Hmm, as far as expense of soy milk, it is currently, in my part of the U.S., approximately 10 percent higher in price than cow's milk. I can absorb that cost pretty easily, as long as I don't guzzle the stuff. I'm sorry, but I can't see how coffee cream and yogurt are in any way necessary to human life. I find the taste of soy milk as made in America to be quite agreeable. I guess I can't weigh in on the taste or cost of soy milk in Europe.
My experience with the vegan diet is that of an American citizen. Factors such as the cost of soy, wheat, and nuts in Europe might lead to a totally different experience for my European friends. In America, our grocery store shelves are overflowing with every imaginable kind of food resource at relatively low cost. I would hope that vegan food choices by Americans might lead to similar bounty and choices for the rest of the world.
One thing that seems unavoidable to me, is that if you want to have cow's milk products, you're going to have to torture cows. I find the rationalizations that cows do not get tortured to produce dairy products to be wishful thinking. Cows get force-milked and raped, male calves get taken from their mother's wombs straight to slaughter, bulls get de-horned and castrated while fully awake, until they're big enough to yield a lot of steak and hamburger, and other horrors. People at the consumer level simply refuse to think about these things as they pour the cream into their coffee.
I thought the idea about feeding human babies cola was particularly ridiculous. Human babies are supposed to be drinking human breast milk. The only reason I can see that humans stopped feeding their babies breast milk, and started feeding them chemically altered cow's milk, was because of ridiculous Victorian ideas about breasts being "dirty" somehow, and that human female breasts should never, at any stage of human development, have any part of human life. That kind of thinking strikes me as insane. And, the Victorian sexualization of the breast may have been a turning point in human health in the developed world, for the worse, in all possible ways.
Human babies are supposed to be weaned from mother's milk onto solid food that can be obtained by their tribe/pack/herd/culture, or whatever you want to call a group of human animals.
They will therefore develop a taste for whatever solid food their "tribe" people can get their hands on. The only tastes that are independent of culture are cravings for salty, starchy, and sweet.
Present day humans get to have a broad range of choices, in contrast to humans of pre-history, or in contrast to humans of extremely isolated areas of hostile climate. I am convinced that there are absolutely profound ethical ramifications to those choices, and a profound impact upon the world as a whole, according to what choices are made by humans living in developed societies in 2013.
Careless consumption and mindless adherence to "traditions" of the past 1000 years or so, for example, raising and eating meat (and cow's milk, because you can't get cow's milk without eating the male and old female cows, and eggs, because you can't get eggs without eating the male and old female chickens), could result in nothing less than the eventual extinction of humanity due to unsustainable planetary resource consumption.
If not some kind of Malthusian species-killing famine or drought, species-killing thermonuclear war becomes an ever increasing probability due to the wars of nations over increasingly shrinking planetary resources.
In my part of the U.S., the states of Tennessee and Georgia are in a political "war" over the water of the Tennessee River. The capital city of Atlanta, Georgia has grown unsustainably against their water supply of the Alatoona river and lake basin. They have petitioned the state government of Tennessee to build a pipeline from the Tennessee river that runs through Chattanooga, Tennessee, to their Atlanta water system. The Tennessee government has laughed in their faces.
Georgia then petitioned the federal government of the U.S. to grant them an involuntary (to Tennessee) pipeline into the Tennessee River, based on an obscure post-Civil War redrawing of state lines among Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama. Georgia has argued that they have a legal claim to the very, very small segment of the Tennessee River that flows among the intersection of the Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee state lines. So far, the U.S. federal government is not taking them seriously.
But, I often half-joke facetiously to friends, that only the power of the U.S. federal government is keeping Tennessee and Georgia from declaring Civil War II on each other over water rights to the Tennessee River.
I think that these kinds of disputes over access to fresh water are going to increasingly drive world politics, and apply increasing pressure to world war. The adoption of veganism by the majority of the world populations would be a very good way to reduce strain on world water supplies, by reducing the amount of water needed to raise livestock.
That's only one of the many ways that veganism can make the world better, independently of the reduced animal cruelty.
TLDR: No TLDR here. If you really need a TLDR, you shouldn't be participating in serious political, civic, ethical, or philosophical discussion of any kind. Just keep enjoying yourself while you can. And, that might not be as long as you think.
@belgarathmth, well of course yoghurt isn't essential to human life, I just have the experience the combi of soup+yoghurt+fruit helps me to get through a breakdown in energy, I call it my 'power-lunch' and I'm willing to go for alternatives, however, the soy dessert wasn't it, it doesn't give me as much energy and it's literally thrice as expensive at my local supermarkt.
what vegan foods do give an energy bursts if you're mentally and physically in need of something to drag you through a dip, and second, what do you use for coffee creamer? Or should I adjust my taste to drinking my coffee black? (even than, I still need some kind of creamer for visits, like the household help that comes once a week to help me clean my house, she drinks milk in her coffee and I'm not into forcing other people into a different diet).
TLDR: No TLDR here. If you really need a TLDR, you shouldn't be participating in serious political, civic, ethical, or philosophical discussion of any kind. Just keep enjoying yourself while you can. And, that might not be as long as you think.
That would indeed be better for my mental health, it would not be true to my ideals however, not to participate in political, ethical or philosophical discussions. I'm stuck between my insane drive to better the world and my 'insanity', my mental disorder and I try to wiggle my way through. I've put you're long story on my to do list, to try and read it some other time.
One thing I did note in skimming through is the huge variety in american supermarkts in vegan foods. I hope in that aspect Europe (Holland) will follow the US. Like @Alnair said, vegan - even vegetarian - food is a niche market. You'd be surprised how much ready-made-meals can be bought in supermarkts here and how little of it doesn't contain meat. All sorts of meals that would be nice to eat are spoiled by putting meat in it, it's gross.
@Son_of_Imoen, even though I used some examples from what you had said, I wasn't aiming my editorial at you personally. I hope I didn't cause you offense, and I apologize if I did. I know that you do everything you can to make the world better. I also know that we have to do what we have to do keep ourselves together and sane.
I don't know how to flavor coffee without dairy, because I don't drink coffee. I assume soy milk doesn't work. Does it lose its liquidity when heated? Maybe @alnair can help with that.
I would think that a metabolic energy burst would come from eating carbohydrates. Would fruit not work? Strawberries, grapes, bananas, peaches, pears? Maybe with some sugar for the strawberries, and a nice piece of bread or some crackers? (Although, I know it can be hard to find crackers or sweetbreads that don't use cheese, eggs, or milk.)
Thank you for responding with kindness - I've probably offended you and/or made you angry, and you have handled it with grace.
I do think it requires more than short twitter-style messages to have productive political discourse, though, so I guess we have to agree to disagree on that.
I'm enjoying bacon as much as possible as soon we will all be killed by robots with death-rays and our immortal spirits will be reincarnated inside the cold shell of a robotic husk. Then, there will be no need to eat the animals as our diets will consist purely of rare-earth metals, oil and the occasional noble gas for dessert.
I'm sorry, @Son_of_Imoen, I can't help you with suggestions for coffee creamer. Mainly because I don't drink coffee either, like @belgarathmth, and then because in Italy it's very unusual to put actual cream in coffee, it's usually just skimmed milk, and in that regard soy or rice milk does just fine as substitute, I guess (based on my friends' habits). The advice stands: try different brands, forgetting the wrong equation cheaper = worse, until you find the one you like the most. And who knows, maybe your household help will like it as well
As for the energy burst, I would suggest fruit, especially calorie-dense ones like dates or bananas. Better still, (ab)use a blender so you can try different combinations in smoothies, according to taste. For example, during my (short-lived but highly energising) period of raw veganism, I was fond of date and strawberry smoothies, or date and melon ones... yum!
@Battlehamster Don't forget! For healthy microchips you need a generous dosage of silicon.
I suggest eating sand...
Well, the silicon could help with electrical impulses, but I imagine the sand could result in blocked robo-arteries if your diet's lava intake was too high.
@Battlehamster True... But I'm pretty sure we would have developed the technology to unblock robotic arteries using nano-robots fed on Higg Bosun particles...
When we stop removing the smart phone from our ears due to the hassle, replace one eyeball to ensure constant updates from the internet, we will definitely need to start drinking WD40... (wiki it... it is the bizz on fixing any blocked chain or any other mechanical mesh requiring movement.
Okay so getting back on topic...well I actually have a hard time getting back on topic to be honest for this given my odd spiritual beliefs on the matter since I think both consumption and being consumed is necessary for the continuity of intellect and life as a whole - but that doesn't mean letting animals suffer is something which is permissible in spite of an omnivorous lifestyle. As for vegetarian lifestyles being universally healthier - I think its completely incorrect to say that and apply it universally.
Every single person is vastly different from another genetically speaking. As a result some food, medication or various intake of a chemical composition is going to radically change from person to person. For example, I cannot use penicillin - It could actually kill me. I see absolutely no reason why human diets aren't the same. If some dude can make alcohol in his stomach by eating pasta its only reasonable that every single human in the world processes food differently than others, even if its slight. Genetic variation is simply too wide to claim that science has found some chemical formula beneficial to all humans.
That said, there are probably SOME people out there who have to eat meat for their body to process all of their dietary needs and there are some out there who don't. In between there are way more people who need more or less meat respectively. Every single day you live you live only because something living dies. Fruits may be reproductive containers, but even those are samples of living tissue. If you say you can't eat something simply because its alive, the only option is to starve to death or die from malnutrition since the only thing that isn't alive are rocks and base elements.
After that you have to come up with some qualifier of what makes something okay to eat. I can't just say something edible since that would include humans. So would something tasty as that rules out many thingsPersonally, I like to use complex logical-reasoning as a good reason not to eat something. Using "Self-Awareness" is simply way too subjective to use as a qualifier since I view self-awareness as being necessary to interact with the external/illusory world which depending on how you view interaction puts everything into that category. At least with complex logical reasoning you can use a fixed point, like being able to build themselves a basic tool, not simply being able to use one.
Hence things like cows, horses, and sheep would be on the menu whereas crows, otters, and primates would not. Rats and chickens would also be on the menu because although they have demonstrated the ability to use tools, to the best of my knowledge they have yet to actually demonstrate the capacity to build any themselves.
Imo - its just the best line to draw with the least wiggle room available for subjectivity and it also accounts for aliens.
I think both consumption and being consumed is necessary for the continuity of intellect and life as a whole - but that doesn't mean letting animals suffer is something which is permissible in spite of an omnivorous lifestyle.
Then you will surely agree that, since millions of veg*ans are living proof that humans may thrive without "consuming" other sentient beings, we don't need to let animals suffer at all.
As for vegetarian lifestyles being universally healthier - I think its completely incorrect to say that and apply it universally. Every single person is vastly different from another genetically speaking.
While I agree with your assertion that "genetic variation is simply too wide to claim that science has found some chemical formula beneficial to all humans", there are some basic workings of our bodies that are more or less the same for each and every one of us, malfunctions aside. Of course every rule has its exceptions, but there are plenty of studies addressing the health benefits of a plant-based diet, and they're really easy to find. So I feel it can be safely stated that, for the vast majority of people, a vegan diet is healthier than a omnivorous one.
That being said, I have really little to no interest in arguing about the so-called "health argument for veganism". As I think I've already stated many times - you're welcome to peruse the first 8 pages of the thread - my primary reason for being vegan is an ethical one: for non-human animals firstly and foremostly, for the Earth closely following. (The fact that my health improved is a nice bonus, of course)
Every single day you live you live only because something living dies. Fruits may be reproductive containers, but even those are samples of living tissue. If you say you can't eat something simply because its alive, the only option is to starve to death or die from malnutrition since the only thing that isn't alive are rocks and base elements.
Let me get this straight: are you really comparing the life (and thus the death) of an animal to that of a fruit?
Personally, I like to use complex logical-reasoning as a good reason not to eat something.
Personally, I think empathy is a way more useful and appropriate tool in order to decide whether we can "maim, kill and eat" (to quote @Morte50) someone else.
Imo - its just the best line to draw with the least wiggle room available for subjectivity and it also accounts for aliens.
I would have thought that "has a nervous system" would be an objective enough cut-off line...
Then you will surely agree that, since millions of veg*ans are living proof that humans may thrive without "consuming" other sentient beings, we don't need to let animals suffer at all.
I do agree, unfortunately "sentient" is a very hazy and subjective definition. For instance, I don't consider Chickens, an animal which has time and time again proven it can survive without a head to be a sentient creature. To me, its just a meaty plant with wings. Thankfully, its also my favorite meat. As far as the tic-tac-toe chicken example is concerned, that's more environmental conditioning rather than legitimate self-awareness. The same goes for fish. Bovines I'm against tbh, (despite not listing them earlier) because of the intricate social actions being an exception to the "Tool-making" theory as they have the empathetic development equivalent to logical development. Pork I feel guilty eating, but when you aren't paying for your own food you don't really have much of a choice if your choices are "this" or "nothing".
While I agree with your assertion that "genetic variation is simply too wide to claim that science has found some chemical formula beneficial to all humans", there are some basic workings of our bodies that are more or less the same for each and every one of us, malfunctions aside. Of course every rule has its exceptions, but there are plenty of studies addressing the health benefits of a plant-based diet, and they're really easy to find. So I feel it can be safely stated that, for the vast majority of people, a vegan diet is healthier than a omnivorous one.
That being said, I have really little to no interest in arguing about the so-called "health argument for veganism". As I think I've already stated many times - you're welcome to peruse the first 8 pages of the thread - my primary reason for being vegan is an ethical one: for non-human animals firstly and foremostly, for the Earth closely following. (The fact that my health improved is a nice bonus, of course)
Just trying to kill two chickens with one stone lol. I agree that on the whole there are certainly health benefits. I'm also of the belief that thinks science has far fewer answers than they believe and tend to take any short-term studies with a grain of salt. Maybe in 50 years my views will change, but some medications don't have serious side effects until decades down the road. I don't see how my evolutionary diet couldn't have a similar effect if I suddenly changed my diet from what my ancestors have been consuming for thousands of years. Keep in mind sentient animals have been killing each other for food since they have been able to. Natural bodies aren't designed to crave things they don't need the fact that a vast but shrinking majority of mankind still eats meat simply indicates to me that as a 6'2" 200 lb. male its very probably I need it if for nothing other than the pure biomass since I live in a backwater location with little to no access to locally grown fruits and vegetables, just the stuff with all the "genetic enhancements" which will actually cause my brain to explode as a side effect. I'm hoping though that 50 years down the road meat printers (which are a real thing btw which combine basic proteins to make artificial and edible meat) perfected and I can have a murder free steak dinner at which point injecting ethical discussion into a dietary choice is rendered moot.
Let me get this straight: are you really comparing the life (and thus the death) of an animal to that of a fruit?
Yes. Both are living. To me life is life regardless of what form its in, and killing is an act which brings about death. For me I can't say killing to eat is wrong and say its wrong because the thing is living. When I eat a fruit, the seeds don't go to a landfill, they go to a sewer and are contaminated beyond being able to grow. When I eat a fruit I'm killing life that will exist so to simply say "don't eat something living" would mean that no death could be involved in my consumption - meaning I couldn't ethically eat anything. Period.
Personally, I think empathy is a way more useful and appropriate tool in order to decide whether we can "maim, kill and eat" (to quote @Morte50) someone else.
I do have empathy - I feel bad killing spiders and I dislike seeing plants needlessly cut. If I used empathy - I would starve to death as I try to extend empathy to all life regardless of the form its in.
Imo - its just the best line to draw with the least wiggle room available for subjectivity and it also accounts for aliens.
I would have thought that "has a nervous system" would be an objective enough cut-off line...
And you assume that hypothetical aliens would have a nervous system or something of a structural equivalent and that plants are incapable of any sensation whatsoever. When they are exposed to sunlight they bloom and grow which, to me, is a sensation and a capacity to feel i.e. sentience. Its a mammal-centric bias you have developed that having a particular form within your own being somehow entitles you to feeling beyond plant-life. Anything which can move of its own volition reacts to stimulus in a non-uniform way and is thus capable of feeling and reacting to the world around itself - something often called "sentience". For me, I believe all organic things are capable of some degree of sentience, but not self-awareness. To live I literally have to determine how much evil is permissible for me in order to survive. For me this level is at the level sufficient development causes heightened internalized suffering and the awareness of having a sensation of suffering as opposed to merely being in pain. Chickens certainly experience pain, but I don't think its a reflexive instinctual drive to get them to react in a certain way and not an experience they can internalize and be aware of as it relates to their own spatial and temporal being.
But I'll be straight up honest - even to me my personal viewpoint is rather crazy/insane.
That's an interesting read and contains actual science (unlike most of the sites on that topic), but plant neurobiology is not recognised as "a real thing" - yet? - while the fact that animals have a nervous system is undeniable. Hence the non-subjectivity of that specific cut-off line.
Nevertheless, and I say this for the umpteenth time, eating animals implies the consumption of lots and lots of crops... anyone caring for the suffering of plants should really eat them directly in order to minimise the quantity; or, better still, just eat fruit. (Even if the seeds are not going to sprout, you're doing no harm to the plant eating them.)
@Battlehamster I apologise in advance if some of what I've written may sound confrontational or even offensive. That's not my intention, so please forgive me if you perceive it as such.
For instance, I don't consider Chickens, an animal which has time and time again proven it can survive without a head to be a sentient creature.
I suppose you're referring to this gruesome story:
It was determined that the axe had missed the carotid artery and a clot had prevented Mike from bleeding to death. Although most of his head was severed, most of his brain stem and one ear were left on his body. Since basic functions (breathing, heart-rate, etc.) as well as most of a chicken's reflex actions are controlled by the brain stem, Mike was able to remain quite healthy. This is a good example of central motor generators enabling basic homeostatic functions to be carried out in the absence of the cerebral cortex.
(emphasis mine; enough said).
To me, its just a meaty plant with wings. Thankfully, its also my favorite meat.
Mmh, quite convenient, isn't it?
However, and considering by the way how I was quite fond of roasted chicken meat myself, I'm no one to judge what you believe (or make-believe)... but let me state they are very intelligent and persistent creatures, speaking as someone who has lived with chickens for months, and chased quite a lot of them trying to escape their barren but otherwise comfortable pen. They can also be quite snuggly, as anyone who keeps them as pets can confirm.
I'm also of the belief that thinks science has far fewer answers than they believe and tend to take any short-term studies with a grain of salt. Maybe in 50 years my views will change, but some medications don't have serious side effects until decades down the road.
I think that's a sensible attitude, actually. But there are so many examples of almost-centenary vegetarians (G.B. Shaw and Margherita Hack are the first springing to mind, and quite a fine example they are!) that we can safely assume that not eating meat isn't going to have side effects decades down the road
I don't see how my evolutionary diet couldn't have a similar effect if I suddenly changed my diet from what my ancestors have been consuming for thousands of years.
Think about it for a moment, and you'll find that modern diets have really little in common with those of our ancestors. The sheer quantity of meat involved is obviously the most evident factor of discrepancy.
Keep in mind sentient animals have been killing each other for food since they have been able to.
So what? Lions need meat, sheep need grass, humans need neither. Each species has its own food.
Natural bodies aren't designed to crave things they don't need
Not true. Put enough sugar on a piece of cardboard and you'll crave more
that as a 6'2" 200 lb. male its very probably I need it if for nothing other than the pure biomass since I live in a backwater location with little to no access to locally grown fruits and vegetables, just the stuff with all the "genetic enhancements" which will actually cause my brain to explode as a side effect.
First of all, you already have all the biomass you need (judging by your measures ) and you don't need meat to conserve it (just Google "vegan bodybuilders" if you want proof of that).
Then, about "genetically enhanced" fruit and vegetables... what do you think breeders feed to livestock? Just the same crap you think can make your brain explode, seasoned with hormones to make them grow faster and antibiotics to keep at bay the plethora of diseases they would otherwise suffer because of unsanitary conditions.
I'm hoping though that 50 years down the road meat printers (which are a real thing btw which combine basic proteins to make artificial and edible meat) perfected and I can have a murder free steak dinner at which point injecting ethical discussion into a dietary choice is rendered moot.
Suit yourself I'd rather stick with my delicious, healthy, cheap, already murder-free and (most importantly) existing plant-based food, thanks!
When I eat a fruit I'm killing life that will exist
So - if you'll pardon the blunt comparison - you're basically saying that murdering someone is equivalent to prevent somebody else's birth, and since you can't be exempt from both you'd rather do the former than the latter?
I do have empathy - I feel bad killing spiders and I dislike seeing plants needlessly cut. If I used empathy - I would starve to death as I try to extend empathy to all life regardless of the form its in.
Seems to me that the problem is in how you perceive the offending act. You says you feel bad doing it and you dislike seeing it, but as long as it happens in the invisible recesses of a slaughterhouse, that's OK.
And you assume that hypothetical aliens would have a nervous system or something of a structural equivalent
Yes, that's what I'd assume... if I cared for hypothetical beings, that is.
But I'll be straight up honest - even to me my personal viewpoint is rather crazy/insane.
I feel it's hard to disagree with that, seeing how you were basically saying that plants are even more sentient than chickens
Okay well I'm on my phone right now meaning direct quotes will be sort of hit and miss, so forgive me if I miss a point. Btw, I don't see your responses as confrontational - just passionate and well informed. I tend to to the same with other topics (I say other topics as I get the impression you have likely though about this particular one more than I) so as long as you don't view me as being confrontational I'll try to do the same.
I'm actually referring to two such chickens, as I saw another recent article on a similar chicken in I believe south america somewhere. The main point I was trying to make was that despite the absence of a head, the chickens were still, essentially chickens, intellect and heightened awareness aren't really part of their being. But I did see a chicken make a jump for it out of a foster farms truck on the way home so...Either you have a very elaborate way of decieving me or I need to go revisit that whole theory.
In response to the each species, its own food I think in a dietary way humanity is much more diverse than "a" works for everyone. For 90% of the population sure, (I imagine I'm in it) but veganism is still relatively new as far as modern dieting goes. Realistically I doubt its a big deal and really its probably me being cautious to the point of absurdity.
As for the whole sugar thing...I may be an anomaly considering when I was in college and loaded on the sugar. About halfway in I started eating healthier (incidentally I was 160 at the time 0_o) but with some excercise got away from the wireframe. Soda, candy and fast food literally makes me nauseous now. Well I guess if veganism is healthier the same could apply and I grant you a touche on the gentically modified meat, etc. Perception totally right...
Okay so I'll grant you every point. That said, lets consider that everyone goes vegetarian tomorrow. How do you propose to feed everyone AND all the animals we've just decided to let live? We have to free the animals now and give them larger pastures meaning we've just exponentially increased the food demand. So, if we just increased the amount of biomass needed to sustain all live on the planet and simultaneously decrease the amount to dip below the amount of biomass available a LOT of sentient beings are going to starve to death. Granted, a lot of animal meat is wasted (which makes the death in vain which I can't STAND, especially ever since I knew one anomalous vegetarian who threw their meat away because eating meat was morally wrong which was clearly hypocritical). But even so, your starvation levels will roughly equal the deficiency of biomass consumption vs. biomass availability. Sure we humans don't eat grass, but initially there would be plenty of grass available for the cows and a lot of healthy wolves and other carnivores which just gained free access to lots and lots of steak. Eventually natural cycles would stabilize, but there would be a rather large degree of pain and suffering from starvation and predatorial buffeting going on until then. Assuming predators don't hunt their hitheroto protected prey. It wouldn't cause extinction, but you would have dozens of generations of seriously freaked out cows.
Of course there is always the option to just let them free and let all the wolves we killed go crazy and eat them alive. While both options suck, I'd rather be decapitated by a buzzsaw. And the whole "starving to death" thing isn't to appealing. I agree our treatment of animals leaves much to be desired. As is though its like having a best friend stab you in the back vs. being hunted by a brain eating demon. Both suck but at least one happens fast and its over fast - if you even realize your imminent demise.
I'm not saying what you're proposing is incorrect, merely stating that if everyone changed what they did all at once, you would create a terrible situation both for us and the animals. Ultimately your right but until that time comes where we can ween ourself as a species off meat, you need the meat eating neanderthals such as myself to allow the natural cycle steady and slowly and naturally advance towards such change.
To be honest, when I have the opportunity (i.e. providing food for myself when out of town on businees, visiting friends, etc.) I eat significantly less meat products (and throw less away) than the generation before me, which I think should be the goal, not to go cold turkey vegan across a large population as it is also destructive, just in a completely different way. Just don't morally fault people who are still on the thick part of the meat cycle. We'll get there eventually - just be patient and don't tell us we're morally deficient. Some people who aren't vegetarian will just eat more meat out of spite.
Note this is aimed more at omnivores vs. herbivores and not vegans. For me there is a pretty big ethics gap between gently milking a cow and killing it - which is another argument itself imo.
Thought about this thread when I saw on the news that a sheep ran away from a butcher and is now going to be kept on a farm (as a pet apparently) rather than returned
Okay so I'll grant you every point. That said, lets consider that everyone goes vegetarian tomorrow.
That's a really unrealistic scenario, making it fall in the realm of hypothesis I could consider only for discussion's sake; and however, if everyone was to turn vegetarian (as opposed to vegan) overnight, the bulk of the livestock of the world would still be kept in chains and tortured for years.
Sorry if I dismiss so succinctly your observations on the outcome of such a miraculous event, but I would really prefer to stick to reality: it's darker than any distopian fantasy we can imagine, but unlike them it can be changed. We should just assume the change won't happen overnight... for example, if the consumption of dairy products were to slowly drop to zero in a time span of years, farmers would gradually stop to rape (I mean artificially, of course) cows in order to make them produce milk, thus lowering their reproduction rate; again, gradually.
Ultimately your right but until that time comes where we can ween ourself as a species off meat, you need the meat eating neanderthals such as myself to allow the natural cycle steady and slowly and naturally advance towards such change.
Just wanted to quickly point out that there's absolutely nothing natural about the current cycle of mass food production, as I'm sure you're well aware of.
Just don't morally fault people who are still on the thick part of the meat cycle. We'll get there eventually - just be patient and don't tell us we're morally deficient.
I don't think I ever did that; please tell me where, if you think differently (so I can avoid it in the future). I know some vegans (especially veganism advocates like me) behave that way, but I don't feel I'm in any position to judge anyone and I don't feel morally superior to anyone... after all, I've spent two thirds of my life consuming animal products like there was no tomorrow. I just feel compelled to spread information as widely as possible, because many people just don't know how grim things are for the Animals, and how easy it is to stop being accomplices of their everyday holocaust.
I guess many people get defensive on the subject mostly out of unadmitted guilt, actually.
Note this is aimed more at omnivores vs. herbivores and not vegans. For me there is a pretty big ethics gap between gently milking a cow and killing it - which is another argument itself imo.
Even if we discount the principle that the cow makes milk for her babies (who, in turn, go on towards a pretty unhappy and short life before becoming meat themselves), the problem is that there's no such thing as "gently milking", outside of rural farms that may account for just a tiny percentage of milk production. Usually the cows are so worn out after just a few years (compared to their natural lifespan of decades) of being forcefully impregnated and having their udders almost perpetually attached to suckling machines, that they cannot even stand up anymore, and have to be literally dragged to the slaughterhouse.
Thought about this thread when I saw on the news that a sheep ran away from a butcher and is now going to be kept on a farm (as a pet apparently) rather than returned
That's another fine example of carnist hypocrisy: surely it's easy to grasp how each one of the individuals that are condemned to be butchered would flee having the occasion, but just those who luckily manage to actually break free are deemed worthy of surviving.
«Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to.»
@FinneousPJ I was, of course, talking about "the masses", i.e. the majority of people... I'm quite aware not everyone will feel the same way on the matter, but most people will react with an «aaaw!» to that piece of news.
Thought about this thread when I saw on the news that a sheep ran away from a butcher and is now going to be kept on a farm (as a pet apparently) rather than returned
That's another fine example of carnist hypocrisy: surely it's easy to grasp how each one of the individuals that are condemned to be butchered would flee having the occasion, but just those who luckily manage to actually break free are deemed worthy of surviving.
«Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to.»
Maybe the farmer is vegan? We don't know but it sure wasn't the butcher's choice to give it up anyway
@alnair - I stopped reading at "holocaust" once a comparison is made between a form of sustenance to rape and the wanton slaughter of millions of beings for no reason. At this point I kinda lose my focus because the logic falls so far away from the conversation I don't even know how to adequately respond anymore. Your trying to throw all my points off guard by trying to take a topic completely unrelated and make it relevant to your argument which it is if you're willing to part the sea of logic to reach a point.
The lesson of this argument - don't take something you yourself have done for 2/3rds of your life and then compare it to completely heinous crimes. Last I checked, most people don't commit rape (even though its "artificial" I think the subliminal inferrence is still being made to the "real deal") or genocide for 2/3rds of their life so...its kind of a leap too far for me to take seriously anymore.
But, to keep with the atmosphere of this forum which I can come to respect and enjoy speaking with, I will bow out of the conversation now so that my hostility doesn't ooze and detract from people still interested in this conversation. Once my good ol' friend Godwin gets involved I have to pretty much assume implied hostility given that I'm being compared to Hitler: Jewslayer and all.
Know that I have nothing against you personally, I think our views are just so radically different in our suppositions we cannot reach a point of mutual understanding. In this case I think on the main points we simply have to be able to agree to disagree.
@Battlehamster, I'm sorry you felt I was trying to sway away the conversation, but I didn't mention Hitler, the Jew or the Holocaust (capital H) at all. The term, in one of its usual acceptations (which I was using) means «destruction or slaughter on a mass scale» or «any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life». Which I think definitely applies to the torturing and slaughtering of billions of individuals that is continuously going on in the world without most of us noticing.
That said, I apologise if my choice of words (please consider also I'm not a native English speaker) offended you in any way; but let me point out that we already covered the topic of Godwin's law applied to this subject after an analogy by @jaysl659 in the "drops in a bucket" argument.
I also feel it's worth mentioning, since we're talking about it, that a comparison between the Holocaust and the way humans treat the Animals has been made by several writers; most notoriously, the Jewish Nobel prize winner Isaac Bashevis Singer, who wrote about it several times, e.g.: «In relation to [animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka» and «When it comes to animals, every man is a Nazi». This, of course, has not been well received by everyone; for example Roberta Kalechofsky, a Jew and Animal Rights activist herself, wrote that «some agonies are too total to be compared with other agonies». Personally, I never felt the "need" for such a comparison, and I don't usually mention this kind of quotes.
@FinneousPJ They surely are in the biological sense of the term: «a single organism capable of independent existence». But that's the whole point of this discussion: for anti-speciesists Animals are to be considered persons, while for carnists they aren't.
BTW, what do you think of this site http://pcrm.org/kickstartHome/mealplan/ I was thinking of trying out a vegan diet even though I couldn't care less about the "vegan lifestyle" (you can see I've studied some sources on veganism). I want to see how my body reacts - to be honest I'm not happy with my current diet. I don't think I'll go hardcore yet, I might still have a chocolate bar with milk in it and even a steak if someone's buying Do you think that represents a good, healthy vegan diet? I was thinking I'd add a soy protein mix there because I lift, but other than that what do you think..?
As for your question, first let me repeat (I can't stress it enough) that I'm not into the healthy side of veganism, like at all (although a couple of yeas ago I was briefly interested in raw veganism in order to lose weight). That being said, I think that PCRM is a very good source of information on that specific subject, so I would trust them completely in regard of the nutritional aspects of their menus; on the other hand, how difficult it is to follow that instructions is entirely up to you, and how "exotic" the dishes may appear probably depends on the type of cuisine you're accustomed to.
(I'm not sure about the soy protein mix; generally speaking I don't trust very much that kind of things. You'll probably have better luck googling information about that.)
Comments
My experience with the vegan diet is that of an American citizen. Factors such as the cost of soy, wheat, and nuts in Europe might lead to a totally different experience for my European friends. In America, our grocery store shelves are overflowing with every imaginable kind of food resource at relatively low cost. I would hope that vegan food choices by Americans might lead to similar bounty and choices for the rest of the world.
One thing that seems unavoidable to me, is that if you want to have cow's milk products, you're going to have to torture cows. I find the rationalizations that cows do not get tortured to produce dairy products to be wishful thinking. Cows get force-milked and raped, male calves get taken from their mother's wombs straight to slaughter, bulls get de-horned and castrated while fully awake, until they're big enough to yield a lot of steak and hamburger, and other horrors. People at the consumer level simply refuse to think about these things as they pour the cream into their coffee.
I thought the idea about feeding human babies cola was particularly ridiculous. Human babies are supposed to be drinking human breast milk. The only reason I can see that humans stopped feeding their babies breast milk, and started feeding them chemically altered cow's milk, was because of ridiculous Victorian ideas about breasts being "dirty" somehow, and that human female breasts should never, at any stage of human development, have any part of human life. That kind of thinking strikes me as insane. And, the Victorian sexualization of the breast may have been a turning point in human health in the developed world, for the worse, in all possible ways.
Human babies are supposed to be weaned from mother's milk onto solid food that can be obtained by their tribe/pack/herd/culture, or whatever you want to call a group of human animals.
They will therefore develop a taste for whatever solid food their "tribe" people can get their hands on. The only tastes that are independent of culture are cravings for salty, starchy, and sweet.
Present day humans get to have a broad range of choices, in contrast to humans of pre-history, or in contrast to humans of extremely isolated areas of hostile climate. I am convinced that there are absolutely profound ethical ramifications to those choices, and a profound impact upon the world as a whole, according to what choices are made by humans living in developed societies in 2013.
Careless consumption and mindless adherence to "traditions" of the past 1000 years or so, for example, raising and eating meat (and cow's milk, because you can't get cow's milk without eating the male and old female cows, and eggs, because you can't get eggs without eating the male and old female chickens), could result in nothing less than the eventual extinction of humanity due to unsustainable planetary resource consumption.
If not some kind of Malthusian species-killing famine or drought, species-killing thermonuclear war becomes an ever increasing probability due to the wars of nations over increasingly shrinking planetary resources.
In my part of the U.S., the states of Tennessee and Georgia are in a political "war" over the water of the Tennessee River. The capital city of Atlanta, Georgia has grown unsustainably against their water supply of the Alatoona river and lake basin. They have petitioned the state government of Tennessee to build a pipeline from the Tennessee river that runs through Chattanooga, Tennessee, to their Atlanta water system. The Tennessee government has laughed in their faces.
Georgia then petitioned the federal government of the U.S. to grant them an involuntary (to Tennessee) pipeline into the Tennessee River, based on an obscure post-Civil War redrawing of state lines among Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama. Georgia has argued that they have a legal claim to the very, very small segment of the Tennessee River that flows among the intersection of the Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee state lines. So far, the U.S. federal government is not taking them seriously.
But, I often half-joke facetiously to friends, that only the power of the U.S. federal government is keeping Tennessee and Georgia from declaring Civil War II on each other over water rights to the Tennessee River.
I think that these kinds of disputes over access to fresh water are going to increasingly drive world politics, and apply increasing pressure to world war. The adoption of veganism by the majority of the world populations would be a very good way to reduce strain on world water supplies, by reducing the amount of water needed to raise livestock.
That's only one of the many ways that veganism can make the world better, independently of the reduced animal cruelty.
TLDR: No TLDR here. If you really need a TLDR, you shouldn't be participating in serious political, civic, ethical, or philosophical discussion of any kind. Just keep enjoying yourself while you can. And, that might not be as long as you think.
Thank you, my friend
Well, it's a non-profit organisation with environmental goals, so... there's biased and then there's really biased.
so, a question for @belgarathmth and @alnair,
what vegan foods do give an energy bursts if you're mentally and physically in need of something to drag you through a dip, and second, what do you use for coffee creamer? Or should I adjust my taste to drinking my coffee black? (even than, I still need some kind of creamer for visits, like the household help that comes once a week to help me clean my house, she drinks milk in her coffee and I'm not into forcing other people into a different diet).
One thing I did note in skimming through is the huge variety in american supermarkts in vegan foods. I hope in that aspect Europe (Holland) will follow the US. Like @Alnair said, vegan - even vegetarian - food is a niche market. You'd be surprised how much ready-made-meals can be bought in supermarkts here and how little of it doesn't contain meat. All sorts of meals that would be nice to eat are spoiled by putting meat in it, it's gross.
I don't know how to flavor coffee without dairy, because I don't drink coffee. I assume soy milk doesn't work. Does it lose its liquidity when heated? Maybe @alnair can help with that.
I would think that a metabolic energy burst would come from eating carbohydrates. Would fruit not work? Strawberries, grapes, bananas, peaches, pears? Maybe with some sugar for the strawberries, and a nice piece of bread or some crackers? (Although, I know it can be hard to find crackers or sweetbreads that don't use cheese, eggs, or milk.)
Thank you for responding with kindness - I've probably offended you and/or made you angry, and you have handled it with grace.
I do think it requires more than short twitter-style messages to have productive political discourse, though, so I guess we have to agree to disagree on that.
Mainly because I don't drink coffee either, like @belgarathmth, and then because in Italy it's very unusual to put actual cream in coffee, it's usually just skimmed milk, and in that regard soy or rice milk does just fine as substitute, I guess (based on my friends' habits). The advice stands: try different brands, forgetting the wrong equation cheaper = worse, until you find the one you like the most. And who knows, maybe your household help will like it as well
As for the energy burst, I would suggest fruit, especially calorie-dense ones like dates or bananas. Better still, (ab)use a blender so you can try different combinations in smoothies, according to taste. For example, during my (short-lived but highly energising) period of raw veganism, I was fond of date and strawberry smoothies, or date and melon ones... yum!
I suggest eating sand...
When we stop removing the smart phone from our ears due to the hassle, replace one eyeball to ensure constant updates from the internet, we will definitely need to start drinking WD40... (wiki it... it is the bizz on fixing any blocked chain or any other mechanical mesh requiring movement.
Every single person is vastly different from another genetically speaking. As a result some food, medication or various intake of a chemical composition is going to radically change from person to person. For example, I cannot use penicillin - It could actually kill me. I see absolutely no reason why human diets aren't the same. If some dude can make alcohol in his stomach by eating pasta its only reasonable that every single human in the world processes food differently than others, even if its slight. Genetic variation is simply too wide to claim that science has found some chemical formula beneficial to all humans.
That said, there are probably SOME people out there who have to eat meat for their body to process all of their dietary needs and there are some out there who don't. In between there are way more people who need more or less meat respectively. Every single day you live you live only because something living dies. Fruits may be reproductive containers, but even those are samples of living tissue. If you say you can't eat something simply because its alive, the only option is to starve to death or die from malnutrition since the only thing that isn't alive are rocks and base elements.
After that you have to come up with some qualifier of what makes something okay to eat. I can't just say something edible since that would include humans. So would something tasty as that rules out many thingsPersonally, I like to use complex logical-reasoning as a good reason not to eat something. Using "Self-Awareness" is simply way too subjective to use as a qualifier since I view self-awareness as being necessary to interact with the external/illusory world which depending on how you view interaction puts everything into that category. At least with complex logical reasoning you can use a fixed point, like being able to build themselves a basic tool, not simply being able to use one.
Hence things like cows, horses, and sheep would be on the menu whereas crows, otters, and primates would not. Rats and chickens would also be on the menu because although they have demonstrated the ability to use tools, to the best of my knowledge they have yet to actually demonstrate the capacity to build any themselves.
Imo - its just the best line to draw with the least wiggle room available for subjectivity and it also accounts for aliens.
Of course every rule has its exceptions, but there are plenty of studies addressing the health benefits of a plant-based diet, and they're really easy to find. So I feel it can be safely stated that, for the vast majority of people, a vegan diet is healthier than a omnivorous one.
That being said, I have really little to no interest in arguing about the so-called "health argument for veganism". As I think I've already stated many times - you're welcome to peruse the first 8 pages of the thread
(The fact that my health improved is a nice bonus, of course) Let me get this straight: are you really comparing the life (and thus the death) of an animal to that of a fruit? Personally, I think empathy is a way more useful and appropriate tool in order to decide whether we can "maim, kill and eat" (to quote @Morte50) someone else. I would have thought that "has a nervous system" would be an objective enough cut-off line...
And you assume that hypothetical aliens would have a nervous system or something of a structural equivalent and that plants are incapable of any sensation whatsoever. When they are exposed to sunlight they bloom and grow which, to me, is a sensation and a capacity to feel i.e. sentience. Its a mammal-centric bias you have developed that having a particular form within your own being somehow entitles you to feeling beyond plant-life. Anything which can move of its own volition reacts to stimulus in a non-uniform way and is thus capable of feeling and reacting to the world around itself - something often called "sentience". For me, I believe all organic things are capable of some degree of sentience, but not self-awareness. To live I literally have to determine how much evil is permissible for me in order to survive. For me this level is at the level sufficient development causes heightened internalized suffering and the awareness of having a sensation of suffering as opposed to merely being in pain. Chickens certainly experience pain, but I don't think its a reflexive instinctual drive to get them to react in a certain way and not an experience they can internalize and be aware of as it relates to their own spatial and temporal being.
But I'll be straight up honest - even to me my personal viewpoint is rather crazy/insane.
Nevertheless, and I say this for the umpteenth time, eating animals implies the consumption of lots and lots of crops... anyone caring for the suffering of plants should really eat them directly in order to minimise the quantity; or, better still, just eat fruit. (Even if the seeds are not going to sprout, you're doing no harm to the plant eating them.)
I apologise in advance if some of what I've written may sound confrontational or even offensive. That's not my intention, so please forgive me if you perceive it as such. I suppose you're referring to this gruesome story: (emphasis mine; enough said). Mmh, quite convenient, isn't it?
However, and considering by the way how I was quite fond of roasted chicken meat myself, I'm no one to judge what you believe (or make-believe)... but let me state they are very intelligent and persistent creatures, speaking as someone who has lived with chickens for months, and chased quite a lot of them trying to escape their barren but otherwise comfortable pen. They can also be quite snuggly, as anyone who keeps them as pets can confirm. I think that's a sensible attitude, actually. But there are so many examples of almost-centenary vegetarians (G.B. Shaw and Margherita Hack are the first springing to mind, and quite a fine example they are!) that we can safely assume that not eating meat isn't going to have side effects decades down the road
Then, about "genetically enhanced" fruit and vegetables... what do you think breeders feed to livestock? Just the same crap you think can make your brain explode, seasoned with hormones to make them grow faster and antibiotics to keep at bay the plethora of diseases they would otherwise suffer because of unsanitary conditions. Suit yourself
I'd rather stick with my delicious, healthy, cheap, already murder-free and (most importantly) existing plant-based food, thanks! So - if you'll pardon the blunt comparison - you're basically saying that murdering someone is equivalent to prevent somebody else's birth, and since you can't be exempt from both you'd rather do the former than the latter? Seems to me that the problem is in how you perceive the offending act. You says you feel bad doing it and you dislike seeing it, but as long as it happens in the invisible recesses of a slaughterhouse, that's OK. Yes, that's what I'd assume... if I cared for hypothetical beings, that is. I feel it's hard to disagree with that, seeing how you were basically saying that plants are even more sentient than chickens
Okay well I'm on my phone right now meaning direct quotes will be sort of hit and miss, so forgive me if I miss a point. Btw, I don't see your responses as confrontational - just passionate and well informed. I tend to to the same with other topics (I say other topics as I get the impression you have likely though about this particular one more than I) so as long as you don't view me as being confrontational I'll try to do the same.
I'm actually referring to two such chickens, as I saw another recent article on a similar chicken in I believe south america somewhere. The main point I was trying to make was that despite the absence of a head, the chickens were still, essentially chickens, intellect and heightened awareness aren't really part of their being. But I did see a chicken make a jump for it out of a foster farms truck on the way home so...Either you have a very elaborate way of decieving me or I need to go revisit that whole theory.
In response to the each species, its own food I think in a dietary way humanity is much more diverse than "a" works for everyone. For 90% of the population sure, (I imagine I'm in it) but veganism is still relatively new as far as modern dieting goes. Realistically I doubt its a big deal and really its probably me being cautious to the point of absurdity.
As for the whole sugar thing...I may be an anomaly considering when I was in college and loaded on the sugar. About halfway in I started eating healthier (incidentally I was 160 at the time 0_o) but with some excercise got away from the wireframe. Soda, candy and fast food literally makes me nauseous now. Well I guess if veganism is healthier the same could apply and I grant you a touche on the gentically modified meat, etc. Perception totally right...
Okay so I'll grant you every point. That said, lets consider that everyone goes vegetarian tomorrow. How do you propose to feed everyone AND all the animals we've just decided to let live? We have to free the animals now and give them larger pastures meaning we've just exponentially increased the food demand. So, if we just increased the amount of biomass needed to sustain all live on the planet and simultaneously decrease the amount to dip below the amount of biomass available a LOT of sentient beings are going to starve to death. Granted, a lot of animal meat is wasted (which makes the death in vain which I can't STAND, especially ever since I knew one anomalous vegetarian who threw their meat away because eating meat was morally wrong which was clearly hypocritical). But even so, your starvation levels will roughly equal the deficiency of biomass consumption vs. biomass availability. Sure we humans don't eat grass, but initially there would be plenty of grass available for the cows and a lot of healthy wolves and other carnivores which just gained free access to lots and lots of steak. Eventually natural cycles would stabilize, but there would be a rather large degree of pain and suffering from starvation and predatorial buffeting going on until then. Assuming predators don't hunt their hitheroto protected prey. It wouldn't cause extinction, but you would have dozens of generations of seriously freaked out cows.
Of course there is always the option to just let them free and let all the wolves we killed go crazy and eat them alive. While both options suck, I'd rather be decapitated by a buzzsaw. And the whole "starving to death" thing isn't to appealing. I agree our treatment of animals leaves much to be desired. As is though its like having a best friend stab you in the back vs. being hunted by a brain eating demon. Both suck but at least one happens fast and its over fast - if you even realize your imminent demise.
I'm not saying what you're proposing is incorrect, merely stating that if everyone changed what they did all at once, you would create a terrible situation both for us and the animals. Ultimately your right but until that time comes where we can ween ourself as a species off meat, you need the meat eating neanderthals such as myself to allow the natural cycle steady and slowly and naturally advance towards such change.
To be honest, when I have the opportunity (i.e. providing food for myself when out of town on businees, visiting friends, etc.) I eat significantly less meat products (and throw less away) than the generation before me, which I think should be the goal, not to go cold turkey vegan across a large population as it is also destructive, just in a completely different way. Just don't morally fault people who are still on the thick part of the meat cycle. We'll get there eventually - just be patient and don't tell us we're morally deficient. Some people who aren't vegetarian will just eat more meat out of spite.
Note this is aimed more at omnivores vs. herbivores and not vegans. For me there is a pretty big ethics gap between gently milking a cow and killing it - which is another argument itself imo.
Sorry if I dismiss so succinctly your observations on the outcome of such a miraculous event, but I would really prefer to stick to reality: it's darker than any distopian fantasy we can imagine, but unlike them it can be changed. We should just assume the change won't happen overnight... for example, if the consumption of dairy products were to slowly drop to zero in a time span of years, farmers would gradually stop to rape (I mean artificially, of course) cows in order to make them produce milk, thus lowering their reproduction rate; again, gradually. Just wanted to quickly point out that there's absolutely nothing natural about the current cycle of mass food production, as I'm sure you're well aware of. I don't think I ever did that; please tell me where, if you think differently (so I can avoid it in the future). I know some vegans (especially veganism advocates like me) behave that way, but I don't feel I'm in any position to judge anyone and I don't feel morally superior to anyone... after all, I've spent two thirds of my life consuming animal products like there was no tomorrow.
I just feel compelled to spread information as widely as possible, because many people just don't know how grim things are for the Animals, and how easy it is to stop being accomplices of their everyday holocaust.
I guess many people get defensive on the subject mostly out of unadmitted guilt, actually. Even if we discount the principle that the cow makes milk for her babies (who, in turn, go on towards a pretty unhappy and short life before becoming meat themselves), the problem is that there's no such thing as "gently milking", outside of rural farms that may account for just a tiny percentage of milk production.
Usually the cows are so worn out after just a few years (compared to their natural lifespan of decades) of being forcefully impregnated and having their udders almost perpetually attached to suckling machines, that they cannot even stand up anymore, and have to be literally dragged to the slaughterhouse.
«Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to.»
I was, of course, talking about "the masses", i.e. the majority of people... I'm quite aware not everyone will feel the same way on the matter, but most people will react with an «aaaw!» to that piece of news.
The lesson of this argument - don't take something you yourself have done for 2/3rds of your life and then compare it to completely heinous crimes. Last I checked, most people don't commit rape (even though its "artificial" I think the subliminal inferrence is still being made to the "real deal") or genocide for 2/3rds of their life so...its kind of a leap too far for me to take seriously anymore.
But, to keep with the atmosphere of this forum which I can come to respect and enjoy speaking with, I will bow out of the conversation now so that my hostility doesn't ooze and detract from people still interested in this conversation. Once my good ol' friend Godwin gets involved I have to pretty much assume implied hostility given that I'm being compared to Hitler: Jewslayer and all.
Know that I have nothing against you personally, I think our views are just so radically different in our suppositions we cannot reach a point of mutual understanding. In this case I think on the main points we simply have to be able to agree to disagree.
That said, I apologise if my choice of words (please consider also I'm not a native English speaker) offended you in any way; but let me point out that we already covered the topic of Godwin's law applied to this subject after an analogy by @jaysl659 in the "drops in a bucket" argument.
I also feel it's worth mentioning, since we're talking about it, that a comparison between the Holocaust and the way humans treat the Animals has been made by several writers; most notoriously, the Jewish Nobel prize winner Isaac Bashevis Singer, who wrote about it several times, e.g.: «In relation to [animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka» and «When it comes to animals, every man is a Nazi».
This, of course, has not been well received by everyone; for example Roberta Kalechofsky, a Jew and Animal Rights activist herself, wrote that «some agonies are too total to be compared with other agonies».
Personally, I never felt the "need" for such a comparison, and I don't usually mention this kind of quotes.
They surely are in the biological sense of the term: «a single organism capable of independent existence».
But that's the whole point of this discussion: for anti-speciesists Animals are to be considered persons, while for carnists they aren't.
BTW, what do you think of this site http://pcrm.org/kickstartHome/mealplan/ I was thinking of trying out a vegan diet even though I couldn't care less about the "vegan lifestyle" (you can see I've studied some sources on veganism). I want to see how my body reacts - to be honest I'm not happy with my current diet. I don't think I'll go hardcore yet, I might still have a chocolate bar with milk in it and even a steak if someone's buying
As for your question, first let me repeat (I can't stress it enough) that I'm not into the healthy side of veganism, like at all (although a couple of yeas ago I was briefly interested in raw veganism in order to lose weight).
That being said, I think that PCRM is a very good source of information on that specific subject, so I would trust them completely in regard of the nutritional aspects of their menus; on the other hand, how difficult it is to follow that instructions is entirely up to you, and how "exotic" the dishes may appear probably depends on the type of cuisine you're accustomed to.
(I'm not sure about the soy protein mix; generally speaking I don't trust very much that kind of things. You'll probably have better luck googling information about that.)