On a side note, could we please stop talking about cannibalism? The subject itself is already macabre enough, and @Morte50's post isn't making it any better.
@FinneousPJ: Oh please. You can use that excuse for anything. Is it really THAT bad of me to not want to have anything to do with cannibalism? I even asked politely. Getting a bit fed up of the 'if you don't want it, don't read it' excuse. Try using that in a real debate in real life, you won't be taken seriously either.
@FinneousPJ: Oh please. You can use that excuse for anything. Is it really THAT bad of me to not want to have anything to do with cannibalism? I even asked politely. Getting a bit fed up of the 'if you don't want it, don't read it' excuse. Try using that in a real debate in real life, you won't be taken seriously either.
Asking for the people discussing here to not mention cannibalism is an inappropriate plea for censorship. The analogy was relevant and the topic of cannibalism has been continued to be used in a relevant manner. There are people involved in this discussion that are as sensitive to your thoughts on eating nonhuman animals, and your arguments for it, as you are to cannibalism. In a "real debate in real life," your request for people involved in a debate to not discuss something relevant because it bothers you personally would not be taken seriously, especially when your arguments are equally upsetting to your opponents.
@FinneousPJ: Oh please. You can use that excuse for anything. Is it really THAT bad of me to not want to have anything to do with cannibalism? I even asked politely. Getting a bit fed up of the 'if you don't want it, don't read it' excuse. Try using that in a real debate in real life, you won't be taken seriously either.
What, because you think debates are only about things no one in the audience finds even slightly disturbing, offensive, disagreeable or distasteful? As a rule, many of the things worth debating fall readily inside that category. Asking people to stop doing so because you are too sensitive to endure even a cursory (and entirely non-graphical) discussion of the concept of cannibalism and apparently unable not to open the thread/change the channel/leave the room/put down the paper... yeah, that's really going to make people take you seriously.
And another thing: in the recent discussion we brought up cannibalism, slavery, and the atrocities committed by the Nazi's, and your beef here is with cannibalism? *That's* what bringing you down? The subjugation and genocide of entire populations is fine to talk about, but the largely victimless crime* of eating another human being is where you draw the line? You might want to get your priorities straight, there.
* in many countries (including the US) cannibalism as such isn't even a crime, though you could likely get charged for something like desecrating a corpse.
But the question is, which alternatives are available? Specifically, alternatives that are psychologically and sociologically viable. Because reasonably we must assume that capitalism isn't the cause of said human greed, it just facilitates it. Thus, changing the system itself isn't enough, you would have to change the people with it.
This basically reduces the issue to the eternal debate about human nature: inherently good with bad behaviour as exceptions or the other way around? Or, as I like to think, just characterised by free will and the highest grade of variance?
If [capitalism] is a doomed system, you wouldn't actually have to do anything to attain your goal. But what makes you think it is doomed in the first place?
Simply the fact that perennial growth is impossible in an environment with finite resources. My "goal", if we want to call it so, would be to see the system collapse before those resources are actually consumed in their entirety, so that it can be replaced by a new one inspired by principles of sustainability instead of consumerism and cooperation instead of exploitation.
But what if we change the scenario: if the death is incidental, the deceased is an adult, the deceased is an adult and has explicitly consented to being eaten. I don't see it really changing the morality of the 'eating' part.
In fact it's not the eating per se to be wrong in my opinion, it's what happens in order to make it possible. That's why dairy products, eggs, honey, leather, fur, silk, vivisection, hunting, fishing, zoos and circuses are also wrong according to vegan ethics.
Or at least, if the veggie-burger is to be considered morally superior to the lab-meat-burger, we would be forced to conclude that it is apparently not about the harming and killing of animals.
As I said, I would classify eating lab-meat as morally acceptable. But I also believe that humans don't need meat to thrive and that it's actually bad for us... so, what spreads the "meat myth" any further is better avoided, in my opinion.
@alnair: I don't really like zoo's either, but sometimes it's also a good solution for protecting animal species in danger of extinction. The syberian tiger (white and black stripes), for example, is really in danger, so some control is needed there. The problem is that if you raise such animals in zoo's, they aren't used to the rough life in nature, so releasing them could lead to them not being prepared for survival. I still support zoo's just for that control alone, though. On a side note, I don't believe the alternative energy resources are that durable enough to provide us with enough energy just as nuclear powerplants do today. They are promising, yes, but there still needs to be improvement. Sun energy, for example, could be an option, but the panels still remain expensive to install, especially in poorer countries with a lot of sunshine, so it's not an option for everybody. For wind energy you need to build an awful lot of wind generators/mills, which kinda spoil the beauty of a natural emvironment (plus, what if there's no wind?) and water energy can only be applied in countries with geographical differences in heights. It's still not really easy to apply these alternative sources of energy to FULLY replace nuclear powerplants, which still remain superior in their energy production up to today.
This basically reduces the issue to the eternal debate about human nature: inherently good with bad behaviour as exceptions or the other way around? Or, as I like to think, just characterised by free will and the highest grade of variance?
Yes and no. I'd say it's not so much about inherently good or bad, but merely about inherent psychological properties (regardless of whether they are deemed good or bad). Just as any viable idea of how to organise a community/society/etc. must take into account the physical properties, abilities, requirements and limitations of the (typical) human, it must do so with the psychological (both cognitive and behavioural) ones (and by extension, the sociological ones). For example, one might argue that communism (at the very least the variants that have been tried) fails to recognise certain psychological regularities, making it the unworkable system it has largely proven to be. Similarly, there have been attempted all sorts of misguided experiments that failed to grasp this, from the hippie-ish utopias to the 'libertarian' whacko-farms (also, the EU, arguably).
Which certainly isn't to say that I think only capitalism can work, or that I am an ardent capitalist (quite the contrary). But the point does remain that any alternative, certainly a radical departure from the existing system, does need to consider the question of viability. Both in terms of the end-product, as well the road to getting there (compare evolution: a species might well be much better off evolving to a different make-up, but sometimes there is simply no evolutionary path to get there because eg. in the short run the decrease in fitness is too great).
Simply the fact that perennial growth is impossible in an environment with finite resources. My "goal", if we want to call it so, would be to see the system collapse before those resources are actually consumed in their entirety, so that it can be replaced by a new one inspired by principles of sustainability instead of consumerism and cooperation instead of exploitation.
True, but I would think that though an obsession with growth has been an obvious feature of capitalist systems, it isn't inherent in capitalism as such. Things like a market economy and the vaguely Darwinian mechanisms associated with it can still exist if growth levels off.
In fact it's not the eating per se to be wrong in my opinion, it's what happens in order to make it possible. That's why dairy products, eggs, honey, leather, fur, silk, vivisection, hunting, fishing, zoos and circuses are also wrong according to vegan ethics.
Indeed, but that is my point: both with 'normal' meat and in the cannibalism-example the eating the meat as such is not morally objectionable, even if the process that produced it is. Consequently, to the extent that the individual meat-consumers play no appreciable role in that production process, they cannot be said to be doing anything morally wrong by eating that meat.
As I said, I would classify eating lab-meat as morally acceptable. But I also believe that humans don't need meat to thrive and that it's actually bad for us... so, what spreads the "meat myth" any further is better avoided, in my opinion.
Sure, but I expect you would want people eating 'real' meat to be avoided even more. Supposing that lab-meat becomes an acceptable substitute for the real meat (both in an economic and culinary sense), it would be much easier to convince people to switch. Presumably this will also tempt some people back from full veg, but the gain in animal suffering prevented would be considerable regardless. Maybe not ideal in all respects from your perspective, but the main thing is that the 'real' meat industry would be significantly reduced in size.
But the point does remain that any alternative, certainly a radical departure from the existing system, does need to consider the question of viability.
Definitely true. Did I mention I'm an idealist yet?
Things like a market economy and the vaguely Darwinian mechanisms associated with it can still exist if growth levels off.
Although I use "capitalism" and "consumerism" as quasi-synonyms, since they are so strongly interconnected, I could say that most of my beef is with the latter (as well as with the most controversial aspects of modern day economics). I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in using money as means for easier bartering, for example, nor I completely begrudge the principle of preferring a dealer over another based on the quality and price of their goods. On the contrary, mindless depleting the planet of resources and exploiting other human or nonhuman beings, of course, is quite infuriating to me.
Indeed, but that is my point: both with 'normal' meat and in the cannibalism-example the eating the meat as such is not morally objectionable, even if the process that produced it is. Consequently, to the extent that the individual meat-consumers play no appreciable role in that production process, they cannot be said to be doing anything morally wrong by eating that meat.
I still think they should be held accountable for the production, since it only happens in order to allow the consumption they're doing, but this is starting to feel as a bit of a déjà vu
Maybe not ideal in all respects from your perspective, but the main thing is that the 'real' meat industry would be significantly reduced in size.
On second thought, the mere fact that substitutes for meat are being researched could also be seen as another argument against eating animals. I still wouldn't touch lab-meat with the proverbial 10-foot-long pole, but maybe its development might, in fact, help the antispeciesist cause...
Even plants live. Mankind's physique is built to absorb other lifeforms. Mankind cannot feed purely from minerals only, like plants do. Sadly, this way cannot be changed.
Even if we craft substitutes, most needed components can only be gained by fauna and flora.
This is how nature crafted us, we cannot change it.
Although I use "capitalism" and "consumerism" as quasi-synonyms, since they are so strongly interconnected, I could say that most of my beef is with the latter (as well as with the most controversial aspects of modern day economics). I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in using money as means for easier bartering, for example, nor I completely begrudge the principle of preferring a dealer over another based on the quality and price of their goods. On the contrary, mindless depleting the planet of resources and exploiting other human or nonhuman beings, of course, is quite infuriating to me.
In that, I would tend to agree. I would favour a... conscientious form of capitalism, being prodded into the right direction (both by governments and otherwise) as needed. Less with the consumerism and materialistic tendencies, and indeed the whole "rich get richer" and the obsession with perpetual growth that seemingly drives the majority of those in the higher economic (and political) echelons. A fully self-regulating market simply does not work, in my view (or rather: it works, but the outcome is undesirable). How that can best be fixed is a further question, one I obviously cannot claim to be able to answer.
I still think they should be held accountable for the production, since it only happens in order to allow the consumption they're doing, but this is starting to feel as a bit of a déjà vu
Indeed, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree there :-).
On second thought, the mere fact that substitutes for meat are being researched could also be seen as another argument against eating animals. I still wouldn't touch lab-meat with the proverbial 10-foot-long pole, but maybe its development might, in fact, help the antispeciesist cause...
How would research on the issue, by itself, be an argument against eating meat? The availability of acceptable (in taste and price) meat-substitutes would be I'd say (which applies both to lab-meat and veggie-burgers and their ilk). But until they are actually available, not so much.
As I said, I would classify eating lab-meat as morally acceptable. But I also believe that humans don't need meat to thrive and that it's actually bad for us... so, what spreads the "meat myth" any further is better avoided, in my opinion.
No animal was harmed in this burger... Surely this is a good thing?
@Alnair The reason the human race thrives is because our hominid ancestors learnt a new neat trick to gain nutrients. They looked for dead carcasses. Picked up a rock. And cracked the bones to reveal the marrow.
Our bodies have evolved towards this kind of food retrieval.
It also means we cannot actually eat too much raw meat without getting seriously ill, unlike other animals. Although this idea seems to suggest we can eat marrow uncooked... If you can get your hands on some, apparently, allegedly. (The amount of sites you can find talking about eating raw bone marrow is astounding, but they all look a bit wacko to me... This site seems safe - r http://www.westonaprice.org/food-features/bone-marrow Nutrition for children indeed!
Eating meat, allowed us to carry bigger brains and become the humans we are today.
In fact nearly all the most intelligent creatures on the planet are meat eaters. Dolphins for example. The only one I can think of is the Elephant, but I believe it had carnivores it in its evolution.
You can live without meat. But you will usually need to jump through hoops to get that protein into your system.
You will be proud to know I chose a veg. option at a wedding last week. It was a pasta, mushroom and aubergine bake. It tasted less bland than it sounds
Hmm. I just stopped by to give a brief status report about my experimentation with veganism.
First, I am a hard empiricist and pragmatist, philosophically. Abstract theorizing is only valuable to me to the extent that it gives me ideas for new experiments to try that might increase fulfillment of both my personal hierarchy of needs (see Maslow), and then, the universal "Good" of all other beings.
So, not to get entangled again in all the abstract philosophy being debated here, I give you a very preliminary report of the results so far of my personal experiment with veganism:
1) I have lost approximately ten pounds. This result surprises and amazes me, since my caloric consumption that results from my huge appetite remains basically unchanged. Given the huge amount of peanuts and peanut butter I am consuming, I always used to would have been ballooning with huge bloating and weight gain, while eating meat, cheese, and lots of crackers in addition.
I notice that my craving for white flour, in the form of soup and crackers, as well as bread, is markedly reduced, such that I really don't much want to eat them any more, especially the crackers (or cookies or cake, for that matter). I continue to eat some bread in the form of pbj sandwiches, but that has more to do with budget and the cheapness of obtaining that particular confection, than feeling any craving for it. The bread, that is. Peanut butter has become a staple, for the time being.
2) This is graphic, so I hope it doesn't offend anyone. All traces of constipation have disappeared from my life. Pooping while eating meat and cheese used to be quite a struggle, and cleaning up after it took half a roll of toilet paper and a wet wipe. Now, I poop at least twice as often as before, but, surprisingly and amazingly to me, there is often no mess to clean up at all. The very first sheet of toilet paper I use after a huge dump, comes away clean, leaving me thinking, "Huh?"
3) I suffer from clinical manic-depressive illness. Most of the time, I exist in a state of clinical depression. Eliminating meat and dairy from my life has had the effect of, not curing, but greatly ameliorating the depression. My levels of energy to cope with daily life have shown a marked increase. My overall cheerfulness and sense of well-being are higher than they have been in years.
4) I will be running out of blood-pressure, triglycerides, and diabetes medicine in about a month, meaning that I have to go back to the doctor to renew the prescriptions, and to get blood tests to measure the state of my metabolic disorder. I am not so naïve as to think that the results will be much improved, given all the fat that I am consuming in peanut products and no-bacon, no-milk, but full-fat salad dressings and soy milk, not to mention my vodka consumption, but I am still very interested in whether the diet will yield any impact on my bloodwork, for better or worse.
The fact that this diet is cruelty-free, or as close to that as possible given the ways that "vegan" food is gotten in the U.S., is a bonus. If I could believe, or be convinced, that raising crops, especially soy and cereals, could feed the world, and end the breeding of pigs, cows, chickens, and turkeys for slaughter, I would become an advocate for it, while remembering how terribly hard it was to convince me to even try it.
I might even look into wearing only canvas belts and shoes, and using only cloth or faux-leather furniture.
@Alnair, gratz to you on winning a convert through this forum, stressful though it must have been to you.
3) I suffer from clinical manic-depressive illness. Most of the time, I exist in a state of clinical depression. Eliminating meat and dairy from my life has had the effect of, not curing, but greatly ameliorating the depression. My levels of energy to cope with daily life have shown a marked increase. My overall cheerfulness and sense of well-being are higher than they have been in years.
Now that is hugely inspiring. I eat vegetarian most of the time (about once or twice a month I eat meat), but I eat lots of cheese and porridge from milk, yoghurt and 'karnemelk' (I don't know the English word, churned milk?), but being depressed most of the time (suffering from schizo-affective disorder), it would be nice to see an increase to levels of energy and ability to cope. Both are quite minimal as it is now, usually.
I've read somewhere about the bad effects of cheese on depression (or to put it right: good for the depressive illness, so bad for the person suffering from it) and that goat's cheese would be better, but vegan will be even better. I can try bread (for lunch) and crackers (for late-night comfort food) with veggy paste (don't know how to put it in English, but it's quite tasty).
My sister's family drinks soy milk instead of ordinary milk, it's actually quite tasty for my porridge from bread crusts (I got a worn-off jaw, I can't eat bread with the crusts on it). Worth trying! And eating for some 15 euro's of cheese (two-three 500 gr cheeses) each week (mostly as comfort-food), my wallet might benefit as well by switching to veggie paste.
As a fellow diabetic I know how hard it is to stick to a healthy diet. (type 1 diabetes, immune system destroyed my pancreas, I've always been the shape of a beanpole, and have always been told to put on weight)
Keep eating peanuts! I think they are q source of protein. (on my phone can't check)
How would research on the issue, by itself, be an argument against eating meat?
«Oh golly, why are they trying to grow artificial meat? Could it possibly be that there actually is something wrong with normal one? Might it even be that we should avoid eating it after all?». Probably a bit silly and over-optimistic on my part, though.
I've already posted several links about the soundness of the theories upheld by the Weston A. Price Foundation. For those who can't be bothered to look for them, I'll sum it up: they're bogus
Eating meat, allowed us to carry bigger brains and become the humans we are today.
One could argue (and, indeed, many scientists probably already did) that a high intake of protein, fat, and calories has been what allowed the human brain to evolve. So it happens that hundreds of thousands of years ago bone marrow and other parts of carcasses were the best bet for proto-humans. Nowadays, fortunately, we don't have to rely on that kind of "food", being able to provide for everything we need in better ways...
You can live without meat. But you will usually need to jump through hoops to get that protein into your system.
Really? Seven pages into this thread and we're still (or back again) on the protein myth?
As I think I pointed out already, I'm not really that much into healthy eating, but I found out that a varied diet (i.e. lots of different kinds of food) ensures I'm getting the nutrients my body needs. Cooked cereals, preferably whole ones, are in almost every meal; while beans are not so frequent as one would think. I eat lots of veggies, of course; mostly cooked (olive oil makes everything yummy, after all) but also some raw ones, thanks to the odd salad. Definitely not as many fruit and nuts as I should, although I love them.
You will be proud to know I chose a veg. option at a wedding last week. It was a pasta, mushroom and aubergine bake. It tasted less bland than it sounds
@Anduin, I can't say about the odors. I'm totally smell-blind, and I live alone. LOL - I have to just keep on using deodorant like I always have, and hope for the best on that.
How would research on the issue, by itself, be an argument against eating meat?
«Oh golly, why are they trying to grow artificial meat? Could it possibly be that there actually is something wrong with normal one? Might it even be that we should avoid eating it after all?». Probably a bit silly and over-optimistic on my part, though.
No, that's not what doing research means, or even suggests. I'm not sure if you're in jest.
Yeah, that may be uncalled for, I know. Probably sign that I'm starting to be pissed off, after all, and it's time for me to leave the thread apologise for letting my anger prevail over respect for @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud's stated sensibility about discussing cannibalism.
Personally, I'm partial to newborn Caucasian casserole with a side serving of finely grounded Slav, but there's something to say also for roasted Arab in Jew-blood sauce.
Yeah, that may be uncalled for, I know. Probably sign that I'm starting to be pissed off, after all, and it's time for me to leave the thread.
If you're leaving the discussion, I like to thank you for all the patience of with insight, lots of knowledge and informable links replying all the counter-arguments. It made veganism less of an 'extreme option' and more of the most rational way of eating food for me, even though it might be hard for me to put into practice (margins of energy for changing lifestyle are small due to my depressions, though belgarath's example is inspiring: it might even lift some of the depression. Though I'm ashamed possible benifit to me is what puts most weight in the scales, I've always thought of myself as altruistic first and foremost).
No, I thank you, @Son_of_Imoen. I'm sorry for the outburst of rage (which is the only thing I can feel when people speak about which kind of fellow being they prefer to have slaughtered for their pleasure, especially during a discussion like this) but your post made clear that I ought to learn how to control it and keep making my point.
Comments
And another thing: in the recent discussion we brought up cannibalism, slavery, and the atrocities committed by the Nazi's, and your beef here is with cannibalism? *That's* what bringing you down? The subjugation and genocide of entire populations is fine to talk about, but the largely victimless crime* of eating another human being is where you draw the line? You might want to get your priorities straight, there.
* in many countries (including the US) cannibalism as such isn't even a crime, though you could likely get charged for something like desecrating a corpse.
As I said, I would classify eating lab-meat as morally acceptable. But I also believe that humans don't need meat to thrive and that it's actually bad for us... so, what spreads the "meat myth" any further is better avoided, in my opinion. Thanks, I did
Which certainly isn't to say that I think only capitalism can work, or that I am an ardent capitalist (quite the contrary). But the point does remain that any alternative, certainly a radical departure from the existing system, does need to consider the question of viability. Both in terms of the end-product, as well the road to getting there (compare evolution: a species might well be much better off evolving to a different make-up, but sometimes there is simply no evolutionary path to get there because eg. in the short run the decrease in fitness is too great). True, but I would think that though an obsession with growth has been an obvious feature of capitalist systems, it isn't inherent in capitalism as such. Things like a market economy and the vaguely Darwinian mechanisms associated with it can still exist if growth levels off. Indeed, but that is my point: both with 'normal' meat and in the cannibalism-example the eating the meat as such is not morally objectionable, even if the process that produced it is. Consequently, to the extent that the individual meat-consumers play no appreciable role in that production process, they cannot be said to be doing anything morally wrong by eating that meat. Sure, but I expect you would want people eating 'real' meat to be avoided even more. Supposing that lab-meat becomes an acceptable substitute for the real meat (both in an economic and culinary sense), it would be much easier to convince people to switch. Presumably this will also tempt some people back from full veg, but the gain in animal suffering prevented would be considerable regardless. Maybe not ideal in all respects from your perspective, but the main thing is that the 'real' meat industry would be significantly reduced in size.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in using money as means for easier bartering, for example, nor I completely begrudge the principle of preferring a dealer over another based on the quality and price of their goods.
On the contrary, mindless depleting the planet of resources and exploiting other human or nonhuman beings, of course, is quite infuriating to me. I still think they should be held accountable for the production, since it only happens in order to allow the consumption they're doing, but this is starting to feel as a bit of a déjà vu
Even if we craft substitutes, most needed components can only be gained by fauna and flora.
This is how nature crafted us, we cannot change it.
(This doesn't intend to be rude; I think we already covered that part of the debate long ago.)
Their being sentient beings, on the other hand, is still up for debate.
@Alnair The reason the human race thrives is because our hominid ancestors learnt a new neat trick to gain nutrients. They looked for dead carcasses. Picked up a rock. And cracked the bones to reveal the marrow.
No other animal could do this until our tool using ancestors came on the scene.
http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/hominid_journey/oldowan.html
Our bodies have evolved towards this kind of food retrieval.
It also means we cannot actually eat too much raw meat without getting seriously ill, unlike other animals. Although this idea seems to suggest we can eat marrow uncooked... If you can get your hands on some, apparently, allegedly. (The amount of sites you can find talking about eating raw bone marrow is astounding, but they all look a bit wacko to me... This site seems safe - r http://www.westonaprice.org/food-features/bone-marrow Nutrition for children indeed!
Eating meat, allowed us to carry bigger brains and become the humans we are today.
In fact nearly all the most intelligent creatures on the planet are meat eaters. Dolphins for example. The only one I can think of is the Elephant, but I believe it had carnivores it in its evolution.
You can live without meat. But you will usually need to jump through hoops to get that protein into your system.
I would love to know your diet @Alnair !
I know you don't eat meat... *sigh*
You will be proud to know I chose a veg. option at a wedding last week. It was a pasta, mushroom and aubergine bake. It tasted less bland than it sounds
First, I am a hard empiricist and pragmatist, philosophically. Abstract theorizing is only valuable to me to the extent that it gives me ideas for new experiments to try that might increase fulfillment of both my personal hierarchy of needs (see Maslow), and then, the universal "Good" of all other beings.
So, not to get entangled again in all the abstract philosophy being debated here, I give you a very preliminary report of the results so far of my personal experiment with veganism:
1) I have lost approximately ten pounds. This result surprises and amazes me, since my caloric consumption that results from my huge appetite remains basically unchanged. Given the huge amount of peanuts and peanut butter I am consuming, I always used to would have been ballooning with huge bloating and weight gain, while eating meat, cheese, and lots of crackers in addition.
I notice that my craving for white flour, in the form of soup and crackers, as well as bread, is markedly reduced, such that I really don't much want to eat them any more, especially the crackers (or cookies or cake, for that matter). I continue to eat some bread in the form of pbj sandwiches, but that has more to do with budget and the cheapness of obtaining that particular confection, than feeling any craving for it. The bread, that is. Peanut butter has become a staple, for the time being.
2) This is graphic, so I hope it doesn't offend anyone. All traces of constipation have disappeared from my life. Pooping while eating meat and cheese used to be quite a struggle, and cleaning up after it took half a roll of toilet paper and a wet wipe. Now, I poop at least twice as often as before, but, surprisingly and amazingly to me, there is often no mess to clean up at all. The very first sheet of toilet paper I use after a huge dump, comes away clean, leaving me thinking, "Huh?"
3) I suffer from clinical manic-depressive illness. Most of the time, I exist in a state of clinical depression. Eliminating meat and dairy from my life has had the effect of, not curing, but greatly ameliorating the depression. My levels of energy to cope with daily life have shown a marked increase. My overall cheerfulness and sense of well-being are higher than they have been in years.
4) I will be running out of blood-pressure, triglycerides, and diabetes medicine in about a month, meaning that I have to go back to the doctor to renew the prescriptions, and to get blood tests to measure the state of my metabolic disorder. I am not so naïve as to think that the results will be much improved, given all the fat that I am consuming in peanut products and no-bacon, no-milk, but full-fat salad dressings and soy milk, not to mention my vodka consumption, but I am still very interested in whether the diet will yield any impact on my bloodwork, for better or worse.
The fact that this diet is cruelty-free, or as close to that as possible given the ways that "vegan" food is gotten in the U.S., is a bonus. If I could believe, or be convinced, that raising crops, especially soy and cereals, could feed the world, and end the breeding of pigs, cows, chickens, and turkeys for slaughter, I would become an advocate for it, while remembering how terribly hard it was to convince me to even try it.
I might even look into wearing only canvas belts and shoes, and using only cloth or faux-leather furniture.
@Alnair, gratz to you on winning a convert through this forum, stressful though it must have been to you.
I've read somewhere about the bad effects of cheese on depression (or to put it right: good for the depressive illness, so bad for the person suffering from it) and that goat's cheese would be better, but vegan will be even better. I can try bread (for lunch) and crackers (for late-night comfort food) with veggy paste (don't know how to put it in English, but it's quite tasty).
My sister's family drinks soy milk instead of ordinary milk, it's actually quite tasty for my porridge from bread crusts (I got a worn-off jaw, I can't eat bread with the crusts on it). Worth trying! And eating for some 15 euro's of cheese (two-three 500 gr cheeses) each week (mostly as comfort-food), my wallet might benefit as well by switching to veggie paste.
As a fellow diabetic I know how hard it is to stick to a healthy diet. (type 1 diabetes, immune system destroyed my pancreas, I've always been the shape of a beanpole, and have always been told to put on weight)
Keep eating peanuts! I think they are q source of protein. (on my phone can't check)
Myth busting time!
Do you smell better?
Or to rephrase, has your body odour improved!
For those who can't be bothered to look for them, I'll sum it up: they're bogus
Cooked cereals, preferably whole ones, are in almost every meal; while beans are not so frequent as one would think. I eat lots of veggies, of course; mostly cooked (olive oil makes everything yummy, after all) but also some raw ones, thanks to the odd salad. Definitely not as many fruit and nuts as I should, although I love them. I don't find it hard to believe
Edit: @belgarathmth - I didn't intend it to be just after a post about your body odour, of course
actually, that's vegetarian, not vegan. Seems my mind hasn't completely turned yet (but I did buy the vegan paste today).
Yeah, that may be uncalled for, I know. Probably sign that I'm starting to be pissed off, after all, and it's time for me to
leave the threadapologise for letting my anger prevail over respect for @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud's stated sensibility about discussing cannibalism.