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:
 Written by: FireTom





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







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











Yes, your'e right- I've at no point said or implied anything that suggests otherwise.



I've made very, very, very clear, on multiple occasions, exactly what I am arguing for- check my previous posts, especially the parts highlighted in bold smile









 Written by: FireTom





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".







I didn't dismiss it- I proved that it was of no use whatsoever in justifying meat-eating; on the grounds that, if plant suffering exists, then meat-eaters are the main perpetrators of it.



Not a dismissal, more a disproval smile







 Written by: FireTom



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





Good, you agree that vegans cause less harm; thank you for clarifying your position on that.



You may well be right that fruitarians cause less suffering than vegans, i don't know, it's not something I've dealt with in this thread.



Two relevant issues are that-



1. fruitarianism is not a viable long-term diet, in health terms (unlike veganism).



2. fruitarianism for UK-ers would, of necessity, require imported fruit.



Most vegans eat imported food, but, if they wished, they could eat primarily local stuff.



But mainly it's the fact that 100% fruitarian diet cannot sustain health over the long term.

"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:
duplicate post deletion

"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!


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
ubblol ubblol ubblol



The thread's allright, I reckon wink



OWD: Exactly that might explain the western/ European diet, which is based upon meat for a fair bit: You can't sustain yourself (especially in winter)...



Now these habits have developed over a few aeons and it ain't easy to adjust within one generation, is it? The meat-problem origins in Europe and it's ex-colonies, the others do either not produce enough meat, or are simply gifted with a climate warm enough to produce fruits and veggies all year round.



Would you reckon humans can survive on fruits IF they add artificial supplements, or you don't? Excuse me if I have missed that bit out... Woud it be a fair diet?

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


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


Posted:
 Written by: FireTom



OWD: Exactly that might explain the western/ European diet, which is based upon meat for a fair bit: You can't sustain yourself (especially in winter)...

Now these habits have developed over a few aeons and it ain't easy to adjust within one generation, is it? The meat-problem origins in Europe and it's ex-colonies, the others do either not produce enough meat, or are simply gifted with a climate warm enough to produce fruits and veggies all year round.




Where eskimos living in the trad way are concerned, vegetarianism is an impossible diet- they have to eat meat to survive.

I've often thought that, for Tibetan buddhists, their climate probably goes some way to explaining why, unlike the majority of buddhists, they don't tend to be vegetarians.

(because of the buddhist emphasis on causation and consequence, vegetarianism has always been common in the tradition).

In the UK/USA/Europe in the 21st century, of course vegetarianism is no problem whatsoever.

As most vegetarians know, it's a complete myth that it's in any way difficult to be a vegetarian.

Of course you're right, that cos of culture/tradition, it's often seen as difficult by non-veggies.


 Written by: FireTom




Would you reckon humans can survive on fruits IF they add artificial supplements, or you don't? Excuse me if I have missed that bit out... Woud it be a fair diet?



I don't know- very much depends on just what constitutes 'supplementation' (eg, would protein supplementation count or fat supplemention?).

Is it a fair diet?- for westeners there is a issue as most tasty fruit carries a substantial carbon footprint (eg bananas, satsumas etc, etc) due to the shipping.

Maybe, in theory, in the future, with extensive bio-domes, it could be a non-harmful alternative, but, for now, there are clear issues.

Vegetarianism, is a totally viable diet- accepted by the medical profession as a healthy diet and, in general, less harmful to both animals and environemt than a meat-based diet.

(With some reservations eg, as mentioned in this thread, much vegetable/fruits are shipped long distance and, in terms of animal suffering, the factory-egg industry is horrifically cruel).

It's also a firmly diet established with a significant minority of the west being vegetarian and with extensive infrastucture to supply that demand (cafes, specialist veggie foods etc).

Veganism is even less harmful and, with some extra care and caution, a viable and healthy diet.

(Though far more of a minority diet and less culturally accepted.)

It could well become more popular as the more ethically focused vegetarians start to question some of the bad aspects of egg/dairy production.

Fruitarianism is not accepted as a healthy long-term diet by the medical profession, in general it is seen as a crank diet, it often attracts individuals with issues or those who are outright disfunctional (who may also be led to breatharianism for example).

(Breatharianism being the view that a person can survive without any food or water whatsoever).

Most fruitarians, though initially often doing well on the diet, tend, if they take it long term, to experience extreme cravings and end up binging on, in particualar avocados (for their high fat content) and dates (for their high sugar content).

Denial is also common at that stage with some binging secretly on non-fruitarian foods; there are also recorded instances of ridiculous distortion where, for example, a fruitarian starts eating eggs, on the basis that they are 'hen-fruit' smile

I'm not going to diss fruitarianism completety cos, as I said, I've not much experience or knowledge of it.

Here's a link to a page on it (covers pros and cons but is mainly critical of it)-

https://www.transbay.net/~teb/fruitarian/fruitarian-1.html

Certainly though, I see vegetarianism and veganism as both practical, and excellent alternatives to a meat-based one; I don't see fruitarianism as being practical in that way.

Beyond all that, of course, is the option of being almost vegetarian or vegan.

I feel that it can often be helpful to become veggie or vegan for a period cos to simply, as a regular meat eater, try to 'cut-down' can be problematic as you could be susceptible to troublesome cravings.

A successful year as a vegan will 'clear' such cravings, making maintaining a healthy, environmentially friendly, primarily vegan but including occasional animal produce, very easy and straightforward.

Then it's a matter of maintaining an inquiring and aware attitude when it comes to food- for example, i was shocked to find out that, in the egg industry 'de-beaking' (removal of the hens beak to prevent it pecking other hens) is actually more common in 'free-range' hens than in intensively farmed ones.

Luckily, I live near a supplier who get their eggs from a farm where no hens are de-beaked, so I do eat eggs, but never from a supermarket or anywhere else (whatever they're labelled as)- I get them only from this trusted source.

"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!


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


Posted:
What I object to in this debate is this attitude that vegans/vegetarians are holier-than-thou, and are not part of the problem. I think it’s ridiculous to suggest " that it’s undeniable that the vegan causes less harm, both environmentally and in terms of animal suffering, than does the meat-eater.” Because it’s a negative statement that polarises the community and does little to solve the problem. It suggests that meat-eaters don’t care for the environment and are cruel.

The statement is also speculation because it’s only an opinion, and there is no supporting evidence. While it might be true that a meat-based food system requires more energy, land and water resources than a plant-based food system. However, it’s all part of the same food system, and the Western food system whether meat-based or plant-based is not sustainable (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 2003)

Many arguments are floored because thy lack a basic understanding of agriculture (plant and animal based food systems), how food is processed and ultimately utilised. For example it’s bean suggested that for some “miraculous” reason vegans/vegetarians in the UK would not consume soybeans from Brazil. However, it says in the quoted article “In 1998 the UK imported over 2,000,000 tonnes of soya products, mainly from the USA and Brazil, over half for animal feed.” To me, that says slightly under a million tons of soybeans are going for human consumption (who else apart from vegans eats bean curd wink. Also it’s often the by-products and the low grades of grain that are used for livestock. And somehow, livestock grazed on pasture is omitted from the discussion.

People need to work together on this one. Which to me is a bit like Mother Teresa saying she would not support an anti-war rally, however, she would support a peace rally. If you support an anti-war rally then you accept war



ubbrollsmile

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


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


Posted:
hmmm confusion has sprung also through the double barrelled question: environment harm and moral harm through causation of unnecessary suffering. Two different kinds of harm.

Now - if we suggest that environmental impact behaviours can offset each other, can we also suggest that moral behaviours offset each other? cuz if so - FireTom's Hero who eats meat argument has some merit.

Doesnt impact on the environmental aspect however.

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


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


Posted:
 Written by: Stone


What I object to in this debate is this attitude that vegans/vegetarians are holier-than-thou, and are not part of the problem. I think it’s ridiculous to suggest " that it’s undeniable that the vegan causes less harm, both environmentally and in terms of animal suffering, than does the meat-eater.” Because it’s a negative statement that polarises the community and does little to solve the problem. It suggests that meat-eaters don’t care for the environment and are cruel.




I think that, overall, this thread has now achieved a fair degree of resolution and understanding, so all I'll say on this is that it's been well covered, I totally disagree with it, i'm happy for you to continue believing it and I'm not going to engage with you on that issue any longer.

 Written by:

The statement is also speculation because it’s only an opinion, and there is no supporting evidence. While it might be true that a meat-based food system requires more energy, land and water resources than a plant-based food system. However, it’s all part of the same food system...




Pretty much the same as above, as far as I'm concerend there's abundant evidence and reasoning all through this very thread- you obviously can't see it and so there's no point me going over it yet again.

 Written by:

For example it’s bean suggested that for some “miraculous” reason vegans/vegetarians in the UK would not consume soybeans from Brazil. However, it says in the quoted article “In 1998 the UK imported over 2,000,000 tonnes of soya products, mainly from the USA and Brazil, over half for animal feed.” To me, that says slightly under a million tons of soybeans are going for human consumption (who else apart from vegans eats bean curd




I'll briefly address this one (again)-

from-

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.




ie the majoriity of the remaining soy not used for meat production is used in products for general foods- those eaten routinely by meat-eaters as well as vegans.

So, in answer to your question-

 Written by:


'To me, that says slightly under a million tons of soybeans are going for human consumption (who else apart from vegans eats bean curd '




bean curd is a minority use of soy, the people who eat the soy from the forests are everyone, mainly meat-eaters, as they outnumber vegans considerably.


I've posted that quote before, in a direct reply to the last time you raised the point- I'm now through with trying to explain the exact same points in imaginativley different ways- all the issues you're raising have been answered multiple times on this thread, mostly by me- simply read through the thread, the answers to all the questions you're re-raising, are all there.

"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!


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


Posted:
Dave, while you might have convinced yourself, you argument is flawed because it’s a gross generalization, and you are only looking at one aspect of life. I share a house with a vegetarian, and while he might not eat meat, he derives a clapped out car that pollutes the environment, he takes half 20 min showers and leaves light switches on.

We all have blind spots, so to state categorically that vegan/vegetarians cause less harm environmentally because they don’t eat meat, is ludicrous. It is probable, especially since the movie An Inconvenient Truth swept the world, that meat eaters are doing more to reduce their impact on the environment, than perhaps their vegan cousins.

You need to look at the big picture here. As all you arguments seem to be based around meat, you miss most of the picture. You also seem to think that vegan/vegetarians aren’t part of an unsustainable agricultural system and there is this other agricultural system out there that grows special vegan soy beans


smile

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:
Seriously Stone- read the previous posts:

the things you seem to think I'm saying are things that I've not said; the claims you seem to think I'm making, are claims that I've not made.

I've done my absolute best to clarify and explain how what i am claiming differs from what you think I'm claiming.... and it's been futile.

Re-read the posts- it's all in there.

"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!


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


Posted:
Stone - Dave has never claimed that Vegans are better people overall - just the consumption of vegetables instead of meat causes less harm. ie Usually, in a realistic non-extreme context, a Vegan diet causes less harm than a meat based one.

It would apply the same to goldfish as it does to Humans.

If you are suggesting that making such a point alienates meat-eaters then you seem to be 'closing shoulders' with FireTom's 'guilt-pattern' argument.

Unfortunately I equate the guilt-pattern argument to be an argument in support of the status quo, and /or sticking your head in the sand. If your driving down a dead end, is it better to turn back as soon as you know and perhaps get a bit angry or dissappointed that you have to backtrack a bit, or is it better to carry on your merry way all the way to the end of the road, and THEN have to backtrack all the way? Surely its better to know sooner and make the change sooner - even if it causes difficulty sooner?

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


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


Posted:
Thanks Pyro and, thanks to all the others who have done the same.

Stone, in all seriousness and, totally aside from this argument/discussion on veganism, I genuinely advise you to think about what pyro and several others have said.

Nothing to do with meat, veganism etc, but on your fundamental approach to these kind of debates.

I'm having to be careful with my choice of words, cos obviously, you're likely to doubt my objectivity.

But, I think if you look at my posting history, on those occasions where someone does make a valid point, I generally acknowledge that and, it it proves me wrong, i admit it and change my view.

Hopefully, seeing that will encourage you to see that, in suggesting you take a deep look at your approach to debate, that I'm sincere and trying to be helpful.

It's so frustrating that, just as we're actually getting somewhere on the soy issue and, make no mistake, the point we were getting to is the point where you would have had to either withdraw the soy/forest stuff as being a valid arg against vegans, or, put something else in to validate it- at that point, you cease to engage with the soy issue and drag in your envirionmentally destructive veggie flat-mate!

Out of sheer, in nothing else, politeness, if you raise an issue, at least follow it through, even if (in fact especially if) it ends up showing that you were wrong.

There's nothing wrong with being wrong, unless the person who is wrong goes into denial about it.

These debates aren't competitions, they're about coming to the truth and engaging in a process which may result in the participant coming out with a different opinion than the one they went in with.

In my honest opinion, not just in this thread, but in many others, you seriously let yourself down and walk away from them with a lot less than you could have done.

"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:
maybe if we just focus on our own carbon (and moral) imprint, however we chose to do so
eating meat is a choice, not doing so is too, each has environmental and moral implications
and as for me discussing the organic meat, it is a growing field of consumption, and i would argue probably more so in this forum and will not and perhaps now cannot be so easily dismissed as an exception
and i was just wondering about the veg. stance on it, because it does encompass both moral and environmental issues

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:
Fair points Pyro, thanks for creating a clearing. I don’t mind rubbing shoulders with Fire Tom hug While there are some guilt/moral aspects to this debate, I’m not going to get into a moral debate.

Dave, there are two sides to every story, and from my point of view you seem to keep shifting the goal posts until the ball goes through.

For example,
 Written by:

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



becomes

 Written by:

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



While this could be seen as clarification, to me the first statement is a broad sweeping generalization that may or may not be true. The second statement while hard to dismiss, is not completely accurate.

Intensively farmed meat does not form the vast majority of meat consumed in Australia or in many parts of America for that matter. Most of the meat produced in Australia comes from low input perennial pasture based grazing systems. It should be noted that no plants are actually killed in a perennial pasture based grazing system as the plants are perennial. Excluding the growing number of people who consume organic meat also narrows the debate.

As far as the environment goes, it’s not meat production that is killing the Australia environment. Rather, it’s the shift from low input sustainable grazing systems to growing irrigated crops like cotton, rice and soy that is causing all the environmental problems in Murray Darling basin river system. This river system is the heart of Australia, and people who live in Adelaide would be acutely aware of this crisis.

I think it's completely incorrect to say
 Written by:

Whatever they're designed for (ruminants/cows), 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.



Perhaps you mean in the UK, and this could be where the confusion arises - generalising what’s happening in the UK to the rest of the world.

You say that
 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.



This does not mean that animals are fed whole beans.

I’ll clarify this again by saying almost all soybeans harvested throughout the world are processed to oil and meal products. Dave as you quoted “The animal feed industry uses 77% of the soybean meal produced primarily as an amino acid and protein source in diets.” It’s the soy meal or cake that is fed to animals, not the oil. The valuable oil is used for producing products for human consumption, many of which are used as substitutes for meat and other animal products. And yes, as soy is used as a meat substitute, i’ll happily agree that meat-eaters consume less soy beans than vegans.

So, the bottom line for me is objectivity.

Have a good weekend smile


soapbox

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


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
*rubs shoulder* wink

I tried to put it across many times: I am pro vegetarian, I do support this choice of diet and do acknowledge the environmental impact. Personally I favour a diet which includes anything I like to eat (without a moral stance) when I like to eat it. It turns out that meat is anything but a regular part of it.

The majority of arguments against a meat-based diet are obvious and valid - to me. Glad to have solved the topic of "blind spots".

OWD - are we now clear upon the "generalisation issue"? umm wink ubblol

To suppress "cravings" - IMHO - is not a healthy choice.

Growing up in Germany - especially Bavaria - being vegetarian AND eating out means salad, beans and not eve soups. Things have gotten better in the meantime, but not really to a solid extent. Compare Bavaria and Texas and you may get the right idea. It just doesn't help to batter their heads and tell them about the moral aspects of meat, whilst their forks are toppled with it..

As soon as Schwarzenegger outs himself as a veggie (always been one), the bavarian population will be more likely to re-consider. So far many vegetarians do not serve as an example of body-sculpturing...

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


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


Posted:
Hi Fire Tom wave

I’ve done some more back peddling and this an edited version of my last post.

Ok Dave, I totally accept that it's undeniable that the vegan causes less harm, both environmentally and in terms of animal suffering, than does the meat-eater. However, I don’t see how that statement makes a difference or improves the environment. To me it’s divides the community.

There are many examples where meat production is environmentally sustainable, both in Australia and America. Most of the red meat produced in Australia comes from low input perennial pasture based grazing systems. I read recently that if America farmers moved away from grain feeing animals in intensive feed lots to low input grazing systems then they would cut energy inputs for 10 times down to 5 times.

As far as the environment goes, it’s not meat production that is killing the Australia environment. Rather, it’s the shift from grazing systems to growing irrigated crops like cotton, rice and soy. I think consumers should be aware that there is high environmental cost in the production of all food, including meat as well as staples used in vegan/vegetarian diets.

It is also interesting to observe that in intensive feed lots animals are not generally fed whole grain as such. Soybean is are oilseed, and all soybeans harvested throughout the world are processed to oil and meal products. The oil is used for producing products for human consumption, many of which are used as substitutes for meat and other animal products. The soy meal or cake is a valuable by product that is included in feed lot mixes to provide protein.

I hope that claries the situation 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


PsyriSILVER Member
artisan
1,576 posts
Location: Berkshire, UK


Posted:
Consider with the Biofuel obsession popping up in America now Soya consumption will also go through the roof, as are wheat and rapeseed.

There are always a million + 1 factors to consider at least smile

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


Posted:
 Written by: Stone


Hi Fire Tom wave

I’ve done some more back peddling and this an edited version of my last post.

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



OK.... I'm a little surprised.

Or perhaps, more accurately, perplexed and wondering what exactly has led to your change of mind?

However, I'll just take it that we're now in agreement over the vegan/harm issue.

 Written by: Stone


However, I don’t see how that statement makes a difference or improves the environment. To me it’s divides the community.




To me, the maim value is that it's information- all those considering becoming vegan can weigh up the objective pros/cons better once they know the facts.

Same with those wishing to lower their environmental harm and looking for ways to do so, one of which may be adopting a vegan or near-vegan diet.

If, in contrast-
 Written by:


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



is something that's unclear in their head, that they think it may not be true, then they have to go through the torturous process that this thread has done, before they can reach any valid decisions.

(I should say here, that their decision may not include becoming vegan- yet, understanding clearly that veganity=less harm, could well lead them to, what is, IMO, for many, the more practical objective of simply moving closer to being a vegan ie eating a lot less animal produce without entirely cutting it out.

Personally, I dont think it does divide a community- like i said before, there's not much can be done if a portion of a group react negatively to established and undeniable facts.

"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:
Stone- as you say, all food product categories are involved in environmetal harm, both meat and plant based.

A vegan who focuses on being aware of precisely where their food comes from and it impact- who endevours to, as far as possible, stick to locally grown produce, will cause less harm than the vegan who doesn't.

Same with meat-eaters.

"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!


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
In society we need to trust our neighbour that he carries out his profession according to best faith and existing laws, no?



If the laws are flawed and do not prevent negative impact on the consumers and environment, they need to be adjusted.



In a society we cannot expect the consumer to make a days worth of research in order to completely find out about the (environmental) impact a certain product has. This is why there are "food and drug administrations". We can't expect everybody to first take a look into the kitchen and inquire with the chef, whether or not the meat is from sustainable farming.



But we need to raise awareness, that the brothers and sisters in the meat industry are taking their approach to an unsustainable level and we need to correct that - the sooner the better.



Maybe we're doing that here already, but maybe we indeed should take this into a butchers shop, supermarket or restaurant - ask loud and sound, so everybody around can hear us. And if the answer is insufficient, we need to walk away (without a steak or sausage) and the head held up straight in dignity.



Being vegetarian is not the only possible answer to this.



And - just as a reminder - IF you're environmentally concerned - keep your hands off Chinese products... wink



[edit] Stone, thanks smile I'm taking every pad on my shoulder and stroke over my head these days rolleyes
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1173847081)

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


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


Posted:
Hi Dave, I had to change my mind to get something out of the discussion. I suppose I relate becoming a vegan to someone putting in the commitment as in the last five of Buddha’s Ten Precepts. I think I’m in the middle, and I’m happy with the ideal of eating a lot less animal produce. I haven’t been on online every day because I haven’t had a home connection until this week.

Yes, for sure Fire Tom it’s a process of raising awareness, and speaking up for sustainability.

beerchug

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


sagetreeGOLD Member
organic creation
246 posts
Location: earth, Wales (UK)


Posted:
just wanted to say that i really enjoy this thread, thanks

CharlesBRONZE Member
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand


Posted:
Me too, Sagetree.

----

HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
And just now I'm reading about the "water factor".... rolleyes meaning "how much water does a product need, in order to be produced"?...



Comparison:



1 cup of coffee - 140 litres (the beans have to be washed)

1 T-shirt - 2.000 litres (cotton needs water)

1 kg of Steak - 14.000 litres (a cow drinks approx 100 l/ day)



According to UNESCO, consumers should also watch out for the water imprint on products, not only carbon...



shrug what to do?



Ah, besides: OECD predicts a rise in meat "production" until 2015 of about 23%, to a total of 316 Million tons/ year (dunno how many animals that is). Four fifth of this raise will be happening in Asian countries, predominantly China. But despite this, our Chinese sisters and brothers will only consume 55kgs of meat per head and year, whilst our USAmerican relatives will consume MORE THAN 100kgs per head and year, which is about 3 TIMES MORE THAN THE WORLD AVERAGE...



Guys, please - put veggies on your barbie...



PS: If nobody has posted it yet



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1174026826)

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


PsyriSILVER Member
artisan
1,576 posts
Location: Berkshire, UK


Posted:
As it is with everything tho... everything in moderation

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


Posted:
Personally I wouldn't eat it and I suspect many veggies wouldn't either, purely because, like the majority of veggies/vegans, not eating meat is not a hardship or deprival.

Most people who go without meat for an extended length of time simply enjoy their diet as it is- I know that meat-eaters often see veggies as being self-deprivers hiding meat-cravings, but, it simply isn't true.

My initial feelings on meat-eaters switching to artificially produced meat are that it would be a good thing in terms of cutting down animal suffering and good for the environment (subject to a change of opinion as more facts about the process come through).

However, i suspect that uptake amonst committed/high-volumemeat-eaters will be limited as, without wanting to generalise-

1. they often tend to be a bit finicky and fussy about their food

2. they generally don't particularly care about animal suffering (evidenced by thier high meat-consumption) and either don't care, or are in denial, about the environmetal effects of meat-production

3. despite eating mainly intensively farmed meat, they often seem to have romantic fantasies about animals living in luxurious organic conditions, or about hunting thier own animals: lumps of animal cells clumped together in a test-tube will lilely not sit well with their fantasies.

(before anyone goes nuts over any of that, please bear in mind that I'm referring to committed/high-volumemeat-eaters).

More moderate meat-eaters, who do care about animal welfare and the environement, may well be more open to using lab meat.

"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 wouldn't eat it if it was from stem cells

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:
 Written by: onewheeldave



Personally I wouldn't eat it and I suspect many veggies wouldn't either, purely because, like the majority of veggies/vegans, not eating meat is not a hardship or deprival.





... but what is it then? umm If that meat is produced w/o any animal suffering and environmental impact - what's still wrong with it? Let me suspect further dis-veggie-proval of "carnevalies", if such meat is on the market and ppl do consume it...



 Written by: OWD

Most people who go without meat for an extended length of time simply enjoy their diet as it is- I know that meat-eaters often see veggies as being self-deprivers hiding meat-cravings, but, it simply isn't true.





Another vast generalisation, that is invalid and erroneous in itself.



I have seen veggies turn back to all-eaters in pregnancy after years of vegetarianism, I have many meat-eating friends, who have NO such opinion of their veggie friends - this statement is simply not true.



I admit, that a fair share of the (uneducated and ignorant, self righteous) meat eating community do justify their own cravings with an attitude like that, the exact same applies to the (uneducated and ignorant, self righteous) veggie-community, who regard meat-eaters as "low-lives"...



Certainly there are all colours of the rainbow in it and there are as certainly "self-deprivers" inside the veggie community, but I guess it's just as the "dedicated meat eater" (at this point) cannot imagine himself w/o supplies of meat. Much like the SUV driver who can't relate to the idea of driving a VW Rabbit.



 Written by: OWD



My initial feelings on meat-eaters switching to artificially produced meat are that it would be a good thing in terms of cutting down animal suffering and good for the environment (subject to a change of opinion as more facts about the process come through).





Thanks



 Written by: OWD



However, I suspect that uptake amonst committed/high-volumemeat-eaters will be limited as, without wanting to generalise-



1. they often tend to be a bit finicky and fussy about their food



2. they generally don't particularly care about animal suffering (evidenced by thier high meat-consumption) and either don't care, or are in denial, about the environmetal effects of meat-production



3. despite eating mainly intensively farmed meat, they often seem to have romantic fantasies about animals living in luxurious organic conditions, or about hunting thier own animals: lumps of animal cells clumped together in a test-tube will lilely not sit well with their fantasies.



(before anyone goes nuts over any of that, please bear in mind that I'm referring to committed/high-volumemeat-eaters).



More moderate meat-eaters, who do care about animal welfare and the environement, may well be more open to using lab meat.





Now are you starting to discern? Between "moderate" and "high-volume"?



I am coming from a STRONG meat-eating society, which can easily be compared to Texas/ Arizona or maybe even Brazil - I tell you, Dave, it is a dangerous assumption that you are making here. It's dividing the society in "highclass veggies" and "lowlife meat eaters" - which completely is a subject to subjectivity.



Certainly such "committed high volume meat eaters" which such attitude do exist - no question - I doubt that it's the majority. I have friends who work in the meat-industry, trade cows and pork and "convert" them into steaks. I visited the slaughterhouse in Munich, during working hours and all these people there are humans. Not menaces, neither stupid or uneducated. To them, the animal is the same, as human being is to a doctor - just with reversed intent. They do not regard the animal as a living being, otherwise they wouldn't be able to conduct the job... They do kill and then they do go home and care for their children - and this no better nor worse than anyone else.



And lately, I would like to point out a few facts to you and do a game:



Take a roll of toilet paper (XXL) now roll it out in the hallway. By the time you are finished take another roll, attach it to the end of first one and roll it out further.



Now when you are finished, hold up the last sheet and look back.



What you are looking at is human evolution, since falling out of the trees and what you are actually holding up is the last 100 years (if not more).



Now humans have been depending on all kinds of food sources, meat simply was a part of the diet and was a fast, potent energy supplier. In winter (and northern regions) meat was one of the few sources of food and essential for survival.



Having meat on the table was anything, but cheap - vice versa, it was an expression of wealth.



If you get back in (European) history, animals were rarely a part of the diet (once a week), as it was either to be hunted down with great effort, very expensive, or even prohibited (as the game was in possession of royals).



The extensive meat consumption, as we see it today - is a recent phenomenon and as such it was never present in human history before [/bold statement].



Now to expect European (descent)s to turn from a "dispiteous, ferocious and cruel Bambi-hunter" (as he even had to be in order to survive, as he MAYBE had one harvest/ year) into a "responsible, environmentally conscious and compassionate veggie-caretaker" within one or two generations? And if they do not manage, you judge upon them? umm



Personally I find this almost offensive and counter-productive. I suggest you come to a more discerning way of looking at the issue - you may have more success in your approach. Nobody told farmers to torture their game, nobody instructed them to be cruel and cold-hearted.



This is THEIR individual choice!



Now telling ppl that the demand of cheap meat on one end, generates the poo on the other is a valid approach, but sitting back in the armchair, looking at the "stupid and ignorant low-live meat eaters" (and this is the personal impression about your attitude, I gaining from your posts - like a red lining - 4give me shrug) is condescending and a kind of attitude, I personally resent to...



[disclaimer to whom it may concern: this post only expresses my personal feelings, does not demand any kind of objectivity. No offence meant and none taken personally. I (still) do admire OWD's posts and usually his choice of words hug - but I do not agree with everything and the way it is presented here in public]
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1174116034)

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


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


Posted:
 Written by: FireTom



 Written by: onewheeldave



Personally I wouldn't eat it and I suspect many veggies wouldn't either, purely because, like the majority of veggies/vegans, not eating meat is not a hardship or deprival.





... but what is it then? umm If that meat is produced w/o any animal suffering and environmental impact - what's still wrong with it? Let me suspect further dis-veggie-proval of "carnevalies", if such meat is on the market and ppl do consume it...







I never said it was wrong- in fact I approve of it as an alternative for meat-eaters.



All I'm saying is that I won't be getting into it.



Similar to rice-pudding- nothing wrong with it, but I'm not going to eat it smile



-----------



The rest of your post seems to be a rant against things I've neither said nor implied, it gives the impression that you have some kind of unresolved chip-on-your-shoulder about something and you're trying to transfer it onto my words so you can attack it.



I'm going to stay out of it.

"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!


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
OWD - you repeatedly throw out vast generalizations (and in this particular case baseless assumptions) - which is okay, been there done that - but IMHO do not help the subject and are villainous.

Whilst it is necessary to raise awareness, it is wrong to use baseless accusations.

- "Veg(etari)ans are (generally) causing less unnecessary harm than meat eaters" = IMO wrong

- "Eating meat causes more unnecessary suffering than a vegetarian diet" = IMO very true

- "Veg(etari)ans in their choice of diet are causing less unnecessary harm than meat eaters in theirs" = IMO very true

- "Committed/high-volume meat-eaters (...) generally don't particularly care about animal suffering (evidenced by their high meat-consumption) and either don't care, or are in denial about the environmental effects of meat-production."

= IMO so obviously wrong that I decline to go in detail.

- "Committed/high-volume meat-eaters (...) despite eating mainly intensively farmed meat, ( confused ) often seem to have romantic fantasies about animals living in luxurious organic conditions, or about hunting their own animals: lumps of animal cells clumped together in a test-tube will likely not sit well with their fantasies."

= IMO wrong, as it's a generalization. Do you have any evidence to back this up?

- "More moderate meat-eaters, who do care about animal welfare and the environment, may well be more open to using lab meat."

= IMHO wrong. What makes you assume that moderate meat eaters are more concerned about animal suffering and the environmental impact of meat-production? Because they eat meat moderately?

This is nonsense!

Summarized (and I expressed it previously) your generalizations and assumptions combined with the particular choice of words do put a very ugly stamp on a big portion of our society.

I tried to make some points for you, so you may look at it in discernment, but you prefer judgment shrug up to you.

Taking it to extremes: (IMHO in this special regards) you're living in the same denial!

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


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


Posted:
 Written by: FireTom


OWD - you repeatedly throw out vast generalizations .....

...do not help the subject and are villainous.




Like I said above Tom, I'm not getting into this again, i think my previous posts have made very clear the context in which I'm speaking where 'generalisations' are concerned.

So, if you don't mind, I'll just chill out and revel in my new status as a 'villain' smile

"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!


Page: ...

Similar Topics No similar topics were found
      Show more..

HOP Newsletter

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