AussieTrees

Many creatures sadly die to provide our food.

Recommended Posts

Re:

-----

"Last night on "How The Universe Works" they were talking about the biology/chemistry of life and pointed out that we humans share 50% of our DNA with bananas."

-----

 

Did they happen to say what we do with the other 50%?

Obviously we share most of that with monkeys, and the remainder denotes an exclusive membership that enjoys the ability to intentionally make a stamp on earth events..

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

Edited by Stosh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re:

-----

"Last night on "How The Universe Works" they were talking about the biology/chemistry of life and pointed out that we humans share 50% of our DNA with bananas."

-----

 

Did they happen to say what we do with the other 50%?

 

-VonKrankenhaus

Nope.  They didn't go into that.  The train of thought at the time was the evolution from single cell organisms, and because of mutations, complex organisms evolved, etc, to us.

 

But, IMO, I would think that some of it goes for our brain for most of us.  I wouldn't put money on an absolute "all of us".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After posting some facts in the 'sobering facts' topic, I searched the forums and found this topic again. Reading through my own comments from just 8-9 months ago ("I do eat meat", "mmm crackling", etc) ...well, it's interesting to see how my perspective has changed :blink: 

 

I've yet to watch Cowspiracy but many of the facts featured on their website bear repeating. I know many members are unwilling to engage in discussions about animal agriculture / eating meat / etc partly because of the infernally "superior" attitude of many vegans/vegetarians, but.. well... that doesn't seem a very good reason to ignore interesting, crucial, potentially life-changing information.

 

 

 

Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32 billion tons of CO2 per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

Even without fossil fuels, we will exceed our 565 gigatonnes CO2e limit by 2030, all from raising animals.

Growing feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of water in the US.

1,000 gallons of water are required to produce 1 gallon of milk.

Livestock or livestock feed occupies 1/3 of the earth’s ice-free land.

Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction.

1/3 of the planet is desertified, with livestock as the leading driver.

A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people.

For every 1 pound of fish caught, up to 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as by-kill.

Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of Amazon destruction.
 
26 million rainforest acres (10.8m hectares) have been cleared for palm oil production.

70 billion farmed animals are reared annually worldwide. More than 6 million animals are killed for food every hour.

82% of starving children live in countries where food is fed to animals, and the animals are eaten by western countries.

1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food. 1.5 acres can produce 375 pounds of meat.

Each day, a person who eats a vegan diet saves 1,100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30 sq ft of forested land, 20 lbs CO2 equivalent, and one animal’s life.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmmm pork crackling.

 

I like your non-sequiturs.

 

Why don't we take one of you factlets and see what it really means. For instance that there is a conclusion that Western meat eaters are responsible for 82% of starving children. That's of course the implication for bad westerners, who are of course regarded as greedy capitalists guilty of forcing starvation on the weak in a representation of vile capitalist oppression.

 

Whether it be the environment, workers or the starving populations of third world countries, the solution is always the same 'socialism'.

Edited by Karl
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Each day, a person who eats a vegan .. saves 1,100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30 sq ft of forested land, 20 lbs CO2 equivalent, and one animal’s life.

Is it really so bad we have to start eating vegans?  Won't we run out of vegans in a few years? and then who will eat the plants? 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with so much of the information presented in favor of vegetarianism or meating eat is that almost nobody starts with an open mind and simply investigates the facts.  It´s all backwards.  Vegetarians start out convinced that not eating meat is the way to go and then, having already locked onto that postion, look for all the evidence in support of their view.  Ditto for many meat eaters.

 

Few people from either camp will allow reality to interfere with their decision.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we take one of you factlets and see what it really means. For instance that there is a conclusion that Western meat eaters are responsible for 82% of starving children. That's of course the implication for bad westerners, who are of course regarded as greedy capitalists guilty of forcing starvation on the weak in a representation of vile capitalist oppression.

 

Indeed yes, it seems perhaps to imply, if not conclude, that Westerners are the only ones eating the meat and that they (we) are responsible for most starving kids in poorer countries. Of course this isn't true. Maybe it could be worded more honestly.

 

But if you look at what it actually says, without inferring anything, it is only that the global system of buying and selling currently proceeds in such a way that perfectly good land is given over to livestock and their feed crops in countries where people are unable to afford such produce (beef, pork, etc) and end up unable to get fed properly from the land on which they live, when the land could be given over to just producing human feed crops, which would result in more crops at more affordable prices available for human consumption.

 

 

 

The problem with so much of the information presented in favor of vegetarianism or meating eat is that almost nobody starts with an open mind and simply investigates the facts.  It´s all backwards.  Vegetarians start out convinced that not eating meat is the way to go and then, having already locked onto that postion, look for all the evidence in support of their view.  Ditto for many meat eaters.

 

Yeah, this is often true. A lot of ethical animal rights people want meat to be unhealthy and damaging so that there are more reasons not to farm animals, and will always twist things to demonize meat even if it's proven to be the best thing ever. Same on the other side.

 

But many veggies are, in my opinion, grounded in reality. My point in bringing up this old thread again was to point out how my perspective has changed from that of a meat eater to vegetarian based on honest inquiry. Looking at my earlier posts in this thread, I was becoming anti-meat but still unable to stop eating it. I might look back further in my posts because I'm sure that I'll have stuff from 2014/early 2015 with overtly pro-meat content in them.

 

edit: http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/37063-super-enzyme-serrapeptase-and-lower-dantian/?p=596819

There's a big (vegan) anti-milk movement these days, and I don't trust it. Icelanders have the 6th highest life expectancy on the planet and they eat meat and dairy as the main staples...

Yah..didn't trust vegans..

 

My sister was veggie as a teenager, but other than that I grew up in a heavily carnivorous environment -- almost all my friends and family still eat meat daily. A friend and I used to go to KFC after the gym and buy a whole bucket of chicken each, often competing to see who could eat it fastest.

 

It might sound 'superior', but my attitude has changed in the last year because at some point I was able to let go of the years of habit and presumption and admit that maybe I was wrong, maybe meat isn't necessary, maybe the cons outweigh the pros, etc. I carried on eating meat for months after that though.

 

Most of the figures in the above 'factlets' are supported by entities such as the FAO (United Nations), Worldwatch, and various other groups focused on sustainability, etc, and a couple are even supported by the USDA. They are not taken from teenage vegan blogs or PETA. I'd say they tend towards an honest, investigative line. Only a few even mention the fact of livestock slaughter, and I don't think any of them mention animal rights...

Edited by dustybeijing
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The market doesn't support the land being given over to feed crops.

 

The reality is always the same. If you looked at the UNICEF report that underpins the figures obtained from the website you cut and pasted from, then you would have discovered that one of the very worst areas for child nutrition was China. However, China is now vastly improved and rapidly moving towards a second world-if not yet a first world country from the perspective of child nutrition.

 

The reason for poverty remains the same everywhere. Property rights, capitalism and the rule of law. As China has become more free, the poverty has fallen. The solution isn't vegetarianism, the problem is not Western capitalists eating meat. The problem is lack of capital, rights to ownership of land and good law.

 

I watched a program about India and water shortages. It's a ridiculous situation because there is clearly enough water for everyone, but of course it is the state which controls the water supply. In a poor country, officials of the state and the general population have become engaged in a racket. There are criminal gangs (for want of a better term) who hijack the water pipelines and sell the water to the villagers, they then pay part of the money to the corrupt officials. Every so often the officials conduct a raid to shut down a few of these illegal water supplies leaving the villages dry. Of course, not long after it all begins again and this time the criminal gangs are forced to pay a higher percentage of their takings. In effect it's a tax.

Edited by Karl
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From personal experience as a chef, i can attest that when meat is overly consumed, i get less interested in spiritual cultivation. This means there's less motivation to practice, which then means i need to push myself harder. This is neither bad nor good, just noting the results and sharing the experience. 

 

The ratio that seems to work for now is veg 70:30 meat. It used to be the other way up until a couple of years ago. 

 

Besides the spiritual aspect to this, i have also noted that my digestive system is not as robust as before, hence it would appear to be quite foolish not to 'listen' to this diminishing physical function of the body. Also, it would appear that there is a reason why teeth begins to loose their strength after a certain age, but the funny thing about this is that people don't seem to pay attention to the relationship between the weakening of teeth to the reduction in meat consumption. There is much habitual indoctrination with regards to regular dentists' visits, and the progression from this is that when folks get older, they would periodically replace worn natural teeth with implants, and then continue with their regular diet. I suspect this can be problematic if their regular diet happens to be meat-heavy. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From personal experience as a chef, i can attest that when meat is overly consumed, i get less interested in spiritual cultivation. This means there's less motivation to practice, which then means i need to push myself harder. This is neither bad nor good, just noting the results and sharing the experience. 

 

The ratio that seems to work for now is veg 70:30 meat. It used to be the other way up until a couple of years ago. 

 

Besides the spiritual aspect to this, i have also noted that my digestive system is not as robust as before, hence it would appear to be quite foolish not to 'listen' to this diminishing physical function of the body. Also, it would appear that there is a reason why teeth begins to loose their strength after a certain age, but the funny thing about this is that people don't seem to pay attention to the relationship between the weakening of teeth to the reduction in meat consumption. There is much habitual indoctrination with regards to regular dentists' visits, and the progression from this is that when folks get older, they would periodically replace worn natural teeth with implants, and then continue with their regular diet. I suspect this can be problematic if their regular diet happens to be meat-heavy. 

 

I have never eaten much meat, but I do eat some meat because it is good for the body and frankly it tastes a lot better than dreary vegetables. Balance in all things.

 

There is a correlation between a pure vegetable diet and a weakening of the mind. It's easier to control vegans than it is meat eaters. Interogation and Nazi death camps reduce protein and meat to the bare minimum to lower the resistance of the subject.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once referred a vegetarian friend (yes, I do have them) to a vegetarian acupuncturist/naturopath.  In spite of his own long-standing practice of avoiding meat for ethical reasons, he urged her to incorporate animal protein in her diet for health reasons.

 

Then again, my acupuncturist was an unusually flexible guy. I haven´t found many vegetarians who feel that meat-free is the right way for them, while acknowledging that many people do better health-wise with some high-quality animal fare.  If you are such a vegetarian, I salute you.

 

For me, the problem with the list of facts presented by Dustybeijing -- what turns me off from even considering their potential validity -- is that I believe they come from impossibily biased sources.  Not that you, DB, are necessarily biased -- you´re just passing them on.  I´m just so positive that the original makers of such lists would never even consider any science that didn´t accord with their view.

 

To get an accurate picture, I´d have to do so much more than read that list and take it at face-value.  I´d have to do in-depth analysis on both sides.  I´d have to become an expert. It would take months of painstaking work and scientific research skills that, frankly, I don´t presently possess and wouldn´t be easily come by. To do anything less is to end up parroting a biased position, and what´s the sense of that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then again, my acupuncturist was an unusually flexible guy. I haven´t found many vegetarians who feel that meat-free is the right way for them, while acknowledging that many people do better health-wise with some high-quality animal fare.  If you are such a vegetarian, I salute you.

 

I contradicted someone earlier today when she called me 'a vegetarian'. I'm not, when all things are considered, unconditionally opposed to humans killing other animals and eating them, and I'd do it myself if necessary for survival or if, for example, there were too many wild boar in the neighbourhood and they needed culling. I've no problem with noting that meat is not poisonous, that a little does no harm and indeed has always been a convenient/efficient source of certain nutrients.

 

What I can't admit -- because it's not true -- is that meat is necessary any longer for the majority of people, or that it is not doing harm to a lot of shit.

 

 

For me, the problem with the list of facts presented by Dustybeijing -- what turns me off from even considering their potential validity -- is that I believe they come from impossibily biased sources.  Not that you, DB, are necessarily biased -- you´re just passing them on.  I´m just so positive that the original makers of such lists would never even consider any science that didn´t accord with their view.

 

Indeed, I'm just passing them on, and in the other thread in which I posted the same list ('sobering facts') I noted that many of them are probably arguable. I also noted, though, that even if the presenters of the facts are terribly biased and each figure has been doubled, it would on the whole still paint a pretty awful picture of things...

 

As far as bias... I don't pretend to know you, but I would suggest that in general we are all exposed to such a meat-positive culture -- family life, peer groups, television, advertising, etc -- that it becomes necessary to us that someone prove beyond a doubt that animal agriculture might be harmful before we even consider the idea that eating meat might not be a good thing. That is bias.

 

The fact that meat, and the modern agricultural system, is so accepted among modern humans doesn't mean that being meat-friendly is not a biased position -- on the contrary, the most biased people in any situation are usually the ones who continue along a path without ever considering another option, which is the case for the majority of meat-eaters (in my experience).

 

(Please be aware that I'm not saying that you have never considered the other options -- only that most people never do, that most people are biased towards a meaty lifestyle based on little to no consideration of negatives & alternatives.)

 

You say yourself that you are turned off from even considering the potential validity of these facts/figures. Aside from the fact that many of them come from international organizations, not animal rights activists -- isn't that bias?

 

 

To get an accurate picture, I´d have to do so much more than read that list and take it at face-value.  I´d have to do in-depth analysis on both sides.  I´d have to become an expert. It would take months of painstaking work and scientific research skills that, frankly, I don´t presently possess and wouldn´t be easily come by. To do anything less is to end up parroting a biased position, and what´s the sense of that?

 

I'm not pretending to be that kind of expert, but some fairly straightforward web searching gives an idea of the validity of many of the facts. I'm going to put some stuff in another post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If you looked at the UNICEF report that underpins the figures obtained from the website you cut and pasted from, then you would have discovered that one of the very worst areas for child nutrition was China. However, China is now vastly improved and rapidly moving towards a second world-if not yet a first world country from the perspective of child nutrition.

 

You've taken one 'factlet' from many and tried to drive the discussion towards one of the countries where you think it might not apply. That's not an honest rebuttal.

 

While it is true that in China the majority of meat is consumed domestically, its inclusion on the list is somewhat misleading. If you look at the numbers on the table "Country ranking based on number of stunted children", China comes in at 4th in the world. Pretty bad... but its population might have something to do with that.

 

Top 5 by stunting prevalence (%):

India:         48

Nigeria:     41

Pakistan:   44

China:       10

Indonesia: 36

 

China's under-5 mortality rate (15 per 1,000 live births) is not amazing, but also not comparable to a whole number of other nations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/lsan0415.pdf

Total red meat production for the United States totaled 47.4 billion pounds in 2014
Commercial cattle slaughter during 2014 totaled 30.2 million head
Commercial hog slaughter totaled 106.9 million head

etc

If you go to http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/feed-grains-database/feed-grains-yearbook-tables.aspx
and download the spreadsheet titled "Recent (contains latest 5-10-15 years of data)" you will note the following:

Table 1--Corn, sorghum, barley, and oats: Planted acreage, harvested acreage, production, yield, and farm price

Corn -- 2015/16 -- 88 million acres -- 80 million acres harvested -- 13,601 million bushels

Table 20--U.S. corn and sorghum imports (bushels)

Corn total -- 2015/16 -- 49,639,157 bushels

Table 31--Corn: Food, seed, and industrial use (million bushels)
(i.e. not for animal feed)

2015/16 -- 6,620

 


=

7,030,639,157 bushels of corn fed to livestock

6,620,000,000 bushels of corn used in HFCS, starch, alcohol, cereal products, etc


ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e03.pdf

As well as livestock respiration, carbon is introduced into the atmosphere from the sector through:

burning fossil fuel to produce mineral fertilizers used in feed production;
methane release from the breakdown of fertilizers and from animal manure;
land-use changes for feed production and for grazing;
land degradation;
fossil fuel use during feed and animal production;
fossil fuel use in production and transport of processed and refrigerated animal products


Global annual input of carbon into atmosphere (billion tonnes):
Fossil fuels: 4
Soil oxidation/erosion: 61
Respiration: 50
Deforestation: 2

All of these are heavily influenced by livestock.

 

livestock occupies about
two-thirds of the global dry land area, and the
rate of desertification has been estimated to be
higher under pasture than under other land uses
(3.2 million hectares per year against 2.5 million
hectares per year for cropland, UNEP, 1991).
Considering only soil carbon loss (i.e. about 10
tonnes of carbon per hectare), pasture desertifi-
cation-induced oxidation of carbon would result
in CO2 emissions in the order of 100 million
tonnes of CO2 per year.

 

Edited by dustybeijing
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You say yourself that you are turned off from even considering the potential validity of these facts/figures. Aside from the fact that many of them come from international organizations, not animal rights activists -- isn't that bias?

 

 

 

I'm not pretending to be that kind of expert, but some fairly straightforward web searching gives an idea of the validity of many of the facts. I'm going to put some stuff in another post.

 

Yes, I´m biased.  But that´s not why I´m not considering the possible validity of your list.  I´m not considering the possible validity of your list because I´m not equipped to do so.  Neither of us has the kind of expertise necessary to evaluate the accuracy of that kind of list.  Very few people do.  But that´s what it takes.  Otherwise, bullet lists of figures and facts are worse than useless -- worse than useless because they mislead people into thinking they know something when they don´t.  I can do my own websearch and come up with information that points me to exactly the opposite conclusion.  That agriculture, ie plants, are responsible for so much more environmental destruction than animals.  That, in fact, agriculture is responsible for the death of more sentient creatures than animal husbandry.  

 

It´s not so simple as you suggest.  I could put up some of those links.  (Or you could read The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith.)  I will if you´d like me too, but frankly it wouldn´t do any good.  Because neither of us have the expertise required to separate statistical truth from statistical lies.  What´s the point?

 

What I personally find more useful is personal anecdote.  I´m not convinced you´re able to plumb the ethical, environmental, and medical complexities of how people ought to feed themselves around the world -- but you´re the world´s foremost authority on Dustybeijing.  Your personal experience doesn´t necessarily to generalize to the larger population but it´s true for you and worthy of note.  Has your health improved since becoming vegetarian?  Do you feel lighter, more inclined towards spiritual practice?  Do you smile at the grocery store, proud of making changes that bring your eating more in-line with your personal values? 

 

If so, I´d be interested to know.  That would be so much more useful for everybody than posting dueling lists of questionable facts proving nothing at all.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Liminal

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone´s interested, here´s the first chapter of The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith.

 

 http://www.lierrekeith.com/book-ex_the-vegetarian-myth.php

 

It doesn´t go in-depth into all the arguments -- it´s just a first chapter-- but perhaps it´s enough to give people who are interested a taste of what she has to say.  Of course, it´s been debunked by vegetarians on-line.  And their debunking has been double-debunked by the meat-eating camp.  There´s no end to this, unfortunately.  But for those interested in exploring the idea that vegetarianism isn´t all pistacios and peaches, here´s a start.

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infinite debunking regression ? :-)

 

Don't like the first chapter of the book by the way- riven with fallacies.

Edited by Karl
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can do my own websearch and come up with information that points me to exactly the opposite conclusion.  That agriculture, ie plants, are responsible for so much more environmental destruction than animals.  That, in fact, agriculture is responsible for the death of more sentient creatures than animal husbandry.

 

I would like to see you try. Honestly, I don't think you could possibly come up with a cogent argument for the case that cutting down on animal agriculture (which is the only thing being suggested) would lead to more destruction, pollution, death, etc. It would be interesting to see an attempt. Even years ago when I was obsessed with meat I wouldn't have gone that far!

 

You keep suggesting that the above facts/figures are probably wrong and biased and that there's surely other info out there proving the exact opposite conclusion... yet I have yet to see such convincing information of the infallibility of animal agriculture, especially from leading international organizations such as the UN, ocean-protection organizations such as this, or respected magazines such as this, etc etc etc.

 

 

It´s not so simple as you suggest.  I could put up some of those links.  (Or you could read The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith.)  I will if you´d like me too, but frankly it wouldn´t do any good.  Because neither of us have the expertise required to separate statistical truth from statistical lies.  What´s the point?

 

So, what? Nobody ever does anything because it's impossible to have all the information about a thing?

 

Why is the FAO lying? How are the pure numbers I posted from the USDA a lie? Why would the USDA invent statistics that, for example, show how much water animal agriculture uses?

 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/ImageGen.ashx?image=/media/1914367/ewpie.png

 

(note that the corn, sorghum, forage, and protein of the soybean are all used for animal feed)

 

 

Has your health improved since becoming vegetarian?  Do you feel lighter, more inclined towards spiritual practice?  Do you smile at the grocery store, proud of making changes that bring your eating more in-line with your personal values? 

 

My health has not changed, I feel no physical difference. I continue to grow stronger and more flexible, and I've lost some fat and gained a little muscle mass, but would attribute that to a better movement/workout/stretching practice beginning around the same time.

 

Almost everyone I know eats a lot of meat, and I find myself socializing less. It's difficult to go to a friend's birthday celebration when the chosen restaurant offers no veggie options except for mushroom soup. I feel judgement from meat eaters -- whether imagined or not I don't always know, though I know that many of my less close family and friends are very much anti-vegetarian. And, gradually, I feel more and more antipathy towards people who eat meat and refuse to consider the potential issues surrounding it. As many are quick and willing to note, vegans aren't often much better, though I don't know any in person so it's harder to feel antipathy towards them.

 

Taste-wise, I enjoy my meals as much as before, possibly more since I lost the "meat tastes better" dogma and discovered that plants are generally responsible for the tastier meat dishes anyway. I no longer feel the nudging guilt that was starting to grow with each bite of a dead cow's backside -- this is good. The smell of certain meats cooking has become slightly nauseating. I've discovered a number of foods that I probably wouldn't have bothered with a year ago.

 

 

If so, I´d be interested to know.  That would be so much more useful for everybody than posting dueling lists of questionable facts proving nothing at all.

 

It's no more reliable, no more provable than the data you mention above. I could easily lie about all sorts of health benefits and extra energy and how happy it's made me (and so could someone who eats meat). I do my best to be honest, and in all honesty I think that most people, vegan or otherwise, who claim these kind of things are full of shit...

 

And there's been no fact-dueling thus far, has there? Nobody is willing to post contradictory information...

Edited by dustybeijing
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dustybeijing.  You asked for some links and here they are: the results of my quick websearch on the environmental fallout of vegetarianism.  I haven´t researched these (and am not really up for a scientific tit-for-tat) but I think this preliminary list suggests that the issue is far from resolved.

 

http://www.sciencealert.com/vegetarian-and-healthy-diets-may-actually-be-worse-for-the-environment-study-finds

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1250532/Being-vegetarian-does-harm-environment-eating-meat.html

 

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/ordering-vegetarian-meal-there-s-more-animal-blood-your-hands

 

http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/can-animals-save-us/joel-salatin-how-to-eat-meat-and-respect-it-too 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vegetarian-diet-bad-for-environment-meat-study-lettuce-three-times-worse-emissions-bacon-a6773671.html

 

http://huntergatherer.com/prominent-vegan-advocate-22i-was-wrong-about-veganism-22/

 

The people who I respect, by the way, are not the factory farmers.  And not the people eating factory-farmed meat either.  I don´t dispute that this kind of farming is bad for our health, bad for our environment, and unbelievably cruel to the animals.  But as farmers like Joel Salatin point out, that´s not the only way to raise meat.  Just so you know.

 

I found it interesting that you feel judged by meat-eaters because I feel judged by vegetarians.  While it´s true that most people eat meat, those same people believe (erroenously, in my opinion) that vegetarian diets are healthier.  

 

I hope you don´t think I´m judgemental.  If you´re diet is working for you and you feel good about it, more power to you.  Yes, I´m a little closed-off to information that I perceive as pro- vegetarianism.  Maybe I should lighten up?  It´s just that most of the vegetarians who have tried to influence me about this issue (in person -- not you) have just oozed hate. Or at least that was my perception.

 

Happy eating (however you do it),

Liminal

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry liminal, I wasn't ignoring this... missed it somehow.
 
I know you weren't up for a tit-for-tat but I do feel I (or someone) need to respond.

 

 
This is one of those ones.
 
1) They choose lettuce, the most useless and watery vegetable imaginable, to compare on a calorie basis? I don't eat lettuce, and whether lettuce is nutritionally or calorifically equal to pig is irrelevant: it's bizarre to argue that lettuce is the major element in a veg diet and that they're therefore somehow responsible for more environmental damage. It's bizarre to suggest that lettuce could ever be equivalent to pig in the diet.
 
2) Lettuce grows. It's in the ground, water and sun fall on it, and it grows -- you can grow it at home if you like it (not sure why people like it..). It has a small nutritional benefit and people eat a little at a time. It doesn't require much extraneous energy to produce. Pigs? Pigs require a lot. A lot more space, a lot more energy. Not per calorie, but in general. There is no way that lettuce is taking up more than a tiny tiny portion of CO2 equivalent emissions or other environmental damage, but pigs are taking up a lot.
 
3) Let's talk about a plant that's actually worth something, one that can reasonably be compared to pig. Peanuts. Or any other legume or nut, really.
 
http://www.uark.edu/ua/cars/Subpages/Reports/Peanut_Report.pdf
 
This is American peanut butter -- a relatively wasteful and complicated process compared to how it could be (removing sugar and palm oil and salt from the ingredients, not blanching, roasting for less time perhaps). There are various PBs available which almost certainly have a smaller footprint than a brand like Skippy.
 
So, rounding up, peanut butter claims a GHG impact of 3kg CO2e per kg.
 
Lamb claims 39kg per kg, beef 27, and pork 12.
 
Looking at the nutritional values of nuts/legumes vs these meats (nuts are amazingly full of good things), it should be obvious that nuts and legumes are healthier and more environmentally friendly than meats. Fish is not so bad environmentally, though there are other issues with that.
 
See also comparison of milk vs soy juice ("soy milk"): http://envormation.org/environmental-comparison-of-cows-and-soy-milk/

 

 

1) This is again assuming that veg diets must contain heavily processed meat analogues. This isn't true. Very selective.

 

2) It's comparing domestic meat to imported tofu, but there in most nations there's plenty of imported meat and domestic meat substitutes, so this seems unfair. Very selective.

 

3) http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-top-10-foods-with-the-biggest-environmental-footprint-2015-9?r=US&IR=T

 

Note that tofu is way down on the list. Fine by me if Quorn is done away with, but let's not blame tofu itself.

 

 

As the article says, it applies to Australia but not necessarily anywhere else.

 

Regardless,

 

1) They're talking about grains and pulses and comparing kg of usable protein -- selective, once again. Grains are higher in protein than milk, but not any other animal products (close to eggs). It would be more honest to compare crops such as beans, almonds, peanuts, chickpeas, etc.

 

Comparing wheat and meat, it would be more honest to compare in terms of calories this time. Wheat: 339/100g, Beef: 250/100g. Wheat wins. Rice: 130/100g. Beef wins. But on average, I think it's pretty equal.

 

2) We can compare various food types in terms of calories and animal deaths and see what happens:

 

 

animalvisuals_diagram.jpg

Edited by dust
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost everyone I know eats a lot of meat, and I find myself socializing less. It's difficult to go to a friend's birthday celebration when the chosen restaurant offers no veggie options except for mushroom soup. I feel judgement from meat eaters -- whether imagined or not I don't always know, though I know that many of my less close family and friends are very much anti-vegetarian. And, gradually, I feel more and more antipathy towards people who eat meat and refuse to consider the potential issues surrounding it. As many are quick and willing to note, vegans aren't often much better, though I don't know any in person so it's harder to feel antipathy towards them.

Thankfully the great majority of restaurants have a couple of vegetarian options.  If not main dishes and salad then a couple of appetizers or side dishes.  But I hate to see vegetarianism affecting your social life poorly.  There's always a bore in the crowd but if you ignore the one, most often others won't even notice. 

 

What I'm saying is, watch your own prejudices.  In some ways they're as 'out there' as the bore who comments that you're not eating meat.  Eating is bonding, let go of your judgements at the time, and enjoy the meal and the company.   Let the philosophical and ecological discussions happen later. 

 

I had friends in high school who were militant vegetarians walking around with books like 'Diet for a New World' and trying to turn meals into conversions.  It didn't work, they only solidified opinions and got into arguments.  Not the time and place for the discussion.  That's not to say discuss if asked, but keep it light and positive.  As soon as you drop (or think) a guilt trip, your getting entangled. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crops grown as animal feed are being grown on prime agricultural areas, not mountains and scrub areas.

 

It's not a matter of economics. The econmics of animal farming are atrocious and accomplished by trickery and subsidization.

Exactly, a lot of the US, for instance, is naturally grassland because there is not enough rainfall to grow forests. THESE areas would be the best natural, symbiotic habitat for grazing ruminants.

The grassland landscape "co-evolved with grazing animals and plants and predators," says Shannon Horst. This was once a biologically synergistic community, she says, but over thousands of years human interventions like hunting, farming and domesticating livestock changed the nature of the symbiotic relationship and produced stress on the land.

The problem is when WEIRDos clear-cut natural forests down to replace them with grasslands just to graze cattle (or even grow annual crops). To chop down a mature forest and replace it with a lawn is an immense degree of habitat destruction at an astronomical ecological cost. Edited by gendao
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites