasing populations than all the rest of the vertebrate species together."

Over the past 500 years, as humans' ability to kill wildlife at a safe distance has become highly refined, 2 percent of megafauna species have gone extinct. For all sizes of vertebrates, the figure is 0.8 percent.

"Our results suggest we're in the process of eating megafauna to extinction," Ripple said. "Through the consumption of various body parts, users of Asian traditional medicine also exert heavy tolls on the largest species. In the future, 70 percent will experience further population declines and 60 percent of the species could become extinct or very rare."

Nine megafauna species have either gone extinct overall, or gone extinct in all wild habitats, in the past 250 years, including two species of giant tortoise, one of which disappeared in 2012, and two species of deer.

"In addition to intentional harvesting, a lot of land animals get accidentally caught in snares and traps, and the same is true of gillnets, trawls and longlines in aquatic systems," Ripple said. "And there's also habitat degradation to contend with. When taken together, these threats can have major negative cumulative effects on vertebrate species."

Among those threatened is the Chinese giant salamander, which can grow up to 6 feet long and is one of only three living species in an amphibian family that traces back 170 million years. Considered a delicacy in Asia, it's under siege by hunting, development and pollution, and its extinction in the wild is now imminent.

"Preserving the remaining megafauna is going to be difficult and complicated," Ripple said. "There will be economic arguments against it, as well as cultural and social obstacles. But if we don't consider, critique and adjust our behaviors, our heightened abilities as hunters may lead us to consume much of the last of the Earth's megafauna."

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190206101055.htm

[Dubber]

I'm a little bit perplexed by your concern regarding the media coverage surrounding veganism. I assume that you consider these foods to be unhealthy (or at least less healthy than non-vegan foods), otherwise why the concern? 

 

If Lay's tomorrow releases two new flavours of chips, one of which is vegan, is your concern only for the vegan one? ....

 

 

You missing the point completely.  I'm not trying to justify one life choice over another.   What I'm saying is Veganism is going to get a bad rap down the road if Big Food is allowed to run its course.

 

Massive brands are promoting Veganism as a healthy lifestyle and that it is going to save the planet.  At the same time these brands are subtly trying to influence dietary guidelines throughout the world.  The Lancet paper is a prime example this propaganda.  

 

Down the road, these brands will then gladly add a 'Vegan Compliant' badge to their product.  So, your average consumer, having been bombarded with marketing hype that Veganism is the way to go, walks into the supermarket, sees your packet of Lays, chocolate bars, Ben and Jerry's (and every other piece of processed crap out there) with 'Vegan compliant' badges on them and gladly adds it to their basket thinking they are eating healthy and saving the planet.

 

As a vegan (which I assume you are) I would be concerned about this association.  

 

Your comment about McDonalds is exactly the point I'm trying to make.  You imply that McDonalds is branded as a meat product.  And probably a lot of their own marketing implies this too.  But in reality, apart from a piss williy piece of processed slosh that goes on the bun, there is hardly any meat involved with McDonalds.  So, everyone orders super sized McDonalds meals, gets fat and unhealthy and then blames the tiny piece of 'meat' on the bun.  This is exactly where Veganism is going to end up in 5 years time if Big Food is allowed to continue down this path.

 

As a genuine vegan eating whole natural foods (which I assume you are), I would be concerned about this path.

[Uni]

Woolies has come out with their range of meat imposter products.

 

Had the schnitzel tonight.. not bad.

 

 

[Eldron]

Meat imposter ????????????