@alnair, what about our pet dogs and cats? I know we need good spay/neuter programs to reduce the population of unwanted puppies and kitties, but for the ones we do keep, where do you want them to get their food?
Right now, pet food is made from the byproducts of animals slaughtered for human consumption. In the world you envision where no human being eats meat, how do we feed all the dogs and cats?
There's just something about philosophical veganism that seems extremely idealistic and impractical to me. There also seems to be an idea in it that nature should be gentle, with no suffering in it, and that just isn't the case. Nature is "red, in tooth and claw." It's a harsh world we live in.
I might be persuadable to stop eating meat myself, and search for other sources of protein (eggs and cheese are out because producing them makes chickens and cows suffer). Does it all have to come from nuts and soy? Maybe beans?
But, then, what are my cats going to eat? Don't tell me to get rid of the cats. That is not going to happen. Also, if I had a child, I would be extremely uncomfortable not giving that child some meat protein, for fear of hampering its physical growth and development.
Also, almost everything in the supermarket that I can afford has some kind of animal product in it. Pure, guaranteed animal-free vegan food is expensive. I don't have the money to buy that food. Are you going to pay for it for me if I agree to stop eating animal products?
The whole Vegan thing, when pursued as a radical, no-exceptions philosophy, just really strikes me as upper middle-class, and really impractical. Plus, even if you persuade me to agree with you, I can't see how Vegans (it almost seems like a religion to them) are ever going to persuade enough people to make any difference. All those animals in my local supermarket are already dead. They're going to keep killing more of them no matter what I do. And, I still need a lot more convincing that a vegan only diet is going to be good for my health, and for the health of children.
@alnair I think it would be a far bleaker world for animals if we all became vegans. Animals would just take up space...
Remember you can rear sheep on mountain pastures. Pigs on sand (hence why Denmark, a small country with lot of coast exports so much bacon!) whilst they are felling the rainforest for the latest cash crop Soya (although admittedly it used to be to beef... But no money in it now since the various scandals...)
The fact humans practice animal husbandry shows that we care for and nurture our animals and the habitats they need (which in itself promotes the welfare of other wild animals) I can write this poem, because of this relationship. It would not work in a culture of animal apathy which I think your inadvertently promoting. I think it is this that is causing such a reaction.
Lastly, why become a vegan to help animals? It seems odd. You must find wearing a belt or shoes difficult...
Putting it another way... I am against chronic liver failure caused by the mindless abuse they receive from alcoholics, but I'm not going to stop drinking. It would help no one. Just like becoming a vegan is not going to help one animal. The only way is through EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION! (Then a teacher would say that...Plus you do it because you don't like the taste... Then why so passionate?)
...
@alnair I love passionate people. Do what you feel is right. Don't let anyone dissuade you. I have enjoyed your tenacity against everyone else on this thread. Let it continue!
Sorry, this came out very long, but since @Anduin (the OP) is actively involved in the discussion, I'd rather let him or a moderator decide whether to split the thread or not. I'll put a spoiler tag around most of my answer, anyway.
First of all, let me point out that I don't think veganism advocates NEED to have a solution to any issue that a world-wide switch to veganism would arise. For starters because such a transition, if at all possible, wouldn't happen overnight, thus leaving plenty of time to work out those issues gradually; and also, more importantly in my opinion, because I believe that The Right Thing To Do ™ should be done regardless of the difficulties it may entail (again, providing that they might be overcome eventually). Otherwise - let's stick with the classical example once more - slavery couldn't have been abolished because of the white masters' cotton-picking needs...
That being said, let's see what MY PERSONAL OPINIONS on some of those issues are...
In the world you envision where no human being eats meat, how do we feed all the dogs and cats?
In my ideal world, dogs and cats wouldn't be living inside human houses/cities, but rather free in the wild, so they would be eating the same thing wild animals eat (compatibly with their physiological needs, of course).
More pragmatically, there are several brands of vegan dog food and some even of vegan cat food. They're not their "natural" food AT ALL, of course, but then neither are veal, salmon or even tuna -- do you know how big a tuna fish is? do you think your kitty cat could kill one of those? actually, I think most cats would have to run for their lives even if facing a fierce chicken. But I digress... I don't usually advocate giving vegan food to cats - who, after all, are real carnivores (while dogs are actually omnivores) - but it's an option.
There's just something about philosophical veganism that seems extremely idealistic and impractical to me.
The idealism is there, undoubtedly, but that's what makes the world advance, isn't it? And I'm sure that, as things slowly change, the "impractical" part will be more and more irrelevant.
There also seems to be an idea in it that nature should be gentle, with no suffering in it
Not in my opinion, nor in that of any other activist I know personally, but I've heard people suggesting things like that lions should stop eating gazelles. Well, that's what I would call nonsense. Yes, it's an harsh world we live in... and that's exactly why each one of us should make our part in making it a little less harsh, since WE have the choice to do so. (Hint: lions don't.)
I might be persuadable to stop eating meat myself, and search for other sources of protein (eggs and cheese are out because producing them makes chickens and cows suffer).
You got that right, but I might add that it also makes them dead, just at a slower (and more painful) pace than "simple" meat production... and anyway meat is what their offspring and used-up individuals (not productive anymore) end up. In fact, one might even argue that beef is a byproduct of milk, and chicken meat of eggs.
Does it all have to come from nuts and soy? Maybe beans?
No, it doesn't. Granted that adults need way less protein than what is usually believed (the so-called "protein myth"), proteins are everywhere: not only nuts and beans, but also fruit, vegetables and cereals contain them, in different proportions and combinations. As always, the best dietary advice is to eat a variety of foods, and believe you me, you might eat a different vegan dish (or two) in every meal of your life....
But, then, what are my cats going to eat? Don't tell me to get rid of the cats. That is not going to happen.
In fact you shouldn't, of course. I think that we shouldn't breed cats, but adoption is the best thing that a stray (or even a shelter dweller) might hope for. And, in order to reduce the number of individuals in need of adoption, spaying/neutering our pets is the lesser of two evils.
Also, if I had a child, I would be extremely uncomfortable not giving that child some meat protein, for fear of hampering its physical growth and development.
That's an unfounded fear. I personally know several children who have been vegan since conception, so to speak: vegan parents, vegan pregnancy, vegan breastfeeding (i.e. the mother was vegan while breastfeeding them), vegan weaning... and they're perfectly healthy and developed, not to mention happy and perky.
But I'm not asking you to believe me on this delicate matter: there is plenty of information out there.
Pure, guaranteed animal-free vegan food is expensive.
That's simply not true. It may apply to faux-meat and faux-dairy products, but there are plenty of inexpensive vegan options: fruit and vegetables, as long as they're in season and not exotic; beans, nut, cereals; and of course bread and pasta (the "real one" is without eggs, by the way). Here in Italy most regional recipes - the so-called "poor food", in our language - are totally vegan...
Also, do you know how much governments subsidize meat and dairy production? Prices would be very different if that kind of financial help was reserved to farming for direct human consumption - which, by the way, is way more efficient since animals need A LOT of vegetables (not to mention water, up to 15.000 litres for kilogram of beef) to achieve the weight that makes them suitable to slaughtering: "A pound of beef (live weight) requires about seven pounds of feed, compared to more than three pound for a pound of pork and less than two pounds for a pound of chicken." (source: National Research Council. 2000. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. National Academy Press.) Most of the time that feed is cereals or beans that could be also eaten directly by humans.
The whole Vegan thing, when pursued as a radical, no-exceptions philosophy, just really strikes me as upper middle-class, and really impractical.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I've been a vegan for several years, and I've never found it "impractical" while having many different kinds of income (or lack thereof) and even traveling extremely low-budget in several different countries. And by the way, would you like to know which are the ones I found it the most practical? Romania and Georgia, which are not exactly examples of rich countries... well, over there most people eat only vegan food during certain parts of the year (for religious reasons... pretty much the only time I liked something about any religion ).
Plus, even if you persuade me to agree with you, I can't see how Vegans (it almost seems like a religion to them) are ever going to persuade enough people to make any difference.
Several possible (and not mutually exclusive) responses to this: 1) Every single person going vegan makes a huge difference for the animals she's not eating. Many small drops make an ocean. III) As the hummingbird thought while carrying a tiny amount of water to the burning forest, "at least I'll have done my part". fourth) We only need to reach the critical mass, then the chain reaction will annihilate the carnist kyriarchy!
All those animals in my local supermarket are already dead.
They have been bred, slaughtered, packaged and delivered to that supermarket because someone is buying their meat. Supply wouldn't exist without demand.
They're going to keep killing more of them no matter what I do.
That's not true (albeit slightly, your reduction of the demand will have an impact), but even if it were, I don't see it as a reason to continue being an accomplice of billions and billions of murders.
And, I still need a lot more convincing that a vegan only diet is going to be good for my health, and for the health of children.
You can find plenty of information about the subject with a cursory search on the engine of your choice (I recommend DuckDuckGo). I will only report my own experience: simply going vegan resolved all the health issues I had, from kidney stones (an inclination to develop them runs through my family), to high sugar blood levels (I have/had three grandparents and my father suffering from insulin-dependent diabetes), to hypertension (my 17 years old brother struggles with cholesterol while I have absolutely none in my blood). I also don't use allopathic drugs anymore and, you know what, I don't remember the last time I caught a flu... I still happen to catch a cold or run some fever during the winter, but I just sleep them off, usually overnight.
@alnair I think it would be a far bleaker world for animals if we all became vegans. Animals would just take up space...
The ones that could get accustomed to live in the wild would probably live a happier and quite longer life. Surely they would have to deal with predators and they would have to provide for themselves, but they wouldn't be confined in cages slightly larger than their bodies (sows and hens); they wouldn't be systematically raped (cows) only to see their newborn taken away to be malnourished and then slaughtered (veals) while they finish their life attached to machines causing them mastitis and other infections (dairy cows); they wouldn't be ground up alive by the thousands (male chicks); and so on and so on.
And no, animals wouldn't "just take up space", because I'm confident that humans would be able to establish a much wiser relationship with them, observing them living their life and maybe even interacting without exploiting them.
whilst they are felling the rainforest for the latest cash crop Soya (although admittedly it used to be to beef... But no money in it now since the various scandals...)
About 70% or 80% (depending on the source) of the world soy crops are still used to feed livestock, so that's what most of the rain forest is being fell for. Other sources go further (I didn't get the last part of your sentence, sorry.)
The fact humans practice animal husbandry shows that we care for and nurture our animals
I surely wouldn't like anybody to "care for" me they way humans do for animals: stuffing me with hormones and non-adequate food in order to make me fatter faster, and then cruelly killing me several decades before my natural lifespan's over, is not how I'd like to be nurtured.
Habitat encroachment and pollution (which is, in turn, largely caused by factory farming) are still the biggest threats to habitats, so that's probably a poor example...
Putting it another way... I am against chronic liver failure caused by the mindless abuse they receive from alcoholics, but I'm not going to stop drinking. It would help no one.
This makes sense (no matter how much you drink or not drink, alcoholics will still be abusing alcohol)...
Just like becoming a vegan is not going to help one animal.
...while this doesn't, to me at least. I've actively helped all the animals I didn't eat since becoming a vegan (sure, they've been eaten by someone else, but the ones they would've eaten instead haven't), and indirectly all the ones that haven't been eaten by people who became vegans thanks to my example/advocacy (I'd dare say quite a few).
Plus you do it because you don't like the taste...
I don't understand what gave you that impression... I currently wouldn't stand the taste of meat, that's true, but I loved it before I made the connection between it and the corpses it comes from.
@alnair I love passionate people. Do what you feel is right. Don't let anyone dissuade you. I have enjoyed your tenacity against everyone else on this thread. Let it continue!
Oh, don't worry, it's not going to taper off I've been involved in such discussions so many times over the years, both online and in real life... in fact I think I definitely should call Bingo (I got quite a few of them in this thread alone... not that I'm calling anyone a defensive carnist, of course)
@Alnair, thank you for the long and thoughtful response to my concerns. You've given me a lot to think about.
You know, it's very interesting to me, and on-topic, that now that I reflect on it, when I first read the (harmless?) little children's poem in the OP, and got to the ending where the poor pig, disguised as a lamb, gets killed and eaten anyway, my first, gut, emotional reaction was, "Awww, how sad. That's terrible!"
Then my psychological defenses went into full gear, and, without being conscious of it at the time, I engaged in some extensive reaction formation and rationalization.
"Well, it's a joke. It was written by a child. It's very clever and funny. The little pig thought he was so smart, but he forgot that little boys eat lambs, too. Ha, ha, how amusing. We could put it in a collection of poems and nursery rhymes written by children. Reward that child for his/her brightness! What an intelligent and creative young person!"
And, a flicker of thought went through my head, "I wonder if some vegan is going to come along and point out the darker undertones we're supposed to be ignoring here."
Then, you came in, people locked in their rote opinions, and the topic turned into a debate about veganism.
I believe there are many, many dramas that get played out in families when their children first find out where the meat on their plate came from, and how it was obtained. I think a lot of parents try to avoid letting their younger children find out about it at all. And I do hear all the time about older children and teens steadfastly refusing to eat meat forever after they first "hear the news" about the bloody business of meat.
This issue is also seen in popular culture; for example, we see it in the recurring storyline involving Lisa Simpson's journey toward veganism in "The Simpsons", and with her struggles to hold to her principles over time in the face of almost overwhelming cultural and family pressure to drink blood, umm, I mean, to eat meat.
As an aside, I often wonder whether the current popular stories about vampires might be taken as meat-eating allegories? That's probably not intended by the authors and actors involved, but as I read and watch these stories, it has often occurred to me that we humans, also, survive, thrive, and dominate by "drinking the blood" of other beings, calling them our "lessers," and telling ourselves we have the right to eat them or to do anything we darn well please with them. What will we say if something or someone stronger comes along and says the same to us?
My apologies. In my long post above, I mistakenly tagged @Anduin, when I meant to tag @Alnair.
Edit @Alnair: How do you feel about fishing? Do you believe fish have a highly developed enough nervous system to be conscious of their pain and to suffer? Many scientists argue that "suffering" as we understand it requires a limbic system in the brain, absent in fish and invertebrates, and that pain and struggle responses are unconscious reactions to adverse stimuli in pre-limbic animals.
@Alnair, thank you for the long and thoughtful response to my concerns. You've given me a lot to think about.
You're welcome, and you too gave some a new point of view on something... I am, after all, a huge Buffy fan, but I've never thought about vampires that way (I do recall a few occasions of characters relieved about the fact that the newly-ensoulled vampire of the week was drinking "just pig blood"... apparently Joss, as awesome as he is, is stil a speciesist nevertheless)
Do you believe fish have a highly developed enough nervous system to be conscious of their pain and to suffer? Many scientists argue that "suffering" as we understand it requires a limbic system in the brain, absent in fish and invertebrates, and that pain and struggle responses are unconscious reactions to adverse stimuli in pre-limbic animals.
Many other (e.g. the authors of this paper) reached opposite conclusions from their studies. But do we really need to know for sure how much they're conscious of the pain we're inflicting them - that much is not in discussion - before stopping inflicting it?
Umm, guys, I know I also actively contributed to the whole veganism debate before, but aren't we going off-topic? The topic was about a poem made up by kids, not whether fish could feel pain or not... Besides, if you continue that path of logic, even plants can feel pain, and what will you eat then? Eggs? That would be murder of chicks. And so on. Anyway, maybe @alnair could make a separate topic on this subject? Just a suggestion.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud, the topic title is the poem title, and the op contains only the poem, prefaced by a short explanation of its intended audience and educational purpose. It seems to me that discussion of thoughts provoked by the poem are perfectly on topic.
Unless a moderator or the op expresses that he or she sees a problem, I really think people are getting quite oversensitive about this sort of thing. It's turning into a kind of political correctness on this forum, with heavy thought policing starting to occur, and forum members who are not moderators trying to police other forum members. I say, let the moderators do the moderating. That's the job they've agreed to.
And continuing on topic, @alnair has shown me why I had an initial averse emotional reaction to the poem. Anyone sensitive to animal suffering is going to tend to "go there" (i.e., thinking about vegetarianism, carnivorism, omnivorism, and the like), after reading a poem like that, childish playfulness and creativity with rhyme notwithstanding.
In fact, people could discuss whether dark humor was the intent, or whether creativity excuses or trumps ethical meaning or implication, or whether it is beneficial or productive to apply literary criticism to a poem written for children. There are all kinds of thought-provoking ways discussion of poetry can go.
The whole purpose of poetry is to provoke thought and emotion using language. It seems to me, if someone posts a poem, with no other interpretations or points made other than simply posting the poem, that person is inviting whatever discussion their quoted poem brings to mind.
EDIT: btw, having said all that, a new thread appropriately titled with "veganism" or a similar keyword might not be a bad idea. But maybe we've already said all that the three of us who've been going on about it can say.
Umm, guys, I know I also actively contributed to the whole veganism debate before, but aren't we going off-topic? The topic was about a poem made up by kids, not whether fish could feel pain or not... Besides, if you continue that path of logic, even plants can feel pain, and what will you eat then? Eggs? That would be murder of chicks. And so on. Anyway, maybe @alnair could make a separate topic on this subject? Just a suggestion.
Don't stress, but thank you for looking out for me ;-) As @Belgarathmth points out...
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud, the topic title is the poem title, and the op contains only the poem, prefaced by a short explanation of its intended audience and educational purpose. It seems to me that discussion of thoughts provoked by the poem are perfectly on topic.
In fact, people could discuss whether dark humor was the intent, or whether creativity excuses or trumps ethical meaning or implication, or whether it is beneficial or productive to apply literary criticism to a poem written for children. There are all kinds of thought-provoking ways discussion of poetry can go.
The whole purpose of poetry is to provoke thought and emotion using language. It seems to me, if someone posts a poem, with no other interpretations or points made other than simply posting the poem, that person is inviting whatever discussion their quoted poem brings to mind.
In fact when people start dissecting your poem and making quotes, you know you have written a poem
As for intentions, there were many. Most to copy Roald's style... Can you spot them? And any discussion could encompass that or how it differs... LOL you discuss why he was such a popular children's author!
Yeah, ok sorry. The whole vegan debate's just grating on me a bit. I'll focus on the literary aspect of this poem then. It indeed shows a likeness with Dahl's style. Remember the poem where Little Red kills the Wold and dresses herself in his coat? Same thing happens here. Some kind of cruel black humor, but presented in such a way that it still seems suitable for children's eyes. The poem also reminds e of old nursery rhymes, which also usually contained a veiled combination of some kind of cruel humour.
The whole vegan debate's just grating on me a bit.
Sorry about that, that's not what I wanted, of course: although it happens frequently that people get annoyed when speciesism is exposed, it's never done with foul intentions (indeed, quite the contrary).
@alnair: I just think idealim of that kind is naive. Humans are omnivores. Humans eat meat and fish. Even animals kill each other in nature. We need to use SOME resources offered to us by nature, you know.
@alnair: I just think idealim of that kind is naive. Humans are omnivores. Humans eat meat and fish. Even animals kill each other in nature. We need to use SOME resources offered to us by nature, you know.
Have you read anything I've written? Short version of it is: we can live using "some resources offered to us by nature" AND without killing animals -- millions of vegan all over the world are living proof of that... we have the choice to do so (while animals in nature don't), thus I believe that's what we should do. That's all: call it idealism if you want, I just call it doing - as much as possible - what is fair and right.
@belgarathmth A report that vegans live longer from PETA... Bound to be biased.
Although too much of anything is bad for you. A little bit of everything (food wise) is good for you. People will say chocolate is bad, but in small doses it is a superfood! With antidepressant and toxin removing agents! It will make you happier just by eating it! But is full of fat, and too much fat is bad for you... Not that you eat it as real chocolate needs 5% animal fat in it to make it chocolate according to EU law.
Anyway... The real reason I am posting is @alnair , that your post saying natural resources are better used being vegan is erroneous. Most crops require flat(ish) ground, water and a good soil. This is at a PREMIUM! It is why people starve.
Animals however can be reared on the side of mountains, wasteland and the scraps left over from humans (ever wondered why shots of people living in arid Africa usually show a few heads of cattle?) or (and I know I'm gonna get it in the neck for this...) bonemeal (basically the scraps of part of the animals not eaten by humans i.e. the skeleton, ground up into pellets) although this practice is not carried out in some countries (notably British and New Zealand and any other farm that sell higher grade animal meat) but animals will eat themselves! Because they don't know and if they did know, they would still eat it because they do not come with a set of morals and ethics that humans have. To them food is FOOD.
You think about that when you lick the back of a stamp (glue created from gelatine that is produced from bovine hooves) or tuck into your harribo! (again gelatine! Surely not one part of the animal is wasted! Every resource USED)
@belgarathmth A report that vegans live longer from PETA... Bound to be biased.
The article is signed by a member of PETA, but "the large-scale study was funded by the National Institutes of Health". Please don't stray from facts in order to prove a point.
Not that you eat it as real chocolate needs 5% animal fat in it to make it chocolate according to EU law.
Don't know what you're talking about, I live in the EU and eat plenty of "real" chocolate (dark, white, hazelnut, almond, you name it) that is completely vegan. My favourite is even a traditional regional recipe, revisited using fair-trade ingredients.
Most crops require flat(ish) ground, water and a good soil. This is at a PREMIUM! It is why people starve.
Is that so? People starve because they lack food, and as I already said the better part of food (at least cereals and soy) grown in the world is used to feed animals. Mentioning how people in arid Africa have to rely on cattle doesn't change the fact that the western way of eating is responsible not only for the death and suffering of BILLIONS of animals every year but at the same time also for the misuse of land and water (12.000 gallons for a pound of beef... again, talking about factory farms, where virtually all of the livestock of the so-called First World is bred).
Inb4 "biased sources": those articles talk about studies by "a celebrated professor of ecology and agricultural science at Cornell University, who has published over 500 scientific articles, 20 books and overseen scores of important studies". There's no indication whether or not he eats animal products.
(Also, I have yet to see ANY source for your assertions...)
You think about that when you lick the back of a stamp (glue created from gelatine that is produced from bovine hooves) or tuck into your harribo! (again gelatine!
I don't do any of those things, but thanks for letting me check the "pointing out an infinitesimal amount of animal product" square of the Bingo. Apparently you are, after all, a defensive carnist
Surely not one part of the animal is wasted! Every resource USED)
Even if every single atom of an animal's body were used in order to fulfil human needs/desires, I wouldn't find ethical to do so (especially, but not exclusively, when there are cruelty-free means of obtaining the same result).
My replies on this thread are starting to become repetitive... maybe it's time we agree to disagree. Of course I'm still available for answering any prejudice-free question on veganism, though, either here or in private
@Alnair Your right. I have not identified any of my sources. My degree at university was Human Geography specialising in population issues... It was a mostly malthusian affair... This is funny but I doubt you'll get it... Look the guy up on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
The Malthusian catastrophe is that all populations will eventually starve or fight other populations for resources. I had to write endless theses on farming and feeding people... But it is sloppy not to note sources, but it is just what I know... And probably the other reason why I always get into these debates! Anyway... We avoid the Malthusian Catastrophe at present by using an amazingly varied supply of food sources... We basically eat everything. However Vegans are an anomaly as they don't eat everything they can...
This is probably the end of the debate then... Let us use a setting from a world suffering from theoretical Malthusian catastrophe. I am thinking you are a martyr to your cause so I am going to put an other into the equation.
All food has been eaten on the planet due to a dimming of the sun causing massive crop failure, trees have become more susceptible to disease and blight has destroyed root vegetables. However grass and scrub is still growing... Just... War has pounded the cities and they are now radioactive dead zones... You have travelled north with two other survivors. You have not eaten for a week. You are close to collapse and you see, to your amazement, a pig, oink oinking... Your fellow survivors have not seen or heard it as they are close to death and are about to succumb to starvation...
You have a rifle. Do you shoot? Or do you let the pig live?
Note I have not said what you would do either way afterwards as that is up to you...
Lets just assume now if the question was asked of myself... I would make sausages, leave the scraps to attract other animals and hunt for the other pigs to start a farm as I know that they are usually a pack animal...
...
Lastly. Why do I need to defend meat eaters? It is the norm. We are omnivores remember... We have canines in our mouth to shred meat... You need to defend why you don't use those teeth in you head!
Well, whatever may be the case, I won't miss out on any delicious duck meat or lamb chops... Vegetarians don't know what they're missing! Besides, I've been wondering why vegans would refuse to use animal products such as milk and eggs? Milk is very healthy, and cows NEED to be milked anyway. What would you do with all of that milk? Throw it away just because it came from an animal? Such a waste, and quite ridiculous in my eyes. Even babies' first food is mother milk from their mom. Milk contains a lot of useful nutrients which help a kid grow. So to not give a child its needed portion of nutrients in the earliest phase of its life, would be criminal in my eyes. As for eggs, and I'm talking about non-fertilized eggs here, same issue. Why not eat them? They also contain lots of nutrients and are jummy on top of that. Would you not eat eggs just because they come from a chicken? What about butter, cream, wool, leather? These are pretty much basic resources small farms thrived on in past ages. My city, for example, became famous because of trade in textile a couple of centuries ago. I just don't see how vegans would not make use of these resources. Well, maybe it's not strictly vegans I'm talking about, but in any case the people who, aside from eating meat 'n fish also refuse to use products produced by animals. I don't see how shaving sheep could be 'harmful' to them in any way, aside from some accidental cuts and wounds. Sheep would actually be glad to be rid of their wool during hot summer days. And so on. Really, there are some weird peeps walking our globe.
Besides, even vegan patties contain eggs and diary products, just like the bun. Quite ironic to see some vegans eat such patties and think they're free of doing harm.
@alnair: Here, I found an interesting article which gives many reasons why a vegetarian diet is actually not healthy at all. It might also provide other arguments against pro-vegetarian arguments used in this topic.
I will quote a couple of arguments I found the most interesting myself:
8. You'll make a strong political statement
"It’s a wonderful thing to be able to finish a delicious meal, knowing that no beings have suffered to make it" Not a single bite of food reaches our mouths that has not involved the killing of animals. By some estimates, at least 300 animals per acre—including mice, rats, moles, groundhogs and birds—are killed for the production of vegetable and grain foods, often in gruesome ways. Only one animal per acre is killed for the production of grass-fed beef and no animal is killed for the production of grass-fed milk until the end of the life of the dairy cow. And what about the human beings, especially growing human beings, who are suffering from nutrient deficiencies and their concomitant health problems as a consequence of a vegetarian diet? Or does only animal suffering count?
Of course, we should all work for the elimination of confinement animal facilities, which do cause a great deal of suffering in our animals, not to mention desecration of the environment. This will be more readily accomplished by the millions of meat eaters opting for grass-fed animal foods than by the smaller numbers of vegetarians boycotting meat.
Vegetarians wishing to make a political statement should strive for consistency. Cows are slaughtered not only to put steak on the table, but to obtain components used in soaps, shampoos, cosmetics, plastics, pharmaceuticals, waxes (as in candles and crayons), modern building materials and hydraulic brake fluid for airplanes. The membrane that vibrates in your telephone contains beef gelatin. So to avoid hypocrisy, vegetarians need to also refrain from using anything made of plastic, talking on the telephone, flying in airplanes, letting their kids use crayons, and living or working in modern buildings.
The ancestors of modern vegetarians would not have survived without using animal products like fur to keep warm, leather to make footwear, belts, straps and shelter, and bones for tools. In fact, the entire interactive network of life on earth, from the jellyfish to the judge, is based on the sacrifice of animals and the use of animal foods. There’s no escape from dependence on slaughtered animals, not even for really good vegan folks who feel wonderful about themselves as they finish their vegan meal.
21. You'll provide a great role model for your kids
"If you set a good example and feed your children good food, chances are they’ll live a longer and healthier life. You’re also providing a market for vegetarian products and making it more likely that they’ll be available for the children."
You may not ever have any children if you follow a vegan diet, and in case you do, you will be condemning your kids to a life of poor health and misery. Here’s what Dutch researcher P C Dagnelie has to say about the risks of a vegetarian diet: “ A vegan diet. . . leads to strongly increased risk of deficiencies of vitamin B12, vitamin B2 and several minerals, such as calcium, iron and zinc. . . even a lacto-vegetarian diet produces an increased risk of deficiencies of vitamin B12 and possibly certain minerals such as iron.”27 These deficiencies can adversely affect not only physical growth but also neurological development. And following a vegan diet while pregnant is a recipe for disaster.
You will, however, by embracing vegetarianism, provide a market for vegetarian products—the kind of highly processed, high-profit foods advertised in Vegetarian Times.
Have you ever thought about the large amount of insects that have to die just so that your own grains and vegetables are safe and healthy, @alnair? Have you ever thought about all the mice, rats and so on that have to die? Aren't you just as cruel as us meat-eaters, then? Just wondering. Oh, and don't say they're pests, even if they are, they're still animals, right?
As for the 'be a good role model for your children' argument, think of all the quarrels you'll have with your children and how miserable you'll make them, not to mention them feeling how they're being treated unfairly when they see all of their other classmates eat a nice piece of beef. Also, if you teach them meat's bad, they might just go against it out of pure rebelliousness. And that would render your efforts useless in the end afterall.
"Plants, grains and legumes contain phytoestrogens that are believed to balance fluctuating hormones, so vegetarian women tend to go through menopause with fewer complaints of sleep problems, hot flashes, fatigue, mood swings, weight gain, depression and a diminished sex drive."
Let’s see now, hormones in meat and milk are bad (see Item 13), but by tortured vegetarian logic, hormones in plant foods are good. Where is the research showing that vegetarian women go through menopause with fewer complaints? Numerous studies have shown that the phytoestrogens in soy foods have an inconsistent effect on hot flashes and other symptoms of menopause.26
The body needs cholesterol, vitamin A, vitamin D and other animal nutrients for hormone production. A vegetarian diet devoid of these nutrients is a recipe for menopausal problems, fatigue and diminished sex drive—the dietary proscriptions of the puritanical Graham and Kellogg work very well for their intended purpose, which is to wipe out libido in both men and women.
Lack of cholesterol, vitamin D and vitamin B12 is a recipe for mood swings and depression. If you want to have a happy menopause, don’t be a vegetarian!
"The norm" is not an acceptable ethical argument, and it is beyond the pale to imply a cause is not worthy of pursuit because it does not completely achieve its objective.
Reverse hypothetical, you're holding a sledge-hammer and wearing rubber boots, a cow has been lead to the killing floor. Where do you strike it to kill it instantly? What do you do if you miss? Did I say hypothetical? Those are questions a young man asks himself every day.
It isn't all burger-wraps, vacuum-seals and nutritional information.
I'm going to cook a nice spaghetti bolegnese now, and I won't feel bad for eating it. But I won't pretend it's better than any meal @alnair chooses to eat.
I'm seeing interesting and well-reasoned arguments on both sides of the debate here. One thing about milk production though, that I almost never see anybody think of, is that cows don't give milk unless they're pregnant. So dairy cows have to be kept pregnant at all times.
When the calves are born, half of them are males. A few are kept for studs, but most are either killed for veal, or raised to young adulthood and then slaughtered for beef. The females can be raised for dairy cows, but I'm told that the mothers are not allowed to raise the calves in a natural manner, causing exteme emotional upset to both mother and calf. And of course, imagine the sad scene when a male calf is born. Many of these are taken from the mother straight out of the birth canal and slaughtered.
As for eggs, those chickens have miserable lives of terrible suffering, crammed by the thousands into small spaces and tiny cages for their whole lives, and never allowed to roam or do anything that chickens do, unless you the consumer pay more than double price for so-called "free range" chickens, which may or may not actually reduce the suffering these poor, miserable, doomed birds endure.
Now, I don't plan to stop drinking milk or eating cheese, eggs, butter and ice cream. Those are some of my favorite foods, and I think cow's milk consumed moderately is good for humans as a source of vitamin D and calcium, and that there are many good, important nutrients in eggs as well.
But, I do it with my eyes open to the harsh reality of how it comes to my refrigerator. I consider it a necessary evil of the natural business of life. For one entity to live, another has to die. That's how life works, and nobody can change it.
My grandmother grew up on a family farm, and she used to tell me what life was like for her. Her family had to raise cows and pigs, and they had to do their own slaughtering, as well as raising a huge vegetable garden for six children and two parents. If they didn't produce it, they didn't eat. She learned to milk, and then slaughter cows and pigs as a little girl. She even had to do stuff like castrate and de-horn bulls.
I think these stories told by my grandmother, who grew up in the harsh economic reality of rural Georgia during the Great Depression, gave me a deep appreciation for the comparative ease of my own life, and respect for the people who toughen themselves up and do what has to be done so that the most people can have a good life.
And I really understand what @Anduin is talking about with that "Malthusian catastrophe". The world lives on the brink of it at all times, with most of the western population of the world oblivious to just how close everybody is to devastating famine. We need every bit of scientific knowledge and technology we can bring to bear to feed humanity's enormous collective appetite, and yes, we need to use every resource, including animal farming, to get enough food.
These assertions need supporting references, I know, but I don't have the time to look up a compelling case for what I'm saying. I suspect that both the vegans and the omnivores in the debate could find plenty of sources to back up information that supports their own arguments. @Alnair has done a really good job backing up his claims with references, better than the rest of us, actually.
I guess I'll just say for now that I believe what the Malthusians say, because it makes the most sense to me, based on my experience of the world. It seems to me that the Malthusians are seeing the world as it is, rather than as how they would wish for it to be.
Well, I quoted it in one of my posts. For one being to live, another has to die. What concerns me most is the exponential growth of humanity. We are already with so many, and we keep increasing in numbers. And knowing space travel is still limited and has recently pu on hold due to financial reasons, I wonder when Earth will finally have reached her limits when it comes to feeding us. The one-child rule in China already says a lot. Imagine if every Chinese family had up to four children... I can very well imagine that this rule will soon spread to other countries in the world, well, at least in a couple of centuries...
This is funny but I doubt you'll get it... Look the guy up on wiki
Patronising tone aside, actually I'm quite familiar with "the guy" and his 200 years old theories; and I stand by my opinion - supported by plenty of studies by authoritative entities, UN's FAO in primis - that the problem is in the (mis)use of resources, not in their scarcity. This planet could very well feed all of its 7 billion inhabitants, wouldn't 2 billion of them hog far more than their fair share (let me repeat once again, mostly to feed cattle). Nevertheless, I'm absolutely in favour of reducing the human population on Earth, although of course for ecological - rather than economical - reasons... have you ever heard of VHEMT? (I would advise, before commenting the contents of that website, to read it thoroughly... most of the trite critics people come up with are already answered in their FAQ section)
We avoid the Malthusian Catastrophe at present by using an amazingly varied supply of food sources... We basically eat everything. However Vegans are an anomaly as they don't eat everything they can...
Forgive me while I recap. Instead of eating a pound of beef, which took at least a dozen pounds of cereals to "produce", I choose to eat directly a much smaller quantity of cereals and/or vegetables (which, by the way, also consumed thousands of gallons of water less than said pound of beef)... and this contributes to the coming of the Malthusian Catastrophe how, exactly?
Let us use a setting from a world suffering from theoretical Malthusian catastrophe.
No, thank you. I have no interest in thinking about hypothetical scenarios when there's a present, actual situation (the death of millions of animals every day) to address. (On a side note, have you begun following the Defensive Carnist Bingo as a script for your posts? This remark and the one about canines make a nice twofer! :P)
Lets just assume now if the question was asked of myself... I would make sausages
So, judging by your self-confidence, I suppose you already have cold-bloodedly killed and then slaughtered another sentient being? And if not, don't you think you would react in a way similar to this?
Why do I need to defend meat eaters?
Because meat eaters are the ones responsible for billions of deaths.
It is the norm.
"The norm" != "What's right" (How many more times do I have to mention slavery, then?)
We have canines in our mouth to shred meat...
Human teeth are nothing like real carnivores' ones. Do you think you could kill a prey with your short and dull canines, then use them to shred its meat and eat it raw? (Before other anatomy "evidences" like that... just a couple of links)
You need to defend why you don't use those teeth in you head!
I don't feel any need to defend why I choose to diminish the pain and death inflicted by my alimentary choices, thank you. I think it should be self-evident, actually, and to be honest I take no pleasure from interacting with people that think otherwise. [/spoiler]
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud (although I'm more and more convinced you're not actually reading what I write...) [spoiler]
Vegetarians don't know what they're missing!
I'm not missing anything, thank you. I've eaten meat for over twenty years, and it's been my choice to stop. If anything, I'm happily free from it.
Besides, I've been wondering why vegans would refuse to use animal products such as milk and eggs?
Simply put, because their production cause the suffering (and eventually the death) of cows, calves, hens and chicks.
Milk is very healthy, and cows NEED to be milked anyway.
That's another pair of myths. Drinking milk of another species and after the weaning is actually not healthy at all -- do some research, you'll easily find that no other animal does so, and also that in populations that don't consume dairy products many illnesses - e.g. osteoporosis - are unknown. And cows wouldn't have any need to be milked if we simply let calves drink the milk their mothers' bodies produce for them, instead of separing them and imprisoning the babies in order to make veal out of them.
What would you do with all of that milk? Throw it away just because it came from an animal? Such a waste, and quite ridiculous in my eyes.
Frankly speaking, I find ridiculous the way you make wild, crazy assumptions about things no one ever mentioned, and then respond to them as if they were actual suggestions made by me or any other vegan...
Even babies' first food is mother milk from their mom. Milk contains a lot of useful nutrients which help a kid grow.
Exactly, you're just supporting the point I made earlier. "BABIES' first food is mother milk from THEIR mom". Let that sink in for a moment...
So to not give a child its needed portion of nutrients in the earliest phase of its life, would be criminal in my eyes.
Again with the wild assumptions. No one ever suggested not giving mother milk to babies.
As for eggs, and I'm talking about non-fertilized eggs here, same issue. Why not eat them?
What about butter, cream, wool, leather? [...] I just don't see how vegans would not make use of these resources.
It's quite simple, actually: we don't use them, period. They all are easily replaceable by other kinds of resources.
I don't see how shaving sheep could be 'harmful' to them in any way, aside from some accidental cuts and wounds.
Have you ever heard about mulesing? Also, when sheep are not productive enough anymore, they are sent to their premature deaths (usually to become second-grade meat).
Sheep would actually be glad to be rid of their wool during hot summer days.
Except that sheep have been selected by humans over countless generations in order to produce more wool than what they would actually need (also, sheep's natural habitats were not in climate zones with "hot summer days").
Really, there are some weird peeps walking our globe.
Have you ever thought about all the mice, rats and so on that have to die?
As a matter of fact, I have, several times. I never proclaimed to be perfect, did I? I'm just trying to have the smallest possible negative impact on other animals' lives, while being fully conscious that - short of committing suicide - it's not possible for me to avoid having some amount of it. Not being able to reduce to zero the deaths caused by my presence on the planet doesn't mean I shouldn't do what I CAN actually do. And anyway, the argument still stands: in order to produce x pounds of meat, you need x * several times pounds of grains/vegetables... so, any disadvantage of the latter has to be multiplied for meat (and dairy as well).
Aren't you just as cruel as us meat-eaters, then? Just wondering.
As for the 'be a good role model for your children' argument, think of all the quarrels you'll have with your children and how miserable you'll make them,
Assumptions, assumptions. As I said already, I know personally several perfectly happy vegan children...
not to mention them feeling how they're being treated unfairly when they see all of their other classmates eat a nice piece of beef. Also, if you teach them meat's bad, they might just go against it out of pure rebelliousness. And that would render your efforts useless in the end afterall.
My partner and I don't plan on ever having any offspring, so that's not even an issue for us... nevertheless I believe that kids, when made aware of the ethical reasons for it, are perfectly capable to understand why they shouldn't (as opposed to couldn't) eat meat.
So yeah, risk of libido and menopause issues, especially for vegetarian women. I don't think anybody here is waiting for a diminished sex drive.
I'm sorry, that is utterly crazy nonsense of the lowest rank which I'll not dignify with more than just a quick link-rebuttal.
Well, I quoted it in one of my posts. For one being to live, another has to die.
Except that we, as privileged western humans, have the choice to reduce to a minimum the beings that have to die for us to leave. Refusing to do so just for the sake of our tastebuds is, bluntly put, pure selfishness.
What concerns me most is the exponential growth of humanity.
"The norm" is not an acceptable ethical argument, and it is beyond the pale to imply a cause is not worthy of pursuit because it does not completely achieve its objective.
Thank you.
I'm going to cook a nice spaghetti bolegnese now, and I won't feel bad for eating it. But I won't pretend it's better than any meal @alnair chooses to eat.
One thing about milk production though, that I almost never see anybody think of, is that cows don't give milk unless they're pregnant. So dairy cows have to be kept pregnant at all times.
Thanks, I tend to forget that many people don't possess this apparently basic piece of knowledge. (After all, humans are mammals as well, but we don't see women "needing to be milked"...)
I consider it a necessary evil of the natural business of life.
Ah, natural. Gotta love that word. What's natural in our lives nowadays? Is wearing clothes natural? Are glasses natural? Are shoes, cars, buildings, Coke, shaving, shampooing, even showering natural? But I'm not advocating giving up any of those things (well, except Coke)... I'm only saying that humankind, as a species gifted with a conscience, should consider our duty to do as much as we can to minimise that "necessary" evil.
For one entity to live, another has to die. That's how life works, and nobody can change it.
That's quite the oversimplification, in my opinion. As I wrote earlier, we certainly can't avoid having an impact on the planet, but we CAN at least try to live without purposely killing other beings.
The world lives on the brink of it at all times, with most of the western population of the world oblivious to just how close everybody is to devastating famine. We need every bit of scientific knowledge and technology we can bring to bear to feed humanity's enormous collective appetite, and yes, we need to use every resource, including animal farming, to get enough food.
I'm going to agree 100% with you on this, except of course the bit about animal farming. Instead I'll use the occasion to point to this.
I guess I'll just say for now that I believe what the Malthusians say, because it makes the most sense to me, based on my experience of the world. It seems to me that the Malthusians are seeing the world as it is, rather than as how they would wish for it to be.
I don't see why (if I understood correctly your meaning) you're contrasting veganism and the Malthusian point of view. By the way, I believe the Malthusian Catastrophe to be both imminent and caused by capitalism, and I don't think it can be avoided, even if the world went vegan overnight, without radically changing our global relationship with nature, the planet and between one another. [/spoiler]
Comments
Right now, pet food is made from the byproducts of animals slaughtered for human consumption. In the world you envision where no human being eats meat, how do we feed all the dogs and cats?
There's just something about philosophical veganism that seems extremely idealistic and impractical to me. There also seems to be an idea in it that nature should be gentle, with no suffering in it, and that just isn't the case. Nature is "red, in tooth and claw." It's a harsh world we live in.
I might be persuadable to stop eating meat myself, and search for other sources of protein (eggs and cheese are out because producing them makes chickens and cows suffer). Does it all have to come from nuts and soy? Maybe beans?
But, then, what are my cats going to eat? Don't tell me to get rid of the cats. That is not going to happen. Also, if I had a child, I would be extremely uncomfortable not giving that child some meat protein, for fear of hampering its physical growth and development.
Also, almost everything in the supermarket that I can afford has some kind of animal product in it. Pure, guaranteed animal-free vegan food is expensive. I don't have the money to buy that food. Are you going to pay for it for me if I agree to stop eating animal products?
The whole Vegan thing, when pursued as a radical, no-exceptions philosophy, just really strikes me as upper middle-class, and really impractical. Plus, even if you persuade me to agree with you, I can't see how Vegans (it almost seems like a religion to them) are ever going to persuade enough people to make any difference. All those animals in my local supermarket are already dead. They're going to keep killing more of them no matter what I do. And, I still need a lot more convincing that a vegan only diet is going to be good for my health, and for the health of children.
Remember you can rear sheep on mountain pastures. Pigs on sand (hence why Denmark, a small country with lot of coast exports so much bacon!) whilst they are felling the rainforest for the latest cash crop Soya (although admittedly it used to be to beef... But no money in it now since the various scandals...)
The fact humans practice animal husbandry shows that we care for and nurture our animals and the habitats they need (which in itself promotes the welfare of other wild animals) I can write this poem, because of this relationship. It would not work in a culture of animal apathy which I think your inadvertently promoting. I think it is this that is causing such a reaction.
Lastly, why become a vegan to help animals? It seems odd. You must find wearing a belt or shoes difficult...
Putting it another way... I am against chronic liver failure caused by the mindless abuse they receive from alcoholics, but I'm not going to stop drinking. It would help no one. Just like becoming a vegan is not going to help one animal. The only way is through EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION! (Then a teacher would say that...Plus you do it because you don't like the taste... Then why so passionate?)
...
@alnair I love passionate people. Do what you feel is right. Don't let anyone dissuade you. I have enjoyed your tenacity against everyone else on this thread. Let it continue!
First of all, let me point out that I don't think veganism advocates NEED to have a solution to any issue that a world-wide switch to veganism would arise. For starters because such a transition, if at all possible, wouldn't happen overnight, thus leaving plenty of time to work out those issues gradually; and also, more importantly in my opinion, because I believe that The Right Thing To Do ™ should be done regardless of the difficulties it may entail (again, providing that they might be overcome eventually). Otherwise - let's stick with the classical example once more - slavery couldn't have been abolished because of the white masters' cotton-picking needs...
That being said, let's see what MY PERSONAL OPINIONS on some of those issues are...
[spoiler] In my ideal world, dogs and cats wouldn't be living inside human houses/cities, but rather free in the wild, so they would be eating the same thing wild animals eat (compatibly with their physiological needs, of course).
More pragmatically, there are several brands of vegan dog food and some even of vegan cat food. They're not their "natural" food AT ALL, of course, but then neither are veal, salmon or even tuna -- do you know how big a tuna fish is? do you think your kitty cat could kill one of those? actually, I think most cats would have to run for their lives even if facing a fierce chicken. But I digress... I don't usually advocate giving vegan food to cats - who, after all, are real carnivores (while dogs are actually omnivores) - but it's an option. The idealism is there, undoubtedly, but that's what makes the world advance, isn't it? And I'm sure that, as things slowly change, the "impractical" part will be more and more irrelevant.
Not in my opinion, nor in that of any other activist I know personally, but I've heard people suggesting things like that lions should stop eating gazelles. Well, that's what I would call nonsense. Yes, it's an harsh world we live in... and that's exactly why each one of us should make our part in making it a little less harsh, since WE have the choice to do so. (Hint: lions don't.) You got that right, but I might add that it also makes them dead, just at a slower (and more painful) pace than "simple" meat production... and anyway meat is what their offspring and used-up individuals (not productive anymore) end up. In fact, one might even argue that beef is a byproduct of milk, and chicken meat of eggs. No, it doesn't. Granted that adults need way less protein than what is usually believed (the so-called "protein myth"), proteins are everywhere: not only nuts and beans, but also fruit, vegetables and cereals contain them, in different proportions and combinations. As always, the best dietary advice is to eat a variety of foods, and believe you me, you might eat a different vegan dish (or two) in every meal of your life.... In fact you shouldn't, of course. I think that we shouldn't breed cats, but adoption is the best thing that a stray (or even a shelter dweller) might hope for. And, in order to reduce the number of individuals in need of adoption, spaying/neutering our pets is the lesser of two evils.
That's an unfounded fear. I personally know several children who have been vegan since conception, so to speak: vegan parents, vegan pregnancy, vegan breastfeeding (i.e. the mother was vegan while breastfeeding them), vegan weaning... and they're perfectly healthy and developed, not to mention happy and perky.
But I'm not asking you to believe me on this delicate matter: there is plenty of information out there. Then you're looking in the wrong section. Ever heard of produce?
Also, do you know how much governments subsidize meat and dairy production? Prices would be very different if that kind of financial help was reserved to farming for direct human consumption - which, by the way, is way more efficient since animals need A LOT of vegetables (not to mention water, up to 15.000 litres for kilogram of beef) to achieve the weight that makes them suitable to slaughtering: "A pound of beef (live weight) requires about seven pounds of feed, compared to more than three pound for a pound of pork and less than two pounds for a pound of chicken." (source: National Research Council. 2000. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. National Academy Press.) Most of the time that feed is cereals or beans that could be also eaten directly by humans. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I've been a vegan for several years, and I've never found it "impractical" while having many different kinds of income (or lack thereof) and even traveling extremely low-budget in several different countries.
And by the way, would you like to know which are the ones I found it the most practical? Romania and Georgia, which are not exactly examples of rich countries... well, over there most people eat only vegan food during certain parts of the year (for religious reasons... pretty much the only time I liked something about any religion
1) Every single person going vegan makes a huge difference for the animals she's not eating.
III) As the hummingbird thought while carrying a tiny amount of water to the burning forest, "at least I'll have done my part".
fourth) We only need to reach the critical mass, then the chain reaction will annihilate the carnist kyriarchy!
And no, animals wouldn't "just take up space", because I'm confident that humans would be able to establish a much wiser relationship with them, observing them living their life and maybe even interacting without exploiting them. So what? Are you suggesting we wouldn't be able to sustain the human population without using every little scrap of land? Actually a vegan lifestyle requires 20 times less land to be sustainable than a omnivore one, so I don't think that would be an issue. About 70% or 80% (depending on the source) of the world soy crops are still used to feed livestock, so that's what most of the rain forest is being fell for. Other sources go further (I didn't get the last part of your sentence, sorry.) I surely wouldn't like anybody to "care for" me they way humans do for animals: stuffing me with hormones and non-adequate food in order to make me fatter faster, and then cruelly killing me several decades before my natural lifespan's over, is not how I'd like to be nurtured. Habitat encroachment and pollution (which is, in turn, largely caused by factory farming) are still the biggest threats to habitats, so that's probably a poor example... I don't see how not killing animals (that's the only thing I'm advocating, after all) would automatically implicate apathy towards them. How do you mean? How is refusing to partake in their exploitation not going to help them? There are plenty of vegan belts and shoes, I promise, and usually cheaper and more durable than leather ones
[/spoiler] Because once you realise the immensely vast carnage going on day after day under the world's nose, you can't keep your eyes shut anymore. Oh, don't worry, it's not going to taper off
You know, it's very interesting to me, and on-topic, that now that I reflect on it, when I first read the (harmless?) little children's poem in the OP, and got to the ending where the poor pig, disguised as a lamb, gets killed and eaten anyway, my first, gut, emotional reaction was, "Awww, how sad. That's terrible!"
Then my psychological defenses went into full gear, and, without being conscious of it at the time, I engaged in some extensive reaction formation and rationalization.
"Well, it's a joke. It was written by a child. It's very clever and funny. The little pig thought he was so smart, but he forgot that little boys eat lambs, too. Ha, ha, how amusing. We could put it in a collection of poems and nursery rhymes written by children. Reward that child for his/her brightness! What an intelligent and creative young person!"
And, a flicker of thought went through my head, "I wonder if some vegan is going to come along and point out the darker undertones we're supposed to be ignoring here."
Then, you came in, people locked in their rote opinions, and the topic turned into a debate about veganism.
I believe there are many, many dramas that get played out in families when their children first find out where the meat on their plate came from, and how it was obtained. I think a lot of parents try to avoid letting their younger children find out about it at all. And I do hear all the time about older children and teens steadfastly refusing to eat meat forever after they first "hear the news" about the bloody business of meat.
This issue is also seen in popular culture; for example, we see it in the recurring storyline involving Lisa Simpson's journey toward veganism in "The Simpsons", and with her struggles to hold to her principles over time in the face of almost overwhelming cultural and family pressure to drink blood, umm, I mean, to eat meat.
As an aside, I often wonder whether the current popular stories about vampires might be taken as meat-eating allegories? That's probably not intended by the authors and actors involved, but as I read and watch these stories, it has often occurred to me that we humans, also, survive, thrive, and dominate by "drinking the blood" of other beings, calling them our "lessers," and telling ourselves we have the right to eat them or to do anything we darn well please with them. What will we say if something or someone stronger comes along and says the same to us?
Hmm, you've given me much to think about, indeed.
Edit @Alnair: How do you feel about fishing? Do you believe fish have a highly developed enough nervous system to be conscious of their pain and to suffer? Many scientists argue that "suffering" as we understand it requires a limbic system in the brain, absent in fish and invertebrates, and that pain and struggle responses are unconscious reactions to adverse stimuli in pre-limbic animals.
When Knights Were Bolde
and Toilets weren't Invented
The Left Their Load
Beside the Road
and Walked Away Contented
(I do recall a few occasions of characters relieved about the fact that the newly-ensoulled vampire of the week was drinking "just pig blood"... apparently Joss, as awesome as he is, is stil a speciesist nevertheless) This way. Many other (e.g. the authors of this paper) reached opposite conclusions from their studies. But do we really need to know for sure how much they're conscious of the pain we're inflicting them - that much is not in discussion - before stopping inflicting it?
Unless a moderator or the op expresses that he or she sees a problem, I really think people are getting quite oversensitive about this sort of thing. It's turning into a kind of political correctness on this forum, with heavy thought policing starting to occur, and forum members who are not moderators trying to police other forum members. I say, let the moderators do the moderating. That's the job they've agreed to.
And continuing on topic, @alnair has shown me why I had an initial averse emotional reaction to the poem. Anyone sensitive to animal suffering is going to tend to "go there" (i.e., thinking about vegetarianism, carnivorism, omnivorism, and the like), after reading a poem like that, childish playfulness and creativity with rhyme notwithstanding.
In fact, people could discuss whether dark humor was the intent, or whether creativity excuses or trumps ethical meaning or implication, or whether it is beneficial or productive to apply literary criticism to a poem written for children. There are all kinds of thought-provoking ways discussion of poetry can go.
The whole purpose of poetry is to provoke thought and emotion using language. It seems to me, if someone posts a poem, with no other interpretations or points made other than simply posting the poem, that person is inviting whatever discussion their quoted poem brings to mind.
EDIT: btw, having said all that, a new thread appropriately titled with "veganism" or a similar keyword might not be a bad idea. But maybe we've already said all that the three of us who've been going on about it can say.
As for intentions, there were many. Most to copy Roald's style... Can you spot them? And any discussion could encompass that or how it differs... LOL you discuss why he was such a popular children's author!
Short version of it is: we can live using "some resources offered to us by nature" AND without killing animals -- millions of vegan all over the world are living proof of that... we have the choice to do so (while animals in nature don't), thus I believe that's what we should do.
That's all: call it idealism if you want, I just call it doing - as much as possible - what is fair and right.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jul/21/some-kids-are-raised-in-homes-free-of-meat/
LOL! And, then, there's this in the back of the editorials section:
http://eedition.timesfreepress.com/Olive/ODE/TimesFreePress/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=Q2hhdFRGUHJlc3MvMjAxMy8wNy8yMQ..&pageno=NDI.&entity=QXIwNDIwMg..&view=ZW50aXR5
Although too much of anything is bad for you. A little bit of everything (food wise) is good for you. People will say chocolate is bad, but in small doses it is a superfood! With antidepressant and toxin removing agents! It will make you happier just by eating it! But is full of fat, and too much fat is bad for you... Not that you eat it as real chocolate needs 5% animal fat in it to make it chocolate according to EU law.
Anyway... The real reason I am posting is @alnair , that your post saying natural resources are better used being vegan is erroneous. Most crops require flat(ish) ground, water and a good soil. This is at a PREMIUM! It is why people starve.
Animals however can be reared on the side of mountains, wasteland and the scraps left over from humans (ever wondered why shots of people living in arid Africa usually show a few heads of cattle?) or (and I know I'm gonna get it in the neck for this...) bonemeal (basically the scraps of part of the animals not eaten by humans i.e. the skeleton, ground up into pellets) although this practice is not carried out in some countries (notably British and New Zealand and any other farm that sell higher grade animal meat) but animals will eat themselves! Because they don't know and if they did know, they would still eat it because they do not come with a set of morals and ethics that humans have. To them food is FOOD.
You think about that when you lick the back of a stamp (glue created from gelatine that is produced from bovine hooves) or tuck into your harribo! (again gelatine! Surely not one part of the animal is wasted! Every resource USED)
Please don't stray from facts in order to prove a point. Don't know what you're talking about, I live in the EU and eat plenty of "real" chocolate (dark, white, hazelnut, almond, you name it) that is completely vegan. My favourite is even a traditional regional recipe, revisited using fair-trade ingredients. Is that so?
People starve because they lack food, and as I already said the better part of food (at least cereals and soy) grown in the world is used to feed animals.
Mentioning how people in arid Africa have to rely on cattle doesn't change the fact that the western way of eating is responsible not only for the death and suffering of BILLIONS of animals every year but at the same time also for the misuse of land and water (12.000 gallons for a pound of beef... again, talking about factory farms, where virtually all of the livestock of the so-called First World is bred).
Inb4 "biased sources": those articles talk about studies by "a celebrated professor of ecology and agricultural science at Cornell University, who has published over 500 scientific articles, 20 books and overseen scores of important studies". There's no indication whether or not he eats animal products.
(Also, I have yet to see ANY source for your assertions...) I don't do any of those things, but thanks for letting me check the "pointing out an infinitesimal amount of animal product" square of the Bingo.
Apparently you are, after all, a defensive carnist
My replies on this thread are starting to become repetitive... maybe it's time we agree to disagree.
Of course I'm still available for answering any prejudice-free question on veganism, though, either here or in private
The Malthusian catastrophe is that all populations will eventually starve or fight other populations for resources. I had to write endless theses on farming and feeding people... But it is sloppy not to note sources, but it is just what I know... And probably the other reason why I always get into these debates!
Anyway... We avoid the Malthusian Catastrophe at present by using an amazingly varied supply of food sources... We basically eat everything. However Vegans are an anomaly as they don't eat everything they can...
This is probably the end of the debate then... Let us use a setting from a world suffering from theoretical Malthusian catastrophe. I am thinking you are a martyr to your cause so I am going to put an other into the equation.
All food has been eaten on the planet due to a dimming of the sun causing massive crop failure, trees have become more susceptible to disease and blight has destroyed root vegetables. However grass and scrub is still growing... Just... War has pounded the cities and they are now radioactive dead zones... You have travelled north with two other survivors. You have not eaten for a week. You are close to collapse and you see, to your amazement, a pig, oink oinking... Your fellow survivors have not seen or heard it as they are close to death and are about to succumb to starvation...
You have a rifle. Do you shoot? Or do you let the pig live?
Note I have not said what you would do either way afterwards as that is up to you...
Lets just assume now if the question was asked of myself... I would make sausages, leave the scraps to attract other animals and hunt for the other pigs to start a farm as I know that they are usually a pack animal...
...
Lastly. Why do I need to defend meat eaters? It is the norm. We are omnivores remember... We have canines in our mouth to shred meat... You need to defend why you don't use those teeth in you head!
Besides, I've been wondering why vegans would refuse to use animal products such as milk and eggs? Milk is very healthy, and cows NEED to be milked anyway. What would you do with all of that milk? Throw it away just because it came from an animal? Such a waste, and quite ridiculous in my eyes. Even babies' first food is mother milk from their mom. Milk contains a lot of useful nutrients which help a kid grow. So to not give a child its needed portion of nutrients in the earliest phase of its life, would be criminal in my eyes. As for eggs, and I'm talking about non-fertilized eggs here, same issue. Why not eat them? They also contain lots of nutrients and are jummy on top of that. Would you not eat eggs just because they come from a chicken? What about butter, cream, wool, leather? These are pretty much basic resources small farms thrived on in past ages. My city, for example, became famous because of trade in textile a couple of centuries ago. I just don't see how vegans would not make use of these resources. Well, maybe it's not strictly vegans I'm talking about, but in any case the people who, aside from eating meat 'n fish also refuse to use products produced by animals. I don't see how shaving sheep could be 'harmful' to them in any way, aside from some accidental cuts and wounds. Sheep would actually be glad to be rid of their wool during hot summer days. And so on. Really, there are some weird peeps walking our globe.
I highly advise to give it a try!
http://www.westonaprice.org/vegetarianism-and-plant-foods/not-to-go-vegetarian
I will quote a couple of arguments I found the most interesting myself:
8. You'll make a strong political statement
"It’s a wonderful thing to be able to finish a delicious meal, knowing that no beings have suffered to make it"
Not a single bite of food reaches our mouths that has not involved the killing of animals. By some estimates, at least 300 animals per acre—including mice, rats, moles, groundhogs and birds—are killed for the production of vegetable and grain foods, often in gruesome ways. Only one animal per acre is killed for the production of grass-fed beef and no animal is killed for the production of grass-fed milk until the end of the life of the dairy cow. And what about the human beings, especially growing human beings, who are suffering from nutrient deficiencies and their concomitant health problems as a consequence of a vegetarian diet? Or does only animal suffering count?
Of course, we should all work for the elimination of confinement animal facilities, which do cause a great deal of suffering in our animals, not to mention desecration of the environment. This will be more readily accomplished by the millions of meat eaters opting for grass-fed animal foods than by the smaller numbers of vegetarians boycotting meat.
Vegetarians wishing to make a political statement should strive for consistency. Cows are slaughtered not only to put steak on the table, but to obtain components used in soaps, shampoos, cosmetics, plastics, pharmaceuticals, waxes (as in candles and crayons), modern building materials and hydraulic brake fluid for airplanes. The membrane that vibrates in your telephone contains beef gelatin. So to avoid hypocrisy, vegetarians need to also refrain from using anything made of plastic, talking on the telephone, flying in airplanes, letting their kids use crayons, and living or working in modern buildings.
The ancestors of modern vegetarians would not have survived without using animal products like fur to keep warm, leather to make footwear, belts, straps and shelter, and bones for tools. In fact, the entire interactive network of life on earth, from the jellyfish to the judge, is based on the sacrifice of animals and the use of animal foods. There’s no escape from dependence on slaughtered animals, not even for really good vegan folks who feel wonderful about themselves as they finish their vegan meal.
21. You'll provide a great role model for your kids
"If you set a good example and feed your children good food, chances are they’ll live a longer and healthier life. You’re also providing a market for vegetarian products and making it more likely that they’ll be available for the children."
You may not ever have any children if you follow a vegan diet, and in case you do, you will be condemning your kids to a life of poor health and misery. Here’s what Dutch researcher P C Dagnelie has to say about the risks of a vegetarian diet: “ A vegan diet. . . leads to strongly increased risk of deficiencies of vitamin B12, vitamin B2 and several minerals, such as calcium, iron and zinc. . . even a lacto-vegetarian diet produces an increased risk of deficiencies of vitamin B12 and possibly certain minerals such as iron.”27 These deficiencies can adversely affect not only physical growth but also neurological development. And following a vegan diet while pregnant is a recipe for disaster.
You will, however, by embracing vegetarianism, provide a market for vegetarian products—the kind of highly processed, high-profit foods advertised in Vegetarian Times.
Have you ever thought about the large amount of insects that have to die just so that your own grains and vegetables are safe and healthy, @alnair? Have you ever thought about all the mice, rats and so on that have to die? Aren't you just as cruel as us meat-eaters, then? Just wondering. Oh, and don't say they're pests, even if they are, they're still animals, right?
As for the 'be a good role model for your children' argument, think of all the quarrels you'll have with your children and how miserable you'll make them, not to mention them feeling how they're being treated unfairly when they see all of their other classmates eat a nice piece of beef. Also, if you teach them meat's bad, they might just go against it out of pure rebelliousness. And that would render your efforts useless in the end afterall.
17. You'll cool those hot flashes
"Plants, grains and legumes contain phytoestrogens that are believed to balance fluctuating hormones, so vegetarian women tend to go through menopause with fewer complaints of sleep problems, hot flashes, fatigue, mood swings, weight gain, depression and a diminished sex drive."
Let’s see now, hormones in meat and milk are bad (see Item 13), but by tortured vegetarian logic, hormones in plant foods are good. Where is the research showing that vegetarian women go through menopause with fewer complaints? Numerous studies have shown that the phytoestrogens in soy foods have an inconsistent effect on hot flashes and other symptoms of menopause.26
The body needs cholesterol, vitamin A, vitamin D and other animal nutrients for hormone production. A vegetarian diet devoid of these nutrients is a recipe for menopausal problems, fatigue and diminished sex drive—the dietary proscriptions of the puritanical Graham and Kellogg work very well for their intended purpose, which is to wipe out libido in both men and women.
Lack of cholesterol, vitamin D and vitamin B12 is a recipe for mood swings and depression. If you want to have a happy menopause, don’t be a vegetarian!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So yeah, risk of libido and menopause issues, especially for vegetarian women. I don't think anybody here is waiting for a diminished sex drive.
Reverse hypothetical, you're holding a sledge-hammer and wearing rubber boots, a cow has been lead to the killing floor. Where do you strike it to kill it instantly? What do you do if you miss? Did I say hypothetical? Those are questions a young man asks himself every day.
It isn't all burger-wraps, vacuum-seals and nutritional information.
I'm going to cook a nice spaghetti bolegnese now, and I won't feel bad for eating it. But I won't pretend it's better than any meal @alnair chooses to eat.
When the calves are born, half of them are males. A few are kept for studs, but most are either killed for veal, or raised to young adulthood and then slaughtered for beef. The females can be raised for dairy cows, but I'm told that the mothers are not allowed to raise the calves in a natural manner, causing exteme emotional upset to both mother and calf. And of course, imagine the sad scene when a male calf is born. Many of these are taken from the mother straight out of the birth canal and slaughtered.
As for eggs, those chickens have miserable lives of terrible suffering, crammed by the thousands into small spaces and tiny cages for their whole lives, and never allowed to roam or do anything that chickens do, unless you the consumer pay more than double price for so-called "free range" chickens, which may or may not actually reduce the suffering these poor, miserable, doomed birds endure.
Now, I don't plan to stop drinking milk or eating cheese, eggs, butter and ice cream. Those are some of my favorite foods, and I think cow's milk consumed moderately is good for humans as a source of vitamin D and calcium, and that there are many good, important nutrients in eggs as well.
But, I do it with my eyes open to the harsh reality of how it comes to my refrigerator. I consider it a necessary evil of the natural business of life. For one entity to live, another has to die. That's how life works, and nobody can change it.
My grandmother grew up on a family farm, and she used to tell me what life was like for her. Her family had to raise cows and pigs, and they had to do their own slaughtering, as well as raising a huge vegetable garden for six children and two parents. If they didn't produce it, they didn't eat. She learned to milk, and then slaughter cows and pigs as a little girl. She even had to do stuff like castrate and de-horn bulls.
I think these stories told by my grandmother, who grew up in the harsh economic reality of rural Georgia during the Great Depression, gave me a deep appreciation for the comparative ease of my own life, and respect for the people who toughen themselves up and do what has to be done so that the most people can have a good life.
And I really understand what @Anduin is talking about with that "Malthusian catastrophe". The world lives on the brink of it at all times, with most of the western population of the world oblivious to just how close everybody is to devastating famine. We need every bit of scientific knowledge and technology we can bring to bear to feed humanity's enormous collective appetite, and yes, we need to use every resource, including animal farming, to get enough food.
These assertions need supporting references, I know, but I don't have the time to look up a compelling case for what I'm saying. I suspect that both the vegans and the omnivores in the debate could find plenty of sources to back up information that supports their own arguments. @Alnair has done a really good job backing up his claims with references, better than the rest of us, actually.
I guess I'll just say for now that I believe what the Malthusians say, because it makes the most sense to me, based on my experience of the world. It seems to me that the Malthusians are seeing the world as it is, rather than as how they would wish for it to be.
@Anduin
[spoiler] Patronising tone aside, actually I'm quite familiar with "the guy" and his 200 years old theories; and I stand by my opinion - supported by plenty of studies by authoritative entities, UN's FAO in primis - that the problem is in the (mis)use of resources, not in their scarcity. This planet could very well feed all of its 7 billion inhabitants, wouldn't 2 billion of them hog far more than their fair share (let me repeat once again, mostly to feed cattle).
Nevertheless, I'm absolutely in favour of reducing the human population on Earth, although of course for ecological - rather than economical - reasons... have you ever heard of VHEMT? (I would advise, before commenting the contents of that website, to read it thoroughly... most of the trite critics people come up with are already answered in their FAQ section) Forgive me while I recap. Instead of eating a pound of beef, which took at least a dozen pounds of cereals to "produce", I choose to eat directly a much smaller quantity of cereals and/or vegetables (which, by the way, also consumed thousands of gallons of water less than said pound of beef)... and this contributes to the coming of the Malthusian Catastrophe how, exactly? No, thank you. I have no interest in thinking about hypothetical scenarios when there's a present, actual situation (the death of millions of animals every day) to address.
(On a side note, have you begun following the Defensive Carnist Bingo as a script for your posts? This remark and the one about canines make a nice twofer! :P) So, judging by your self-confidence, I suppose you already have cold-bloodedly killed and then slaughtered another sentient being? And if not, don't you think you would react in a way similar to this? Because meat eaters are the ones responsible for billions of deaths. "The norm" != "What's right"
(How many more times do I have to mention slavery, then?) Human teeth are nothing like real carnivores' ones. Do you think you could kill a prey with your short and dull canines, then use them to shred its meat and eat it raw?
(Before other anatomy "evidences" like that... just a couple of links) I don't feel any need to defend why I choose to diminish the pain and death inflicted by my alimentary choices, thank you. I think it should be self-evident, actually, and to be honest I take no pleasure from interacting with people that think otherwise.
[/spoiler]
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud (although I'm more and more convinced you're not actually reading what I write...)
[spoiler] I'm not missing anything, thank you. I've eaten meat for over twenty years, and it's been my choice to stop. If anything, I'm happily free from it. Simply put, because their production cause the suffering (and eventually the death) of cows, calves, hens and chicks. That's another pair of myths.
Drinking milk of another species and after the weaning is actually not healthy at all -- do some research, you'll easily find that no other animal does so, and also that in populations that don't consume dairy products many illnesses - e.g. osteoporosis - are unknown.
And cows wouldn't have any need to be milked if we simply let calves drink the milk their mothers' bodies produce for them, instead of separing them and imprisoning the babies in order to make veal out of them. Frankly speaking, I find ridiculous the way you make wild, crazy assumptions about things no one ever mentioned, and then respond to them as if they were actual suggestions made by me or any other vegan... Exactly, you're just supporting the point I made earlier. "BABIES' first food is mother milk from THEIR mom". Let that sink in for a moment... Again with the wild assumptions. No one ever suggested not giving mother milk to babies. Because of this, this, this and this. It's quite simple, actually: we don't use them, period. They all are easily replaceable by other kinds of resources. Have you ever heard about mulesing?
Also, when sheep are not productive enough anymore, they are sent to their premature deaths (usually to become second-grade meat). Except that sheep have been selected by humans over countless generations in order to produce more wool than what they would actually need (also, sheep's natural habitats were not in climate zones with "hot summer days"). You read my mind
Reflections on the Weston A. Price Foundation
The truth about the Weston Price foundation
Facts, and Weston Price Foundation Fantasies Oh, so I see you've found the Defensive Omnivore Bingo II as well
And anyway, the argument still stands: in order to produce x pounds of meat, you need x * several times pounds of grains/vegetables... so, any disadvantage of the latter has to be multiplied for meat (and dairy as well). Are you serious? Meat is murder, you're comparing it to - at most - collateral deaths, that could even be avoided altogether with a more natural approach to agricolture, which by the way I also advocate. Assumptions, assumptions. As I said already, I know personally several perfectly happy vegan children... My partner and I don't plan on ever having any offspring, so that's not even an issue for us... nevertheless I believe that kids, when made aware of the ethical reasons for it, are perfectly capable to understand why they shouldn't (as opposed to couldn't) eat meat. I'm sorry, that is utterly crazy nonsense of the lowest rank
[/spoiler]
@Tsyrith Thank you. My girlfriend makes a real nasty vegan lasagna
@belgarathmth
[spoiler] Thanks, I tend to forget that many people don't possess this apparently basic piece of knowledge. (After all, humans are mammals as well, but we don't see women "needing to be milked"...) Ah, natural. Gotta love that word. What's natural in our lives nowadays? Is wearing clothes natural? Are glasses natural? Are shoes, cars, buildings, Coke, shaving, shampooing, even showering natural?
But I'm not advocating giving up any of those things (well, except Coke)... I'm only saying that humankind, as a species gifted with a conscience, should consider our duty to do as much as we can to minimise that "necessary" evil. That's quite the oversimplification, in my opinion. As I wrote earlier, we certainly can't avoid having an impact on the planet, but we CAN at least try to live without purposely killing other beings. I'm going to agree 100% with you on this, except of course the bit about animal farming. Instead I'll use the occasion to point to this. I don't see why (if I understood correctly your meaning) you're contrasting veganism and the Malthusian point of view. By the way, I believe the Malthusian Catastrophe to be both imminent and caused by capitalism, and I don't think it can be avoided, even if the world went vegan overnight, without radically changing our global relationship with nature, the planet and between one another.
[/spoiler]