Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have a question for people who are vegans for ethical reasons (this doesn't apply to people who are on that diet for medical reasons, of which i know a few).

Do you hold the same standards when eating vegetables. funghi or insects (if you do, i know some don't and some do). I.e. if you choose to rip a plant out of the ground, or grind up insects to use in bread for example, do you not feel the same way as when eating meat? As surely you're still growing these organisms for your own consumption. Is it not inherently the same?

"I'm a level 5 vegan--I don't eat anything that casts a shadow."

Y'know, I've heard some compelling arguments for Veganism before. I'm just a nipper compared to a lot of people in this thread, but I've heard the arguments too. Not just the health benefits and the ethical arguments either. Economically, switching to veganism as a species would save so much water, food and landmass that are currently used for livestock that we, as a species, would be far better off.

But, see, I never see vegans arguing that one. This thread has (perhaps predictably) run the usual trend: vegan tries to convert others, runs into resistance, becomes sanctimonious. Conversation spirals.

I'm not interested in veganism, personally. Like most others here, I don't care what anyone else eats, but cutting all animal products out of my life just doesn't appeal to me. It's a big sacrifice to change my lifestyle which ultimately wouldn't really benefit me. That is to say, I'm aware of the benefits and have chosen to pass on them.

However, I am curious about the benefits of BBQuary. Being a brit, there's not often excuse to BBQ, so health/flavour benefits of BBQuary are naturally rather exciting

I was once engaged to a vegan girl, that over the years transitioned to vegetarian to only eating meat occasionally.

To this day I don't eat that much meat compared to the average, but would never consider going full vegan. Too much work to make it work health wise.

Explain this to me then, if you would. If plants can't be exploited and do not feel pain (for the lack of a better term) why have they evolved numerous examples of defence over tens of thousands of years? We seen thorns, barbs, poisons, venoms etc. If plants are there to be eaten, why have they evolved these defences? There's even a poisonous tree in OZ: Excoecaria agallocha

I don't think vat grown is the answer. Because then there will be huge populations of cows and chickens that will need culling anyway. Its not like they're going to return to a feral existence.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I don't think vat grown is the answer. Because then there will be huge populations of cows and chickens that will need culling anyway. Its not like they're going to return to a feral existence.

The real question, is how would we humanely deal with the tens of billions of livestock animals (93.7 million cattle and 8.5 billion chickens in the US alone) left after we all theoretically switch to Veganism? These animals wouldn't exist in such massive numbers in the wild. And we would then deal with the additional pollution put out by replacement products for feathers and leather.

That's what I'm saying. It's just one 'band aid' after the other with humanity.

Inquisitor Gideon wrote:I have a question for people who are vegans for ethical reasons (this doesn't apply to people who are on that diet for medical reasons, of which i know a few).

Do you hold the same standards when eating vegetables. fungi or insects (if you do, i know some don't and some do). I.e. if you choose to rip a plant out of the ground, or grind up insects to use in bread for example, do you not feel the same way as when eating meat? As surely you're still growing these organisms for your own consumption. Is it not inherently the same?

I hate when people use this argument. A living, breathing animal is hardly similar to a vegetable! You can make a bond with an animal, they clearly have a limited range of emotions and are a little more intelligent than a carrot. You can keep a pet pig but I have yet to see someone keep a pet potato...

Now as someone who drinks milk I am a bit of a hypocrite in that cows definitely don't have a good life while they are producing that but to me is is better than just straight up eating them. I make sure all my eggs are free run though, not only do they taste so much better and are generally larger, I hate the idea of thousands of chickens crammed together in such small compartments pooping on each other and living awful lives. I don't really care about insects but I do tend to avoid stuff made from them for the most part.

Inquisitor Gideon wrote:Explain this to me then, if you would. If plants can't be exploited and do not feel pain (for the lack of a better term) why have they evolved numerous examples of defence over tens of thousands of years? We seen thorns, barbs, poisons, venoms etc. If plants are there to be eaten, why have they evolved these defences? There's even a poisonous tree in OZ: Excoecaria agallocha

Seriously? What do you think fruit is if not a specific evolution in order for the plant to pollinate itself. Plants that develop defenses like thorns and poison did not come around because it felt pain but because it was the best way to ensure it could reproduce without being destroyed.

I will be the first to recognize that people who go around proclaiming that all life is precious are going a bit ott, we are humans and we gotta eat! You also have to recognize that there is a huge difference between complex animal life that can feel pain, form personal attachments, and be oh so fluffy compared to fruit and veggies.

Apologies for the rant but this argument really frustrates me! When brussel sprouts start screaming when they get roasted let me know and I'll switch to a diet consisting only of dirt and shadows



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I don't think vat grown is the answer. Because then there will be huge populations of cows and chickens that will need culling anyway. Its not like they're going to return to a feral existence.

The real question, is how would we humanely deal with the tens of billions of livestock animals (93.7 million cattle and 8.5 billion chickens in the US alone) left after we all theoretically switch to Veganism? These animals wouldn't exist in such massive numbers in the wild. And we would then deal with the additional pollution put out by replacement products for feathers and leather.

I think I would be fine with eating vat grown meat, seems like a pretty nifty way around the ethical situation.

I don't think anyone (other than one) in this thread is suggesting we stop eating all meat completely just that it wouldn't hurt to tone down the level at which we consume meat products. We have complete control over how much cows and chickens breed and could very easily slow their population growth down over the course of a couple of decades, no one is advocating we just stop eating meat and then immediately kill 10 billion animals to save some space!

The pollution point is interesting though. I wonder if producing faux leather and replacements for stuff like gelatin would be worse for the environment than all those fields of stinky cows?

Just sounds hypocritcal to me, that's all. You're placing different values on different forms of life just because it happens to be fluffier to you.

Going vegan is really hard work. I would be surprised if 1 out of 10 people in this thread actually possess the discipline to reconfigure their diet in such a way. I wonder if some of the backhanded comments stem from awareness of this inadequacy. Veganism is too extreme for me, after trying it and failing years ago, vegans earned a new respect in my eyes. If the hard choices reflect ethical awarness all the better, even more respect.

Inquisitor Gideon wrote:Just sounds hypocritcal to me, that's all. You're placing different values on different forms of life just because it happens to be fluffier to you.

Vegetarians are natural hypocrites, we don't eat animals because we love 'em but happily drink their milk and eat their eggs! My point was just that the differences between intelligent animals and veggies are so many that it is a pretty unfair argument to make that we should treat everything equally. I doubt even the staunchest vegan sheds a tear when they cut their grass or trim their hedges for example...

AesSedai wrote:Going vegan is really hard work. I would be surprised if 1 out of 10 people in this thread actually possess the discipline to reconfigure their diet in such a way. I wonder if some of the backhanded comments stem from awareness of this inadequacy. Veganism is too extreme for me, after trying it and failing years ago, vegans earned a new respect in my eyes. If the hard choices reflect ethical awarness all the better, even more respect.

Yeah I tried going full vegan for a week and even that was tough. Making your own meals is easy enough once you get into the swing of things but the real hard part for me was going out with friends and finding that your food menu had shrunk by 90%. I totally get the backlash, trying to convince people to go a month without trousers would probably be better received

I guess that's why i can't take ethical vegetarians and vegans truly seriously. Far too much flip flopping about based on beliefs and ideals. I hope it works for you, but it's done nothing to give me any real inclination to try it.

Fair enough, I'm not out to guilt anyone into changing their lifestyle I just wanted to explain my reasoning for it since you asked.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Y'know, I've heard some compelling arguments for Veganism before. I'm just a nipper compared to a lot of people in this thread, but I've heard the arguments too. Not just the health benefits and the ethical arguments either. Economically, switching to veganism as a species would save so much water, food and landmass that are currently used for livestock that we, as a species, would be far better off.

But, see, I never see vegans arguing that one. This thread has (perhaps predictably) run the usual trend: vegan tries to convert others, runs into resistance, becomes sanctimonious. Conversation spirals.

This is a much more interesting topic to discuss for sure and more productive also. I wish I could find the map of land usage in the states the showed up in this forum a few months back. The amount of farmland used for cattle is insane and the resources the animals consume even more so.

My stepson has been a hardcore vegan for about a decade now. He's been healthy, and doesn't spend a ton on food. He also has never felt the need to proselytize his lifestyle either, if he didn't come to stay with us now and then I imagine I'd have no idea what he ate. So it is possible to be a vegan without being a jerk.

This is not a lifestyle that I myself could live, however. I would be utterly miserable without steak. I understand that the beef I eat is doing enormous damage to the world we live in, but I guess I don't care enough; or at least I rationalize it in some morally indifferent way.

It is totally possible. There's a guy at work who's vegan and he gets no end of s**t for it from the rest of us, but I respect him because he doesn't lord it over everyone else or try to convert people.

 Commander Cain wrote:

This is a much more interesting topic to discuss for sure and more productive also. I wish I could find the map of land usage in the states the showed up in this forum a few months back. The amount of farmland used for cattle is insane and the resources the animals consume even more so.

However, a lot of the land used for grazing cattle is marginal land that can't be put to much use in other ways because it is not fertile enough for crops or desirable enough for Human habitation. If we stopped keeping animals entirely a lot of the world's landmass would suddenly become largely worthless. But overall I would say that we currently do dedicate too much land to livestock, which is damaging natural habitats. However, the underlying problem beneath is not the keeping of livestock itself, but rather the fact that the world is rapidly getting overpopulated.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
However, I am curious about the benefits of BBQuary. Being a brit, there's not often excuse to BBQ, so health/flavour benefits of BBQuary are naturally rather exciting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbecue_in_North_Carolina, specifically the eastern NC style. The primary benefits are taste and spiritual correctness. Be sure not to confuse proper BBQ with that awful spicy ketchup garbage that western heretics call "BBQ" and often put on dead cows. That heresy is almost as sure a path to damnation as being a smug vegan.

How much of our meat production is for our pets? Or is there a good alt for them?

Just wondering - I know the PETA loons want to take them away from us but I assume that without meat production a number of animals will become quite scarrce if they are no use to us?

Meat is too delicious to give up

Man, the lack of honest engagement in this thread is crazy. I'm about one page of nonsense away from locking it.

I'm not arguing for or against vegans. I've known vegans. I eat meat. We've all heard the jokes:

How do you know someone's a vegan?
Don't worry, they'll flipping tell you.
(You can replace vegan with Crossfitter, runner, and a few other activities)

But if you're going to comment in this thread, either honestly engage or go visit Kilkrazy's thread on cheese.

Iron_Captain wrote:But overall I would say that we currently do dedicate too much land to livestock, which is damaging natural habitats. However, the underlying problem beneath is not the keeping of livestock itself, but rather the fact that the world is rapidly getting overpopulated.

A fact I already pointed out on page 2. Any efforts made to reduce livestock in favour of vegetarian diets without also controlling our population are at best a stop-gap measure.

And if we've gotten our act together enough to control our population, there's no reason we can't control it enough to be able to still have the occasional steak or bacon - even steaks and bacon without excessive animal suffering (the problem there being capitalist corporatism, not ecology).

So yeah, while I applaud the efforts of vegans to save the world, IMO they're at best misguided, at worst presenting a false solution to a very real problem.

 daedalus wrote:
Is BMI still the only standard, or is there any credence given to BMI adjusted by waist size?

I need to know so that I can determine if I need to completely give up on flavor.

Actually BMI is such a horrible standard that the Marines have stopped using it in favor of body fat ratio. The BMI scale at the low end is so tight that the difference between underweight and overweight is about 10 pounds. At the upper end of the scale that difference is 60 pounds. A 6'4" male at 220# is considered "Overweight", regardless of his fat ratio. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is considered to be morbidly obese according to his BMI alone.

 helgrenze wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Is BMI still the only standard, or is there any credence given to BMI adjusted by waist size?

I need to know so that I can determine if I need to completely give up on flavor.

Actually BMI is such a horrible standard that the Marines have stopped using it in favor of body fat ratio. The BMI scale at the low end is so tight that the difference between underweight and overweight is about 10 pounds. At the upper end of the scale that difference is 60 pounds. A 6'4" male at 220# is considered "Overweight", regardless of his fat ratio. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is considered to be morbidly obese according to his BMI alone.

Yeah, but Dwayne Johnson is almost at the point where he is so big that it is still unhealthy, even if it is muscle. That said, BMI is still garbage and is only useful for non athletes/weight lifters as a rough estimate.

 trexmeyer wrote:

Spoiler:

 helgrenze wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Is BMI still the only standard, or is there any credence given to BMI adjusted by waist size?

I need to know so that I can determine if I need to completely give up on flavor.

Actually BMI is such a horrible standard that the Marines have stopped using it in favor of body fat ratio. The BMI scale at the low end is so tight that the difference between underweight and overweight is about 10 pounds. At the upper end of the scale that difference is 60 pounds. A 6'4" male at 220# is considered "Overweight", regardless of his fat ratio. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is considered to be morbidly obese according to his BMI alone.

Yeah, but Dwayne Johnson is almost at the point where he is so big that it is still unhealthy, even if it is muscle. That said, BMI is still garbage and is only useful for non athletes/weight lifters as a rough estimate.

How so?
No snark, no ulterior motive, just curious.

 War Drone wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

Spoiler:

 helgrenze wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Is BMI still the only standard, or is there any credence given to BMI adjusted by waist size?

I need to know so that I can determine if I need to completely give up on flavor.

Actually BMI is such a horrible standard that the Marines have stopped using it in favor of body fat ratio. The BMI scale at the low end is so tight that the difference between underweight and overweight is about 10 pounds. At the upper end of the scale that difference is 60 pounds. A 6'4" male at 220# is considered "Overweight", regardless of his fat ratio. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is considered to be morbidly obese according to his BMI alone.

Yeah, but Dwayne Johnson is almost at the point where he is so big that it is still unhealthy, even if it is muscle. That said, BMI is still garbage and is only useful for non athletes/weight lifters as a rough estimate.

How so?
No snark, no ulterior motive, just curious.

Officially he is 6'5" 260#, which is down from his peak of, I think 285, so his current bmi is @31 which still puts him in obese territory. At his age, 46, it becomes harder to maintain muscle and can lead to other health issues, like heart issues. Look at how the bodies of Stallone, Schwarzenegger, and others have changed over the years.

Back on topic:
Before making ANY major changes to your diet, even for a month, it is best to consult with your doctor and any other professionals they may suggest. This would fall under the heading of what the OP would list as "Educate yourself".

 AesSedai wrote:
The only thing I'm assuming is that people generally prefer being alive to being dead.

Be careful with that assumption. I'd rather die in my fifties living a happy life instead of living to ninety being miserable eating nothing but vegetables.

(A point to consider: I'm 47 now...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This morning Radio 4 had Martha Lane Fox going around San Francisco talking various tech entrepreneurs. One of them was a guy whose company "Finless Foods" is trying to vat grow salmon and tuna.

I do wonder what will happen to all the farm animals if the world ever does move to vat grown meat and fish.

They get slaughtered and buried. The whole point of raising farm animals is for slaughter and eating. Farmers aren't going to pay to keep vast numbers of farm animals alive if there's no payoff for them.

I suppose the milk cows and laying hens will be kept, but that's about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Y'know, I've heard some compelling arguments for Veganism before. I'm just a nipper compared to a lot of people in this thread, but I've heard the arguments too. Not just the health benefits and the ethical arguments either. Economically, switching to veganism as a species would save so much water, food and landmass that are currently used for livestock that we, as a species, would be far better off.

Well, yes... and no.

Yes, a lot of land that could be used for growing edible plants is used for raising animals instead, for less nutritional yield. However, there's also a lot of land that is not useful for growing edible plants, but CAN be used for raising various animals. Here in the central valley of New Mexico we're in a high plateau desert. Get very far away from the Rio Grande and there's not enough water for farming, but you can still raise cattle. There's quite a lot of land like that around the world. So while there's a morsel of truth to your statement, it's not the WHOLE truth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Commander Cain wrote:
This is a much more interesting topic to discuss for sure and more productive also. I wish I could find the map of land usage in the states the showed up in this forum a few months back. The amount of farmland used for cattle is insane and the resources the animals consume even more so.

Just make sure you separate 'land that can be farmed but is instead used for animals' and 'land that can't be farmed and is only useful for grazing'.

Yeah there is a bunch of land that is pretty much useless on this continent other than for cattle but we are still pumping a heap of freshwater and grains to those spots to feed the animals which I think is the main issue.


And you are making it sound like the whole planet is going to go vegan instantly meaning we have to kill all the extra animals but I do not think we are ever going to cut out meat entirely from our diets. I bet that as meat alternatives grow in popularity then we will see a steady decrease in cow/pig/chicken populations over the next few decades . Perhaps hundreds of years from now these animals will be confined to just petting zoos and the occasional farmhouse but nothing as drastic as you are describing.

 War Drone wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

Spoiler:

 helgrenze wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Is BMI still the only standard, or is there any credence given to BMI adjusted by waist size?

I need to know so that I can determine if I need to completely give up on flavor.

Actually BMI is such a horrible standard that the Marines have stopped using it in favor of body fat ratio. The BMI scale at the low end is so tight that the difference between underweight and overweight is about 10 pounds. At the upper end of the scale that difference is 60 pounds. A 6'4" male at 220# is considered "Overweight", regardless of his fat ratio. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is considered to be morbidly obese according to his BMI alone.

Yeah, but Dwayne Johnson is almost at the point where he is so big that it is still unhealthy, even if it is muscle. That said, BMI is still garbage and is only useful for non athletes/weight lifters as a rough estimate.

How so?
No snark, no ulterior motive, just curious.

Too which one, BMI or Dwayne Johnson? The Dwayne one is simpler, there's simply a limit to how big people can get (it varies based on the person ofc) even if it muscle mass without the extra weight having an impact on their health. Factor in that he's likely been on some kind of PEDs for the last decade and the unknown risks of that.

Bran Dawri has been the only poster that has hit the bullseye.

I am a farmer.

I have spent well over a decade with Vegetarians and their friends and have learned to defend myself from aggressive attack. Most of which are based partially on misconceptions.

I ethically OPPOSE any type of vegetarianism. As Commander Cain has pointed out truthfully, most of our herd land is useless for much of anything else. AND we do use vast resources to maintain those herds. However 90%+ vegi-whatevers will use lame in false claims that we are wasting said land and should use it to grow veggies.

Some facts.

Vegetarians rarely survive on vegetables....in fact many it is a tiny portion to their diet.

Bacon has all 21 Amino acids in 1 slice. Almost no plant material has more than 1 or 2. AND in NO place on the planet was all available from plant sources.

Research has shown Broccoli and brassica plants can feel pain for up to 28 days after being cut.

90% of food volume in the NA continent does NOT require pollination. So if it comes down to bees or not....my Vegetable farm is on the cutting block...it is simple numbers people. [yeah we covered overpopulation already....looking at you non-western world]

GMO is everywhere. Even the EU that bans GMO has like 44 GMO approved items. Your sugar cane...gmo....your sugar beets...gmo....your Corn sugars....gmo. So guess what.....you eat sugar....in ANYTHING...except in rare circumstances....you eat GMO

GMO is the ONLY possible way to feed our growing population

SUSTAINABLE FARMING.....real sustainable....requires FIVE times the land mass to even have a hope to replicate conventional farming production. If you cant math it up.....that means having a much larger human footprint on the planet....much larger. {a poor path to choose for everyone}

Ive employed hundreds of hard workers.....Some of my nicest and most enjoyable to socialize with are your vegans, vegetarians, regular health nuts, body fitness guys, etc. YOU know what they all have in common.....NONE of them can output as much as your average junk food guy/gal. Yes ....they can put out about 80 hours a week and once in a while 90....but ask them to do that for several weeks....and NONE have been able to. I have handsful of junk food guys who do it easily.

My vegetarian EX, her vegetarian friends and some of my vegetarian kids have health issues. I blame their diet. My son grew up that way. He changed to a normalized diet. He is one of the healthiest in our family. The people who said I ate crap....are now in health problems. Most teenagers cannot keep up with me.

EATING is not as important as what you do with your body. We sleep, We sit while we eat, we sit while we drive, we sit at work, we come home and sit and watch tv. It is rare for the average person not to be a 20 hour sedentary beluga whale. 2 hours at a gym a day will not fix that.

You can put the best fuel and fluids in your car.....if you drive it like crap you will tear it up and ruin it. Same with your body. Keep moving...and it wont matter much what you eat.

Try not to eat too much acid.....keep balance as others have said and DONT STRESS.....that is worse than any other thing.

If you STRESS over your diet....cant help ya....and not much probably will....those things will hurt your body way more than any good you think you are doing.

good luck....be nice