Why Vegan?

[Vego]

Because the meat industry provides meat, and as stated previously, I like eating meat. I certainly have the choice not to, but I’m going to anyway.

Carnism in action: you keep avoiding my question.

"Because the meat industry provides meat, and ... I like meat" answers the question "Why do you keep financing the meat industry?".

But my question was: is this a good reason, and why? By "good reason" I don't mean that you need a formal proof, just something to show that you actually understand what you are doing, and that your decision making process is reasonable given the available information.

 

[australopithecus]

I fully understand what I’m doing. I know the industrialisation of the meat industry is at best amoral and at worst hideously exploitative, and when you can grow meat in a Petri dish, sign me up. But I like eating meat, so I’ll keep buying it.

Frankly, the amount of fucks I give as to whether that’s considered a good or rational argument sits squarely on the zero mark. I’ve claimed neither to be rational or a purveyor of good arguments, I’m just telling you how it is. Maybe you’re used to “carnists” (my diet is more omivourous than obligate carnivore, as I’m not a cat) desperately giving hand waving, ill-conceived justifications for eating meat, oblivious to perceived hypocrisies. I don’t know, I’m not you, so allow me to dissuade you of any assumption that I’m one of the aforementioned people.

I know what the meat industry is.
I know how it works.
I know the consequences of that industry to both the livestock used, the people involved and the environment.

I eat meat, knowing well the above, because the enjoyment and happiness I get from a good fillet steak is more important to me than the outcomes of the consequences listed.

If you’re angling for some shitty attempt to reconcile eating meat with the consequences of the meat industry, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Soz.

 

[Vego]

Frankly, the amount of fucks I give as to whether that’s considered a good or rational argument sits squarely on the zero mark. I’ve claimed neither to be rational or a purveyor of good arguments, I’m just telling you how it is.

I did notice your lack of explicit commitment to rationality. Telling me "how it is" is like saying nothing though, and you are painting yourself into a corner by (apparently) rejecting the possibility of changing your mind or behavior despite available information.

If this were TheLeagueOfGivingZeroFucks, I wouldn't have insisted. But I believe that we should not uncritically accept arbitrary justifications, because it would lead to relativism.

Maybe you’re used to “carnists” (my diet is more omivourous than obligate carnivore, as I’m not a cat)

I try to avoid directly calling people carnists because it might be confusing (carnist does not mean carnivore). If you believe that it is generally acceptable (normal, natural, necessary or nice) to eat meat, then you are an adherent of the carnist ideology. Giving a name, and therefore visibility, to your beliefs and practices is the whole point of the concept of carnism (by contrast, my ideology is veganism).

desperately giving hand waving, ill-conceived justifications for eating meat

This is exactly what you have done in this conversation.

the enjoyment and happiness I get from a good fillet steak is more important to me than the outcomes of the consequences listed.

This is actually what I suspected, so thanks for making it clear. FWIW, I don't think this is a good reason, but it is one that should be expected from carnist ideology. A chapter of Melanie Joy's book is actually titled Carnism: "It's just the way things are" although, in fairness, she missed the type of "shitty" rationalization that you use, namely Niceness (the "fourth N"), which has been studied by other psychologists after the publication of MJ's book.

If you’re angling for some shitty attempt to reconcile eating meat with the consequences of the meat industry, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

I am angling for exposing the issues of carnism, and you did help by proving yourself as an almost textbook example (the right tree apparently).

 

[australopithecus]

I did notice your lack of explicit commitment to rationality. Telling me "how it is" is like saying nothing though, and you are painting yourself into a corner by (apparently) rejecting the possibility of changing your mind or behavior despite available information.

I am 100% rejecting the possibility of changing my mind. I have no commitment to rationality, nor have I claimed one. Assume less.

If this were TheLeagueOfGivingZeroFucks, I wouldn't have insisted. But I believe that we should not uncritically accept arbitrary justifications, because it would lead to relativism.

You're not the first to take the name of this website more seriously than it was intended. I doubt you'll be the last.

I try to avoid directly calling people carnists because it might be confusing (carnist does not mean carnivore). If you believe that it is generally acceptable (normal, natural, necessary or nice) to eat meat, then you are an adherent of the carnist ideology. Giving a name, and therefore visibility, to your beliefs and practices is the whole point of the concept of carnism (by contrast, my ideology is veganism).

What buzzwords you choose to use isn't really my concern.

This is exactly what you have done in this conversation.

Except I've tried to justify nothing, as I don't need to and owe you none. I eat meat because I like to. This isn't a justification, it's simply a fact.

This is actually what I suspected, so thanks for making it clear. FWIW, I don't think this is a good reason, but it is one that should be expected from carnist ideology. A chapter of Melanie Joy's book is actually titled Carnism: "It's just the way things are" although, in fairness, she missed the type of "shitty" rationalization that you use, namely Niceness (the "fourth N"), which has been studied by other psychologists after the publication of MJ's book.

Good for her?

I am angling for exposing the issues of carnism, and you did help by proving yourself as an almost textbook example (the right tree apparently).

Fantastic, I've always wanted to be in a textbook. And no, entirely the wrong tree. I don't need to reconcile meat eating with caring about the affects of the meat industry because, as stated, I'm not especially bothered about the latter.

 

[Vego]

I have no commitment to rationality, nor have I claimed one. Assume less.

Start posting random text and maybe I will believe you.

You're not the first to take the name of this website more seriously than it was intended. I doubt you'll be the last.

Yes, that was cheap, and of course I won't be the last. Bad jokes aside, poor justifications are a real world issue in part because they can lead to dangerous behaviors that could have been prevented, and anyone, including you, could be on the receiving end.

What buzzwords you choose to use isn't really my concern.

Don't focus on the word. What matters is the recognition that you have an ideology related to food, just like everyone else. Giving it a name, carnism, doesn't change what it is (well, it does make it visible and therefore weaker according to Melanie Joy).

Except I've tried to justify nothing, as I don't need to and owe you none.

You could have said that earlier, or said nothing at all, and prevented this whole conversation. And yet here we are. You have tried to justify yourself, and you are still doing it.

In addition, your actions have global consequences, and we live on the same planet. I am not saying that you owe me anything, but if I pretend that what you are doing is not problematic, it would be contrary to the interests of myself and those I care about (human and non-human).

I eat meat because I like to. This isn't a justification, it's simply a fact.

Is "because" a buzzword too? Of course it is a justification (you can also think it is a fact, both are not mutually exclusive). You choose to eat meat, you said so yourself earlier ("I certainly have the choice not to, but I’m going to anyway"). Your decision results from your beliefs, and one of them is that it is acceptable for you to do so, otherwise you wouldn't make such a decision. Your rationalization is that it is acceptable because your sensory experience is more important than the consequences.

I don't need to reconcile meat eating with caring about the affects of the meat industry because, as stated, I'm not especially bothered about the latter.

You already admitted that you care ("the meat industry is at best amoral and at worst hideously exploitative, and when you can grow meat in a Petri dish, sign me up"). Claiming that you are "not especially bothered" is how you perform this "reconciliation". Definitely the right tree.

 

[australopithecus]

Start posting random text and maybe I will believe you.

What you believe isn't my problem, random internet user.

Yes, that was cheap, and of course I won't be the last. Bad jokes aside, poor justifications are a real world issue in part because they can lead to dangerous behaviors that could have been prevented, and anyone, including you, could be on the receiving end.

I'll take my chances.

Don't focus on the word. What matters is the recognition that you have an ideology related to food, just like everyone else. Giving it a name, carnism, doesn't change what it is (well, it does make it visible and therefore weaker according to Melanie Joy).

That's all well and good but, so what?

You could have said that earlier, or said nothing at all, and prevented this whole conversation. And yet here we are. You have tried to justify yourself, and you are still doing it.

In addition, your actions have global consequences, and we live on the same planet. I am not saying that you owe me anything, but if I pretend that what you are doing is not problematic, it would be contrary to the interests of myself and those I care about (human and non-human).

Yeah, but I don't care tho.

Is "because" a buzzword too?

No, it's a subordinating conjunction.

Of course it is a justification (you can also think it is a fact, both are not mutually exclusive). You choose to eat meat, you said so yourself earlier ("I certainly have the choice not to, but I’m going to anyway"). Your decision results from your beliefs, and one of them is that it is acceptable for you to do so, otherwise you wouldn't make such a decision. Your rationalization is that it is acceptable because your sensory experience is more important than the consequences.

It is acceptable for me to do so tho.

You already admitted that you care ("the meat industry is at best amoral and at worst hideously exploitative, and when you can grow meat in a Petri dish, sign me up")

Know the reality of the industry is not the same about caring about it. I know the realities of the music industry, it doesn't mean i care if some boy band gets fucked over by a shitty contract. Knowledge =/= emotional investment. As for lab grown meat, it's a matter of reality. Lab grown meat, as opposed to the current model, given time, will likely be cheaper given lower overheads. It is a convenient alternative, that yes, comes with ethically less shades of grey. You may struggle not to invest emotionally in your food, but don't assume that rings true for everyone. If lab grown meat doesn't become a reality I am more than happy to continue under the current model.

Claiming that you are "not especially bothered" is how you perform this "reconciliation". Definitely the right tree.

That's not a reconciliation, that's apathy.

 

[Vego]

What you believe isn't my problem, random internet user.

I was being rhetorical. You don't need to claim that you value rationality, it is enough to observe that you are trying to write meaningful text.

That's all well and good but, so what?

By recognizing that carnism exists as an ideology, its beliefs can be identified, studied and questioned. It is an improvement over just being some nebulous indisputable "knowledge" of "facts". In more practical terms, it becomes much easier to argue against it.

I do actually. Several times in this conversation I asked "why?", and you provided either an answer or an attempt at one. You didn't have to, you chose to. Why?

It is acceptable for me to do so tho.

This is one of the beliefs I was talking about. Its factual quality is dependent on itself (if the belief were to change, the "fact" would change with it), and on its justifications.

Know the reality of the industry is not the same about caring about it.

It is if you focus on the items that one would normally care about. If you are able to identify and focus on the aspects that matter morally, then you already have the hard part done. Caring is not binary, and it can change over time, modulated by ourselves, our environment, and our ideologies.

According to MJ, carnism uses defense mechanisms (including altering empathy) for the purpose of psychic numbing. She argues that these mechanisms are necessary, otherwise carnism would fall apart. (Note: the existence of carnism is not in question, what it actually does and how is still hypothetical, I am not claiming absolute certainty.)

You may struggle not to invest emotionally in your food

Actually I don't struggle (I never did because I became ethical vegan after starting as health vegan), and I don't consider animals as normal food sources anymore.

but don't assume that rings true for everyone.

I don't assume it, and it is definitely not true for everyone, otherwise promoting ethical veganism would be easier. On the contrary, I wish more people would stop objectifying animals, but like I said in the other discussion, I don't have an answer to "Why should I care?", and AFAIK no vegan does.

That's not a reconciliation, that's apathy.

You sure are trying hard to defend your so-called "apathy". Isn't that self-defeating?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

This overlaps the other thread where veganism was {being) discussed.

An analogy used in Chaos Theory comes to mind: a butterfly lazily waving its wings whilst resting on a leaf can cause a hurricane on the other side of the world.

Should the butterfly care?

Should it give up flying for that reason in favour of walking for fear of causing harm to others?

Granted, it needs to fly to mate, and pass on its genes - but the analogy is applicable in that one is choosing to walk a knife-edge between just surviving without causing harm rather than enjoying life in accordance with what makes you "happy".

If you're happy as a vegan, then that's alright but you shouldn't feel compelled to convert everyone else by trying to make others feel guilty.

I've mentioned before that I eat white meat, particularly fish. I'd recommend Bottomfeeder : How the fish on our plates is killing our planet, which shows how those who eat fish can do so ethically, as well as healthily.

Michael Pollan, the author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, recently wrote a NYT article for the book's tenth anniversary.

There's also the book that started it all with regard to the food industry, Fast Food Nation, which is now a freely available PDF.

There have been a number of interesting science papers on the subject of diet.

Given that a raw food diet is the healthiest for dogs, and cats, which means meat being included, where does that leave the argument for veganism - or is it only applicable to humans? And then there's this: Is it cruel to keep a pet fox... on a vegan diet?.

Regardless of diet, there's a common problem to them all:

Healthy diet may not offset high salt intake

There are also issues with supplements, instead of actual food - we appear to need proper food for our health, not just the relevant vitamins.

Apologies for the "scatter-gun" post - just some grist for the mill.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Vego]

This overlaps the other thread where veganism was {being) discussed.

It's fine, I just wanted to have a cleaner starting point and a less constrained topic. I don't want to repeat what was said in the other thread, but a minimum of overlap is to be expected.

the analogy is applicable in that one is choosing to walk a knife-edge between just surviving without causing harm rather than enjoying life in accordance with what makes you "happy".

No, this "choice" has nothing to do with veganism. Veganism is not about asking people to choose a life of misery/martyrdom/punishment. This grotesque misrepresentation has to go away. Instead of inventing what you think veganism could be, try to get some reliable information (I provided a few links to get started in my opening post).

you shouldn't feel compelled to convert everyone else by trying to make others feel guilty.

Is the guilt justified? More importantly, "trying to make others feel guilty" is an excessively reductive view of vegan activism. Efforts to raise awareness about animal exploitation aim to cause at least some emotional discomfort, and that is simply due to the nature of the issue (animals are not objects). Do you get the impression that my main message is "you should feel guilty" or "you should be punished"? In my opinion, ethical veganism is more about compassion than guilt, and I suggested several other reasons to support veganism in my opening.

As for "converting", I don't really know what else you would expect. If we don't talk about it, few people will even think about the issue (I barely gave it a passing thought when I was an omnivore). And if we don't grow (in proportion of population) then we are stuck with a massive problem that may not get solved for a very long time, if ever. Large-scale exploitation is happening right now, and there are steps that we can (and morally should) start taking to curb it. And to be clear: veganism is not a cult, there is no supreme leader, no brainwashing, no rule/monitoring/enforcement, no pledge, no tithe, and you can keep your first born.

There have been a number of interesting science papers on the subject of diet.

Modern nutrition science has been around since the early 20th century, and there are thousands of papers published every year in multiple journals related to this field. I don't know the exact number, but it is too much information for any single individual. For example, Dr Greger has a team of people to sift through as much research as they can, old and new, and he regularly updates his website (https://nutritionfacts.org) with what he finds useful (each video can combine several papers, he sometimes gives a quick analysis, always highlights relevant sections, and provides all the links).

Also, Plant Positive has one of the most underrated scientific channels I have seen, although there has been no update since 2014 (it's fine, human biology hasn't changed much since then).

Given that a raw food diet is the healthiest for dogs, and cats

Maybe, I am not too familiar with pet nutrition (it looks like there are also risks).

, which means meat being included, where does that leave the argument for veganism - or is it only applicable to humans? And then there's this: Is it cruel to keep a pet fox... on a vegan diet?.

Which "argument for veganism" are you referring to?

I already gave my thoughts on pets in the other discussion (short version: pretend they are kids but remember they are not human).

Some dogs like vegan dog food, some don't, but options are limited. Cats are obligate carnivores, we are not. Even then, there are attempts at manufacturing vegan cat food, unfortunately with mixed results (see Unnatural Vegan's video about vegan pet food).

Regardless of diet, there's a common problem to them all:

Healthy diet may not offset high salt intake

If the problem exists for all diets as you claim, then how does that disqualify veganism specifically? In this video Dr Greger quotes a few papers saying that "approximately 75% of dietary salt comes from processed foods" (1:50), "in general, animal foods contain higher amount of sodium than vegetable foods" (2:40), and at 3:55 he references a study (this one) in which only a vegan diet had a low enough sodium content to pass stringent dietary guidelines on sodium intake* (I am not saying this is always the case, and the study does have limitations).

* In your link, they talk about 6g of salt, which translates to 2400mg of sodium (according to this), well above the 1316mg of the vegan diet in the study.

There are also issues with supplements, instead of actual food - we appear to need proper food for our health, not just the relevant vitamins.

What issues with what supplements, and why is it a problem for veganism? Health vegans are aware of nutritional requirements, and already put a lot of emphasis on "proper food" (especially "whole-food plant-based" diets).

 

[Dragan Glas]

the analogy is applicable in that one is choosing to walk a knife-edge between just surviving without causing harm rather than enjoying life in accordance with what makes you "happy".

No, this "choice" has nothing to do with veganism. Veganism is not about asking people to choose a life of misery/martyrdom/punishment. This grotesque misrepresentation has to go away. Instead of inventing what you think veganism could be, try to get some reliable information (I provided a few links to get started in my opening post).

You've misunderstood the point I was making.

Australopithecus enjoys eating meat - you're attempting to dissuade him from doing so on the grounds that he's involved in causing harm to animals.

He's happy eating meat - the fact that you're not happy he (and other "carnists") are doing so is your problem, not his.

you shouldn't feel compelled to convert everyone else by trying to make others feel guilty.

Is the guilt justified? More importantly, "trying to make others feel guilty" is an excessively reductive view of vegan activism. Efforts to raise awareness about animal exploitation aim to cause at least some emotional discomfort, and that is simply due to the nature of the issue (animals are not objects). Do you get the impression that my main message is "you should feel guilty" or "you should be punished"? In my opinion, ethical veganism is more about compassion than guilt, and I suggested several other reasons to support veganism in my opening.

As for "converting", I don't really know what else you would expect. If we don't talk about it, few people will even think about the issue (I barely gave it a passing thought when I was an omnivore). And if we don't grow (in proportion of population) then we are stuck with a massive problem that may not get solved for a very long time, if ever. Large-scale exploitation is happening right now, and there are steps that we can (and morally should) start taking to curb it. And to be clear: veganism is not a cult, there is no supreme leader, no brainwashing, no rule/monitoring/enforcement, no pledge, no tithe, and you can keep your first born.

There are indeed steps we can take to change the world's food industry to a more sustainable system, as Pollan's book, and article, point out - and the fact that Big Food is doing what it can to maintain the status quo. And the list of links I provided later in my post suggests ways this can be done.

That alone, however, won't solve the underlying issue of over-population - we need to reduce the global population to manageable numbers.

That's where the real problem lies.

There have been a number of interesting science papers on the subject of diet.

Modern nutrition science has been around since the early 20th century, and there are thousands of papers published every year in multiple journals related to this field. I don't know the exact number, but it is too much information for any single individual. For example, Dr Greger has a team of people to sift through as much research as they can, old and new, and he regularly updates his website (https://nutritionfacts.org) with what he finds useful (each video can combine several papers, he sometimes gives a quick analysis, always highlights relevant sections, and provides all the links).

Also, Plant Positive has one of the most underrated scientific channels I have seen, although there has been no update since 2014 (it's fine, human biology hasn't changed much since then).

Thank you for the links - I'll have a look at them later.

Given that a raw food diet is the healthiest for dogs, and cats

Maybe, I am not too familiar with pet nutrition (it looks like there are also risks).

I note the article was originally written in 2009, and reviewed in 2012.

The risks regarding exposure to bacteria are associated with the DIY raw diets, not the commercially available ones. Dog owners would normally consult their vet before switching to a raw diet to ensure its suitability for their dog.

, which means meat being included, where does that leave the argument for veganism - or is it only applicable to humans? And then there's this: Is it cruel to keep a pet fox... on a vegan diet?.

Which "argument for veganism" are you referring to?

I already gave my thoughts on pets in the other discussion (short version: pretend they are kids but remember they are not human).

Some dogs like vegan dog food, some don't, but options are limited. Cats are obligate carnivores, we are not. Even then, there are attempts at manufacturing vegan cat food, unfortunately with mixed results (see Unnatural Vegan's video about vegan pet food).

Again, my point was that carnivorous pets still need animal protein, which means one can't totally remove the meat industry, indeed there's a move towards a sustainable meat industry.

For those vegans who try to replace animal protein with plant-based substitutes for pets, it's clearly more about the vegans' guilt issues than their pets' health.

Regardless of diet, there's a common problem to them all:

Healthy diet may not offset high salt intake

If the problem exists for all diets as you claim, then how does that disqualify veganism specifically? In this video Dr Greger quotes a few papers saying that "approximately 75% of dietary salt comes from processed foods" (1:50), "in general, animal foods contain higher amount of sodium than vegetable foods" (2:40), and at 3:55 he references a study (this one) in which only a vegan diet had a low enough sodium content to pass stringent dietary guidelines on sodium intake* (I am not saying this is always the case, and the study does have limitations).

* In your link, they talk about 6g of salt, which translates to 2400mg of sodium (according to this), well above the 1316mg of the vegan diet in the study.

My point was that, even when we think we're eating a healthy diet, there can still be imbalances of which we're not aware, rather than a argument specifically against vegan diets.

There are also issues with supplements, instead of actual food - we appear to need proper food for our health, not just the relevant vitamins.

What issues with what supplements, and why is it a problem for veganism? Health vegans are aware of nutritional requirements, and already put a lot of emphasis on "proper food" (especially "whole-food plant-based" diets).

The issue is assuming that a multivitamin pill can replace actual food is a mistake. There's also the issue of taking too much vitamins resulting in damage to one's health.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Vego]

He's happy eating meat - the fact that you're not happy he (and other "carnists") are doing so is your problem, not his.

Animals are not objects. It is a problem for the animals, that is the basis of ethical veganism. By trying to make it sound like vegans are just selfish, you are denying the reality of non-human suffering.

That alone, however, won't solve the underlying issue of over-population - we need to reduce the global population to manageable numbers.

That's where the real problem lies.

I don't know exactly what you want to call "the real problem", but animal exploitation is a moral problem no matter how many people support it. And the potentially negative health impacts of animals products (direct and indirect) are linked to over-consumption and high demand/high production, it's not just about population size.

Again, my point was that carnivorous pets still need animal protein, which means one can't totally remove the meat industry

So if some pets can't go vegan then people become free of moral responsibility? As I said in the other discussion, realistic veganism is not all or nothing, we don't have to choose between only 100% or 0%.

For those vegans who try to replace animal protein with plant-based substitutes for pets, it's clearly more about the vegans' guilt issues than their pets' health.

This is not clear at all, and not all vegans have pets. You are not making sense.

The issue is assuming that a multivitamin pill can replace actual food is a mistake. There's also the issue of taking too much vitamins resulting in damage to one's health.

The first thing to do when going vegan is to get informed, not assume things, especially when it comes to health. But this is not specific to veganism.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

He's happy eating meat - the fact that you're not happy he (and other "carnists") are doing so is your problem, not his.

Animals are not objects. It is a problem for the animals, that is the basis of ethical veganism. By trying to make it sound like vegans are just selfish, you are denying the reality of non-human suffering.

I'm not suggesting that animals are objects. I'm simply pointing out one needs to be tolerant of others' choices: "one's man's meat is another's poison", as they say.

That alone, however, won't solve the underlying issue of over-population - we need to reduce the global population to manageable numbers.

That's where the real problem lies.

I don't know exactly what you want to call "the real problem", but animal exploitation is a moral problem no matter how many people support it. And the potentially negative health impacts of animals products (direct and indirect) are linked to over-consumption and high demand/high production, it's not just about population size.

As long as the population exceeds the planet's ability to support it without animal products, you're never going to end ASFs. It's estimated that the population will be over 9 billion by 2050 - plant-based foods alone won't support this number of people.

Again, my point was that carnivorous pets still need animal protein, which means one can't totally remove the meat industry

So if some pets can't go vegan then people become free of moral responsibility? As I said in the other discussion, realistic veganism is not all or nothing, we don't have to choose between only 100% or 0%.

For those vegans who try to replace animal protein with plant-based substitutes for pets, it's clearly more about the vegans' guilt issues than their pets' health.

This is not clear at all, and not all vegans have pets. You are not making sense.

What would you call the issue of the fennec being made to eat a vegan diet? Is that about the fox's health or the vegan's guilt from her inability to accept the natural order of things?

The issue is assuming that a multivitamin pill can replace actual food is a mistake. There's also the issue of taking too much vitamins resulting in damage to one's health.

The first thing to do when going vegan is to get informed, not assume things, especially when it comes to health. But this is not specific to veganism.

Anyone eating a healthy diet dioesn't need supplements. If one has to add supplements to make up for a lack of nutrients then one isn't eating a healthy diet.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Vego]

I'm not suggesting that animals are objects.

It is implicit in what you are saying. If animals are suffering because of us, it is immoral to exclude them from consideration: given today's technology, meat has to be acquired through killing, and more generally animal products are the result of animal exploitation, especially for mass consumption. (not to repeat the other discussion: our moral responsibility is limited to what we can avoid)

I'm simply pointing out one needs to be tolerant of others' choices

This is the fallacy I mentioned earlier.

As long as the population exceeds the planet's ability to support it without animal products, you're never going to end ASFs.

How did you determine that "the population exceeds the planet's ability to support it without animal products"?

In this paper the researchers estimate that, in the US, "Population-level replacement of beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs individually with nutritionally comparable plant diets produces enough additional food to meet the full dietary needs of 163, 19, 25, 12, and 1 million additional people, respectively".

This is not a simple issue (as the complexity of the paper illustratres) so I don't see how you can be so confident about your claim. Mic. the Vegan made a video showing some of the difficulties with addressing the question on a global scale.

What would you call the issue of the fennec being made to eat a vegan diet?

Vegans are not required to have pet fennecs, so I would call it irrelevant to the validity of veganism in general.

And as I said in my previous answer, I already gave my opinion regarding pets.

Is that about the fox's health or the vegan's guilt from her inability to accept the natural order of things?

I don't know, and your speculations about the motivations of random individuals don't really lead anywhere.

Anyone eating a healthy diet dioesn't need supplements. If one has to add supplements to make up for a lack of nutrients then one isn't eating a healthy diet.

You are just making up arbitrary rules.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I'm not suggesting that animals are objects.

It is implicit in what you are saying. If animals are suffering because of us, it is immoral to exclude them from consideration: given today's technology, meat has to be acquired through killing, and more generally animal products are the result of animal exploitation, especially for mass consumption. (not to repeat the other discussion: our moral responsibility is limited to what we can avoid).

I'm simply pointing out one needs to be tolerant of others' choices

This is the fallacy I mentioned earlier.

I also watched Mic the Vegan's other video called "Diet isn't a Personal Choice", where he notes that vegans' ethics respect animals. Yet this comes back to my point in the other thread about trafficking - a switch to plant-based food will undoubtedly result in the increased exploitation of migrant labour through trafficking.

So there's something of a quandary - do we favour animals or people?

As long as the population exceeds the planet's ability to support it without animal products, you're never going to end ASFs.

How did you determine that "the population exceeds the planet's ability to support it without animal products"?

In this paper the researchers estimate that, in the US, "Population-level replacement of beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs individually with nutritionally comparable plant diets produces enough additional food to meet the full dietary needs of 163, 19, 25, 12, and 1 million additional people, respectively".

This is not a simple issue (as the complexity of the paper illustratres) so I don't see how you can be so confident about your claim. Mic. the Vegan made a video showing some of the difficulties with addressing the question on a global scale.

Although the paper is interesting, and Mic the Vegan's video touches upon other issues not covered by the paper, the main problem is climate change, and the effects it will have on food production.

For example,the war in Syria was due to drought, and is seen as a early indicator of climate change. Farmers abandoned their land, and headed into towns, and cities, to find work. The general discontent led to an uprising, and thence to all-out civil war. And the rest of the region is no better off.

This is seen as a microcosm of what's to come if we don't take our heads out of the sand, and take steps to prevent the worst case scenarios explored in Six Degrees

Half of humanity lives on coasts: with rising sea-levels they'll be pushed inland, coming into conflict with the other half of humanity over land, and potable water.

With increasing temperatures across the Middle East, the population of that region will most likely head north into Europe, Russia, India, and China, with very predictable results. Jordan, arguably the stablest country in the region, will be particularly affected, as will the region in general.

In America, the Dust Bowl of the '30s is expected to return, along with increased occurrence of droughts - not just impacting your cited papers projected food production but America's current food production. Rather than helping feed the rest of the world, America will be hard pressed to feed its own population without importing food from elsewhere. Given the rest of the world will be in similar straits, how will it feed itself?

It should also be noted that 20% of Americans are responsible for 46% of diet-related GHG emissions. Marginal land, along with whatever food waste still exists, can be used to feed farm animals. The fact is we're going to need all sources of food to feed the ever-growing human population.

We have a catch-22 situation: world organizations are recommending switching to a predominantly plant-based diet, whilst climate change will undercut our ability to grow crops.

It comes down to population: we need a global population management strategy - the default is population-reduction through war, and associated famine, and disease.

What would you call the issue of the fennec being made to eat a vegan diet?

Vegans are not required to have pet fennecs, so I would call it irrelevant to the validity of veganism in general.

And as I said in my previous answer, I already gave my opinion regarding pets.

Is that about the fox's health or the vegan's guilt from her inability to accept the natural order of things?

I don't know, and your speculations about the motivations of random individuals don't really lead anywhere.

You appear to be avoiding the question.

You said you don't care for pets in the other thread, and although vegans "are not required to have pet fennecs", the question stands.

Its effect on veganism in general may be moot but I'm trying to find where you draw the line on animal exploitation/suffering.

Anyone eating a healthy diet doesn't need supplements. If one has to add supplements to make up for a lack of nutrients then one isn't eating a healthy diet.

You are just making up arbitrary rules.

No, I'm not. It's a logical conclusion from the statement I made.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[*SD*]

but I'm trying to find where you draw the line on animal exploitation/suffering.

Don't bother! Vegans typically deny that there's a line at all. But there clearly is. They can't admit that there's a line because the moment they do the argument is over.

I've invested enough time in the topic by now, spent whopping amounts of time on it in fact. They declare their line (which they DO have) to be at the "reasonable" point and anyone elses line in need of shifting.

They will start talking about "need" in a very strict sense when they ask you about killing animals for meat, then when you want to ask them about all the things they do / indulge in etc they will switch to a definition (ahem) of "need" which is more aligned with what is reasonable

It's essentially a bait and switch. Although most of time I don't think it's intentional on their part. There are some blatantly dishonest vegans, but some honest enough ones too.

Anyway I already went into this in some detail in that debate thread I asked for.

Vegans fund the butchering of innocent wickle cweatures all the time, and they don't give a flying fuck. They feel better because they don't eat them. It ALL comes down to where the line is drawn - every single time.

 

[Vego]

a switch to plant-based food will undoubtedly result in the increased exploitation of migrant labour through trafficking.

Why "undoubtedly ... increased"? Do you have anything better than speculation to support your claim?

Given the rest of the world will be in similar straits, how will it feed itself?

I don't even know that it is a given, and dire "straits" are precisely what would make veganism preferable (because of the higher efficiency estimated in the paper I quoted).

The fact is we're going to need all sources of food to feed the ever-growing human population.

This is not a fact, it is your speculation.

We have a catch-22 situation: world organizations are recommending switching to a predominantly plant-based diet, whilst climate change will undercut our ability to grow crops.

There is no catch. I gave you references showing how difficult the question is, and how inefficient animal food is, and you keep trying to make it seem like you have it all figured out (because apparently you know better than "world organizations").

How do you know that "climate change will undercut our ability to grow crops" in a way that will make plant-based diets insufficient globally? (Does "Six Degrees" consider diet shifts? potential of edible beneficial weeds? vegan organic gardening/farming? use of "non arable" land (4:30-5:10) like desert greening in Jordan? new desalination methods?)
Have you considered that crops are used to feed animals? (in a reference that you provided, does "a reduction of natural land transformation by 30% and agricultural land occupation by 12%" compensate for "a third of total farmland is used to grow animal food"?)
Have you considered that, given its contribution to climate change, stopping animal exploitation might reduce the damage? (in a reference that you provided: "hypothetical diet shift [not even vegan BTW] ... would achieve nearly 10 percent of the emissions reductions needed for the United States to meet its targets under the Paris climate accord")

Your position boils down to: "I invented this just-so story in which I believe it is not possible for the whole world to go 100% vegan, therefore we shouldn't try too hard". It is not convincing.

we need a global population management strategy

This is not an argument for or against veganism.

You appear to be avoiding the question.

You are asking me to tell you what happens in the mind of somebody that I don't know (just some news report, no interaction). My answer is that I don't know, you don't know either, and it doesn't matter.

You said you don't care for pets in the other thread

This is not what I said. People who decide to have pets should be held responsible morally and legally. I do not condone any form of abuse, regardless of the perpetrator.

Its effect on veganism in general may be moot

Glad we agree on something.

I'm trying to find where you draw the line on animal exploitation/suffering.

I don't draw such line. I have no control over what others do or think or say, nor do I want any. I wish for us, as a modern society, to end the atrocities for which we are responsible. Ideally all of them right now, realistically as many as we can as soon as we can, especially the big and obvious ones (animal farming, fishing, fur/leather/wool, puppy mills, etc.).

No, I'm not. It's a logical conclusion from the statement I made.

Your statements are arbitrary because all you do is define "healthy diet" in a way that is convenient to you. What if I define "healthy diet" as potentially including supplements? This is yet another moot point.

 

[Vego]

Vegans typically deny that there's a line at all. But there clearly is.

Not clear at all.

They declare their line (which they DO have) to be at the "reasonable" point and anyone elses line in need of shifting.

You are just assuming and generalizing.

They will start talking about "need" in a very strict sense when they ask you about killing animals for meat, then when you want to ask them about all the things they do / indulge in etc they will switch to a definition (ahem) of "need" which is more aligned with what is reasonable

Human biology does not require the consumption of animal products, including meat (unless there is some special medical condition).

Vegans fund the butchering of innocent wickle cweatures all the time, and they don't give a flying fuck. They feel better because they don't eat them.

We are not breeding pests specifically to kill them. We are breeding farm animals specifically to kill them. Farm animals are avoidable.

 

[*SD*]

Not clear at all.

If you know a sufficient amount about the agriculture industry, it is quite clear. More on this below.

You are just assuming and generalizing.

This is true, I am indeed generalizing. I do so based on the not inconsiderable amount of time I've spent on this topic over the years, and more specifically of late. It's quite possible that my generalizations don't apply to you, if you live your life in a certain way and either do or don't do certain things (I know that's vague but I'd need to know more about your lifestyle to be clearer)

I doubt you fall far outside of my generalizations but I'm absolutely fine with you proving me wrong. The gist here is that I haven't found a vegan yet who lives as consistently as reasonably possible with their vegan ideology. They all claim they do, but this is easy to pick apart. If you're going to be the first, then I'm fine with that.

Human biology does not require the consumption of animal products, including meat (unless there is some special medical condition).

Arguable but I don't want to get into a citation war so I'm going to let this point drop for the most part. Other than to mention that most vegans, even the really vocal ones will be taking at least B12 supplements, often in injection form. I see you've touched on this in your reply to Dragan Glas and it looks like you're trying to define "diet" so as to include artificial or synthesised supplements. I've come across this before. I'm not sure how kosher it is to do that, it seems to set the bar very low for what can reasonably be referred to as part of a diet. With the bar this low you could include all sorts of things as "part of" a diet. It's not a major point, it just doesn't quite sit right with me to call injections and pills part of a diet.

We are not breeding pests specifically to kill them

Pests? So you consider something that gets in your way a pest? I know what you're getting at so I won't strawman you, but not everything is a pest just because it's messing with crops. And even if it were, they are still sentient creatures going about their lives like anything else.

Another generalization here - you don't care about pureeing rabbits so you can have cereal based food products, but you'll undoubtedly object to me shooting a few so I can eat them. A clear example of line drawing. Again, do correct me if this generalization doesn't apply to you.

We are breeding farm animals specifically to kill them

They aren't all bred just to be killed, there are other things we can get along the way. Eggs, milk, wool for our oh so sexy winter socks etc. I'm not denying that the end result is killing, nor will I deny that certain examples do fall into what you said. Just making the point that it's a bit of an oversimplification.

Farm animals are avoidable.

So is a whole fuck-ton of other stuff. Let's not go down this road because it just goes on forever and usually amounts to one huge tangent.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

a switch to plant-based food will undoubtedly result in the increased exploitation of migrant labour through trafficking.

Why "undoubtedly ... increased"? Do you have anything better than speculation to support your claim?

Given that vegan food isn't "cruelty-free" due to exploitation of workers, an increase in plant-based food production is bound to lead to an increase in exploitation of labourers, including trafficking of migrants.

Given the rest of the world will be in similar straits, how will it feed itself?

I don't even know that it is a given, and dire "straits" are precisely what would make veganism preferable (because of the higher efficiency estimated in the paper I quoted).

The fact is we're going to need all sources of food to feed the ever-growing human population.

This is not a fact, it is your speculation.

We have a catch-22 situation: world organizations are recommending switching to a predominantly plant-based diet, whilst climate change will undercut our ability to grow crops.

There is no catch. I gave you references showing how difficult the question is, and how inefficient animal food is, and you keep trying to make it seem like you have it all figured out (because apparently you know better than "world organizations").

How do you know that "climate change will undercut our ability to grow crops" in a way that will make plant-based diets insufficient globally? (Does "Six Degrees" consider diet shifts? potential of edible beneficial weeds? vegan organic gardening/farming? use of "non arable" land (4:30-5:10) like desert greening in Jordan? new desalination methods?)
Have you considered that crops are used to feed animals? (in a reference that you provided, does "a reduction of natural land transformation by 30% and agricultural land occupation by 12%" compensate for "a third of total farmland is used to grow animal food"?)
Have you considered that, given its contribution to climate change, stopping animal exploitation might reduce the damage? (in a reference that you provided: "hypothetical diet shift [not even vegan BTW] ... would achieve nearly 10 percent of the emissions reductions needed for the United States to meet its targets under the Paris climate accord")

Your position boils down to: "I invented this just-so story in which I believe it is not possible for the whole world to go 100% vegan, therefore we shouldn't try too hard". It is not convincing.

we need a global population management strategy

This is not an argument for or against veganism.

It doesn't matter how efficient projected yields will be if climate change pulls the rug out from under them through increased numbers, and extent, of droughts.

A switch to plant-based only food production leaves us even more food-insecure due to putting all our eggs into one basket, as the saying goes.

Permaculture is a cost-effective way of producing food in any climate but it isn't meant to be solely plant-based - the "Greening the Desert" video mentions the intention to include animals, and the follow-up video unsurprisingly shows goats, which would help provide manure, as well as dairy and meat produce. [And I already provided a linked article which showed that Europe is already exploring recycling manure as a natural fertilizer instead of synthetic fertilizer.] Other permaculture projects are similarly multi-food-source-based, such as the Maya Mountain Research Farm, which also "... raises pigs, chickens and ducks with a plan to raise sheep and goats...". And desalination has its own problems - it's a response to climate change but contributes to global warming.

The Dust Bowl of the '30s was due to a combination of farming methods, and low precipitation, leaving the soil bare, and dry. It resulted in 85% of Oklahomans migrating. It only lasted a decade, whereas future events are expected to last longer, and be more severe, due to climate change. A recent report notes that farmers are returning to certain practices that contributed to the '30s event, because pesticides aren't working as well as before. Interestingly, although one of those interviewed doesn't believe another dust bowl is likely in the near future, he commented that...

But, looking across the countryside from a low bluff, he sees fields of corn where prairie grasses once stood — and he admits he'd rather see cattle grazing there.

"To me," he said, "that's kind of the highest, best use of that land."

Past mega-droughts in the US were worse than that of the '30s [1, 2], and are likely to occur again, as the pattern returns after a relatively wetter period in recent times. And they wiped out a number of cultures, such as the Nazca Indians. And they don't - and won't - just occur in the US.

It still comes down to too many people.

You appear to be avoiding the question.

You are asking me to tell you what happens in the mind of somebody that I don't know (just some news report, no interaction). My answer is that I don't know, you don't know either, and it doesn't matter.

No, I'm asking you for your thoughts on whether making a non-vegan animal eat a vegan diet is ethical or not.

As I said, I'm trying to find out where you draw the line.

You said you don't care for pets in the other thread

This is not what I said. People who decide to have pets should be held responsible morally and legally. I do not condone any form of abuse, regardless of the perpetrator.

I apologize - I recalled seeing something posted to that effect by someone, which I thought was yourself but can't find it now, it may have been in another thread...

However, in the other thread - if I recall correctly this time - you had said that the farm animals would have to be slaughtered, which appears to be contrary to your stated goal of minimizing the suffering of farm animals.

Where "carnists" are killing some farm animals for food at any one time, you suggest killing all of them in one go.

What would be done with all this meat?

Its effect on veganism in general may be moot

Glad we agree on something.

Granted.

I'm trying to find where you draw the line on animal exploitation/suffering.

I don't draw such line. I have no control over what others do or think or say, nor do I want any. I wish for us, as a modern society, to end the atrocities for which we are responsible. Ideally all of them right now, realistically as many as we can as soon as we can, especially the big and obvious ones (animal farming, fishing, fur/leather/wool, puppy mills, etc.).

You're looking to get rid of all farming - even farming that does not involve killing, such as dairy, and wool. Which translates to drawing a line to include all forms of what you perceive/define as "exploitation".

No, I'm not. It's a logical conclusion from the statement I made.

Your statements are arbitrary because all you do is define "healthy diet" in a way that is convenient to you. What if I define "healthy diet" as potentially including supplements? This is yet another moot point.

No, I didn't define "healthy diet" - I based my statement, and conclusion, on the article I cited.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

SD, thank you for your posts - please don't think I'm ignoring you by not responding to you ... although, I'm doing that now anyway. :facepalm:

I've found one "line", in that Vego wants to ban all forms of "exploitation", as he perceives/defines it.

Kindest regards,

James