Veganism...why?

[Haagrum]

The real problem with these opposing viewpoints is morality. If we remove that from the equation it could solve quite a lot of the fuss going on.
Just think about it, everyone eating any food because they want to. Or the kind of foods being grown for the best yield or most nutrition least effort/cost.
It would be glorious.

It would be glorious. The only difficulty is that we live on a world with finite resources, and the two scenarios you put may not be mutually inclusive. Put simply, there aren't enough resources for every person on the planet to eat the average Australian or American diet.

For some, yes, it's about morality (on both sides). For others (myself included), it's about the ethics and economics of production and consumption. There is an important difference, as morality typically takes absolute positions detached from details (e.g. killing animals is wrong), whereas ethics are generally aimed at resolving practical situations and difficulties (e.g. killing animals should be avoided, unless it is necessary for survival or where it can be done with a minimum of distress).

As with most discussions, it's generally the loudest and most militant who get the most attention. It'd be great if some of the meat-eaters didn't see this as an attack on them personally (often, it's guilt, reflexive defensiveness or anger rather than reasoned engagement) for supporting what others claim is an unethical industry. Likewise, it'd be great if the vegetarians and vegans were more patient and less preachy, because no-one likes a sermon (even if the ideas have intellectual merit and deserve discussion).

[mini-rant] As an aside - the tired "more animals die per square acre of crops than pasturage" argument inaccurately assumes that the same space feeds the same number of people regardless of whether it's used for agriculture or meat production. Per capita of humans fed, the "deaths per square acre" count works out substantially in favour of vegetarians/vegans. [/mini-rant]

Getting back to the OP's question, though: There are some people for whom environmental concerns, animal treatment, economics, personal taste or health reasons are sufficient cause to give up eating animal products. Given how many people on this topic are asserting the importance of personal choice in their lifestyles, isn't that reason enough?

 

[Lunar Templar]

Why is veganism a thing?

Because it gives us Telepathic Powers

only in Canadian comics, and he lost to a meat eater

That's only because the Vegan Police stripped him of his powers as punishment for his constant veganity violations ("Chicken isn't vegan?"). ;p

so? he still lost to the meat eater the fact Tod (i think was his name) was to weak willed to stick to it (or to stupid as the case seems to be) is just extra

sides we all know meat eaters have cooler powers in fiction

 

[Scylla6]

There's been some confusion in this thread as to two different terms; Sentience and sapience.

Sentience is when an animal is aware of it's surroundings, capable of understanding whether they are beneficial or not, and making a choice accordingly. In this way a worm is sentient, because it moves to areas of soil with more nutrients and a better climate when possible.

Sapience, which may or may not apply to animals other than humans, is when the subject is aware, not of their surroundings, but of their own awareness. They are cognizant of their own cognizance. A simple way of thinking about it is "Can the subject be thinking of the way in which it is thinking?". Sapience is thus, without further study, restricted to humans, in that we have philosophy, whereas a worm does not.

Hope this clarifies things.

 

[BNguyen]

50% of the chicks that emerge as males and get casually tossed into a grinder? That is an unavoidable consequence of mass breeding chickens. Not all of them turn out female.

Why cant we eat roosters? That may seem stupid but ive never understood this practice. Youve invested money in getting an egg to hatch into a rooser. Why not just free range farm them for consumption? Isnt it a huge waste not to?

it's harder to raise any number of roosters together because of the usual male dominance reasons
we can eat roosters but it would cost a whole lot more to maintain a good number for the primary reason of consumption
we only raise roosters to maintain a high level of productive females and eggs, its the same as hunting deer - mostly hunting females and at certain times we go after the bucks to keep population levels from going out of control

 

[wintercoat]

Cooking meat is what made us intelligent.

I'm not disagreeing with that, I think it's probably true. I just don't see how that's an argument for continuing now. It's a genetic fallacy to say that good in the past automatically means good in the present, regardless of current context.

Except that it's always been part of a healthy diet. If it has always been good for us, why would it suddenly not be?

You can bring up external factors like, how today meat can be pumped full of hormones etc and is not in the same pure form of nutrition that it used to be. And that's true. But it's also true for crops. With pesticides and preservatives being sprayed on and fed to it.

I'd say the largest health-risk to humanity in terms of consumption, at the minute is wheat. The amount we currently consume, and the average glycemic index of wheat based products is scary high. Like, alarmingly so.

Meat is part of a healthy human diet. We could change that with pills, but there's no saying that this change won't have long-term side effects. Maybe not in any of our lifetimes, but gradually over time.

There's no saying it will either. Scare-mongering about what might happen if we use synthetic sources without any empirical basis isn't going to convince anyone to abandon vegetarianism or veganism.

I never said it to scare people off of the doubles V's. I'm saying that the there is the off chance, so to people who enjoy eating meat... why would they trade in something they know is perfectly healthy for something that might not be?

Saying 'it might not have any effects' isn't going to convince people who eat meat to drop that drum stick and pick up a Vegan approved air wafer.

The fact is, both diets can be healthy. If someone were to say that veganism is unhealthy, I could list plenty of counter-examples to that. Likewise, if someone were to say that meat were unhealthy, I could provide plenty of counter-examples to that too. The health argument to me, is moot. It can be done healthily. It's the moral aspect of this debate that interests me.

The Vegan diet isn't healthy though, you have to take supplements and tablets etc to make it a healthy diet. You could live on nothing but cheeseburgers and get all the minerals and vitamins you'd normally get from veg in pill form... I wouldn't advise it though.

A healthy diet is balanced, and unless you have some sort of medical condition. Pills shouldn't really be a part of it.

What I'm basically saying is that a Vegan diet does not have any health benefits that a balanced diet does not, and it has drawbacks. So what is the incentive to switch from a balanced diet to an unbalanced one?


And I don't buy into the whole morality aspect of the debate.

It's silly, some animals eat other animals. It's part of nature, I really don't see why morality has to be dragged into something as base and primal as eating.

I do think that we should treat the animals with as much respect as possible. But that doesn't mean that I won't eat meat in protest to the bad farms or whatever.

I'd rather just buy from sources I trust.

Actually, it is possible to eat no meat and not have to take any pills. It just requires a much more structured diet in order to get all of your essentials. Taking a protein pill is just easier than having to structure all of your meals around proper protein consumption. As a meat eater, you get all of your essentials easily, while vegetarians, and especially vegans, have to work for it.

Personally? Not worth the effort. Also, bacon.

 

[Jammy2003]

It's pretty simple actually. A Cow can't do much aside from eating, shitting and sleeping. Even the biggest failure of a Human can and will accomplish more for the World then that. A Cow has no existence beyond that of a wandering sack of Meat, be it through Humans as Predators or any other Predator. It's the only thing a Cow is good for, feeding other Species, because other then that they are only a Resource drain. In fact, we actually put the Cow to better use then any other Predator could.

You can disagree all you want, it is a important factor.

1. You are assuming that I am not the most gifted, brilliant person on earth. I resent that, I'm pretty awesome. xD

2. ....(snip)

Actually the average human will be FAR more of a drain than a cow wandering about would. Trust me, I live in Britain, look at our benefits system. So I would actually rather trade the bottom 10% of our population for cows, and set up temples worshiping them, it would be cheaper and more beneficial.

1) You may be, but for the sake of arguement, assumptions must be made

2) All philosophical debate requires mental gymnastics. Earlier in the thread, the constantly put forward thing was that if everyone went vegan at once, "But think of the animals!" what would we do with the remaining livestock?

3) Ultimately, you aren't really WORTH more than a cow, not by simple existance. This isn't some right you inherit, that means you are always worth more than any other creature. If I'm crossing a desert, a camel is worth more to me than you would be. If I was trying to have a self-sufficient farm stead, a cow would be infinitely more valueable than you. They give while you would just drain.

4) Cows actually do have concepts of life and death, check this article out: http://www.globalanimal.org/2012/04/13/cow-proves-animals-love-think-and-act/71867/

I would also argue that the intellegence of cows is stunted by their association with humans. "Intellegence is generally not viewed as a positive attribute from a livestock owner's point of view - a clever cow is one that figures out how to get out of fences or cause mischief of one variety or another, and a cow who is nicknamed "Curiosity" is likely to be called "Hamburger" as soon as possible." In this way, selective breeding has actually shaped cows into being docile, less curious animals, than they otherwise could be. Plus, in actual fact, pigs have been proven in intellegence tests to be MORE intellegent than a dog, which we hold up and say "But it's too intellegent to eat".

In terms of general animal intellegence vs human intellegence, mirror tests have proven that chimps, other great apes, Magpies, Cetateans, and elephants actually have a sense of self-awareness. Elephants can even do simple arithmatic, which is more than a chunk of humans!
So if we are basing this on the idea of intellegence, in what can be shown to us, some elephants apparently deserve more "human rights" than people without access to proper education. There is a guy in my town you can't read or count, does this mean he doesn't deserve these rights?

Also, all sorts of primates have been taught sign language, and there is a recorded case of one chimp teaching other chimps how to sign.
http://www.npr.org/2008/05/28/90516132/the-chimp-that-learned-sign-language
Nim was raised like a human, taught to sign and generally communicate. Later when he was put into a lab for animal testing, he constantly signed "No, please stop, it hurts" and actually taught the other chimps to do so as well.

I'm pretty sure this teaching aspect has been shown to extend to squid, in that if a squid solves a puzzle, is put in a tank with another squid for a time, and then the other squid is put in to solve the puzzle, it will have a much quicker solving time. Read that a while back but can't find documentation right now though.

I can flood you with examples of animal intellegence, but I doubt you will have read all of the above ones completely. Everyone seems to accept it as common knowledge than animals aren't intellegent, but a simple google search provides many examples to the contrary.

 

[Jammy2003]

No, actually the human won't. The wandering Cow contributes nothing. Humans do. End of Story.

1) You may be, but for the sake of arguement, assumptions must be made

Sure, but not entirely baseless assumptions that rely on building a entirely alternate reality. The given example doesn't result in a argument because it requires far too much abstract thought to remain applicable to the discussion.

If that's what the Poster is going to do she could just go full circle and name a complete role reversal of a given Animal and a Human, that would be equally nonsensical, yet equatable to what she is doing now.

2) All philosophical debate...

Noted. Yet irrelevant to me, I haven't made such claims, they do not apply to me. Also, you should note the difference between some abstract thought and alot of abstract thought, it can make or equally break a point. In this case it breaks the point.

3) Ultimately...

False. It's situational. If you are going to assume that crossing the desert with a Camel will result in the Camel following your lead, doing what you want, I can equally answer that I would be more useful because in this case "I" am a local expert of the given desert who can get it through it safer and more comfortable then the Camel could. If you are trying to create a self-sufficient farm I am the expert who knows how to use the land and animals to maximum capacity. All the Cow can do is produce Milk and Meat. All the Camel is going to do is walk.

4) Cows actually do have concepts of life and death...

All I see in that article is the humanization of a cow. I see no reason to believe that the cow reasoned a decision. Interesting, but at best circumstantial and insufficient to claim that all cows have concepts of life and death, especially considering that the article doesn't even imply death, all it implies is a nuture instinct, common in mammals.

How about a different explanation? I'll give you a simple one:

For whatever reason 1 Calf followed it's Mother while the other did not.

With the information at hand that could easily be the solution. I atleast see no reason why we should inherently be ascribing reason to that cow.

I would...

So, you want to argue that Cows are more intelligent then they seem (based on a anecdote?) yet that they also aren't because we have selectively breeded them as to not be. Excuse me, what? It would be new to me that we are talking about what Cows theoretically could be.

Plus, in actual fact, pigs have been proven...

I don't recall ever hearing someone say that Dogs are too intelligent to eat. I always assumed they just don't taste good or that they would be ineffcient in that use.

In terms of general...

So, you eat those? I don't. I knew all of that aside from the Elephant counting (because judging by what I found, it was counting). I really don't see the point of you bringing these Species up though. I doubt anybody here eats those and I also don't recall claiming that all animals are equal, just that none of them come close to what we can do. You haven't actually refuted that, so I don't see your point here.

So if we are basing this...

So, is this guy mentally retarded? Because otherwise I'm calling bullshit to the claim that a Elephant has a better understanding of quantities then he does.

Also, all sorts...

The article you linked doesn't reflect that. It actually remains at best ambitious if the Chimp ever actually used sign language to communicate of it's own regard. Now, I wouldn't find it difficult to believe that he did, because other chimps have. I just don't see qhy you would link a article that doesn't illustrate what you are claiming. Also, I find it interesting that you are assuming that mimicry constitutes having understood something. A chimp showing other chimps sign language doesn't mean that those chimps actually know what it means.

I'm pretty sure...

You mean the puzzles that consist of squeezing into boxes to get food? What puzzles are you refering to here?

I can flood you with examples...

I don't recall claiming that animals in general cannot be or show intelligence in any form. I said that no animal that we know of comes anywhere close to human intelligence and thus comparing them to humans is a false equivalence. So, by human standards, animals aren't intelligent. They may be able to surprise us with some things, but you can't compare them to us, especially not across the board. You are essentially complaining that people are obmitting "in comparison to humans..." when they say something like ...animals aren't intelligent.

I could also tell you that it's has been shown that a chimp for instance can balance a object, much like a child could. Yet if you modify the same object as to change it's center the chimp will just keep trying to balance it and eventually give up. A human child on the other hand will start examining the object as to find out why the same object now cannot be balanced in the same way.

No, you're missing my point. Some people don't contribute anything, and as such they are simply a drain from the rest of society. The cow, being neutral, is then actually better. Zero impact is better than negative impact. They eat, pollute, take money from taxes that could go to benefit useful members of society and access healthcare they didn't contribute to. How is that better or more valuable than a cow in a field? My point is being human does not entitle you to worth. You have to earn worth.

The poster didn't build an entirely alternate reality, she simply took your arguement that its all about potential and built upon that. It's no more abstract than just accepting at face value the "fact" that potential is the most important thing in life, which is opinion anyway. You make it sound like she was describing some reality where plants were the dominant species and WHAT THEN? She simply took your arguement to a theoretical level with discussion value.

You have included a fair bit of abstract thought that if we were in the desert you would be an expert in the local area. Yes, it is situational so in that case, maybe you would be more useful, however that's pretty abstract. I'm talking the average person, and the average camel. Which is now worth more? And fine, even if the average camel wouldn't follow my lead or whatever, me wandering the desert alone is still better than having another "average" human, as thats another mouth to feed and give water to. That theoretical human has negative worth.

Same with the farm, you're assuming that suddenly you are now an expert in agriculture, but if you take the average human and their knowledge of farming, they would not be as much help as a cow would be. They eat, require a larger living area to have been built and may not give as much as a cow would. Why should the worth of the average animal be compared with the worth of a human specialised in that field?

Fair point with the cow, I was hesitant to link due to the tone of the arguement. But if you are going to argue it's nuture instinct, the mother would not have simply left one calf out and gone back to the barn. She would have stayed out with both, and the farmer would have discovered it then and there. I see no reason we should inherently abscribe stupidity to the cow

My arguement was that cows are more intellegent than they are given credit for, and that they would "potentially" be even more so (seeing as how potential is the most important thing here). Not that they both are and aren't intellegent. I then went on to say that animals in general are underestimated in terms of their intellegence and they are used for all sorts of purposes which they shouldn't.

Dog are used for food, China and Korea both have practices of that, which most people will condemn as brutal or wrong. Same with whales and dolphins being used for food. It was to point out the double standard that some animals are pets, or cute and some food, based on the false idea that they are more intellegent.

The guy is not mentally retarded to the best of my knowledge. He simply never had an education, never wanted to learn, and so never has. He's a pretty old guy who used to come into where I worked, would hand me the shopping list and ask me to find the stuff, as he couldn't read it. But even if he was, what then? What if he then had less potential or less grasp of numbers than the elephant? Even if it's only equal understanding that refutes the point that "no animal can come close to what we can do". The man has not done anything particularly in his life but be a breeder, so why is he better than an animal?

Correct, after posting I checked out the link more thoroughly and realised it didn't include everything I wanted it to. At the time I was trying to remember the name of the chimp I read about before and linked in haste. My bad.
I would put it down to mimicry if the sign language had done anything to stop the testing, but the scientists carried on regardless, so why would the other chimps mimic the behaviour? If there is no benefit from the behaviour there is no reason to mimic it.

I believe the puzzles were things that needed to be manipulated in order to get access to food.
Why should the chimp want to balance the object? What reason does it have to balance it?

My point is that we test these animals on things we consider intellegence. I always love the line from hitchhikers guide to the galaxy which goes something like:
"Humans consider themselves to be the most intellegent species as they have built cars, planes, jobs and societies. Dolphins consider themselves more intellegent as they haven't"
We test animals on human intellegence and, surprise surprise, the less like humans they are, the lower they score on the tests.
Though some exceptional animals seem to then score higher on our tests than less intellegent humans. That counts as close to me. And so it makes me wonder about the rest... at least enough to not want animals treated as badly as they are.

EDIT: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/aug/18/troubled-life-nim-chimpsky/
Link with the complete information I meant to include. References to Nim teaching other chimps about 1/5 of the way down.

EDIT 2: Actually, that link is pretty interesting, more so than I thought. Don't be daunted, the bottom 3/5 is comments, not article.

 

[LittleShe-Bear]

Cooking meat is what made us intelligent.

I'm not disagreeing with that, I think it's probably true. I just don't see how that's an argument for continuing now. It's a genetic fallacy to say that good in the past automatically means good in the present, regardless of current context.

Except that it's always been part of a healthy diet. If it has always been good for us, why would it suddenly not be?

Read my post. I never said it wasn't healthy. I'm saying justifications for consumption in the past don't mean those justifications automatically hold up in the present.

The Vegan diet isn't healthy though, you have to take supplements and tablets etc to make it a healthy diet.

So how do you explain the many, many counter-examples of people who live on a vegan diet in perfect health? If it can be done safely and healthily then it's not true to say its inherently unhealthy. Meat diets and plant-based diets can BOTH be healthy or unhealthy depending on how you tackle them.

It's silly, some animals eat other animals. It's part of nature, I really don't see why morality has to be dragged into something as base and primal as eating.

No it's not silly. I've brought this up before but I'm still waiting for someone to address the is/ought fallacy in this thread. Just because something is natural, why does that make it good? Just because something is, why does that mean it ought to be? Cancer, heart disease and all manner of nasty things are natural, does that mean we should just accept them as right and good? If we're capable of transcending nature for the sake of good, why shouldn't we? Why should nature trump compassion?

I don't recall claiming that animals in general cannot be or show intelligence in any form

My point is that arguing about intelligence is the wrong criteria to use to assess needs in terms of welfare. Any creature capable of feeling pain is capable of being interested in not suffering or being killed, therefore if you follow the golden rule, it's right not to inflict pain on something capable of feeling pain unless its absolutely necessary. If a creature can suffer, we shouldn't make them suffer. Why should it matter how smart they are? Why should it matter how much potential they have to be smart?

The point of my "silly" example was to demonstrate that it might not be a good idea to use intelligence as the by-word for worth. If you do that, you could end up de-valuing human beings as well as animals. You're every bit as important as the uber-mensch, you have just as much right to life as he does but if you use intelligence as the yard-stick for importance, you might have to accept the rightness of sacrificing yourself for the more "important" individual.

I was also using that "silly" example to try and demonstrate that while the human/human is more similar in many respects than human/cow, in the relevant respect, they're exactly the same. Both can be significantly interested in not being subject to pain and being killed. Intelligence level has no bearing on that.

And yes, it probably did involve some mental gymnastics to imagine all that. That's what thought experiments are for.

 

[Jammy2003]

Eating animals is neither inherently good or bad. It's just part of nature. Our bodies have adapted to eat meat, why would we abstain from that course of action? Morality doesn't enter into this in except how we treat the animals before consumption.

If a person wishes not to eat meat then that's their choice, just as it's another persons choice to continue to eat meat. Both choices should be respected.

True, but our bodies are not really as adapted as you might think:
http://www.detox.net.au/images/chartqo5-1.jpg
I don't like this chart that much, because it doesn't reflect the carni/omni attributes like forward facing eyes etc. as well as the herbi attributes, but it does reflect how we aren't that well adapted, and definitely not for a meat DOMINANT diet.

True, all choices should be respected... But what if your choice starts to effect me? The meat production in the quantity needed for our current population and their dietary choices is causing a large impact on the planet as a whole. And that does effect me, so is it now a personal choice?

How far is a personal choice allowed to go before its no longer personal?

 

[Jammy2003]

I'd never recommend a meat dominant diet, but meat is certainly a part of our optimum diets. Especially fish.

And I'd like to point out that we don't share many physical attributes with predators because we only became praetors fairly recently in our evolutionary history. Before we started scavenging and cooking meat, we were gatherers. Our diets consisted of nuts, roots, fruit and vegetation. The enhanced brain function that came from eating a high calory diet which included meat and an easily digested diet, which came about from cooking food. Is what gave us the ability to make tools which undercut the need to evolve classic predator attributes such as claws, fangs etc.

You could say the same for the high demand for crops. Especially wheat, as I said earlier. Wheat based products are probably the most widely consumed crop on the planet. They're also incredibly bad for us, whether that is naturally the case or through our tampering with crop yield. I don't know.

But they have an astronomically high glycemic index and that is effecting everybody.

Not to mention the space that would be required if crops were to totally replace livestock as a food source. Much of the land that is used for livestock isn't suitable for yielding high quality crops. If any at all.

Everything we do has a large is only short lived effect on our eco system, picking on meat consumption is naive and counter productive.

Sure reform in how we care for our livestock would be great. But the same could be said with how we yield crops or anything else we do.

Meat may be part of our optimum diet, but next to nobody sticks to the optimum diet. You always seem to be arguing to get everything you need for an optimum diet as a vegan would be hard/impossible without supplements. However, how many people get everything they need for an optimum diet on an omni diet? What's the difference? Vegans generally have a healthier diet due to the fact that, as some things are harder to obtain, lots of products are fortified with things to make sure they get the vitamins and nutrients required.

I'm sure there are unhealthy vegans, but there is many more people living off MacDonalds every day with far worse diets. Extremes happen with everything though, and a vegan friend of mine probably eats both a healthier and more varied diet than I do.

I'd argue about the fact cooked food is what let us develop tools:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070222-chimps-spears.html
As far as I'm aware chimps don't cook, but they are renowned for using tools, and now weapons.
Sure, meat may have developed us to a degree, but we seem to have hit a bit of a plateau with regards to that now, and its time to look at other options perhaps.

Wheat may be bad for us, but that will then be a person choice that doesn't cause harm to others beyond them. Growing a crop doesn't emit the same level of emissions as lifestock, and the high demand for wheat? I've stated this before in this thread, 1/3 of the worlds grain production is used as feed (that's all grain, including rice) and 70-80% of the USA's production is used as feed for livestock. Simply redirecting that feed to humans instead of livestock would mean no more needs to be grown.

Simple conservation of energy. If there is enough now, even with the animals in the middle, there will be more than enough if we cut them from the chain. No more wheat would be needed, in fact less could be grown. I'm not talking about a couple of cows on a hillside thats way too steep to level in layers to make it viable for crop farming, I'm talking about the vast stretches used simply because of the demand for SO MUCH meat.

So because everything needs fixing, fix nothing?

 

[Jessy_Fran]

Is this true?:

Yeah either way I subscribe to the reason that you know, human's today are made to consume animals. So there is no reason against doing it.

Yup, this is true but I have also seen this exact image with every one of the items listed having a vegan alternative written next to it. It's damn difficult to avoid all of this stuff and yes, something we vegans slip up. However it's the intent to avoid the products that matters in those cases. For example, I go out of my way to buy comestics/cleaning products etc that neither contain nor were tested on animals. (While it may make my life a touch more difficult I think that they deserve that much repect from me.) However, I did recently buy a medicinal shampoo that I didn't realise had changed companies and is now tested on animals. I'm annoyed at myself but at least now I can change what product I use and stop supporting that company.

I suppose it's less difficult than it is time consuming but as I say, to me it's worth it!

Actually, that's a very good point. This thread is about Veganism as a whole, right? It's not just a diet, so what do people think about animal testing? Argue all you want that humans are made to consume meat but should we really be testing our shampoos and injections on them? Just curious as to peoples thoughts.

 

[Vivi22]

Wheat based products are probably the most widely consumed crop on the planet. They're also incredibly bad for us, whether that is naturally the case or through our tampering with crop yield. I don't know.

There aren't a whole lot of studies into whether modern wheat is worse than the stuff we used to eat since many nutrition scientists still blame saturated fat for all of our ills, but there is evidence out there. I know modern wheat compared to more primitive forms like Einkorn or Emmer has a vastly greater impact on blood glucose for starters. Also, the way wheat reproduces when cross bred results in new strains having properties which are both a combination of the parent strains, and completely new since they retain the full gene sequences of both parent strains rather than just being a combination of them. One study I know of actually compared fairly recent blood samples from soldiers to samples taken and kept about 50 years earlier and the more recent samples had significantly higher amounts of celiac antibodies than the 50 year old samples indicating that the gluten proteins in modern wheat are likely causing problems for more people than older strains, which makes some sense since the present strains didn't exist before the 1960's and have since been so successful that they're used almost everywhere to the exclusion of less modern strains.

I don't have any links to sources handy at the moment for those but I can track them down later if desired. And a good primer on all of the health issues wheat has been linked to would be the book Wheat Belly by Dr. William Davis. It's pretty thorough in its critique of wheat and well sourced as well.

Actually, that's a very good point. This thread is about Veganism as a whole, right? It's not just a diet, so what do people think about animal testing? Argue all you want that humans are made to consume meat but should we really be testing our shampoos and injections on them? Just curious as to peoples thoughts.

Shampoos I could see an argument against. At this point, do we really need 50 different kinds of shampoo on the market? Is there any real improvement going on? Is testing really necessary? How many lives are these shampoos saving?

But for medications, medical treatments, and even food testing, I'd say absolutely, we should test on animals first. But my reasoning is that I place the well being of humans over the suffering of animals. You could argue we could just test on willing human test subjects, but this creates a whole host of moral issues. Is it right to test on living people if we have no idea what the side effects might be because animal testing never happened? Is it right to offer experimental treatments to dying or otherwise desperate patients when the treatment might actually be worse than the disease and you're basically preying on their desperation to test your drugs? Can a person even make an informed choice when they don't know the potential risks?

I don't think they can, and I think if we're talking about questions of morality that protecting human lives and well being is more important than protecting the lives and well being of animals. People are free to feel differently about that, but it would take a pretty compelling, objective, and logical argument that didn't try to appeal to my emotions to convince me that I shouldn't value the well being of members of my species over members of other species.

 

[Hairbear]

I noticed several people wonder if vegans would still be vegan if plants frlt pain. Decades ago science had proven that plants not only "feel" pain but that on a cellular level when you breach plant cells they emit a high pitch "scream" beyond the range of human hearing. So in the immortal words of Reel Big Fish "Save a plant eat a cow. I want beef I want it now. I'm gonna eat it cause it's red. I'm gonna eat it cause it's dead. Maybe I should eat it raw. Let the blood run down ny jaw. I'd eat people if it was legal. I'D EAT PEOPLE IF IT WAS LEGAL"

 

[prophecy2514]

Did you not even read my post? I said I was all for finding more humane methods of farming.

That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently. I just don't feel that animals fall into that category, and I'm far from alone in the matter. A quick google search will show that any conclusion about animal sentience is hotly contested.

The fact is, sentient or not, we are superior to animals, and I have no moral obligation to treat them as my equal. I would not wish for an animal to be put through unnecessary suffering, but I do not value their comfort so much that I will spend extra money, let alone put my health at risk, or force myself to second guess every meal to make sure it's not only vegan but that it also provides enough protein and minerals to replace the nutritional benefits of meat, just to save them from discomfort.

Further, anyone who says they do is lying, because if they did, they would sell their gaming supplies to donate to the SPCA or to save the tigers, or to prevent deforestation, or even going out into the wilderness to provide food and shelter to wild animals during harsh winters. Life is cruel and painful, I will not make mine more so just to make an animal's less so.

The fact it's up for debate doesn't then bother you? How would you then feel if tomorrow, a cow learned to talk our language, and said that for years they have communicated between themselves and see us as vile beings? (Ridiculous arguement, but not more so than the one of "Yeah, but if we all went vegan, what would be do with all the animals?") Having interacted with animals and seen some of the presented results, I'd say its just a matter of time before we find that "shockingly" animals are more intellegent than most people seem to give them credit for.

If meat eating was lowered at least, it wouldn't cost more, and there is no need to put your health at risk, so that only leaves simple convinience as your defence in that arguement. "It's difficult to make learn about other food and then make meals from them". It's not actually that hard to get protein from other sources, we are just indoctrinated into this attitude of NEEDING meat to be healthy. There are pro-athletes and body builders who are vegan and live just as long, if not longer than meat eaters, so it's not impossible with just a little effort.

No, not at all. I've grown up around animals all my life, they are not our equals.
If cows learned how to speak English tomorrow, I would firmly believe I was in the matrix, because that's the only logical explanation.

And yes, if meat eating was reduced, it would increase price. It's called supply, and demand. Econ 101 material right there. Further, I wasn't talking about price, I was talking about profit, and fewer sales means less revenue, means less profit. That's why price increases when demand goes down, they need to make up for that lost profit, and it doesn't account for all of the lost profit, making alternate(more humane) farming methods, which are inherently less profitable, even less appealing to farmers.

And yes, not eating meat, and particularly being a vegan(what this thread is about), does put your health at risk. yes it's possible to be healthy as a vegan, but it requires you to take much more care with your diet, and to take supplements. There is no vegan way to get essential omega 3 oils, for example, and its also much harder to get several amino acids(again, harder, not impossible).

It's not about protein, it's about the right protein to give you the right balance of amino acids. Meat is the only source which contains all 8 essential amino acids. Also, there are many things in fat, also hard to get without meat, that are good for you, like essential oils which you can't naturally get from vegan sources.

Yeah, professional athletes clearly don't put much effort into their diet, and they don't take any supplements. /Sarcasm

Why don't you try to do some research before you call me out on not doing so. You can start here, but google will provide much more info. http://nourishedkitchen.com/10-reasons-red-meat/

I was a bit overboard when I said it was impossible, but it is impossible to eat healthy as a vegan without carefully considering every single meal and taking half a dozen expensive supplements.

"And yes, if meat eating was reduced, it would increase price. It's called supply, and demand. Econ 101 material right there."
Have you ever studied economics? if the demand for good x (meat consumption) falls, the price of good x(meat) will DECREASE. when the demand for meat consumption falls, there is an oversupply of meat in the market, so the price is decreased to reduce the excess oversupply, reaching a new equilibrium price and quantity. THIS is econ101. You can extend on this depending on what assumptions you make about the structure of the meat consumption market, but what I have stated is correct in a competitive market.

"I wasn't talking about price, I was talking about profit, and fewer sales means less revenue, means less profit"

Chapter 2 econ 101. more sales does not mean more profit and in some cases it does not mean more gross revenue. This is because you have completely forgotten about the COST side of the story. I can go further and explain why if you'd like, but I'm not going to go into any more than that because of time constraints of explaining it to you.

"That's why price increases when demand goes down, they need to make up for that lost profit, and it doesn't account for all of the lost profit,

wrong again, increasing the price of meat when there is a negative shock to the demand for meat, only reduces the demand for meat further, and you'll eventually drive the market to a choke point. There are exceptions to this ( they're called giffen good) but I highly doubt this. It doesnt make up for "lost profit"

"making alternate(more humane) farming methods, which are inherently less profitable, even less appealing to farmers."

Meat produced from more humane farming methods aren't necessarily less profitable. If there is a fall in the demand for ordinary meat, but a rise in the demand for humane meat due to consumers caring more about the treatment of the animals they are eating, then the market for more humanely farmed meat MAY be very profitable BUT it depends on the marginal cost of supplying this meat to the consumer.

ordinary farmed meat and humanely farmed meat are substitutes are substitute goods, and this is why the price will also go down in the ordinarily farmed meat market, to give incentives for consumers to buy more at the reduced price despite the ethical considerations

ECON 101 lesson over. Be more careful please before making such incorrect claims.

My thoughts on veganism and vegans in general? some do have a superiority complex. But then again there are also a lot of people who aren't vegan and have a crack at vegans for being vegan... who also have a superiority complex as well. point is live and let live. I'll respect your stance if you except mine on this issue.

 

[Vivi22]

Thanks for the info, I've heard of Wheat belly before but never read it.

Would you say it's worth picking up just for a good peruse?

Definitely. Dr. Davis writing style is quite enjoyable, witty at the right moments and it's an easy read to plow through in a few nights before bed. It's also quite enlightening. I had known about things like the high GI of wheat products for quite some time, but he manages to cover a lot more than that, both based on the research he did, and the first hand experiences of thousands of patients who he counseled to give up wheat. He saw a lot of things like skin rashes, joint pains, and even hair loss go away with some patients simply changing their diets to remove wheat. Wheat linked to a lot more than I had ever realized, to the point where there may be a case for it being worse than sugar. Not to mention he goes into the actual mechanisms which cause heart disease and the role that wheat and low fat diets play in causing it which is always useful.

Definitely worth a read for how quickly you can get through the book and how much information is in there.

 

[Jammy2003]

No, you're missing my point....

Cows aren't neutral. Cows pollute, Cow Farts are pollution. So, no, contrary to your belief, a Cow doesn't have zero impact and if it isn't being used for Food for instance, it's impact will be inherently negative, especially considering that Herbivores tend to destroy entire eco systems if their populations are not controlled. A normal Human will never be a inherent drain on our systems. I've already made it pretty clear that deviations exist, the mentally handicapped for instance. I have also made it pretty clear that in some areas I consider our species too self-important. But I'm working with the average here and your argument doesn't hold up at that point.

The poster didn't build...

Actually she did.

1. She is comparing me to a animal. For that to work her theoretical Übermensch would have to belong to a entirely different species, he would have to be ridiculousy superior to me on every human level, we are talking the point where the difference would have to be so vast that it would be difficult to even quantify it. This is not the case, a comparison between myself and another human is not anything like the comparison between myself and a cow.

2. She had to create a reality in which it is possible that I am the only possible donor, this was somehow even found out and yet despite being able to do these things which at this point would be compareable to magic, a artificial heart (which we have, they aren't perfect but we have them) apparently doesn't exist despite our technological advancement otherwise being further. That is a completly fabricated version of reality built to support a argument that doesn't work to begin with. Simply because her premise that "if we use intelligence as our ethical basis here, why not do the same amoung humans?" is asinine and ignores that the differences between humans and other animals are so laughably vast that the comparison doesn't work.

You have included...

You may have misunderstood what I was trying to explain to you. You named specific animals for the given situation. It would intellectually dishonest to then assume a average person that doesn't have the knowledge as their counterparts. In other words, I'd accept you working with "the average human" in this situation if you were also working with random animals. But you know this yourself, it's why you didn't claim that a duck would be more useful then a human in the desert.

Same with the farm...

Because the animals that you named are specialised in the fields that you named.

Fair point with the cow...

Why are you assuming so much action from the mother? Why not assume that the calf simply did nothing? Even the report you posted shows that the person reporting was only told[/] why the mother had no Milk in the end. We have no further data to come to any sort of conclussion, yet she is jumping to a rather unlikely one. What if the calf was simply sickly and weak? That is why I said that the article is doing nothing but humanizing the Cow, it gives little information and promptly jumps to a conclussion. I don't think that we should inherently ascribe stupidity to the cow, but I also think we have enough experience with cows to conclude that they are pretty stupid.

My arguement was that...

True. Some animals are underestimated. But I don't really think that that causes problems, because even in all of our underestimations, when the truth comes to play nothing has been impressive in comparison to humans, so they are still stupid, even if slightly less stupid then we may have thought. What purposes are animals used for which they, in your opinion, shouldn't be?

Dog are used for food...

I know they are. But I am not in China or Korea, we do not eat Dogs here. I have no reason to believe that anyone in this Thread has eaten a Dog or a Whale or a Elephant and neither do you. Take that issue to those that do, you aren't making a point with that here.

Another thing I'd like to is that, in my experience, people don't tend to condemn the practice of eating Dogs in and of itself, they condemn some of the things they end up seeing, like Dogs being skinned alive. At the end of the day it's about the pointless brutality, I don't recall anyone here claiming in earnest that being pointlessly brutal in the process of killing your food is fine and if someone did, I'd simply consider that person a dick for a whole other laundry list of mental issues.

Same with whales and dolphins...

That is not why people object to whaling. They object to whaling because Whales are endangered. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are being eaten, but that they are being caught and killed to be eaten despite their being endangered. If the Japanese were keeping Whale Farms and breeding them for that specific purpose without further endangering the already small population, I personally would not care.

The guy is not...

I'm sorry, but I can't take your example seriously if you are going to say that you don't even know if he is mentally retarded and then pretend you know enough about him to claim that he has accomplished nothing. You are basing this off of your experiences as a clerk, it seems that you know about fuck all about this person, yet you are trying to use him as your argument. I'd also recommend that you watch your step, you're starting to come across as a misanthrope.

Correct...

I'm actually pretty sure that I've read about Nim at some point, so no biggy, I just thought I'd point that out. If Nim is the Chimp I am thinking of, then his story is that of humans utterly failing to emphasize in any way and it is a tragedy.

I would put it down to mimicry...

Some Birds have been known to adopt Human Terms into their language from escaped Pet's. That however does not mean that these Birds are using these words with their actual meaning. The same goes for the chimps, they could have simply ascribed a different meaning to what they learned from Nim. Keep in mind that teaching a ape sign language is a time consuming endeavour, even for us. That points towards it being simple mimicry.

I believe...

Like opening Jars? These are the only two tests that I know of, getting through small crevices and opening things.

Why should the chimp want to balance the object...

They were being rewarded with Fruits that they enjoy at success, that is generally how we get them to do these kinds of things.

My point...

Well obviously, as the species doing the testing we setup the goals. We define what intelligence is.

Though some exceptional...

Then I have to say that you are making it really easy for these Animals. I've also yet to see these Tests where a animal is scoring better then humans.

And so it makes me wonder...

I see no reason to be pointlessly cruel. I however also see no reason to not eat animals.

EDIT:...

I'll give it a look later, thanks.

Ah fair point, but humans pollute more with a basic existance in a western (or developed, or whatever term you want to use for the majority of people nowadays who have the choice when it comes to diet), eat many animals in their lifetime which had to be bred for that purpose. So the negative impact of a human starts off at a larger negative than a cows still anyway. I don't know where you live, but as I stated before, I live in Britain. So it means I see, at least here, people who are inherently a drain. People who contribute nothing but consume much. No job or intention of getting one, claiming and living off benefits and housing given to them. That is a drain.

True, the uber being would have to be a non-human animal, that surpasses you in every way IT judges is important, as it clearly has some position of power over us in order to demand organs be given for its use. And even if you aren't the ONLY match, what if it's you, or some other human being? And you happen to have been chosen? Does this make it more believable and as such, allow you to address it?

I get its extrapolation, or goes abstract, but these discussions always end up getting that way, and you shouldn't just ignore it, as there might be something to learn from it still.

A duck would still have more worth to me in a desert than a human, in fact pretty much any animal would. And those that aren't? They won't latch on to me, attempting to steal my supplies or anything I find. They'll go do their own thing. Human's tend to latch onto other humans making them, in this case, more burden then help.
I'm try to argue that worth is not there SIMPLY because we are human. That doesn't make you inherently more valuable than anything else, especially in current society where humans are plentiful and expendable in may peoples eyes.

Why would the calf simply do nothing? Surely survival instinct would make it go after its mother, even if she didn't hang around him? And seeing as the calf was still alive "several days later" the mother must have been feeding it, and it would have been able to walk by that point. What possible reason would it have for not following?

Personally?
I find zoo's to be one of the most depressing places to see animals (and I know about breeding efforts, I get that, I'm talking about zoo's for the sake of "Look at the pretty animals!") as the animals always look so lifeless and bored.
Circuses, particularly with elephant acts, have to be brutal in order to train the animals to their purposes.
Fur farms are pretty damn atrocious.
Animal testing (medical more on the fence about, but some tests are ridiculous), so cosmetic, washing powders, all these trivial things which usual result in animals being dead. Because companies have to cover their backsides to avoid lawsuits by testing everything, including putting different quantities in the eyes or force feeding the products.
Rodeo's and bull fighting.
Maybe more but that'll do for now.

But the issue is partly here, in the attitude it's not ok to eat dogs but it is ok to eat other animals of equal intellegence. Someone earlier was talking of going and herding cattle with his dog, and I'm sure he wouldn't dream of eating the dog. I'm pointing out the double standard.
A lot of people object to whaling and dolphin eating, because they are intellegent or cute. Maybe you not personally, but it's another example of the double standard. "These are for eating, and these aren't"

At one point, I was a misanthrope, so maybe I still slip a little, my bad. Though even if I was, it wouldn't completely invalidate my arguement, just mean you weren't going to convince me . I live in a small town/village, where everybody knows everybody, and so that's how I know as much as I know about him. He isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I didn't want to rule out the possibility of his being retarded in some way, but I have never heard that that was the case, and interacting with him, he seems fine. He is proud of the fact he has only left our town twice, to go to the local city, and lives off benefits. Apparently that has been the case for a fair while now.
My point was, regardless of his mental retardedness, his potential appears to be lower, or at least equal to that of an elephant.

Teaching an ape sign language is difficult, but the second article points out that recent tests with bonobos using a keyboard and toys instead of sign language means they can fully understand us:
"For example, when asked, for the first time, to ?make the dog bite the snake,? he takes the toy snake, puts it in the mouth of the toy dog, and closes the dog?s mouth over the snake. He does not put the dog in the snake?s mouth."
So it was supposably the first time asked to do this, not just a trained behaviour.

Ah, well I've never said to STOP eating animals, just in the quantity we currently do. The impact is too big, and it isn't sustainable. Plus as a member fo a younger generation, the generation before mine's greed and insatiable hunger is going to leave me one hell of a mess to clean up, that I didn't make. Pisses me off sometimes.

 

[Ashadowpie]

Hmm...Vegans wont eat milk or eggs eh? ...that can make cake! and cookies! and * gasp * BROWNIES.....good for them! boy are they missing out on the good stuff though, oh well more for Me! XD

 

[Jessy_Fran]

Shampoos I could see an argument against. At this point, do we really need 50 different kinds of shampoo on the market? Is there any real improvement going on? Is testing really necessary? How many lives are these shampoos saving?

But for medications, medical treatments, and even food testing, I'd say absolutely, we should test on animals first. But my reasoning is that I place the well being of humans over the suffering of animals. You could argue we could just test on willing human test subjects, but this creates a whole host of moral issues. Is it right to test on living people if we have no idea what the side effects might be because animal testing never happened? Is it right to offer experimental treatments to dying or otherwise desperate patients when the treatment might actually be worse than the disease and you're basically preying on their desperation to test your drugs? Can a person even make an informed choice when they don't know the potential risks?

I don't think they can, and I think if we're talking about questions of morality that protecting human lives and well being is more important than protecting the lives and well being of animals. People are free to feel differently about that, but it would take a pretty compelling, objective, and logical argument that didn't try to appeal to my emotions to convince me that I shouldn't value the well being of members of my species over members of other species.

Okay, I can certainly see the logic in that.

Cosmetic testing pisses me the hell off. It's ridiculous and as you say, do we need more types of shampoo?

Medical testing is certainly a difficult area to traverse but ultimately I suppose it does rely on your personal beliefs. I think that humans are no better than non-human animals and so should be treated with the same care and respect that we give to give the weakest members of our society.

I believe that even scientists have commented on vivisection as being unnesesscary and that it's results have actually set medical research back about 20 years. I haven't got the work to back that up but it's something I have read in university. Also, I live near a medical research facility and there have been a number of human deaths there in recent years. One of the bigger cases was caused by medicine (that had actually effected monkeys but not caused any deaths) being given to human volunteers. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-380395/Elephant-Man-resist-drug-test-money.html
Yes, that's a link to the Daily Mail site but I can't seem to find anything else right now.

I appreciate that this is not all cases but still. When animal testing doesn't even have an effect on whether the drug is tested on humans, what's the point?

Hmm...Vegans wont eat milk or eggs eh? ...that can make cake! and cookies! and * gasp * BROWNIES.....good for them! boy are they missing out on the good stuff though, oh well more for Me! XD

Sure we can make cake, cookies and brownies!! In fact, I make a kick-ass brownie with avocado instead of butter And I have a cookbook called Vegan Cookies Take Over Your Cookie Jar which is stuff with tasty baking recipes! And they aren't all filled with 'odd' stuff like avocado. Nom nom nom

 

[clayschuldt]

Q: How can you tell if someone is a vegan?
A: Don't worry, they'll tell you.

 

[Jammy2003]

Meat may be part of our optimum diet...

What people eat is their own choice, you can't force them to eat a balanced diet. But what I'm saying is that a Vegan diet isn't a balanced diet. There may be a lot of healthy Vegans but that's not the point I'm making. I'm saying it isn't the healthy diet people claim it is. If you were to eat a truly balanced diet you'd require some meat products or supplements. I'd rather eat the meat.

I'm sure there are unhealthy vegans...

Yea, and a person who eats a balanced diet would have a better one than he.

I'd argue about the fact cooked food...

Maybe I should have been more specific. I don't mean hitting something with a rock or using a twig to antagonise termites. I mean using plants as rope to bind a sharpened rock to a stick.

Complex tools, not to mention the development of a complex language that allowed us to pass knowledge on. None of this would have been possible if we hadn't began eating cooked foods and high calorific foods such as meat. This freed up energy that was being used for digestion and allowed out minds to develop.

Wheat may be bad for us, but that will then be a person...

You'd be surprised what damage growing crops causes.

And you may have a point about the amount of crop grown for livestock, I'd still argue it wouldn't make up for the newfound demand, especially considering that not all livestock is grain fed. A lot if not the majority of Europe's livestock grazes. New EU legislation has forced places to cut down on the amount of battery farmed livestock.

Simple conservation of energy...

Not necessarily. How much of that feed is fit for human consumption?

So because everything needs fixing, fix nothing?

That's not what I said and you know it, there's no need to be disingenuous.

What I'm saying is that there are a lot of issues with how we feed, clothe and fuel our society. Picking on just one will not change anything.

I never planned to try, I try to just do the best I can for my own life. I'm just pointing out that you can't call it a completely "personal choice", because it DOES effect me. I personally still eat some meat, but I've tried to cut it down from how much I used to eat, so it's at a sustainable level. I don't KNOW the complete ins and outs of a vegan diet in terms of nutrition, but it's not as bland and completely structured as you make it out to be, nor as full of supplements.

The only problem I have with that, is that it's similar to arguements about language or intellegence. As soon as someone finds evidence of animals doing something, the bar is raised higher again. The animal is doing something as good as a large chunk of the population could do. If you put many people nowadays in the savannah, they wouldn't know how to make rope. Besides, language in primates is still debated.

I'm not saying ALL livestock growing should be eliminated, just that the intensive conditions need to change. I've said before, and I'll say again. Got a grass hill outback? Want a couple of cows? Go ahead. I have problems with deforestation for the purposes of intensive, grain-fed cattle rearing.

And if you eliminate that, and redistribute the grain production, there isn't even a gap. Energy conservation states there would be a large surplus of food suddenly. Not all of it would be fit for human consumption, true, but if 1/3 of production worldwide is going directly to cattle feed, then that suggests that its just harvested grain, grown for the purpose of being used as feed.
"157 million metric tons of cereal and vegetable protein is used to produce 28 metric tons of animal protein."
Talking in terms of a cow's lifetime from birth to slaughter, even if this is not completely edible by humans, I'd think 75 million tons of cereal and veg protein is better than 28 tons of animal protein.

This was the one under debate, and picking on this one may at least change this one. I have views on many other things I'd like to change in the world too, but those can't happen until I become supreme overlord of the world, and that's a plan for the future.