I am a woman, a feminist, and a longtime vegan. Please understand that my critique of this aspect of PETA's efforts comes from a place of personal inquiry and research. I have no way to know if I am more or less susceptible to outside propaganda or discrediting efforts than you are. It shouldn't need to be said, but I am opposed to abuse of women within the AR movement and I don't knowingly support organizations that perpetuate it. That doesn't mean I need to support PETA's strategies if I consider them to also be harmful to women.
But in response to your final paragraph, have you seen this study? It challenges the belief that "sex sells" by studying the effectiveness of PETA's advertising specifically.
Have you read the classic feminist/vegan book by Carol J. Adams: The Sexual Politics of Meat?
This is ruder than it need be.
> In conclusion, it is better to be an ex-slaughterhouse worker who became an animal rights activist, than an eternally braying jackass who refuses to admit they made the wrong choice.
You have a really good essay here but, the tone is one that only appeals to vegans. If you're looking to convince people to stop eating animals you should aim to be more impartial.
humane
[hyoo-meyn or, often, yoo-]SynonymsExamplesWord* *OriginSee more synonyms on Thesaurus.comadjective
How is killing an animal, even quickly, in line with either of those definitions?
Would you say the same if you were your life on the line rather than the animals?
1. merciful, kind, kindly, kindhearted, tender, compassionate, gentle, sympathetic; benevolent, benignant, charitable. See human.
1. brutal.
The only word up there that seems appropriate to me in the context of bolt gunning an animal in the head is "brutal", which you will notice is listed under antonyms.
Because if everyone goes slow, we don't adapt fast enough, and many, many of us die, if not all of us. There was time to go slow 40+ years ago when we ignored the first alarm bell.
Today, we're having to deal with a climate-change hurricane that contaminated our drinking water with e. coli from uncontained pig feces. And that's only going to get worse.
Go slow if you want, but start tomorrow, and keep ramping it up and get your friends on board too.
forgot that theres a free app also https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.nutritionfacts.dailydozen&hl=en
>Neither of the links I posted were in any way related to veganism, and both identified risks.
Yeah we can refer to your link.
>https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fish/
So it lists a bunch of health benefits. Using that source, it's clear you are better off consuming seafood.
>http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/08/the-benefits-and-risks-of-eating-fish/index.htm
This is saying to avoid high mercury seafood.
So the takeaway from both of your links is that seafood is good for your health, as long as you avoid high mercury kinds.
>Which fats would they be specifically?
Do you actually want to know? I'll have to go grab that information.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/08/the-benefits-and-risks-of-eating-fish/index.htm
> Q: What are the risks?
> A: Some fish, such as king mackerel, shark, and swordfish, are consistently high in mercury, which can harm the nervous system of a fetus or young child. Certain other fish, including canned light tuna, are also occasionally high in that metal. While the health effects of sporadic exposure are unclear, our fish safety experts think that women who are pregnant, nursing, or may become pregnant, as well as young children, should take special precautions. The risk posed by mercury in fish to other people is less established, though in general the heavier you are the more fish you can eat. Certain other contaminants sometimes found in fish, such as dioxins and PCBs, have been linked to some cancers and reproductive problems. While it's unclear whether the levels typically found in fish pose health effects, a few types may have lower levels of those pollutants. For example, some studies suggest that wild salmon may contain less mercury than farmed salmon.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fish/
> Possible risks: Numerous pollutants make their way into the foods we eat, from fruits and vegetables to eggs and meat. Fish are no exception. The contaminants of most concern today are mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and pesticide residues. Very high levels of mercury can damage nerves in adults and disrupt development of the brain and nervous system in a fetus or young child. The effect of the far lower levels of mercury currently found in fish are controversial. They have been linked to subtle changes in nervous system development and a possible increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The case for PCBs and dioxins isn’t so clear. A comprehensive report on the benefits and risks of eating fish compiled by the Institute of Medicine calls the risk of cancer from PCBs “overrated.” (5)
So you're saying that LDL is bad no matter what? I was curious to see if the body cared much about what kind of cholesterol is used when it comes to producing hormones (everything I can find just says "cholesterol," so does that mean it will use either/both?), but I did come across this: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/expert-answers/cholesterol-level/faq-20057952
So it's likely that you want to avoid raising LDL, but shouldn't focus on lowering it, either (unless it's elevated, of course.) At any rate, my understanding is that physical activity and genetics have the largest influence on cholesterol levels, not diet. Maybe I'm wrong, though.
I'd argue it is not a concious organism. Sure it has human dna. But it has no awareness, it cannot function at all without the host's circulatory, respiratory, and other systems. Not to offend anyone but some call it a parasite. Id argue the early fetus is even less of a distinct organism because it dies the instant its removed from the host; it cannot exist independently. At least a tapeworm or flea has a mechanism to spread outside a host. If an early fetus is a clump of cells with human DNA and no awareness, is it morally any different than removal of a tumor or an appendix?
What makes a fertilized egg different than masturbation? Many fertilized eggs dont implant or they dont remain alive after implanting. Fertilization is not a guarantee cell division continues and a potential human develops. 10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage but number is far higher if you include unknown pregnancies & of eggs that didnt implant. Source
Don't do something that will cause you to have risky health problems.
Don't wait too long either though, it's no witchcraft. Maybe make an appointment with a dietician. And/or track your nutrient intake with cronometer.com.
Duckweed was recently found to contain large amounts of bioavailable B12. Three other plants were also found to contain the same in another study: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Isolation-and-analysis-of-vitamin-B-12-from-plant-Nakos-Pepelanova/3f8dd75cdfe6aece2b42bea3179c99d437cb97bc?p2df
Given how recent these findings are, how little knowledge we have about this, and the fact that multiple disparate plants have B12 makes it likely that other plants (and other organisms as well) also contain it.
I would wager foods like these would have been a more significant source of B12 than water and dirt. Although you raise an interesting point about gut bacteria, that aspect is also very underresearched.
I believe the OP was referencing the work of Will Kymlicka and Sue Donaldson in Zoopolis. Here's a link to an overview they wrote of their book -- you might need an academia.edu account to view.
> According to the 2012 USDA Census 97% of farms we're family farms with less than 10 stockholders
Yet, what percentage of total livestock come from the remaining percentage? Let's take a look at one part of the livestock industry.
I mean if you're eating too much of the same fruit I will totally agree that it is bad for you because you will end up missing out of one vitamin or the other, just really wanted to say that it's not the sugar that will do you in.
I agree, it's way easier to eat a balanced diet using both cooked and raw foods.
While what I said in the first sentence from this still applies, keep in mind bananas aren't really that crazy in potassium, with 12 medium bananas reaching about 108% of your DV, which honestly is pretty spot on. (looked up on cronometer). I couldn't how much potassium you would need to eat a day to get to toxic levels, but I'm willing to wager another 4 bananas a day wouldn't be a worry.
Well there's a ton of people who regularly fast, like even monthly. I fast intermittently but that's slightly different. I think more people should be fasting and a lot of our problems can be helped that way, but yeah I still eat cooked food.
Oh, boy. You actually believe the civil war was about freeing the slaves for some moral reason? Man, you're way behind.
No, you're just strawmanning me again. I was implying that culture is very cult-like, hence the word "cult" being contained within the word itself, as you can see. Never said you were in a cult.
I wasn't equating human slavery to animal agriculture, as I have already explained. I was using it as an example to illustrate how insane MORAL RELATIVISM is, not animal farming. You have a hard time following along, man.
thank you for making the point for me about ruminants making their own. yet another sign that they are what we are designed to eat. They take inedible shit from the ground and turn it into nutrition.
Here is the thing about B12... you are trying to make it seem like some of us just genetically absorb it better, but actually it takes B3 and calcium to also absorb it properly. Osteoporosis is a real danger for vegans because of this. Here is a great literature review, intended for nurses, to help them understand some of the risks of veganism. http://getliner.com/webpdf/web/viewer.html?file=34392da410aa6fa083e84705dad345e8217182ba.pdf
It does a good job of explaining that lack of animal products is clearly a factor in bone mineral density.
I have two goals in my carnivory: first is to be less of a burden on the health care system in old age (and I think vegans cost us $$ by being sickly in old age,) and second to be less of a burden on my family in old age. I am sure that since you are so well read you understand the statistics on high carbohydrate and alzheimers, as well as sarcopenia and it's effects in the elderly. Scary stuff.
Are we talking about amino acid profile ? If yes, all (maybe most?) plants have complete proteins. What happens is some essential amino acids are only in small traces in some plant foods but if you eat enough calories you will get all the protein you need (including the lysine amino acid, related with muscle growth). Do you know https://cronometer.com/ ? Try some plant foods on it.
In practice, you do not need any specific plant food to survive so you can deal with allergies and intolerances in a vegan diet. If you are aware of any medical condition that you cannot deal as a vegan please let me know, I am curious about it.
From a Utilitarian Perspective:
It's not about lives, its about suffering.
Check out the book Veganomics. It does a farily in-depth breakdown of suffering based on food choices.
Basically Chicken and Eggs seem to cause the most suffering.
Here's Mary's Test Kitchen's seitan playlist (the playlist is ordered by date so the videos towards the end are probably better)
Making seitan from flour isn't a great idea, it's kinda time consuming, IIRC about the same price since you throw away part of the flour in the process (keeping only the gluten), you're better off getting "vital wheat gluten" from amazon
What I do is that I always have a batch of seitan in the freezer and I take from that when I need some, and make some more (of a different kind) when I'm almost out of it
You should read Doing Good Better by William MacAskill. In the book, he talks about exactly what you just brought up. While the meat has already been purchased, if at the end of the period a certain amount of meat has not been used, your university is less likely to buy that full amount of meat, and will buy less meat in their next purchase. While you not eating a small amount of meat may not make or break the next purchase, there is a possibility that it will. Thus, next you should look at the benefit of your university not purchasing the full amount of meat vs. the lesser amount of meat to be purchased in the next shipment. You can calculate the benefit of you personally not eating meat by multiplying the percent chance of your school ordering less meat with the benefit of X fewer animals being killed for meat. You can look at that number to see the benefit of just you personally not eating meat in your cafeteria. Obviously, these are very difficult numbers to calculate on your own, but it is discussed in more specifics in the book.
Actually they are not all so convinced about the impact wolves had: https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debunk-myth-that-yellowstone-wolves-changed-entire-ecosystem-flow-of-rivers/349988/amp
Second, again, I’m making a moral argument. Predators often eat healthy young animals too.
My point is, it’s questionable to essentially throw these to the wolves, to have a suposedly better eco system that we couldn’t reach otherwise.
Surely they have the short end on this and you wouldn’t wanna switch place with them. So it’s hardly fair.
Thing like this should only be done if you are certain it will have a very significant impact (like ecology failing to support farm land and many humans dying) and these is no other practical alternative.
You still avoided my question. Humans are terrible for the ecology. Say there was a xenomorph-like predator hunting and eating humans alive. Would you say it’s wrong to stop them from doing that (if necessary with force, shooting and killing that predator?)
why would i need to put a source in for common knowledge ? do i need to show a source when i say the earth is round ?
In the time it took you to reply to me, you could have just googled it and found a billion sources yourself. This whole story of the yellowstoneparks magical wolves is based on a single viral video, its not based in reality. There are actually scientists who wrote multiple papers on this topic.
Heres an article with on of these scientists:
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debunk-myth-that-yellowstone-wolves-changed-entire-ecosystem-flow-of-rivers/349988
The Yellowstone wolf story has been refuted for a long time now. Sadly it keeps getting spread around the internet.
Your math doesn’t add up again. I’m tired of showing why. Here’s the paper it’s based on.
I would come back with, "it IS against my religion to eat this stuff" - Gret book on why it should be against people's religion to eat it. Quite eye opening this book was: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Every-Christian-Should-Vegan/dp/1087872286
B12 supplements alone are more absorbable compared to B12 in animals because the B12 in animals is bound to protein which is why many health authorities recommend older people take B12 supplements as older people have a harder time absorbing B12.
"Most people get enough vitamin B-12 from a balanced diet. However, older adults, vegetarians and people who have conditions that affect their ability to absorb vitamin B-12 from foods might benefit from the use of oral supplements."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-vitamin-b12/art-20363663
Along with what others have said I'm pretty sure we have to be careful about Omega 3's.
Omega 3's are tricky in any diet (vegan/otherwise) but should be pretty manageable if you follow the advice from the link above. If not, supplements aren't that expensive (less than $10/month from Amazon).
Ostrovegans may not need to worry as most bivalves have a lot of Omega 3's. I am technically ostrovegan myself but I still take supplements because while I do believe bivalves are vegan, I rarely eat them anyway, and I can't seem to get in the habit of eating enough plant-based omega 3 sources to say definitively that I get enough.
Brain health is linked to Omega 3's and of all of the organs in my body I want to be healthy that's #1 so I don't want to take any chances.
BTW Earthling Ed is an excellent source of transparent animal agricultural information and related environmental data as well. He is jsut one of many sources of my in-depth knowledge on the subject, but an excellent one.
You should read his new book "This Is Vegan Propaganda: (And Other Lies the Meat Industry Tells You)"; just to fully understand the grocery-list of issues he exposes that the overlords behind your cherished Meat & Dairy would LOVE to have him not reveal (but too bad for them, he does anyways) and then you can grasp just how foolish you sound mentioning him in a negative context, as if to belittle his knowledge on the subject. I'm sure Earthlink Ed (Ed Winters) has been to considerably MORE farms then you have been to, but ya know what, HE didn't get paid to kill living beings when he was there, so there is that...
Here ya go:
https://www.amazon.com/This-Vegan-Propaganda-Other-Industry/dp/B09M91WRDS
>I have no real disagreement except possibly with "easily obtainable" for most people to obtain algae oil for DHA.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07VTGWLTR/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_i_YND7GM7RSTP2JJX3GHB5
A quick google search will show plenty of brands with nearly identical algae formulations as well.
>For calcium, the emphasis should be on plant milks fortified with calcium carbonate, since you need about 1000 mg/day and would have to eat a ton to get it from plants (plus a lot of it is not very bioavailable.)
Fair point. I personally consume plenty of fortified oat milk and soy milk, foods with calcium, and a multivitamin with calcium as well. So my sources are somewhat diversified and, while anecdotal, it has worked well for my body.
>Personally, not a fan of multis. Folks - vegan and non-vegan - should rely on their food for their micronutrients and use specific supplements for the ones they may be lacking. (Just my opinion, sometimes it's easier just to do a multi and call it a day.) The same goes for getting lipid and nutrient panels done (vegan and non-vegan).
I agree. I just like multivitamins myself because for me it makes meal planning more simplified, but of course obtaining nutrients directly from food is the best way to go.
That being said, it's common for doctors to recommend to non vegans to take a multivitamin, d3 vitamin, and an omega 3 supplement as well. Those seem to be lacking for many people, non vegan and vegan alike.
> since it doesn't require an exploitation/slaughter of an animal
Except killing shrimps and crabs to make chitosan which is sprayed on the bananas. Less than 1% of bananas are organic (where they don't use chitosan)
> What about you? Are you now avoiding bananas after what you have learnt?
I haven't eaten bananas in years, ever since I watched the documentary Big Boys Gone Bananas..
My advice for your research is thinking about what heuristic you use to determine what information is true and what isn't.
Your epistemic standard.
Because there is so much BS out there from both sides.
You can also google: Hierarchy of evidence.
This lady gives a personal anecdote, she isn't an expert about nutrition, probably didn't even do the diet right.
This would be extremely low on that evidence-strength-scale.
If you are a layman and don't want to get into reading big complicated studies, what I would do is look at information from:
- public authorities
- credible institutions like Harvard,
- frankly Wikipedia I think isn't that bad for the most part.
Processed, fatty foods aren't healthy in general. French fries are vegan too, beer as well.
If you want to be healthy you still need to eat whole foods. But still vegan brugers seem to be healthier, than their meat based counterparts. There is strong evidence, the latter causes colon cancer on the WHO.
Interesting, more often than not people lose weight when they go vegan. Do you eat whole foods and low fat? Wholegrain pasta, oats, potatoes, legumes. Fruits and vegetables? Also careful with avocados, those are quite high in fat.
Measure your calories with a tool like cronometer.com.
Supplements you only need B12, preferably cyanocobalamin. The rest you can get via your diet. Maybe Vitamin D, if you live in a country where you can't get enough sunshine all year round.
Have you talked to a dietician?
I think very likely most people could have fixed their vegan diet and been well. Trouble shoot it with a dietician or go on cronometer.com and actually observe wether they have adequate nutrient intake (macro, micro and overall calories).
If you ask them wether they did that, they hadn't even come close to doing that, or say they only took B12 infrequently etc...
There's protein (really, amino acids) in literally everything you eat; amino acids are diverse in pretty much anyone's diet if you're eating from a) a varied diet (that is, you're not living off the same meal, day in, day out) and b) eating enough calories. The body is excellent at recycling them too, typically with large reserves in the body. Protein deficiency is typically called kwashiorkor. Protein originates in plants.
I mean, you can check protein sources on sites such as nutriso or cronometer.
For meal planning and tracking, use an app like Cronometer. Track what you habitually eat for a week or so, and you should see if you're more or less on-target.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is an excellent resource. Nutritionfacts.org is a great, too. Check out the "daily dozen" for a rough guide on how to structure a day of healthy eating.
Go and track his micronutrient with https://cronometer.com/. All the micronutrients required are listed there. It will immediately show where holes would be. You can calculate his caloric need. Make sure, he meets that.
Just log a couple days to get a feel for it. I personally don't believe it has to be pitch perfect every day, but having it done a couple times is never a bad idea regardless which diet you are on.
And talk to a dietician (or why not two?) Just to give you that extra certainty you need to sleep well.
If you do that, you are on a waaaay better track than majority of parents regarding nutrition for their children.
B12 obviously he (and you) should get, DHA supplement.. hm.. I though you could get it through diet, but a supplement won't hurt for sure. Ask the dietician again.
Vegan diets are healthy for children. Possibly has health benefits even. And if you watch it (unlike most other parents), he will likely be healthier than most kids.
Edit: Sorry, was that a "counterargument" type of response, and you aren't actually in that situation? Haha
This is a free website where you can easily track your food to make sure you are getting enough calories and nutrients. Highly recommend to use it if you are new to eating plant based.
If you enjoyed them, then look at where you were lacking in nutrition, if you even were.
I recommend cronometer. Then patch those holes.
Swearing undermines you when you're trying to make points it doesn't strengthen them. It also reduces my interest.
I think you're confusing "suffering"(or pain perhaps) and "harm" here. All inflicted suffering is harm, but not all harm is suffering.
Yes, I could harm you in such a way that you wouldn't suffer(for example, I could kill you with a heroin overdose; they say it's a nice way to go, compared to other options), but that wouldn't cancel out that I did harm you.
So while I would agree that out of all the harms you can cause, avoiding the harms that result in suffering is by far the most important, I don't think that makes painless forms of harms acceptable either. How about you?
Ie. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/harm
> Palm oil is very rarely used as a cooking oil in America
Yes but globally it's much more common. The West isn't actually that big a consumer of palm oil. https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/GreenPalmOil/top-10-palm-oil-consuming-countries-2015?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZp-an_L_kAhXmGDQIHXnDA6cQ9QF6BAgMEAI
My personal tactic is to grow so much that the deer and rabbits can have a share and we still get plenty. I do have to protect the little sprouts and seedlings from them though, which I do with netting or FRC.
Tofu and eggs have about the same amount of protein per 100g.
You can also eat one big table spoon of peanut butter and get the same amount as one egg.
Both also have a perfectly good ratio of all essential amino acids.
You would have to eat about 5 eggs to get your daily dose of B12, considering the cholesterol etc. that is contained in eggs, there are better options to get that from a health perspective.
Source: https://cronometer.com/ (it helped me a lot to get a feeling for what I should eat in a day or a week and its free)
It sounds like eating meat makes you feel bad. Instead of wondering if this is a "bad act" or a "good act" or if you are a "bad person" or "good person" for engaging in such behavior, why not listen to what yourself is telling you? You, rightfully imo, feel bad about eating meat. I do, too. And that's a totally valid way to feel. So, if not eating meat will make you feel less bad, don't eat meat. Do take a B12 vitamin and vitamin D, which you should probably be doing anyway. Cronometer.com is a good resource for nutrient and calorie info.
Animals don’t evolve to be more tasty and nutritious, lol. That would not be advantageous to them from an evolutionary standpoint.
Prey animals are stuck being prey mostly because they eat plants and they aren’t built for chasing down prey and killing them.
Look at this pic of zebra teeth. Not only is it funny but it also shows why they’re not predators. Those teeth are not built for hunting and killing prey!
It isn't 10x the amount.
The world is growing exponentially. meaning as we get get more people we speed up growth.
so saying 10x is completely wrong.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
even with the total fertility rate dropping there is still eponential growth.
Like I said it is a delay tactic at best.
> I don't know why you seem determined to keep repeating the same false statements and refusing to acknowledge that your agument is entirely flawed.
Well, I was going to say the same about yours. I can't see your point at all. It just feels like deflection because you don't want to admit eating beef causes less animal suffering than eating most plant ag products.
Farmers may still use fly traps or insecticide ear tags when the cattle are pastured.
This is the best "overal" cat food in the UK according to hepper.com (the first hit on Google for "best cat food uk"): https://www.amazon.co.uk/Harringtons-Complete-Adult-Chicken-food/dp/B08C35JQDL?tag=ourpetsites-21
Less than 50% is meat and meat derived. It's not only the cheap ones.
Intelligence and emotions are not the same thing. You keep switching between talking about intelligence and emotions. This is where you and I are going round in circles.
Emotions in animals, or narrowing it down to say mammals, evolved over time. They didn’t just switch on with us. We just analyse and think about our emotions in this human way. The emotions existed in our ancestors before human animals did.
If you read back through what I said carefully you will see I clearly do not think human and nonhuman animals have the same intelligence. Goals are not relevant when we are talking about the horrors that humans put nonhuman animals through. And obviously we do not have the same goals. Emotional drive, I’m not sure what you mean. We both feel joy and love and grief.
You have to remember that we are an animal. It is this “intelligence” that has got you all confused.
You said you liked reading so I would highly recommend these if you’re interested:
The Pig Who Sang To The Moon https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0099285746/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_KX2CBRYFSHH1DQNMEJD7
The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy and Why They Matter https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1577316290/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_DAXS6JNYB1RGSWZTVPTA
Because for every domesticated meat animal you raise, youve taken land and resources from wild animals.
>I spoke to someone recently who explained how a raised rabbits for food in a small section of his backyard. Same with guinea pigs, very popular in South America.
I guess this is an inconvenient truth to the tired old narrative about meat eating inevitably taking land and resources from wild animals.
interesting. the saturated fats increase both hdl and ldl. but overall coconut oil has a neutral impact on heart health. https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/coconut-oil-and-health#2
there are non-cholesterol coconut oils
Wow, that's really interesting that this professor told you about this ! And I agree with you that it's super important to have this kind of experiences that can make us question a lot of things that we take for granted; but also value a lot of things that we have in our everyday life.
I really cannot wish you to experience (warning : violence) >!the feeling of the bones breaking beneath your fingers while you twist the neck of an animal!<, as it is one of the worst things I ever experienced, and something that still haunts me today. If you want to try to learn by changing your point of view, I recommend that you try going to a vigil near where you live : it's basically vegans that stay for a while near a slaughterhouse to say a last goodbye and take care of animals that are brought in trucks (often after a horrible journey) to be slaughtered. Looking in the eyes of animals that are going to lose their lives in a few hours definitely puts things in perspective, and it's a precious - albeit sad - memory for me.
You can also watch some documentaries that explore these subjects like "Carnage", which is a fake documentary from the BBC that is very funny, but also though-provoking. It's about how a future England (2067) became vegan through time. Even my non-vegan friends had fun watching it.
Anyway, thanks for the conversation, it was really interesting : ) !
Our diet causes far less deaths than yours. Yes, industrial agriculture causes animal deaths such as with crop harvests, but the animals you eat have to be fed grain (with the exception of pasture raised animals, which have other issues), so when you eat an animal you are responsible both for its death and for the deaths caused by producing it's food.
I highly recommend that you take a look at this paper:
The issues with pasture raised animals is their environmental impact. They produce more methane emmisions, and because they require a lot of land to graze on, they are a huge driver of deforestation.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/natural
> 1. as found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people
> 2. A natural ability or characteristic is one that you were born with
> 3. normal or expected
1 is what you are talking about, but this is out of context.
2 and 3 is what natural means, when we are talking about, whether or not humans are herbivores (and therefore should/shouldn't follow a plant based diet), or whether or not humans should run on 4 limbs.
Reddit Enhancement Suit (addon for most popular browsers) adds a lot of useful features, including one where you can click on any post/message and see the reddit markup source and the characters used/limit.
If you haven't tried it, I highly recommend giving it a shot.
> A lot of vegans don't abide by that definition though
OK, so you're only arguing against total abstinence from animal products, even when it's not practical or possible? You'd say that promoting the above definition of veganism is reasonable?
>And that's all well and good but do you really see people stopping to google everything before they buy it?
It's usually just a matter of reading the ingredients label. If you can't tell if something has animal products, I'd say it's up to you whether to get it or not.
> Someone else on this thread told me to make my own shampoo and soap. For people with children and busy lives that's not really an option.
> Goat is important for both meat and dairy through all of Africa, all of the middle east, all of the Caribbean, and many other regions
What is your source for this? Most of the places you mention repy primaripy on plant sources for food and have extremely low meat consumption compared with Europe, Australia, New Zealand and the US.
It doesn't matter that they are technically animals. I would think your argument goes beyond a scientific taxonomy.
Even this article here argues that eating insects would reduce overall animal suffering:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vegans-eat-insects_n_6153476
The important wants are the major things that make most animals off limits --- sentience and ability to suffer. They have neither of those beyond the capabilities of a plant.
From what I can see, vegans and vegetarians (couldn't find demographics for just Vegans) tend to primarily fall under median income (~54k USD) and vegans and vegetarians trend being younger (statistically trends towards lower income) from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vegetarians_b_8059838
Admittedly, I'm not too familiar with actual vegan demographics and there's probably a host of other studies, so I'd be curious to see what's backing up your strong opinions.
There's also some erasure you're committing against lower-class vegans today, but that's a different topic.
> I disagree with your premise that whole foods are not calorie dense. Quinoa and avocado are as calorie dense as salmon, black beans are as calorie dense as steak, and peanuts are more calorie dense than all of the above. It is difficult to exceed the calorie density (or calorie velocity) of trail mix.
250g of black beans is 228 calories https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/black-beans?portionid=334868&portionamount=250.000
The same amount in steak is well over 500 calories https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/beef-steak-ns-as-to-fat-eaten?portionid=50038&portionamount=100.000
Also not sure why only 1-2 foods out of the whole diet would change it being dangerous for ED patients?
Fro what I know, Singer never even posed a rights based argument for animal protection. Saying he started animal rights philosophy is confusing.
> It's not based on emotion, but logic
So where’s the coq-file that implements that "purely logical" argument?</sarkasm> It’s either preposterous to reduce ethical discourse to logic or just shows that one doesn’t understand the domain of logic.
> it's almost universally accepted within academic philosophy
Calling bullshit here. Any data that it’s even any more than a niche-topic?
Yea while I wouldn't quite call this a blind spot in the movement, it is one that could probably use corrective lenses.
It's very easy to get caught up in making a rational case (as is the case with most arguments) and forget that the people only kind of respond to logic.
I was considering doing a video of this type further down the rode but there's a couple of books specifically about forming new habits that might be a interesting addition to the conversation
Several probes have been sent there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_objects_at_Lagrange_points
A solar shade built there might have to be made out of asteroid material. Building space structures out of asteroid material has been hypothesized since the 1970s, but there remains no proof of concept. Perhaps the construction activity could be solar powered. A hypothetical break-off civilization building such a perfect sunshade to snuff out life on Earth might find itself under military attack by Earth civilization.
This isn't what you asked, but you guys seem very scientifically and evidence-based minded. So based on that, I'd highly recommend reading How Not To Die. by Dr Michael Greger
The book gives an overview of our current scientific understanding of the link between diet and so-called 'old age' diseases.
The reference list is so long (something like 180 pages iirc) that it was published online instead of in the book (but still easily accessible) because he cites something like 5000 different papers.
Based on it, the author recommends a specific version of a plant based diet.
I also was ethically fine with eating meat but abhor the brutality in the meat industry, so for a long time I was looking for a way to ethically eat meat, going so far as to only eat what we hunted or raised/slaughtered ourselves. Based on Dr Greger's book I went full-on vegan instead.
So I feel you’re moving off topic and your points verge on trolling as you have read some junk science or came to invalid conclusions yourself, likely from YouTube videos or anecdotes. You can search the sub for answers to your points as they come up a lot. Animal meat is not a required element for human nutrition or health.
However, some recommended reading on eating as a vegan should also help. The best book on the subject comes from a couple of experts, titled Becoming Vegan. Perhaps viewing something like Dominion will also help; you can post back when you spot the animals you’re talking about.
A) Not a "truckload". The first 0.66c/g, is just a regular bag, Amazon's choice recommendation - not on discount.
B) Dried lentils:
From a financial standpoint (your claim:*it's far cheaper*), it matters a lot. since in my example you get 24g of protein for $0.66, while in your example 24g of chicken-protein (5c per gram of chicken /0.31g of protein) would cost $3.85.6x as much.
Red split lentils, the type I linked, have a cooking time of 5-7 minutes.
You gonna have to clean your grill, or even make fire in your grill. Also it's not a fair comparison - with lentils you have to take into account seasoning, side dishes etc., but when calculating the cooking time for chicken, not?
Anyway, I think the main argument, vegans make is that it's cheaper. Not even that: it's not more expensive.
In my view you have to take subsidies into account too, even if you pay them indirectly via the government, you still pay for it - it's just hidden.
Which one is more efficient in terms of "protein per chewing". Fine, the chicken you have to chew less. But is that a good thing? Foods with lower caloric density help with weight management. And I don't think vegans would necessarily suggest that point.
I don't believe in certain recycling. It comes in many forms. Forms like L.A.s road and brooms are okay. Plants aren't. We aren't dumping our plastic in china, we're dumping old phones there. Its worse. Getting rid of your phone before necessary is what's really bad for south Asians.
I think this book has a ton of examples. I remember reading bits of it somewhere many years ago but I'm not sure anymore. Sure seems like it would.
>I do have Amazon, I don't shop online though
Fair enough. Depending on shipping it could be a good option.
Here's a 5 lb bag of dried chickpeas (that's about 10 pounds of cooked chickpeas) for 14.95:
I would not say that it's a "luxury that only those who can afford it can enjoy".
>There are places where it does cost more and that's sick
Ya that's crazy.
> I cannot state my animal feed textbook or whole encyclopedia of metabolism in slovenian as a source.
Well this topic doesn't apply to only you and your country. Most of the world gets its animal products from not Slovenia. I know it's hard for you to imagine that other people around the world could be doing things differently from you, but you need to try and open your mind a little bit.
From your source:
But this is what you originally said:
> No animals are injected with B12
Your source only talks about ruminants. Do you not know what the difference between an animal and a ruminant is? Did you say you went to vet school? Are you sure you didn't go to something else that's similar but not exactly the same?
> You make very little sense
Is that an objective or subjective observation?
> dont expect me answering to your reply, except if its a link to page talking about B12.
Better. I found b12 I can buy for chickens on amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Rooster-Booster-B-12-Liquid-16-Ounce/dp/B00CD8KFY8
So looks like there is a stable supply of B12 for livestock animals, yet you said that's not the case. Explain yourself master of the Slovenian ruminant farm system.
>For instance even vegan Pat Baboumian consumes an excessive 400grams per day.
Yeah, 1,600 calories a day from protein. It sounds like he's gonna die early but that's typical for Gym rats. And it's completely f-in stupid. Human muscle is 76% water and 4% other, and only around 20% protein. That means 400 grams is enough to build 2kg a day.
But let's say due to daily protein losses, turnover, and basic inefficiencies, that only 1 in every 4 grams of protein gets used in muscle. That's still 0.5 kg of muscle a day. 365 lbs in a year. The most a person gains in a year is during the so-called beginner gains period, typically months 6-18 for serious beginners, and that's 20lbs natural. Past basic daily needs (RDA), at his weight calculated at 93 grams, the excess (307) is about 15x too much protein for simply building new muscle with a very generous quadruple growth margin. He could very easily just do 100-110 gram daily and do just as well if not better with recovery. And that would mean stopping the powder as he certainly goes over that with the food.
And this, along with drugs, is why gym bros die early. They can't basic math. A lot of protein that stresses the kidneys and gets peed out. As a bodybuilder, you want excess calories, and the protein will take care of itself if you're not on soda and oreos.
Cool. Thanks for clarifying. Here's a book that some psychology friends of mine have told me is a good rundown on the state of the art regarding whether any nonhuman animals have consciousness, reasoning abilities, or other fancy cognitive or conative capacities:
https://www.amazon.com/Routledge-Handbook-Philosophy-Animal-Handbooks/dp/1138822884
There's an app for that: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kleinpetr.vegan
Based on how long you've been vegetarian and vegan it will give an estimate of your personal contribution to the reduction in animals killed, CO2 produced, forest saved, etc.
It's interesting to check from time to time and see the massive difference you are making as an individual.
Also, don't underestimate the effect you have on others. Without forcing your views on others you will find family, friends and work colleagues will take an interest in you becoming vegan and want to know more. Often they will make changes in their own lives.
Shampoo + conditioner, no animal products, not tested on animals, less than 32 cents an ounce.
We've strayed a long way from hunting now and this feels pointless. Shampoo is hardly a necessity anyway. Do I even need to explain why "shampoo tho" is not a legitimiate excuse to not be vegan? It's probably one of the worst excuses I've heard, and trust me I've heard some nonsense.
> that’s more expensive for me and less convenient
We already went over the expense. Here is a reminder for you:
For £16 (about the price of 1lb of mackerel) I can get the equivalent of about 3.6lb of mackerel in terms of EPA and DHA.
Source for supplements:
Source for DHA and EPA levels in mackerel:
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/table_g2_adda2.htm
And the figures are similar for sardines and herring, so supplements are still much cheaper.
The only way it would be cheaper is if you were catching your own fish, but this would definitely not be more convenient than supplements.
Ultimately though, a minor cost and a minimal amount of effort is not justification for killing sentient beings.
The estimate I gave was from 100mcg Jamieson tabs I used to take.
I actually take 1000mcg tabs twice weekly now though which are only costing me about 50 cents per month!
> I'm just going to ignore the equivolency you are trying to draw between ...
Ever heard of The Dreaded Comparison? (Great book by the way. I highly recommend it.)
I'm not equating racism with speciesism. I'm pointing out the close similarities between the civil rights movement and the animal rights movement to highlight how the stigmatization of an initially normal, yet harmful, ideology is a good thing.
I agree that random insults are never productive, but I never see vegans on this sub directly calling anyone a rapist. We use it as a perfect example to demonstrate how pleasure doesn't justify abuse, but never as a direct insult. I've only seen vegans call people who say they don't care about factory farming psychopaths/sociopaths, but that seems pretty justified given the horrible suffering the animals are forced to endure.
> there is a large, or at least noisy portion of the vegan movement that is violent and extreme.
Extreme is subjective. Giving women property rights was extreme 100 years ago. Anti-speciesism is extreme today. I can only wonder what will be extreme in 100 years from now...
It's not true that vegans are violent. I'm involved in multiple activist groups, and the most violent thing we do is show people slaughterhouse footage lol. Compared to carnists who demand that animals suffer and die for them 24/7, we're incredibly peaceful.
https://www.amazon.com/Global-Health-Anthropological-Merrill-Singer/dp/1577669061
https://www.amazon.com/Dancing-Skeletons-Death-Africa-Anniversary/dp/1478607580
There you go. Short, accessible reads that will help you to understand the relevant issues.
I don't save links after the term is ended. I'm not going to dig to find them, nor am I going to write up explanations/summaries for each of them so that you can debate whether you "agree." I'm not interested enough if you're not paying me for education like I paid for my education.
As an analogy, just like I don't have strong opinions on quantum physics (because I don't have an academic background in it), so should you reserve your opinions on SJW topics (since you clearly don't have any academic background in them). This is the bane of the anti-sjw crowd. You seem to want academia to be democratic, so that you can share your opinions on things with which you're academically unfamiliar. And, unless you can fully understand these very complex issues in a few paragraphs, you're not interested in understanding them, or you seem comfortable remaining ignorant. It seems like this is the reason so many of you are so boisterous about your right to share your opinions, though I could be wrong about the reason for this.
Finally, it's hilariously predictable that you're now using STEM-lord rhetoric, as if I'm remotely concerned with whether you think the subjects I study are worthy of studying. That said, this is one of my two majors–the other being math. Thanks for your valuable input on that though. I'll definitely keep it in mind until I finish typing this sentence.
You've already admitted that you think moral action is instrumentally good toward the good end of efficient communal living, which again is a moral naturalist account. For someone close to your view see here:
>What you simply fail to realize (in a spectacular manner) is that that description is not incompatible with living under sound ethical reasoning
"Sound ethical reasoning" on your view would be reducible to rational decision making toward the end of of efficient communal living. This is a moral naturalist account of what "sound ethical reasoning" would entail.
>Believing there is no INHERENT right and wrong does not stop one from deciding what is wrong and right, independently of what you think is universal or not.
You seem to think efficient communal living is intrinsically or inherently valuable, that is, if we are to make any sense of your claim that morality is instrumentally good toward the end of efficient communal living. If efficient communal living is also instrumentally valuable that just pushes the question down the road -- instrumental toward what good end? It has to stop somewhere, something has to be the source of this instrumental good, for that just is what it is to be "instrumentally good" (which you allow the existence of).
> She said, do not go vegan, she goes on I have seen many people with defeciencies they can't afford to repair with plant-based supplements and we have to fix them and tell them to eat meat, dairy and eggs again.
Not that it really matters if you're diet is well planned, but it seems like her whole argument relies on someone not being able to afford a daily multivitamin (6 month supply on amazon is $13). If you can afford $26/year, then by her own logic, you'll be fine. but always be healthy, eat a variety of whole foods, take a b12 supplement and track your nutrition in cronometer.com.
I might read some of this guys writings as he seems to have a similar view of morality as myself and has probably thought things through more than I as he is a professional philosopher https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ethics-without-Morals-Routledge-Studies/dp/1138845108/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1511551987&sr=8-4&keywords=Joel+marks
I believe he is vegan too. Not sure how he approaches our treatment of other animals. Do you have any specific philosophies or philosophers you rate highly? Anything specific that underpins your veganism?
Uhm, no. Wired isn't exactly the best source in the world for educational purposes. I work in orthotics in prosthetics, I had to take actual science classes from actual biologist. Plants don't literally talk to each other, but there are other forms of communication..books for plant talky talk
But you could gather evidence for it quite easily, and not subjective evidence. You could measure blood pressure, or adrenal out put, or even Vaso dilation.
Don't kill what? At what point are you drawing the line. Everything we consume has life and purpose. How do you determine what deserves to live or die. You've made a lot of accusations but you haven't told me what determines your ethical value of what makes plankton more okay to eat than krill. At what point of consciousness is it okay to take life from? I know where my lines are drawn and why, but you haven't made yourself clear.
Right, and as I said in my other comment, no one is saying that the world should continue consuming meat at the pace it is currently consuming it. But, on a small scale, and as a part of a functioning and sustainable farming system that raises animals according to their utility, as such that they've been domesticated and bred into their current existence, there isn't anything inherently wrong with these animals, especially where terrain and climate allow. Meat animals don't belong on big open fields in temperate areas raised by the hundreds. Dairy animals started in the mountains and in colder climates that couldn't support annual crops. It's only inefficient if you explicitly make it inefficient by raising them only for slaughter.
Check out The Third Plate, I learned a lot from this guy when I used to work for him. It's an appeal to conscious eating that's well-researched and well thought out, but also aware of the reality of our current food system.
Demand and the need to bend the earth to our appetites is the problem, and that is a problem regardless of which fruits of the earth we're eating.