Forums > Social Discussion > Vegetarianism.... Plants have feelings too

Login/Join to Participate
Page: ...
PsyriSILVER Member
artisan
1,576 posts
Location: Berkshire, UK


Posted:
I would just like to mention out of general irritation that some veggie friends give me. They always ask how can I have a clean conscience because I eat meat? Uusally giving me a long lasting lecture also about how much healthier it is. I have no rpoblem with the healthy part. But I would like to inform you that plants have feelings too. If you have come across kirlian photography (aura photography) you can see strands coming from them. Well we know plants are alive of course but what about other tests that have been undergone? Plants react to the atmosphere around them eg music, smells, people talking.

Albeit they are a different form of life I just wish some veggies would stop taking the moral highground because I like meat.

All I can say is I appreciate every morsel of food that passes through my lips and I wonder where it came from and how that piece of food lived.

Views people?

Heres some linkage to show I aint a complete raving loony

linky link

Oh and if there are any fruitarians about who can give me a kick up the bum then go ahead.... I respect that you try not to harm anything to get your grub.

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
I've made my views on 'implied guilt patterns' abundantly clear over several posts.



If some feel guilt when reading objective and indisputable facts, then that's unfortunate- but really it's something they need to be dealing with themselves, I won't stop using valid arguments and proven objective facts just cos a minority find them unpleasant reading.



(For more details, see those previous posts).



-------------



In this case I was responding to stones-



 Written by: Stone



Dave, it doesn’t necessarily follow that because someone is a vegan they contribute much less harm to the environment, than a meat eater.





which is quite simply untrue.



Hence I posted an argument demonstrating that the above comment is untrue.



Personally, in the context of a debate, i feel it's important to challenge statements which are false.



----------



An analogy-



Some meat-eaters find statements pointing out that vegans cause less harm then meat-eaters, provoke guilt-feelings.



If I read of the good that Bob Geldof caused, it's obvious that he's good a lot more good than me.



Do I feel guilty on reading of the good caused by Bob?



No.



Do I feel that I need to be doing more good?



No.



I'm secure in my views and at ease with the lines I've drawn.



Respect to Bob, we could use more like him.



But I'm not going to, as stone seems to, deny the objective fact that Bobs done much more good than me, or, as Firetom does, accuse those mentioning Bobs good work, as somehow trying to put a 'guilt pattern' on me.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


StoutBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada


Posted:
Even if I read OWD's posts with my most hypersensitive glasses on,,I still can't read a guilt trip into the posts he's making. Personally, I'd never made the connection about the meat industry and it's relationship to the amount of plant "harm" nor the relationship to global warming ( other than the cow farts, which we've been hearing about since the 1970's )

Maybe, we as meat eaters have become so accustomed to guilt trips from vegetarians/vegans that we just expect that style of communication on this as an issue?

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
Cheers Stout smile

On reflection, I wonder if perhaps there's a misunderstanding here? Particularly between me and Firetom/Stone?

I'm saying that it's undeniable that vegans cause less harm than meat-eaters- they seem to be questioning that.

Perhaps I've not been strict enough in making my case and should have said that which I thought didn't need to be said, that I'm talking purely about the vegan vs. meat-eating aspect of the equation.

i.e. that al other things being roughly equal, so that the vegan and meateater in question drive similar cars, make similar recycling efforts, fly pretty much the same etc.

In that case, surely it's undeniable that the vegan causes less harm, both environmentally and in terms of animal suffering, than does the meat-eater?

Of course I'm aware that it's possible for a vegan, in an extreme case, to cause more harm- for example, a strict vegan who's chairman of a company who's sole business is the hacking down of rain forest to make wood for furniture.

But, that is an isolated extreme.

Apologies if my failure to make that assumption clear has led to misunderstanding.

In return and, in the interests of clarifying the debate, would firetom and stone agree that-

all other things being roughly equal, so that the vegan and meateater in question drive similar cars, make similar recycling efforts, fly pretty much the same etc, etc:

then it's undeniable that the vegan causes less harm, both environmentally and in terms of animal suffering, than does the meat-eater.


Or, do you say otherwise?

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


dreamSILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand


Posted:
 Written by:

it's undeniable that the vegan causes less harm, both environmentally and in terms of animal suffering, than does the meat-eater.

Or, do you say otherwise?



Yes. I do. (And at the same time no I don't...)

Unfortunately you're statement is still too general, it is easy to think of examples to the contrary and resultantly expose your black and white, vegan good carnivore bad logic...

Someone eating occasional meat and dairy products grown in local organic farms alongside locally produced unpackaged fruit veg and cereals will more than likely have a far lesser environmental impact than a vegan eating processed foods imported halfway round the world (nuts, soya, etc - things lots of vegans consume to get protein and cant be grown in the UK), which has been grown on arable land that has recently seen the clearance of old growth forest, has been grown using a plethora of pesticides and insecticides and whose food comes wrapped up in loads of plastics which are then not recycled.

That doesn't mean your statement isn't true for the vast majority of cases - indeed you might be better off saying something like

'eating a diet largely composed of imported factory farmed meat which is imported halfway round the world, has been grown on arable land that has recently seen the clearance of old growth forest, has been grown using pesticides and insecticides and comes wrapped up in loads of plastics which are then not recycled is the most destructive diet you can have both in terms of the environment and animal suffering'

however the logic of meat bad veg good merely presents a false opposition which ignores all other factors.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche


StoneGOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia


Posted:
Dave, sorry I don’t follow your logic. All things are not equal, so I really don’t see how you can say that it’s “undeniable that the vegan causes less harm, both environmentally and in terms of animal suffering, than does the meat-eater”. That’s pure speculation and wishful thinking. For a start you don’t consider the impact that growing plants like soybean (a mainstay in veg diets) have on the environment.

“Environmental groups, such as Greenpeace and the WWF, have reported that both soybean cultivation and the threat to increase soybean cultivation in Brazil is destroying huge areas of Amazon rainforest and encouraging deforestation. Besides destruction of the rainforest, it destroys unique biodiversity and causes a billion dollar's loss on technology from bionics revenue” (wiki).

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
Dream-

 Written by:


Someone eating occasional meat and dairy products grown in local organic farms alongside locally produced unpackaged fruit veg and cereals will more than likely have a far lesser environmental impact than a vegan eating processed foods imported halfway round the world (nuts, soya, etc - things lots of vegans consume to get protein and cant be grown in the UK), which has been grown on arable land that has recently seen the clearance of old growth forest, has been grown using a plethora of pesticides and insecticides and whose food comes wrapped up in loads of plastics which are then not recycled.




It's a good point you make, that some of the food vegans eat is shipped long distances, with environmental damage as a result.

It's something for vegans who care about the environment to think about.

However, how valid is the comparison you suggest, between a vegan eating produce shipped halfway around the world & a meat-eater eating locally produced organic meat/animal produce?

Firstly, this is why I used the term 'all other things being roughly equal'- the comparison you suggest is a bit dubious on those terms.

If the majority of meat eaters got their animal produce from local, organic farms, then great.

Unfortunately, the majority do not- they get their food from unethical, non-local, non-organic sources, with a fair chance that it's also been shipped substanial distances.

Let's not compare the (rare) super-ethical meat-eater to the less aware vegan whose food is shipped long distance.

Instead, remebering 'all other things being roughly equal', let's compare the super-ethical meat-eater to the super-ethical vegan.

In that case, the vegan causes less harm.

Let's also not forget the other big thing that has been established in this thread-

meat is fed on plants- lots of plants

While the typical vegans nuts have been shipped long distance, so has the (approximately 10 x quantity) vegetation that makes up animal feed.

Same goes for the pestisides etc you mention- meat involves far more plant use (and therefore pesticide, land clearance etc) than a vegan could ever get through.

Despite that, I agree about the value of organic, local and well cared for, animal produce farming.

However, that is nothing like where the vast majority of animal produce comes from and, has several have pointed out already, that kind of system never will be capeable of producing meat at the levels used today.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: stone


Dave, sorry I don’t follow your logic. All things are not equal...........



Sorry, I've put it as clearly as I possibly can, I can't really do more.



 Written by: stone


“Environmental groups, such as Greenpeace and the WWF, have reported that both soybean cultivation and the threat to increase soybean cultivation in Brazil is destroying huge areas of Amazon rainforest and encouraging deforestation. Besides destruction of the rainforest, it destroys unique biodiversity and causes a billion dollar's loss on technology from bionics revenue” (wiki).




Is it of particular relevance to vegans?

Do meat-eaters consume less soy beans than vegans?

Do the animals the meat comes from consume no soy beans in their feed?

If you can show that the soybeans produced in brazil/the amazon are mainly going to feed vegans, then you'll have a decent argument and ethical vegans can consider boycotting soybeans from those areas.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
While you're developing your argument. you may want to consider these:

from: https://www.sustainweb.org/page.php?id=144
 Written by:



Soya's main use in the UK is as feed for livestock. After the oil has been extracted the resulting high-protein meal is widely used in animal feed, forming an essential fuel for intensively reared cattle, pigs and poultry.





from: https://www.agbioforum.org/v6n12/v6n12a05-kerley.htm

 Written by:



The animal feed industry uses 77% of the soybean meal produced primarily as an amino acid and protein source in diets. Consequently, soybeans are an integral component of the US agriculture industry, and use of the soybean in animal feed formulations is important to the viability of the agriculture industry. The continued dominance of soybean use in animal feed applications is dependent upon designing soybean seed compositions that will benefit animal production





Just a couple of pages I turned up on a search- now I'm not saying that they're necessarily correct, but if you think they're not, it would be a good idea to find some evidence to the contrary.

Cos, what they're saying is that most soybeans are produced to feed animals, rather than vegans.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


dreamSILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand


Posted:
 Written by:

However, how valid is the comparison you suggest, between a vegan eating produce shipped halfway around the world & a meat-eater eating locally produced organic meat/animal produce?

I used the term 'all other things being roughly equal'- the comparison you suggest is a bit dubious on those terms.



Dave... If soybeans and cashew nuts were grown in the West Country you might have an argument.

However I think you'll find that unlike cows and chickens, they HAVE to be imported from far off places where the climate will support them.

As such your 'all things being equal' argument works only at the level of abstract ideas... it has no relevance to the real world or real people.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
For most vegans cashew nuts are an occasional and very minor part of the diet.

Many vegans have a ethical focus on the environmetal impact of lifestyles and, for that reason, minimise use of produce that has to be shipped long-distance.

Remember than meat-animals need plant feed- much of which is shipped long-distance.

To the extent that vegans are responsible for the 'footprint' of their luxury items (like cashews), then meat-eaters are responsible for the footprint of all the plant food their animal consumes while living.

Whichever way you look at it, on the wholel, vegans, compared like-for-like, are involved in much less harm (both environemtal and in terms of animal suffering) than are meat-eaters.

(incidently, if meat-eaters are going to continue using soy in their arguments against veganism, could they address the point I posted above, which is that the majority of soy seems to be used for animal feed, not vegans?)

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


dreamSILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand


Posted:
 Written by: OWD

if meat-eaters are going to continue using soy in their arguments against veganism, could they address the point I posted above, which is that the majority of soy seems to be used for animal feed, not vegans?



If you need me to state the completely obvious than i will...

 Written by: soil association

Organic cows graze on pastures which have not been treated with artificial pesticides and fertilisers



This being from the association which certifies farms as organic.

As the UK doesn't have pastures of soya as it isn't a viable crop under UK climate (source UNFAO - https://faostat.fao.org/site/340/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=340 they list what nations produce what crops) its fairly safe to say that the pastures these animals graze on aren't soy.

So organic meat eaters are responsible for the devastating carbon footprint of locally grown grass.

Whereas soymilk not only involves the food miles, but is responsible for deforestation - as you've pointed out.

I don't know the relative footprints of locally grown grass and imported soya responsible for the felling of the amazon, but I'd guess that the grass has a footprint less than one tenth of the soy.

However, on the other hand intensive factory farming requires the importation of vast amounts of feed for their vast number of animals housed on small areas of land (often in sheds 24/7). As soy is a high protein food it is used to bulk up factory farmed animals. So these animals have 10x the footprint of the vegans who eat the same soy.

Once again you manage to homogenize the evil meat industry rather than dealing with the specific case I presented.

I've gotten somewhat bored with pointing that out to you... You clearly have no desire to listen to anything beyond a childlike good/bad binary between meat eaters and vegans.

I'm outta here...

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche


jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
 Written by: dream

You clearly have no desire to listen to anything beyond a childlike good/bad binary between meat eaters and vegans.


That's clearly NOT what Dave is saying. His comments are directed at which lifestyles have what kinds of impacts and why. From the posts his position appears to be vastly better thought out and reasoned than your own.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: dream



 Written by: OWD

if meat-eaters are going to continue using soy in their arguments against veganism, could they address the point I posted above, which is that the majority of soy seems to be used for animal feed, not vegans?





If you need me to state the completely obvious than i will...



 Written by: soil association

Organic cows graze on pastures which have not been treated with artificial pesticides and fertilisers





This being from the association which certifies farms as organic.



As the UK doesn't have pastures of soya as it isn't a viable crop under UK climate (source UNFAO - https://faostat.fao.org/site/340/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=340 they list what nations produce what crops) its fairly safe to say that the pastures these animals graze on aren't soy.



So organic meat eaters are responsible for the devastating carbon footprint of locally grown grass.



Whereas soymilk not only involves the food miles, but is responsible for deforestation - as you've pointed out.



I don't know the relative footprints of locally grown grass and imported soya responsible for the felling of the amazon, but I'd guess that the grass has a footprint less than one tenth of the soy.



However, on the other hand intensive factory farming requires the importation of vast amounts of feed for their vast number of animals housed on small areas of land (often in sheds 24/7). As soy is a high protein food it is used to bulk up factory farmed animals. So these animals have 10x the footprint of the vegans who eat the same soy.



Once again you manage to homogenize the evil meat industry rather than dealing with the specific case I presented.



I've gotten somewhat bored with pointing that out to you... You clearly have no desire to listen to anything beyond a childlike good/bad binary between meat eaters and vegans.







I think I've made it clear that I'm not comaparing vegans to organic meat-eaters.



Why would I? Those eating purely organic meat are a tiny minority of the meat industries output.



Let me state to those who eat only organic meat/organic animal produce-



I'm not talking about you, how your carbon footprint compares to the average vegan, i don't know, maybe it compares favourably? I don't know.



I am, of course, instead, comparing vegans to those who eat the produce of the much more common, non-organic meat industry.



Which is the main user of environmentally destructive soy production and which feeds its animals on the cheapest food it can get i.e. often shipped long distance.



On which we seem to be in complete agreement?



 Written by: dream





However, on the other hand intensive factory farming requires the importation of vast amounts of feed for their vast number of animals housed on small areas of land (often in sheds 24/7). As soy is a high protein food it is used to bulk up factory farmed animals. So these animals have 10x the footprint of the vegans who eat the same soy.







 Written by: dream





Once again you manage to homogenize the evil meat industry rather than dealing with the specific case I presented.







I've clearly stated that I'm dealing with the intensive meat industry.



Said it many times, very clearly.



If you want to debate vegan vs. organic meat, then fine- I've nothing to say on it other than, yes, for that tiny minority who eat purely organic meat/animal produce- great- you're causing less harm than that majority who eat intensively farmed meat.







 Written by: dream





You clearly have no desire to listen to anything beyond a childlike good/bad binary between meat eaters and vegans....



...I'm outta here...







wave

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
actually, there is growing demand for organic meats.
a store just opened in my neighborhood,and is doing very well. milwaukee has the public market which has tons of local organic foods. bf got some meat there that was out of this world in taste.
organic meat demand is growing because many cooking shows are promoting buying locally and organicly. it's even been on oprah, the difference in taste of organic foods, including meat. most of the cooking shows that i watch, encourage organic meats. my family is starting to cook with organic meats, my friends cook with organics...they feel better about their foods and thinks it has a better taste

point being, the organic meat industry is growing and cannot be so easily dismissed...maybe now you can, but i would argue against it at least in this concientious forum.

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


IcarusGOLD Member
member
165 posts
Location: Australia


Posted:
Dave, much admiration hug

... simplify ...


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: faithinfire



actually, there is growing demand for organic meats.

a store just opened in my neighborhood,and is doing very well. milwaukee has the public market which has tons of local organic foods. bf got some meat there that was out of this world in taste.

organic meat demand is growing because many cooking shows are promoting buying locally and organicly. it's even been on oprah, the difference in taste of organic foods, including meat. most of the cooking shows that i watch, encourage organic meats. my family is starting to cook with organic meats, my friends cook with organics...they feel better about their foods and thinks it has a better taste



point being, the organic meat industry is growing and cannot be so easily dismissed...maybe now you can, but i would argue against it at least in this concientious forum.





I'm not dismissing organic meat- no-one in this thread is dismissing it.



In my previous post, I gave credit to those who eat organic meat rather than intensively farmed meat.



What i was pointing out was that, in reply to posts claiming that vegans were behind the destruction of forests cleared for soy bean production, that, in reality, most of that soy was to feed intensively farmed livestock.



On that issue, which is the one I was dealing with, organic meat production is irrelevant.



In this thread, I am arguing that-



a diet consisting of intensively farmed meat (which currently constitutes the vast majority of meat bought) is more damaging than a vegan diet



I'm not commenting on organic meat, other than to state the obvious, that, in it's current state, of course it is less damaging that intensively farmed meat.



(With the reservation, that many here have pointed out, that organic meat production on the same scale as current intensive meat production, would likely not be viable).

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
I've been pretty diplomatic in this thread, despite having the strong feeling that i'm banging my head against a brick wall smile



I've put off saying what I'm about to say, cos it's likely to not be taken too well by some.



But, it needs to be said-



I'm fairly shocked at what seems to be a fundamental ability of many of the pro-meaters here, to engage in basic reason, to address fairly straightforward points that I've made and just to engage in any kind of reasonable discussion/debate.



Instead you seem to just go off on extraordinary side-issues that, in the main, have no bearing on the point you're aiming to address.



Denial and avoidance seem to be the main strategies.



I'm not going to say it's frustrating, cos, obviously, i'm still sticking with it and could choose to leave it if I wished.



But, I want you to know that my motivation at this point is not to try and convince the pro-meaters here, or change their minds, or even to try and get them to examine their basic reasoning ability.



Cos there's no point. nothing I can say is going to get them to look at their basic beliefs, or question them.



I'm still here cos this is a public thread and, when I spend my time replying to these pro-meaters 'arguments', I'm not doing so with the belief that they'll either listen, or understand, what I'm saying.



It's for those who stumble in here out of interest, or from an internet search.



I would suggest to the pro-meaters, that they reflect on the fact that I'm getting some occasional credit on this thread, not cos they necessarily agree with me, or because they support veganism/vegetarianism, but, purely and simply cos i'm making sense and engaging with the debating process.



And the pro-meaters opposing me, aren't.



And that's my comfort here, in this innane denial that the pro-meaters are putting forth, they're doing far more to damage their pro-meat cause, than any vegan ever could.



(Again, let me remind, that the above does not apply to organic-meat eaters).
EDITED_BY: onewheeldave (1173224407)

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
i don't think you are the only one who feels like they are banging their head against a wall because people won't listen
pro-meat have been discounted simply because what we see as acceptable, anti-meat does not
one might even say it's discrimination smile
this is no different than the flying thread...some people fly and hurt the environment, other people eat meat
and personally, discounting the strawberries is a bit rash. these illegal wells are significantly reducing the water table according to the article, thereby not just hurting the land the strawberries are on but other land lower on the water table. they are grown as organic foods, but are hurting the environment...
for us the environmental cost of eating meat, we consider as acceptable as those who fly
as i said, for the most part, i do not fly, and shall continue to eat meat in moderation

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


StoneGOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia


Posted:
Dave, this discussion could go on forever. To me, the debate is not about pointing the finger at vegans or meat eaters, but more about transforming the current environmental problems.

Never the less, a few points:

Vegans have to eat at least five times as much food to get the same amount of protein as meat eaters.

As you say :
 Written by:

Soya's main use in the UK is as feed for livestock. After the oil has been extracted the resulting high-protein meal is widely used in animal feed, forming an essential fuel for intensively reared cattle, pigs and poultry.



As far a soy beans go, the bulk of the soybeans are grown for oil production, with the high-protein defatted and "toasted" soy meal used as livestock feed ie. the soy meal is fed to animals after the oil has been extracted.

I think you are pointing the finger at the grain fed meat industry. Cows, sheep and other ruminants are designed to eat grass, which is pretty indigestible, that’s why the have four stomachs. In Australia, most red meat would come from sheep or cows grazing perennial pastures. While some areas produce organic meat in a natural system, most would not be strictly organic, though they would have a low environmental impact.


wink

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: faithinfire





pro-meat have been discounted simply because what we see as acceptable, anti-meat does not

one might even say it's discrimination smile





One might, if one was semi-paranoid, unable to deal with basic reason and intent on avoiding addressing the truth smile



But, in reality, it's not discrimination- no one is discounting the opinions of meat-eaters; we're simply exposing any invalid arguments they may put forward that claim that (non-organic) meat production isn't more harmful than the vegan alternative.





 Written by: faithinfire



and personally, discounting the strawberries is a bit rash. these illegal wells are significantly reducing the water table according to the article, thereby not just hurting the land the strawberries are on but other land lower on the water table. they are grown as organic foods, but are hurting the environment...

for us the environmental cost of eating meat, we consider as acceptable as those who fly

as i said, for the most part, i do not fly, and shall continue to eat meat in moderation





Discounting the strawberries?!?



I'm not going to waste my time bothering (again) to remind you of why strawberries are of no relevance to the issue of (non-organic) meat production being more desctructive than veganism.



Well done for not flying and for moderating your meat intake- by doing so you're reducing harm and that's to be commended.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: Stone




Vegans have to eat at least five times as much food to get the same amount of protein as meat eaters.





your point being?

 Written by:


As you say :
 Written by:

Soya's main use in the UK is as feed for livestock. After the oil has been extracted the resulting high-protein meal is widely used in animal feed, forming an essential fuel for intensively reared cattle, pigs and poultry.



As far a soy beans go, the bulk of the soybeans are grown for oil production, with the high-protein defatted and "toasted" soy meal used as livestock feed ie. the soy meal is fed to animals after the oil has been extracted.





Good, now you're making a reasonable point- as you say, they're grown for oil production and the remainder is used for animal feed.

Just two problems-

1. who uses the oil.

If soy oil was primarily used by vegans, you'd have an argument, however-

https://www.talksoy.com/FoodIndustry/oOil.htm

 Written by:


Soybean oil is the world's most widely used edible oil. In the United States, soybean oil accounts for nearly 80% of edible oil consumption.

Almost all margarine and shortenings contain soybean oil. It also is frequently found in mayonnaise, salad dressings, frozen foods, imitation dairy and meat products and commercially baked goods.




it's used by everyone, vegan and meat-eater alike.

Whereas your original post seemed to be saying that soya production was primarily due to vegan demand.

2. if it wasn't used for oil, chances are it would still be used for animal feed- there's got to be some reason why it's used for feeding animals in preference to grass.

 Written by:



I think you are pointing the finger at the grain fed meat industry. Cows, sheep and other ruminants are designed to eat grass, which is pretty indigestible, that’s why the have four stomachs.

wink



Whatever they're designed for, the fact is that they get what they're given and, in the vast majority of cases (organic animals aside) it ain't grass, it's soya.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
i think affecting the spanish water table is a valid point-& that people should be concerned where their produce comes from

just because you don't see it as a valid point does not make it so, just like you seem to think your valid points are so, and we might not

did that make sense wink

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
It makes sense.

If strawberry growth in that area affects the water table adversly, then, yes, that's an issue.

But what's it got to do with [non-organic] meat vs veganism?

1. meat-eaters eat as much strawberries as vegans, it's thus an everyone problem, not a vegan one.

2. vegans and, in general, everyone (vegan or not), consume very small amounts of strawberries. for most they're an occasional treat.

Strawberry production is in no way comaparable to the scale of meat/animal product production and it's environemtal effects are miniscule in comaparison.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
well, if strawberries are produced in this manner...it stands to follow that other produce might benefit from illegal wells
natural or organic may not always mean better

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: faithinfire


well, if strawberries are produced in this manner...it stands to follow that other produce might benefit from illegal wells





It might, equally it might not.

I've no doubt that much of the fruit and veg most vegans eat does have a bigger carbon footprint than needs to have.

Again, it's pretty irrelevant to the vegan vs meat issue as-

1. meat eaters eat fruit and veg too

2. more important, as meat eaters, they, in effect, consume 10 x the plant matter vegans do cos of what their meat animals consume.

Do you understand that?

The fact that whatever harm a vegan causes by eating plants, a meat eater causes approx 10 x that harm cause, via their meat animals, they're using far more plants than a vegan.

Once you take that on board, then any pro-meat argument relying on the fact that plant production causes harm, is rendered invalid.


 Written by: faithinfire


natural or organic may not always mean better



I agree, i've never said that natural or organic always means better- natural can often be worse, organic can be worse in some ways.

No arguement from me, I agree with you.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
it's not really an argument, now that i think about it
it's a lifestyle choice, like smoking, drinking, drugs; maybe just not to the same degree
you can argue with a smoker till you're blue in the face, chances are you cannot convince them to quit
i do not think to eat meat is that outrageous of a choice.
i like vegetables, i like meat, my body can handle eat both

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
I've no problem with people eating a bit of meat- as I've said before, I'm no longer vegan or veggie as I eat occasional fish fingers.

The only things I've really argued against on this thread are the examples of invalid reasoning put forward to try to show that the meat industry (intensive) doesn't cause harm, or that it causes less harm than veganism.

For the 'lifestyle choice'.... I'm not going to get into that now: some previous posts queried it on the grounds that, due to the profound environmental effect, it went beyond lifestyle choice cos it affects future generations.

You're right that you can't convince a smoker to quit- however, you can point out, if they're willing to listen, rational arguements that can show up some of the delusional habitual thought patterns that maintain their addiction; thereby helping them to quit.

(which I have done, on several occasions, leading to (or at least contributing to) them becoming ex-smokers).

But yeah, when it comes to eating a bit of meat, that's your choice, i have no issue with that- the only thing I've quibbled with is the validity of some of the stuff put forward as justification.

If you're happy with your choice, you don't need to justify it and you certainly don't need to be backing some of the really dodgy arguments put forward by the pro-meat industry.

Just be happy with what you're happy with.

I hope you've not felt that my rather direct assualt on some of the reasoning put forward in this thread has been in any way an attempt to put you down as a person.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
i'm happy

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
This seems to be a perpetuum mobile.

Personally I do not feel neither attacked, nor a guilt pattern put on me specifically, because I'm okay with my diet (which occasionally includes animals and their products) - I just voiced my feelings, as I do not think that a guilt pattern or ego battling would have the preferred effects. As nobody seems to (intentionally) do that anyways - shrug it means that you're safe on this one.

But vast generalisations have to be specified:

ubbidea "Vegans" (in their choice of diet) are causing less harm than meat-eaters (with the exception for organically "grown") confused ubblol wink

Whether or not and if, to which extent the works of Bob Geldof really helped Africa is a well disputed topic, completely off the current. I'm not getting into this.

However: a vegan, who is killing humans, is - imho - certainly not much of a better guy, than for say a meat-eating fire-fighter.

"Goodness" isn't exclusively determined by the choice of food and a vegan diet is not automatically providing you free passage at the pearly gates.

This thread seems to have turned into a 100% approval of the vegan or vegetarian diet, as such completely dismissing the topic: "Plants do have feelings, too". Now despite the fact that vegetarians or vegans (in their choice of diet) are having less impact and cause less suffering to both, animals and plants than a meat-based diet (which in essence was never the dispute - I reckon), they still do cause more unnecessary suffering than a fruitarian (if he limits himself to locally grown fruits). wink

All this - to me - sounds much like some kind of "Kyoto protocol on suffering": thee who causes least (unnecessary) harm (which is good, but even better if not exclusively outside their own species that is - whereas it also diminishes unnecessary human suffering, if butchers would not be forced to work in (such) a killing machine)... biggrin

It somehow amazes me, how much compassion some seem to find for animals and plants, but seem to be without a spark of empathy for their own kind... Funny too, that some seem to be so very passionate in highlighting the "vegetarian choice " - as the arguments against a (well balanced) vegetarian diet obviously derive from ignorance.

Not only because it damages the planet and causes unnecessary harm, but as most meat contains (stress) hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides, etc. Plant products also contain these, but mostly in a lower concentration. A "regular" meat-eater poisons his own body - not to speak of cholesterol etc.

But maybe you're right: If the "health argument" doesn't make ppl change their dietary habits, maybe the "suffering argument", or the (neverpresent) "guilt factor" might. And in a war (against suffering) all means are a valid option.

wink

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


PyrolificBRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia


Posted:
my goodness we have a sorry state of affairs here in this thread.



There's Dave arguing a very well defined point, that almost no-one seems capable of engaging with (except Stone, on and off).



Summarised: All things equal, veganism is better for the environment.



Two people: Dream and FireTom are attacking the basis of Dave's argument - that you simply cant make and assess statements like that because its too reductionist.



Stone seems to be attacking Dave's argument from a perspective that ranges from somewhere between the anti-reductionist / individualist to even toe to toe with Dave's argument.



Then theres FaithinFire who seems to be throwing in extremely specialised pieces of information about strawberries, and then reaching conclusions based on that, that the whole debate boils down to personal preference. Unfortunately the evidence about strawberries goes nowhere near supporting a conclusion that eating meat is a personal preference.



Have I misrepresented anyone?



I think that the only way for this debate to move forward is for the main players to look at whether or not its valid to make and assess statements like Veganism is better for the Environment.



Personally I think its perfectly valid.



ie - no matter how many lives a firefighter saves, it doesnt alter the carbon footprint of the big mac he ate for lunch - he still contributes to global warming.



He may still go to Heaven or be a hero - but his carbon footprint stays the same. Goodness in one behaviour doesnt balance badness in an unrelated other. Apples and Oranges n that.



If its valid to make statements like Dave's "vegan = positive environmental outcomes" statement then you must then accept his argument, its water tight. And coming up with exceptions like "What about the organic meat farms???" just shoot more holes in contrary arguments - because you are using evidence with minimal weight against an argument with solid support.



The only way I can see to counter Daves argument is to attack the basis of its formation (ie can you or can you not make statements like that). Trying to counter the evidence involved with is argument is fruitless ( ubblol).

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!


Page: ...

Similar Topics No similar topics were found
      Show more..

HOP Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more...