Open your heart to make the connection.

[Aianna]

If they were so much more intelligent than me that I couldn't even begin to comprehend what was happening, then I probably wouldn't care that much. It's either that, or getting ripped apart by some other animal, or if I'm lucky, living to the long ripe age of a decade or 2.

Of course if you didn't know you wouldn't care, but what if you were on the outside looking in? Of course it's very likely they'd be killed by other animals if we don't kill them, but what another being will probably do doesn't justify our actions.

I just see it as depriving myself for no reason. Selfish? Maybe, but I've got too many other things to worry about with actual humans to worry about animals.

Like I said, even if you view the other animals' lives as nothing, it's better for humans as raising animals for food is an inefficient way to produce food and there's more of us to feed every day.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I just see it as depriving myself for no reason. Selfish? Maybe, but I've got too many other things to worry about with actual humans to worry about animals.

Do you believe that animals can suffer in a similar biological way that humans suffer?

 

[Steezie]

Besides meat production being an inefficient way to produce food

From a purely caloric potential standpoint, yes. However it is far more efficient at delivering certain nutrients to the body than plant matter.

The other animals, humans in the past, and poor humans in third world countries don't have the same luxuries we do; for them it is and was a fight to survive whereas we buy whatever tickles our fancy. We don't remove ourselves from the cycle "artificially" because we're still born, we still live, and we still die. We should cease eating other sentient beings simply because we don't have to anymore. If we eat meat when it's not necessary for our own survival then we're actively choosing to take an animal's only life simply because we like some type of food.

Now you're getting into sentience and awareness which is a tricky situation. How do you define what is sentient? How do you definitively say a being is or is not sentient? Is one animal more sentient than another? You cant simply say all animals are sentient and leave it at that, I want to know how you came to this conclusion.

Meat can be produced with every consideration to the animals, but only by producing it in a lab without the animals. If you produce it the traditional way you have to kill them in the end which isn't very considerate even if you treat them nicely up to that point.

You assume that death is cruel and inhumane which I find puzzling. Death is death regardless if it comes from a rifle bullet to the head, a mountain lion's claws, or organ failure at old age. I would actually argue that an animal that dies via the first method does so in a far more humane fashion than does the second. In the first example, they are not afraid and fighting for their life (in ideal circumstances)

There's no way we can set ourselves "above" nature because everything we do by definition is natural; our skyscrapers are just as natural as a beaver's dam or a bee's hive. Vegans and vegetarians aren't so because they view themselves as better than the other animals; we're *generally* so because we realize the other animals are sentient and even if they don't have the level of intelligence we do we view they should have some rights and we can't justify harming them for no real reason.

Refusing to eat animals because you don't want to kill them IS setting yourself above the system, in my opinion.

If animals are sentient, and so are we, what makes it ok for animals to kill each other for food, but NOT for us? I would assume you would argue necessity, we don't NEED to kill animals for food. I would counter with the fact that our bodies tend to work better when we have a good healthy omnivorous diet and our bodies are designed to be able to handle both plant and animal sources of food. This indicates we have evolved to eat both and our dietary requirements are such that it's very difficult for us to achieve a healthy diet with entirely plant based sources. I do understand that it is possible, however I contend that meat, ounce for ounce


On a side note, I'm curious as to how vegans and vegetarians deal with the fact that in order to have enough farmland to sustain a population, wild land must be cleared in order to make room for crops. This clearing will destroy habitat and disrupt the natural landscape for the creatures of the area. One of the arguments against eating meat is the destruction of habitat, I contend that destruction occurs in both instances.

 

[david_x]

Technically, the right hand poster should read “Omnivore?”

If you are human and a carnivore you almost certainly do need help, since you’ve probably got scurvy. Just sayin’.

Yeah and it could have a BA picture of a bear!

 

[alexamasan]

By going vegetarian, you're doing nothing to help any animals that are mistreated during processing. A meat eater that writes letters to the government and moves to more strongly enforce humane treatment of animals is doing way more to help them than any Vegetarian. I think the only good reason for becoming a Vegetarian is either for religious purposes or you simply don't like the taste of meat. You're not helping the animals at all by eating soy, beans, and eggs.

 

[Aianna]

From a purely caloric potential standpoint, yes. However it is far more efficient at delivering certain nutrients to the body than plant matter.

Not what I mean; the animals you raise for food consume more food than they produce. It's inefficient to raise them as food. You could feed a greater number of people by growing food with the same amount of land.

Now you're getting into sentience and awareness which is a tricky situation. How do you define what is sentient? How do you definitively say a being is or is not sentient? Is one animal more sentient than another? You cant simply say all animals are sentient and leave it at that, I want to know how you came to this conclusion..

Anything with the capacity to suffer is sentient. If it has a cerebral cortex, it's a pretty safe bet to say it has some degree of sentience.

You assume that death is cruel and inhumane which I find puzzling. Death is death regardless if it comes from a rifle bullet to the head, a mountain lion's claws, or organ failure at old age. I would actually argue that an animal that dies via the first method does so in a far more humane fashion than does the second. In the first example, they are not afraid and fighting for their life (in ideal circumstances)

Of course there are some methods of death that are less gruesome than others, but you're still ending the only life it will ever have. Just because it could very well be slaughtered by another animal later in its life if not for us killing it does not justify our killing it.

Refusing to eat animals because you don't want to kill them IS setting yourself above the system, in my opinion.

What is is not what ought to be. If changes in the human race cause us to fill a slightly different role in nature, so be it. We are not the same as we were 10,000, 50,000, or 100,000 years ago and shouldn't continue doing something just because we were doing it back then.

If animals are sentient, and so are we, what makes it ok for animals to kill each other for food, but NOT for us? I would assume you would argue necessity, we don't NEED to kill animals for food. I would counter with the fact that our bodies tend to work better when we have a good healthy omnivorous diet and our bodies are designed to be able to handle both plant and animal sources of food. This indicates we have evolved to eat both and our dietary requirements are such that it's very difficult for us to achieve a healthy diet with entirely plant based sources. I do understand that it is possible, however I contend that meat, ounce for ounce

I said before, those of us in first world countries have a choice as to what we can eat. We're not going to die if we don't take whatever comes our way. The other animals don't have that luxury and most don't have the capacity of abstract thought to understand morality on the same level as us even if they did. Our body's design is a result of nature and as I stated before, our actions in the past although necessary then, are not now.

On a side note, I'm curious as to how vegans and vegetarians deal with the fact that in order to have enough farmland to sustain a population, wild land must be cleared in order to make room for crops. This clearing will destroy habitat and disrupt the natural landscape for the creatures of the area. One of the arguments against eating meat is the destruction of habitat, I contend that destruction occurs in both instances.

If we're to sustain the population a vegan diet is absolutely necessary. You lose food when you raise animals for food. Although you do need some land, the land is used far more efficiently if you grow food with it.

 

[Steezie]

Not what I mean; the animals you raise for food consume more food than they produce. It's inefficient to raise them as food. You could feed a greater number of people by growing food with the same amount of land.

Again, the benefit is not in volume of food but of nutritional value. Regardless of your opinions about food, meat DOES have distinct advantages over plant material in terms of nutrition.

Anything with the capacity to suffer is sentient. If it has a cerebral cortex, it's a pretty safe bet to say it has some degree of sentience.

And I'm also curious where you feel you are granted the ability to judge sentience? That's a rather arrogant assumption. Why does suffering necessarily denote sentience and how do you define or describe suffering? It may sound like I'm being nitpicky but these are important points.

It could be said that the plants you eat suffer through harsh treatment they receive before being eaten.

Of course there are some methods of death that are less gruesome than others, but you're still ending the only life it will ever have. Just because it could very well be slaughtered by another animal later in its life if not for us killing it does not justify our killing it.

Again I fail to see any difference between an animal dying for human consumption and one dying of natural causes. You intrinsically assign a negative value to death because you are mortal and therefore you anthropomorphize animals to have the same value system that you do.

What is is not what ought to be. If changes in the human race cause us to fill a slightly different role in nature, so be it. We are not the same as we were 10,000, 50,000, or 100,000 years ago and shouldn't continue doing something just because we were doing it back then.

The fact that what we were doing 10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 years ago (eating meat) still works the way it should (we dont treat it the same way but it still functions as it should) indicates there's no real reason to change it. We haven't grown out of needing the nutritional value that meat provides.

What you are proposing is a specialized diet. Humans became the dominant species on Earth partially due to our omnivorous nature. If one source of food is unavailable, we can make do with the other. If you start specializing, you open yourself up to serious potential problems.

I said before, those of us in first world countries have a choice as to what we can eat. We're not going to die if we don't take whatever comes our way. The other animals don't have that luxury and most don't have the capacity of abstract thought to understand morality on the same level as us even if they did. Our body's design is a result of nature and as I stated before, our actions in the past although necessary then, are not now.

If your argument is utilitarian in nature, that I can at least respect. However via that line of thinking there are many aspects of our lives that we should discontinue because they aren't 100% necessary and we DO have some options.

Yes, you are entirely right that there is no omnipresent biological imperative to consuming meat. However acquiring the nutrients present in meat from plant sources does not always balance out and many people do not have the time or education to balance out ounce for ounce what a meal should consist of to avoid vitamin deficiency. With a balanced omnivorous diet, there is overlap that helps cover possible gaps and your nutrition is coming from multiple sources instead of relying on you doing amateur science and popping supplements to keep your body going.

If we're to sustain the population a vegan diet is absolutely necessary. You lose food when you raise animals for food. Although you do need some land, the land is used far more efficiently if you grow food with it.

You either missed or ignored my point. You advocate veganism partially because it doesn't involve killing animals. The problem with that is that the actual act of growing food will kill animals and displace others from their habitat. Either way, animals are still dying by human hands.

As for a world on a vegan diet, I'm sorry but I think that is an atrociously bad idea. The more varied and flexible our means of acquisition of food the safer we are as a people. Currently, the vast majority of the wheat consumed in the entire world is grown five or six countries. China, India, and Indonesia produce the majority of the world's supply of rice. Geopolitically speaking, this gives those countries a very big bargaining chip in a vegan world. They have the power to stop the trade of food into countries they dislike or oppose and cripple the food infrastructure in that country. Also, if one of the major rice producing countries becomes politically unstable, a civil war breaks out, that will seriously disrupt or possibly stop exportation of rice and possibly cause a lot of people to starve. Having diverse sources of food helps prevent this from happening.


What we need to do is make our food BETTER. We have plenty of food to go around, but a lot of it is wasted and put to use in nutritionally empty foods especially in first-world countries.

 

[Aianna]

Again, the benefit is not in volume of food but of nutritional value. Regardless of your opinions about food, meat DOES have distinct advantages over plant material in terms of nutrition.

Not really, as long as you pay attention to what you eat. The only thing I needed to remember to consciously get enough of was omega 3 fats

And I'm also curious where you feel you are granted the ability to judge sentience? That's a rather arrogant assumption. Why does suffering necessarily denote sentience and how do you define or describe suffering? It may sound like I'm being nitpicky but these are important points.

The cerebral cortex is big in consciousness and thought. If a being has it, they're conscious. It's pretty much a given that a creature whose brain contains a cerebral cortex has some degree of consciousness and memory.

It could be said that the plants you eat suffer through harsh treatment they receive before being eaten.

They have no brain.

Again I fail to see any difference between an animal dying for human consumption and one dying of natural causes. You intrinsically assign a negative value to death because you are mortal and therefore you anthropomorphize animals to have the same value system that you do.

Although I grant you they don't speak to me, their actions tend to indicate they wish to survive. At least if another animal kills the one we did not that animal who lacks the ability to go to the nearest supermarket and pick out whatever they want did get some food. When we kill it it's merely for personal taste because we have countless other options.

The fact that what we were doing 10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 years ago (eating meat) still works the way it should (we dont treat it the same way but it still functions as it should) indicates there's no real reason to change it. We haven't grown out of needing the nutritional value that meat provides.

Yes we have. Even if there's some nutrient I don't know about that's not contained in any vegan source we could create supplements for it or use animal-less cloned meat as mentioned earlier in the thread.

What you are proposing is a specialized diet. Humans became the dominant species on Earth partially due to our omnivorous nature. If one source of food is unavailable, we can make do with the other. If you start specializing, you open yourself up to serious potential problems.

If things were different, they'd be different. Nature is amoral and once again, if we pay attention to our diet we can get any nutrients we need without the need for death. Like I said, I'd be much less opposed to cloned animal-less flesh and completely unopposed if it could be created efficiently.

If your argument is utilitarian in nature, that I can at least respect. However via that line of thinking there are many aspects of our lives that we should discontinue because they aren't 100% necessary and we DO have some options.

If they harm others we probably should discontinue them. If they do not then have at it.

Yes, you are entirely right that there is no omnipresent biological imperative to consuming meat. However acquiring the nutrients present in meat from plant sources does not always balance out and many people do not have the time or education to balance out ounce for ounce what a meal should consist of to avoid vitamin deficiency. With a balanced omnivorous diet, there is overlap that helps cover possible gaps and your nutrition is coming from multiple sources instead of relying on you doing amateur science and popping supplements to keep your body going.

Of course you do have to watch what you eat in order to cover everything, but I believe the requirement that we do our homework is a far less evil than their loss of everything.

You either missed or ignored my point. You advocate veganism partially because it doesn't involve killing animals. The problem with that is that the actual act of growing food will kill animals and displace others from their habitat. Either way, animals are still dying by human hands.

You apparently missed mine. Raising animals for food uses land as does growing food. Use of the land in either case will take some away from other species however growing the food is a more efficient use of the land so less land is used which leads to more land for other purposes, including more land for the other species.

As for a world on a vegan diet, I'm sorry but I think that is an atrociously bad idea. The more varied and flexible our means of acquisition of food the safer we are as a people. Currently, the vast majority of the wheat consumed in the entire world is grown five or six countries. China, India, and Indonesia produce the majority of the world's supply of rice. Geopolitically speaking, this gives those countries a very big bargaining chip in a vegan world. They have the power to stop the trade of food into countries they dislike or oppose and cripple the food infrastructure in that country. Also, if one of the major rice producing countries becomes politically unstable, a civil war breaks out, that will seriously disrupt or possibly stop exportation of rice and possibly cause a lot of people to starve. Having diverse sources of food helps prevent this from happening.

I have a few things to say about how divided the world is too, but that's an entirely different issue. If we don't stop fighting with ourselves we're doomed no matter what we eat.

What we need to do is make our food BETTER. We have plenty of food to go around, but a lot of it is wasted and put to use in nutritionally empty foods especially in first-world countries.

We can agree on that.

 

[Steezie]

Not really, as long as you pay attention to what you eat. The only thing I needed to remember to consciously get enough of was omega 3 fats

Where do you get the vitamin D, the fat (and yes you DO need some fat in your diet), the iron, the B12, or the calcium? These nutrients are available in the plant world but they are available in far greater quantities and proportions from animal sources that dont require you to micromanage your diet.

The cerebral cortex is big in consciousness and thought. If a being has it, they're conscious. It's pretty much a given that a creature whose brain contains a cerebral cortex has some degree of consciousness and memory.

It is not a given, it is an assumption and one that I dont see any support for.

If brain size is proportional to consciousness, where does the Blue Whale fall with one of the largest brains on Earth?

They have no brain.

They have a basic response to being damaged that we could interpret as a pain response.

Although I grant you they don't speak to me, their actions tend to indicate they wish to survive.

You are anthropomorphizing, ALL LIVING ORGANISMS of any size, shape, or complexity share the basic instinct to avoid a dangerous situation. Pain is our way of understanding that we are doing something that will harm us and to discourage us from doing it again. If your qualification for sentience is a simple aversion to a damaging stimulus then you are in big trouble because even the most basic cell will do that.

The purpose of pain, in the biological sense, is as a teaching tool and alarm system. It is not there to generate angst.

At least if another animal kills the one we did not that animal who lacks the ability to go to the nearest supermarket and pick out whatever they want did get some food. When we kill it it's merely for personal taste because we have countless other options.

So basically you don't want the blood on your hands?

The fact that we have other options has been our key to survival in some very harsh times.

Yes we have. Even if there's some nutrient I don't know about that's not contained in any vegan source we could create supplements for it or use animal-less cloned meat as mentioned earlier in the thread.

We have the same basic nutritional requirements now that we did when we first started walking upright. Our lifestyles have changed but that means we need to eat less high calorie and high fat foods or increase our levels of activity to correspond.

Supplements are not a solution, they are called SUPPLEMENTS, not replacements, for a reason. They are not designed or intended to replace dietary intake of the relevant nutrients.

And how on Earth do you have "animal-less cloned meat"?

If things were different, they'd be different. Nature is amoral and once again, if we pay attention to our diet we can get any nutrients we need without the need for death. Like I said, I'd be much less opposed to cloned animal-less flesh and completely unopposed if it could be created efficiently.

Again, there is no reason to do a diet you have to watch closely when even moderately careful omnivorous eating will satisfy the nutritional needs of the average person.

If they harm others we probably should discontinue them. If they do not then have at it.

The world is not as black and white as you seem to think it is. Mining of coal in the Appalachians has destroyed many miles of mountains and more to the point has poisoned the water source that many people use, leaving them without access to clean water. However if we STOP mining that coal, our electricity shuts off because we haven't yet phased out our coal fired plants.

Not everything is as simple as you seem to think it is.

Of course you do have to watch what you eat in order to cover everything, but I believe the requirement that we do our homework is a far less evil than their loss of everything.

Im sorry are you claiming the world itself will end if we dont stop eating meat?

You apparently missed mine. Raising animals for food uses land as does growing food. Use of the land in either case will take some away from other species however growing the food is a more efficient use of the land so less land is used which leads to more land for other purposes, including more land for the other species.

This is assuming the land is re-usable for farming. In many places, land is only arable for a generation or two. Once the land's nutrients have been used up, you can no longer grow anything on the land and the farmers move on. This can be circumvented via the use of fertilizers (many of which are chemically based) and farming technology that is too expensive to use in third world countries where loss of land due to intensive farming is a serious problem.

I have a few things to say about how divided the world is too, but that's an entirely different issue. If we don't stop fighting with ourselves we're doomed no matter what we eat.

Well I'd love to stop and buy the world a Coke too but cutesy sayings don't solve problems. The fact of the matter is that your proposal is entirely unworkable in the current geopolitical climate and could possibly lead to the deaths of millions of people and an increase in global strife as people fight for dwindling food resources.


You seem to have trouble appreciating the inter-connected nature of the problems we face. Many solutions sound very easy and very simple, however it is extremely rare that they are indeed that simple.

 

[Aianna]

Where do you get the vitamin D, the fat (and yes you DO need some fat in your diet), the iron, the B12, or the calcium? These nutrients are available in the plant world but they are available in far greater quantities and proportions from animal sources that dont require you to micromanage your diet.

Vitamin D is easy enough to get by standing around in sunlight; that's everyone's biggest source of that. Iron comes with beans and salads. Calcium from orange juice and to a lesser extent, salads. B-12 from using nutritional yeast while baking. Fats come from olive oil, various nuts, and vegan cereals among other things. I already concede that we have to pay attention to our diet, but it's not particularly bad.

It is not a given, it is an assumption and one that I dont see any support for.

If brain size is proportional to consciousness, where does the Blue Whale fall with one of the largest brains on Earth?

I never said anything about brain size. I said animals with a cerebral cortex are extremely likely to have a degree of consciousness and memory. Even "dumb" animals can have be somewhat aware. Whales are generally highly intelligent, but it's irrelevant to the discussion. "The cerebral cortex is big" means that it plays a key role.

The Cerebral Cortex

They have a basic response to being damaged that we could interpret as a pain response.

You are anthropomorphizing, ALL LIVING ORGANISMS of any size, shape, or complexity share the basic instinct to avoid a dangerous situation. Pain is our way of understanding that we are doing something that will harm us and to discourage us from doing it again. If your qualification for sentience is a simple aversion to a damaging stimulus then you are in big trouble because even the most basic cell will do that.

The purpose of pain, in the biological sense, is as a teaching tool and alarm system. It is not there to generate angst.

Of course even non-sentient organisms have an aversion to pain, but in saying I can tell they don't want to die by these actions I didn't say every being that tries to avoid death is sentient. The cerebral cortex is

So basically you don't want the blood on your hands?

The fact that we have other options has been our key to survival in some very harsh times.

If I were to kill the animal I'd be killing it simply for taste or to avoid the minor inconvenience of micromanaging my diet and that's simply unjustifiable. If another animal whose species is still in those harsh times kills it, their life may have very well been at stake. You need to take the current situation into account when judging the morality of an action and we're in a different situation than we were way back when.

We have the same basic nutritional requirements now that we did when we first started walking upright. Our lifestyles have changed but that means we need to eat less high calorie and high fat foods or increase our levels of activity to correspond.

Supplements are not a solution, they are called SUPPLEMENTS, not replacements, for a reason. They are not designed or intended to replace dietary intake of the relevant nutrients.

They are meant to supplement your diet to make up for what you're not getting in sufficient amounts normally.

And how on Earth do you have "animal-less cloned meat"?

It was mentioned earlier in the topic and a link was provided.
I'll Have My Burger Petri-Dish Bred, With Extra Omega-3 | Stem Cell Research | DISCOVER Magazine

Again, there is no reason to do a diet you have to watch closely when even moderately careful omnivorous eating will satisfy the nutritional needs of the average person.

Yes it will, but I'm not arguing about what's better to satisfy your nutritional needs. The reasons are efficiency of food production and putting an end to the unnecessary killing and mistreatment of others. If they're not good enough reasons for you, they're not good enough reasons for you, but don't say they're nothing.

The world is not as black and white as you seem to think it is. Mining of coal in the Appalachians has destroyed many miles of mountains and more to the point has poisoned the water source that many people use, leaving them without access to clean water. However if we STOP mining that coal, our electricity shuts off because we haven't yet phased out our coal fired plants.

Not everything is as simple as you seem to think it is.

But I don't think everything is black and white. Some things however happen to be.

Im sorry are you claiming the world itself will end if we dont stop eating meat?

This is assuming the land is re-usable for farming. In many places, land is only arable for a generation or two. Once the land's nutrients have been used up, you can no longer grow anything on the land and the farmers move on. This can be circumvented via the use of fertilizers (many of which are chemically based) and farming technology that is too expensive to use in third world countries where loss of land due to intensive farming is a serious problem.

It's going to end either way, but one way will keep it going for longer giving us more time to figure out how to keep our species going. It's not a silver bullet but it's a first step.

Well I'd love to stop and buy the world a Coke too but cutesy sayings don't solve problems. The fact of the matter is that your proposal is entirely unworkable in the current geopolitical climate and could possibly lead to the deaths of millions of people and an increase in global strife as people fight for dwindling food resources.

Nothing's going to happen over night but nothing's ever going to happen if nobody speaks up. Getting people to work together is possibly the most difficult thing to do I can think of, but we have to push for progress if anything is to improve. I know I'm shooting for the moon and not much progress will probably be made in my lifetime, but we need to start somewhere. Also I don't get how moving to a vegan diet which produces food more efficiently will lead to "an increase in global strife as people fight for dwindling food resources" more than an omnivorous diet which produces less food even taking into consideration the necessity to produce more varied types of foods. It seems to me that the less efficient method of producing food will cause the resources to dwindle faster.

You seem to have trouble appreciating the inter-connected nature of the problems we face. Many solutions sound very easy and very simple, however it is extremely rare that they are indeed that simple.

I don't think this is a silver bullet to end all the problems in the world and I expect the vast majority of people in the world to disagree with me, but I can't quit because it's an uphill battle.

 

[Steezie]

Vitamin D is easy enough to get by standing around in sunlight; that's everyone's biggest source of that.Iron comes with beans and salads. Calcium from orange juice and to a lesser extent, salads. B-12 from using nutritional yeast while baking. Fats come from olive oil, various nuts, and vegan cereals among other things. I already concede that we have to pay attention to our diet, but it's not particularly bad.

Fun Fact, the National Institute of Health still reccomends that Vitamin D intake through food be part of a balanced diet

WebCite query result

Vitamin D is not naturally found in oranges or in orange juice. It is added in to increase the appeal to the consumers. And where do you think the vitamin D that is added came from? I'll give you a hint, it probably wasnt vitamin D trees.

There is no significant source of B12 in any non-fortified food that a vegan can eat. It comes from it being artificially added before packaging. Again, where do you think it comes from?

The fat contained in olive oil and nuts is far less than what you'd find in a good slice of steak. Unless you plan to guzzle olive oil or learn to really like nuts, body fat has the potential to become a problem. Unless you're allergic to nuts

I still dont see any appreciable source of protein. As someone who's done hard manual labor for long periods of time, a piece of beef jerky or chicken sandwich is a lifesaver on a long day.

The vegan diet seems to be propped up on a bewildering forest of stilts. If it wasn't for modern methods of fortification of foods, being vegan would be impossible for humans.

I never said anything about brain size. I said animals with a cerebral cortex are extremely likely to have a degree of consciousness and memory. Even "dumb" animals can have be somewhat aware. Whales are generally highly intelligent, but it's irrelevant to the discussion. "The cerebral cortex is big" means that it plays a key role.

Whales have a larger cerebral cortex than any living thing on Earth, does that mean it's some sort of higher evolved life form than us? I'm well aware of what a cerebral cortex is, I just dont see the connection between possessing one and being sentient.

Of course even non-sentient organisms have an aversion to pain, but in saying I can tell they don't want to die by these actions I didn't say every being that tries to avoid death is sentient. The cerebral cortex is

But previously you used the example of feeling pain as being proof that an animal was sentient.

"Anything with the capacity to suffer is sentient"

If I were to kill the animal I'd be killing it simply for taste or to avoid the minor inconvenience of micromanaging my diet and that's simply unjustifiable. If another animal whose species is still in those harsh times kills it, their life may have very well been at stake. You need to take the current situation into account when judging the morality of an action and we're in a different situation than we were way back when.

Micromanaging one's diet is far from a minor inconvenience and may be economically unfeasible. Lest we not forget how expensive much of the food labeled "vegan" tends to be.

Killing an animal for food is perfectly justifiable: they're harder to eat when they are still alive

In all seriousness, you seem to be following a logical conclusion.

Cerebral cortex governs awareness --> Animals have cerebral cortexes --> Animals are sentient --> It is bad to kill and eat sentient beings

However I do not think you understand the difference between aware and self-aware. The two are different ideas. A field mouse is aware. It runs on it's instincts, responds to stimuli, attempts to adapt to new situations based on what it knows and sees. It is not, however, self aware. It cannot introspect, it is not aware that it is an individual, and it cannot look at itself and say "I am alive." We have no indications that there are any animals capable of introspective thought that marks them as thinking of themselves as individuals. Because of this, we have no basis for assuming animals have or possess sentience.

They are meant to supplement your diet to make up for what you're not getting in sufficient amounts normally.

That supplement is not generally meant to be long-term.

It was mentioned earlier in the topic and a link was provided.

The research is fascinating and I think shows great promise, but it doesn't appear they are anywhere close to even understanding how to do this reliably, to say nothing about on a consumer scale cheap enough for third world countries. As interesting as this is, we have to face the reality of the here and now.

Yes it will, but I'm not arguing about what's better to satisfy your nutritional needs. The reasons are efficiency of food production and putting an end to the unnecessary killing and mistreatment of others. If they're not good enough reasons for you, they're not good enough reasons for you, but don't say they're nothing.

Except that being vegan is not making our food production more efficient for reasons I have already outlined.

But I don't think everything is black and white. Some things however happen to be.

Virtually nothing is black and white.

It's going to end either way, but one way will keep it going for longer giving us more time to figure out how to keep our species going. It's not a silver bullet but it's a first step.

Again I dont think you appreciate the destructive nature of farming in many countries where less destructive methods are too expensive or unavailable altogether. Slash and burn is not a viable farming method.

Nothing's going to happen over night but nothing's ever going to happen if nobody speaks up. Getting people to work together is possibly the most difficult thing to do I can think of, but we have to push for progress if anything is to improve. I know I'm shooting for the moon and not much progress will probably be made in my lifetime, but we need to start somewhere.

Start with real, practical, and thought out solutions rather than throwing a big brick with "EVERYBODY BE VEGAN" written on it.

Also I don't get how moving to a vegan diet which produces food more efficiently will lead to "an increase in global strife as people fight for dwindling food resources" more than an omnivorous diet which produces less food even taking into consideration the necessity to produce more varied types of foods. It seems to me that the less efficient method of producing food will cause the resources to dwindle faster.

There is only so much arable farmland in the world and the nations that control that land will have a decided advantage in geopolitics. Intensive farming to produce enough plant material to feed the world's population will further destroy arable land and reduce the availability of farmland.

I need not outline the why and how of strife over shrinking resources.

I don't think this is a silver bullet to end all the problems in the world and I expect the vast majority of people in the world to disagree with me, but I can't quit because it's an uphill battle.

No one's asking you to quit. We're asking you to take a moment to consider the ramifications of what you are asking.

 

[Aianna]

Vitamin D is not naturally found in oranges or in orange juice. It is added in to increase the appeal to the consumers. And where do you think the vitamin D that is added came from? I'll give you a hint, it probably wasnt vitamin D trees.

I said calcium from orange juice. Calcium is naturally in oranges.

There is no significant source of B12 in any non-fortified food that a vegan can eat. It comes from it being artificially added before packaging. Again, where do you think it comes from?

Bacteria. Not a problem for me.

The fat contained in olive oil and nuts is far less than what you'd find in a good slice of steak. Unless you plan to guzzle olive oil or learn to really like nuts, body fat has the potential to become a problem. Unless you're allergic to nuts

I'm actually allergic to hazel nuts, walnuts are however a nice source for me.

I still dont see any appreciable source of protein. As someone who's done hard manual labor for long periods of time, a piece of beef jerky or chicken sandwich is a lifesaver on a long day.

Protein is literally the easiest of the bunch to get. Beans, peanuts, soy-anything, tofu, lentils, and plenty more things. Also, as long as you mix it up enough you'll get all you essential amino acids.

The vegan diet seems to be propped up on a bewildering forest of stilts. If it wasn't for modern methods of fortification of foods, being vegan would be impossible for humans.

I can agree that technology is needed to make it possible, but our access to this technology is key in why I think we ought to be vegan. The technology makes older barbaric methods of obtaining all the key nutrients obsolete.

Whales have a larger cerebral cortex than any living thing on Earth, does that mean it's some sort of higher evolved life form than us? I'm well aware of what a cerebral cortex is, I just dont see the connection between possessing one and being sentient.

They're just as evolved as us; as is everything on the planet. They are not more intelligent than us. I've never said anything about the size only the fact that it's there. If you possess one you have some degree of memory and some degree of emotion, even if extremely simple.

But previously you used the example of feeling pain as being proof that an animal was sentient.

"Anything with the capacity to suffer is sentient"

Suffering requires a memory of the pain. That is why I don't use the old line "capacity to feel pain and pleasure" and instead opt for the word "suffer" as I feel it's more appropriate.

Micromanaging one's diet is far from a minor inconvenience and may be economically unfeasible. Lest we not forget how expensive much of the food labeled "vegan" tends to be.

A lot of the specifically labeled food just wants to take your money. Besides, any prices would change with the supply. To be fair though, the supply won't change until the demand changes.

In all seriousness, you seem to be following a logical conclusion.

Cerebral cortex governs awareness --> Animals have cerebral cortexes --> Animals are sentient --> It is bad to kill and eat sentient beings

However I do not think you understand the difference between aware and self-aware. The two are different ideas. A field mouse is aware. It runs on it's instincts, responds to stimuli, attempts to adapt to new situations based on what it knows and sees. It is not, however, self aware. It cannot introspect, it is not aware that it is an individual, and it cannot look at itself and say "I am alive." We have no indications that there are any animals capable of introspective thought that marks them as thinking of themselves as individuals. Because of this, we have no basis for assuming animals have or possess sentience.

I do understand the difference and I'll happily concede only a few animals have sufficient capacity for abstract thought to understand the self, but that isn't what I'm referring to when I say something is sentient. If you feel the word "aware" better reflects the ability to suffer as outlined above than I will henceforth call the property "awareness" instead of "sentience" for this conversation.

That supplement is not generally meant to be long-term.

Maybe our current supplements are poor for long term use I can't claim a ton of knowledge on this front. They're unnecessary even now either way.

The research is fascinating and I think shows great promise, but it doesn't appear they are anywhere close to even understanding how to do this reliably, to say nothing about on a consumer scale cheap enough for third world countries. As interesting as this is, we have to face the reality of the here and now.

I agree that this is more something for the future than something for the now. But I have been able to name some present sources of all of the nutrients mentioned. This is merely something that may help out in the future. As far as third world countries go, earlier in the thread I did differentiate that people from there are not as lucky as those of us from first world countries and may not have the same capacity to choose what they want to eat and I'm not going to criticize them for hunting other animals because their life is on the line. I will however say.. and I know I'm going to take massive criticism for this (probably to the point of my name being changed to Pollyanna ) but some time we're going to have to drop these borders and work as a planet.

Except that being vegan is not making our food production more efficient for reasons I have already outlined.

Except it does; you simply feed the humans the food you would have fed the animals. Even if somehow all the land used to raise animals was unsuitable for farming you'd still come off better.

Again I dont think you appreciate the destructive nature of farming in many countries where less destructive methods are too expensive or unavailable altogether. Slash and burn is not a viable farming method.

They might have destructive farming methods but in order to raise the animals they have to farm anyway. If they lack the capacity to raise the animals and have to go out hunting or starve, then by all means they can go out hunting and escape any and all criticism from me. Those of us who are lucky enough to have access to virtually anything we want to eat however can't justify it.

It's the age-old question that everyone likes to ask vegans and vegetarians "If you were stranded on an island with animals being the only possible source of food, would you hunt them or starve?" and the answer is I'd probably hunt them our of necessity, but I'm not stranded on an island and I can pretty much have whatever I want to eat so why would I consciously make a choice to kill another animal to save myself some minor inconveniences or satisfy my taste buds?

Start with real, practical, and thought out solutions rather than throwing a big brick with "EVERYBODY BE VEGAN" written on it.

I'm strong, but I try hard to not insult anyone else. I'm more of a soapbox ranter than a brick thrower.

If you're not firm about important issues nobody will listen to you.

There is only so much arable farmland in the world and the nations that control that land will have a decided advantage in geopolitics. Intensive farming to produce enough plant material to feed the world's population will further destroy arable land and reduce the availability of farmland.

I need not outline the why and how of strife over shrinking resources.

But in order to raise the animals you've already grown the food.... the animals you raise eat the plants. Feed the plants you would have fed to the animals you're raising to the humans and you've got a net gain already.

No one's asking you to quit. We're asking you to take a moment to consider the ramifications of what you are asking.

Already done. I don't think they're as severe as you seem to think.

 

[Steezie]

I said calcium from orange juice. Calcium is naturally in oranges.

My bad, misread it.

Bacteria. Not a problem for me.

Bacteria has not been shown to be a significant source of B12

Vitamin B12: Are You Getting It? : B12 in Tempeh, Seaweeds, Organic Produce, and Other Plant Foods

I'm actually allergic to hazel nuts, walnuts are however a nice source for me.

How nice, you are not everybody.

Protein is literally the easiest of the bunch to get. Beans, peanuts, soy-anything, tofu, lentils, and plenty more things. Also, as long as you mix it up enough you'll get all you essential amino acids.

My point is that such nutrients are available in greater quantities in animal products for less actual food.

I can agree that technology is needed to make it possible, but our access to this technology is key in why I think we ought to be vegan. The technology makes older barbaric methods of obtaining all the key nutrients obsolete.

Except that technology is expensive and out of reach of the people who ARE engaging in the destructive methods of farming. Which is...kinda why they're farming that way.

They're just as evolved as us; as is everything on the planet. They are not more intelligent than us. I've never said anything about the size only the fact that it's there. If you possess one you have some degree of memory and some degree of emotion, even if extremely simple.

Right, but none of this denotes actual self-awareness.

Suffering requires a memory of the pain. That is why I don't use the old line "capacity to feel pain and pleasure" and instead opt for the word "suffer" as I feel it's more appropriate.

Bacteria display such memory Bacterial memory - 21 April 2007 - New Scientist

I do understand the difference and I'll happily concede only a few animals have sufficient capacity for abstract thought to understand the self, but that isn't what I'm referring to when I say something is sentient. If you feel the word "aware" better reflects the ability to suffer as outlined above than I will henceforth call the property "awareness" instead of "sentience" for this conversation.

If that is your definition then again we could say that the most basic microbial and insect life were "aware"

Maybe our current supplements are poor for long term use I can't claim a ton of knowledge on this front. They're unnecessary even now either way.

Barring any serious health problems, a properly balanced omnivorous diet will provide what you need

I agree that this is more something for the future than something for the now. But I have been able to name some present sources of all of the nutrients mentioned. This is merely something that may help out in the future. As far as third world countries go, earlier in the thread I did differentiate that people from there are not as lucky as those of us from first world countries and may not have the same capacity to choose what they want to eat and I'm not going to criticize them for hunting other animals because their life is on the line. I will however say.. and I know I'm going to take massive criticism for this (probably to the point of my name being changed to Pollyanna ) but some time we're going to have to drop these borders and work as a planet.

And I dont disagree with your desire for cooperation, I just want to see it go towards something that WONT cripple human civilization.

Except it does; you simply feed the humans the food you would have fed the animals. Even if somehow all the land used to raise animals was unsuitable for farming you'd still come off better.

I'd like to see the numbers on this.

They might have destructive farming methods but in order to raise the animals they have to farm anyway. If they lack the capacity to raise the animals and have to go out hunting or starve, then by all means they can go out hunting and escape any and all criticism from me. Those of us who are lucky enough to have access to virtually anything we want to eat however can't justify it.

We dont need to justify it.

 

[Aianna]

Bacteria has not been shown to be a significant source of B12

Vitamin B12: Are You Getting It? : B12 in Tempeh, Seaweeds, Organic Produce, and Other Plant Foods

I know it's Wikipedia which is far from an academic source, but this looks well sourced.

Vitamin B12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only bacteria produce B12.

How nice, you are not everybody.

I understand that, but walnuts are not the only source I even mentioned olive oil in a previous post.

My point is that such nutrients are available in greater quantities in animal products for less actual food.

I'm not arguing that point, but when you can get more actual food from less actual land it's not a problem.

Of course this link has bias, but based on the numbers given from observations in the Netherlands, the difference is huge.

Land - Vegan Society

Except that technology is expensive and out of reach of the people who ARE engaging in the destructive methods of farming. Which is...kinda why they're farming that way.

Point understood. We should work on getting them access to better methods of farming because they're going to be farming regardless of whether or not they eat meat.

Right, but none of this denotes actual self-awareness.

Bacteria display such memory Bacterial memory - 21 April 2007 - New Scientist

If that is your definition then again we could say that the most basic microbial and insect life were "aware"

I've never said anything about the size only the fact that it's there. If you possess one you have some degree of memory and some degree of emotion, even if extremely simple.

I said animals with a cerebral cortex are extremely likely to have a degree of consciousness and memory.

The capacity of these single celled organisms is truly remarkable, but they're going to need the full package.

There's a good article on the evolution of consciousness talking about the mammalian cerebral cortex.

Powered by Google Docs

Barring any serious health problems, a properly balanced omnivorous diet will provide what you need

I've never disagreed that it will provide one with the nutrition they need.

And I dont disagree with your desire for cooperation, I just want to see it go towards something that WONT cripple human civilization.

Even if you don't agree with me that it's beneficial to human civilization to say that it'd cripple human civilization is quite the hyperbole.

I'd like to see the numbers on this.

Cornell Science News: Livestock Production

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Hungry world 'must eat less meat'

We dont need to justify it.

Why not? Everyone should at least make an honest attempt to justify their beliefs.

 

[cantata]

By going vegetarian, you're doing nothing to help any animals that are mistreated during processing. A meat eater that writes letters to the government and moves to more strongly enforce humane treatment of animals is doing way more to help them than any Vegetarian. I think the only good reason for becoming a Vegetarian is either for religious purposes or you simply don't like the taste of meat. You're not helping the animals at all by eating soy, beans, and eggs.

Does that mean you also approve of buying fur?

By buying meat, one contributes to the profitability of meat production.

 

[jcook922]

So Aianna,

Why the heck is all the vegan garbage in the food stores so expensive then if they want you to change lifestyles?

When vegan products pricematch, and are convenient, maybe. Probably not though, I love a good burger. I don't micromanage my diet, and don't want the hassle. The way I eat now is simple, cheap, and might not be as healthy as micromanaging it, but with enough PT I make due pretty well.

 

[cantata]

Why the heck is all the vegan garbage in the food stores so expensive then if they want you to change lifestyles?

Because it’s produced by people who want to make a profit like anyone else?

What a bizarre question.

 

[Aianna]

So Aianna,

Why the heck is all the vegan garbage in the food stores so expensive then if they want you to change lifestyles?.

Do you think I honestly believe all the food producers aren't mainly trying to make money? The supply of the "specialty" vegan foods is currently lower and they know they'll be able to sell quite a bit at that price so the price is pretty high at the moment for such things.

Most of the expensive specialty stuff can be avoided though. The basic stuff like beans, rice, potatoes, and so on are pretty cheap. You only hit ridiculously high prices when you look at things like soy pretending to be meat.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

You're not helping the animals at all by eating soy,

And you're definitely not helping yourself by eating soy. Soy, unless it is consumed in fermented form in very small amounts, is one of THE worst substances you can put in your body. it is meant to be consumed as a fermented condiment, not as patties, milk, or as the main ingredient of a meal.

Anyone who thinks soy is a "health food" or a suitable replacement for meat or dairy seriously needs to do some research on the subject.

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/03soymyths.htm

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/03summary.htm

 

[Steezie]

I know it's Wikipedia which is far from an academic source, but this looks well sourced.

Vitamin B12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only bacteria produce B12.

Bacteria derived from animal sources.

I understand that, but walnuts are not the only source I even mentioned olive oil in a previous post.

Which is great if you like olive oil and arent allergic to nuts.

I'm not arguing that point, but when you can get more actual food from less actual land it's not a problem.

Again, this is good provided your actual ammount of farmland doesnt shrink which it will unless every farmer in the world uses modern (and expensive) farming methods.

The capacity of these single celled organisms is truly remarkable, but they're going to need the full package.

What gives you the right to make that determination?

Even if you don't agree with me that it's beneficial to human civilization to say that it'd cripple human civilization is quite the hyperbole.

I have explained in great detail why what I have said is not hyperbole.

Cornell Science News: Livestock Production

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Hungry world 'must eat less meat'

I dont see anything to support the idea that the world MUST be vegan in order to survive. We certainly need to reduce our meat intake and be smarter about how it's produced, but I see nothing that supports the idea of a vegan world.

Why not? Everyone should at least make an honest attempt to justify their beliefs.

We need to eat, animals are edible and nutritious. We do not need to justify the decision to act on that