Talk:Vegetarianism
From iA wiki
- I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegeterian because I hate plants. -- unknown.
Noooo! Plant Liberation Front forever! So i eat meat... -- dpi (j/k)
- I don't agree with veganism beeing considered (?) more 'strict' then vegetarianism. Because it isn't descriptive about veganism. Veganism is also about not using (ie. eating) products in which animals were abused to make them. How is that more strict? It goes far more futher because it involves more then just 'not eating meat'. I think the sentence about it beeing more strict isn't clear - at least it has never been when i read it here. Dunno how i could make it more clear with my (lack of) English.. do you agree, why (not)? -- dpi
- Good example: try not eating eggs. It seems simple but its really quite difficult because they're in everything from bread to noodles to casserole. You have to go through the listings of everything you eat and see if any animal products were used in the production. Not eating butter or milk is also quite hard. They're really in almost everything. When we say strict, that means self-control to take the care each time to cut animal products out of your diet. Webfork
Note from a non-vegetarian: I've never noticed a "political debate" continuing, and I haven't observed the "growing movement". I have seen no research which supports the health claims of vegetarian diets, but from my own study I can see what health problems may be caused by the lack of useful protien in vegetarians diets. Also, while many vegetarians like to have their beliefs reinforced by narrow-minded vegetarian education videos such as "The Meatrix", most don't seem to look at the ethical issues behind the production of soy products. Some info that isn't completely biased would be nice on this page.
- When someone says this type of thing about a computer topic (its common with pro and anti-Microsoft people), I locate and post links from reputable sources, since its hard to argue with someone who's done their homework. Just because I'm been a vegetarian for two 1/2 years and I'm happy with it but that doesn't mean that anyone else is or that its a good idea.
- There are only two clear benefits: ethical points for not killing/mistreating animals (if your system of ethics includes this) and problems associated with meat (mad cow, e-coli, salmonilla, mercury and other heavy metals in fish).
- Others are quite obvious but not really noted by the press or scientific sources including the fact that meat goes bad a great deal faster than most fruits and veggies and the food poisoning associated with meat is usually much worse.
- When I sat down and actually did substative research, I couldn't find statistical evidence of a vegetarian movement. Nor a straightforward scientific element saying "vegetarians are healthier" except for the American Dietetic Association who said:
- "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." more
- However, there are some other indications for some of your other questions. For instance, its nice for arthritis (BBC) and, while there may not be a definable or measurable movement, it's definitely gained speed since the 1970s (VRG.org). Organic food tends to taste better and, since most people are put off by the idea of genetically modified foods, more vegetarian-type foods have entered the mainstream (Fortune.com - The green business revolution) making vegetarianism easier and more viable.
- Let me know if that's satisfactory. I did find a bunch of other Vegetarian links in this process, which I will populate the front page with. Webfork
- Also, it is commonly known US meat contains loads and loads of hormones. To back it up with logic: if 1) you want to breed & kill animals as fast as you can to sell them for your profit 2) it costs you less when you do it faster 3) you can give the some "dope" to get better results 4) why wouldn't you do that given you don't care about the lives of the animals anyway?
- It would be interesting to see how long a bio-industry animal actually lives, and see how that was a decenium or 2 ago. According to my parents, meat tasted different 20 years ago as does other food. The meat (ie. steak) of the supermarket contains loads of water these days; that used to me different with the autonomous butchers and such which got virtually killed by mass-supermarket these days (same as withh pizza tents in the USA).
- Oh yes, and vegetarians and (even more) vegans need to watch more closely wether they eat the right things. Diversity is your friend!
- Yes but the fellow in question up here is asking for more than stuff that's "commonly known." Please find a link for this hormone and water-ridden meat issue and thank you for your input.
- Hi, I'm the guy that posted the above note about the on the vegetarianism page - sorry about that, I didn't see the "/Talk" button.
- On the ethical points, I'm not convinced. Here's an interesting rebuttal to the ethics behind vegetarianism: http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/uneasy.htm (quite long though). Another angle is that more animals are killed in the production of grains than in the production of meat (http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm). This point can be counter-rebutted by saying that a lot of grain is consumed by animals - so being a vegetarian causes fewer animals to be killed because less grain must be produced. This may be true, but it shows a gaping hole (or misdirection) in the vegetarian philosophy if their real goal is to cause less grain to be produced.
- On another ethical note, to make up for the low quality of non-animal protein, many vegetarians consume a large amount of soy - the production of which has been blamed for the increased rate of destruction of the rain forrests (http://www.mongabay.com/external/record_amazon_deforestation_2002.htm). Also (although I can't turn up a reference for this bit) soy drains nutrients from soil a lot faster than most cash crops and it's production has destroyed the land of a lot of poor farmers (who aren't told beforehand that this more valuable cash crop has a hidden cost).
- As far as health benefits go, your quote above says nothing firm. "appropriately planned" diets of any kind can be healthful etc. The report didn't say vegetarianism is healthier - it just said that it's possible to create a healthy vegetarian diet. Implicit, and obvious anyway, is that it's possible to have an unhealthy vegetarian diet. Of course you can have an unhealthy omnivorous diet but with vegetarianism you start off with an additional problem: All non-animal protein sources contain incomplete protein - they don't have all 8 of the essential amino acids (the ones human bodies can't synthesize). (soy protein may be an exception to this rule - I can't recall right now.)
- The last point I'd like to make is to clarify my "narrow-minded" education videos bit. "The Meatrix" is a vegetarian short cartoon, funny in places, where a cow "Moophius" shows a pig what animal life on a modern (factory) farm is really like. My issues is that the end of the film presented the solution: Go Vegetarian! which I thought was astonishingly narrow-minded since it ignored the other solution to animal cruelty: fight for legal animal rights - or through public awareness, create a demand for meats that are "certified not cruel". This could also be done by lobbying for laws which place limits on the amount of milk you're allowed make a cow produce, or limits on the weight that you are permitted to grow your pigs to. This would stop the current trend of "how far can we push the animal form". Another good law would be one which limits the amount of animal you are allowed produce per square meter of land. Factory farming would no longer be efficient since "how many of the blighters can we squeez in here" wouldn't be the limiting factor for food production.
- As to the first reply, about hormones and metals etc. in meat, maybe a pure meat diet would be unhealthy, but some meat isn't going to be harmful. Of course, if you're just looking to reinforce your existing opinions, feel free to exagerate the effects of these hormones and metals. I eat meat twice a day, I trim the fat, and I exercise - and I'm feeling pretty darn good. (to me, the ethics of pharmacutical patents in India is far more important than the shaky ethics of vegetarianism.)
- Anyway, thanks for the calm response (and for reading this far).
Thank you for posting. You've written a long response so I'll do my best to respond in kind.
- Vegetarianism is always healthier?
This is another way of asking what this Time article put forth: Should everyone be vegetarians?
Certainly it is not always healthier, especially if one eats only fried foods. Quoting: "Careful scrutiny of a vegetarian or vegan recipe is important, however. Many recipes are just as high in fat and calories as those that contain meat." But that's kind of like most absolute statements such as "we should all ___." I do not mean to make vegetarianism sound like a cure-all or that if you don't do it there's something wrong with you.
For instance, there's places in this world where eating meat is not only normal but essential and its physically impossible to eat a grain-only diet such as I have.
I think its a good step in a process but cutting meat out of your diet isn't going to prevent cancer (unless we're talking about red meat). Some people seem to think its a really bad idea and may have a point.
Clearly, there's a ballance. The solution isn't in extremes from hormone and antibiotic injections common now to an anti-science position. But I just don't see anyone interested in finding any sort of ballance: maybe that's the meat producers, maybe that's the general public but why worry?
But apart from a few outspoken individuals, about the only advice I've gotten from the multitude of nutritionists, my physician, and research I've read is get complete proteins (as described below) and suppliment with B12. That's it. And I don't think that's the result of some sort of "smoke screen."
Lastly, you will get no arguement for me concerning pharmacutical patents, in the US or India. I think charging expensive prices for life-saving AIDS drugs when millions are dying worldwide is akin to genocide and have made me a lifetime enemy of any participant in that process. I do want them to continue research and development on new and better drugs but my sense is that's not what's happening.
- Concerning Rainforest vs. Soybeans
First of all this is an excellent topic and I'm very glad you asked me about it. Here's some thoughts:
As far as increasing soybean demand production cutting into the rainforest, Soybeans are not the culprit here. This is like arguing that people should stop eating meat for the same exact reason when cutting down rainforest for cattle becomes more profitable. The problem is a bad economic situation and desperate people trying to get by through agriculture in areas they shouldn't. Demand for some other crop should eventually replace soybeans.
Its also due to "a new variety of soybean developed by Brazilian scientists to flourish in this punishing equatorial climate...", which is a legitimate concern. I'm currently looking for resources on how to avoid this. As a result of your question, I'm going to stop buying soybean products that buy from Brazil and am currently looking for resources on the net to help this process.
Lastly, while I cannot speak to the problem of soybeans using up soil fertility, one of the benefits to soybeans versus other types of grain is that they are a complete protein. With one grain, you have a complete protein unlike, for instance, the red beans and rice combination. Sure, that doesn't change that people eat the same amount of food but it is one counter to that arguement.
- Concerning more animals being killed in the production of grains:
I find it difficult to imagine a situation where, if we were all vegetarians, somehow more animals would die. When you have thousands of male chicks being killed daily because they cannot produce eggs, I'm thinking that's absurd. That's one of those mind-benders I really can't wrap my head around. Maybe I'm reading something wrong here.
Next, cows are not efficient. My understanding is that they take in approximately 12x more grain than they produce in eventual food. 12 may be the incorrect number but I would be shocked if they ate 5 times the amount of food than they provided. Regardless, if we all ate grains instead of meat, I'm pretty sure this process would be much cheaper, faster, and less pollutive. I can locate sources to back me but I think that's a fairly safe assumption.
Finally, the link you provided on the subject is that the gentleman is VERY verbose and that he's not from something you asked of me/us: a reputable news or scientific source.
Quoting: "all the talk about pain and suffering is only a smoke screen" and I have no idea what the that is about. He adds: "Our positions result from prior religious convictions. One can never compromise with these people," referring to the leadership of the animal rights and general anti-meat eating groups.
He could be doing what am: stating a logical assumption based on logical ideas. But that link leaves me at a disadvantage because its both difficult to read and says some pretty (to me) wild things. Please find a better source. Webfork
