Why Vegan?

[Vego]

Such practices are for the benefit of the animals in question, not for the farming sector, such as keeping the wool clean.

Such practices would not occur if we weren't using the animals as tools. These animals (farm animals in general) don't just happen, we breed them on purpose. This is the issue with the kind of excuse that you are trying to make: it is assumed that the animals are inevitably there and that we have to use them. Ethical veganism questions both of these assumptions.

Trade agreements tend to be an overall package
...
In time, it's hoped that the countries around the world that trade with the EU will adopt similar practices as in the EU.

These practices exist because of high demand, and there is no guarantee that it is even possible to keep up the production without them (why do you think the Australians are dragging their feet on mulesing?). With veganism we don't have to wait for some nebulous future: there are steps that we can take right now, like avoiding animal products.

The agency also found a 97% level of compliance on thousands of random inspections of farms, although the level of compliance for inspections made in response to complaints or to farms targeted for inspection using a risk model was much lower, at 77%.

And lest you think that this is without consequence, It goes on to mention that there is legislation in place to enforce prison sentences (up to a year) and/or fines (up to £20,000).

You missed my point regarding the regulation part: even if animal welfare regulations exist and are enforced, they may not always be ethical. And even if the EU is a paragon of animal welfare, the rest of the world (which is not just the USA) is not there yet, as you have noticed. And the international trade is ultimately rooted in consumer demand, which makes consumers indirectly responsible for trade agreements.

As for those compliance levels: with progressively more veganism I expect less market pressure and consequently increasing compliance, hopefully worldwide.

Yes, corn is used to supplement grazing, and fodder - however, it's not the norm over here.

I don't really know what you mean by "not the norm", but even if cows didn't need "corn" at all, according to the text I quoted pigs and poultry require it (or something similar).

There is no B12 debate, both of you are twisting my words. I was asking why SD thinks it requires injection.

I do not argue against B12 supplementation. I have never done so, and I don't intend to. Please stop misrepresenting my position.

You appear to be denying that veganism is not unhealthy - we're arguing that if a diet requires supplementation, whether through pills and/or injections, it's not inherently healthy.

Is there some technical issue preventing you from reading my text? Why is it so difficult for you (both) to accept that I was simply asking "why do you think vegans require injection?" and that you have done nothing but try to spin that into a big deal about me denying whatever you seem to be concerned with?

It's "easy to take oral supplements and consume fortified foods", you say.

Yes, does this seem controversial?

If the diet were inherently healthy, I should only have to eat food - not take supplements or fortified foods.

I'm not sure why you cannot accept this.

Let's say that a vegan has a diet that is generally considered healthy by vegans, like some kind of whole-foods plant-based diet, let's call it D. If I understand correctly, you would say that D is actually made of two parts: the diet proper (fruits, vegetables, ...) and the required supplements. And because there are required supplements, you conclude that the diet proper is inherently unhealthy. What I am saying is that it is irrelevant because the vegan is going to eat D and be healthy. You are just playing a word game.

You don't seem to be able to read between the lines.

I wouldn't say unable, but I am bad at doing that. Please tell me when I am not being clear.

By "a switch to plant-based food", I meant that we increase plant-based food production whilst decreasing - or even ending - animal-based food sources. This would undoubtedly result in "an increase in plant-based food production", since there would be no farm animals to eat such produce.

Why couldn't we eliminate "such produce" by decreasing the plant-based food production, since we don't need as much anymore?

As I said before, using this food waste as animal feed would free-up crop production for human consumption.

The goal of veganism is not to "free-up crop production for human consumption", it is to decrease animal exploitation, which would incidentally free up crop production.

And in a hypothetical mostly vegan world, the "leftovers" would be plant-based, and could be used for composting or maybe as feed for the manure-producing animals we discussed previously (and we would not eat them).

And the "more than six times as inefficient", which is based on earlier research that claimed that it takes 6-20kg of corn to make 1kg of meat, has recently been challenged by research that shows it could be as low as 3kg corn to produce 1kg of meat.

So meat is still less efficient. Thanks for the update.

And most importantly, there is no basis to make a comparison with animal exploitation: what do you mean by "exploitation of migrant workers"? How is it comparable to a cow being forcibly impregnated year after year only to have her baby taken away every time and her teats sucked dry by industrial equipment until she can't stand anymore?

That's a rather emotive misrepresentation of dairy farming, don't you think?

I tried not to overdo it, but it is emotive on purpose because animals are not objects. As for it being a misrepresentation, you tell me: "artificial insemination", "Weaning of calves", "complete eradication of udder inflammation is difficult", "culling of cows with high SCC", "Lameness is a significant animal welfare concern". Notice the absence of a long-term retirement plan. Maybe all these euphemisms are really innocuous in Europe, but elsewhere, my description would be the euphemism.

The issue of rights, whether of humans or animals, is going to become more difficult, as your WAP website notes regarding the UK

(I don't think your quote illustrated your point, but it doesn't matter here) You are rigging your argument by declaring that human exploitation is difficult to fix (through political/legal means), and locking it with animal welfare even though the two issues could (and probably should) be handled independently.

So, who has the worst of it, given that humans are sapient, rather than merely sentient?

Whose side loses 70 billion members on land and 2 trillion members in the sea every year? Frankly, even if things look rosy in your bubble, globally there is no comparison. And importantly, we don't have to choose between the two, we can, and should, tackle both issues.

Trafficked migrant labourers get raped, beaten to death, have their organs removed without permission for the black market, etc.

And if you want me to provide citations for any of the above claims, and more, I'll do so.

Yes, could you provide a few references please? (just the most important ones, no need to turn this conversation into something else)

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Finally we agree.

The fact that food can be freed-up for human consumption, and food waste/manure would be used as feed instead of crops, is a step in the right direction for your vegan utopia, is it not?

My "vegan utopia" is about reducing animal exploitation; I suppose a reduction in crop production in your scenario would save at least some of the rodents, but so would a diet shift toward veganism for the same reason.

If you're now going to back away from it for fear of some future exploitation based on the implications of the word "control"...?!

Tight control of animal life is not "some future exploitation", it is one of the main links in the causal chain resulting in exploitation today.

Let me cite some more articles to show that it's not just my opinion.

Thank you.

I didn't deny that climate change would have an impact, but things are more complicated than you make it sound. Your reference mentions a two-phase development, and the "bad" outcome is the second phase. There is no consideration of actual production details (various animals and plants, nutrition, new geographic distribution of agriculture adapted to climate). And since vegan diets would be more efficient, we might be able to accommodate a progressive loss of productivity for a while longer. And one of the articles cited by your reference says "the interactions between various global change factors under field conditions create substantial complexity that is not currently well understood" and "Even in the most pessimistic scenarios, it is highly unlikely that climate change would result in a net decline in global yields." I am not saying that they are necessarily correct, what I am saying is that talking about catastrophic scenarios decades into the future is speculative, and your apparent confidence in your claim is unwarranted. (in other words, this is another candidate for "perhaps, perhaps not")

And abandoned farms, and crops, will not produce food.

Veganism will probably not help in this bleak scenario, but this is not a reason to not try to engage in a diet shift today.

Killing some/a lot/most is "better" than killing all

You may have missed it, but in my scenario the mass euthanasia is the last resort; we would try to save as many as possible before that.

That said, I think you are making the same mistake as someone else in the other thread: this killing-of-not-all "at any one time" that you mentioned (aka current reality) is 70 billion animals/year (this rate itself is probably increasing every year). In my scenario, the mass euthanasia would be a one-time fixed number. What we are currently doing is breeding and killing more and more with no upper limit. As I understand it, my hypothetical scenario could be the lower limit.

their bodies could be used for food, clothing, etc.

I did not specify the clearing in my scenario (I would personally favor burial if possible).

That would be a far more respectful way to treat their deaths.

The issue that I wanted to point out was "die under current practices ... for a purpose - humans", which is the idea that killing is supposed to be praiseworthy or "better" as long as it is of use to us.

The problem with vegan meat-substitutes is the fact that it isn't as palatable as meat itself.

Taste is not as simple as you make it sound. It is partially cultural and variable over time. Some vegans describe a change in their perception of taste, apparently due to acclimation to food that is not overloaded with sugar, salt and fat (as I understand, the constant consumption of these overloaded foods can dull the sense of taste, but it is reversible).

And just in case you didn't know: it is possible to have healthy, tasty and diverse vegan meals without having to rely too much, if at all, on processed foods.

Whatever moral argument one makes, whether you like it or not, health and taste take precedence in people's minds.

I can somewhat see the case for taste, but the health that you have described in this conversation is just a label, it is not actual physical health.

 

[*SD*]

You appear to be denying that veganism is not unhealthy - we're arguing that if a diet requires supplementation, whether through pills and/or injections, it's not inherently healthy.

To put it in context, it's like someone arguing that "a junk food diet is healthy - with supplements (multivitamin/zinc/iron/etc pills)".

Yes, it's healthy, if that's how you define healthy - but most people would argue that a junk food diet isn't healthy in and of itself. And the same applies to veganism - if you need supplements to address deficiencies, then the diet isn't - can't be - healthy in and of itself.

That's the point that I - and, I believe SD - am making.

Exactly this.

This is going round in circles because Vego has a zero concession policy.

Vego -

On the one hand you're saying vegans can be healthy by including supplements and/or fortified foods in their "diet" and on the other hand at the exact same time you're denying that the B12 issue is even so much as a talking point within the vegan community. I've given you a source, DG has given you a source and you're just pretending it's not even a thing.

Jesus even the vegan society acknowledges this issue.

Very low B12 intakes can cause anemia and nervous system damage. The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12 (including some plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals) and B12 supplements. Vitamin B12, whether in supplements, fortified foods, or animal products, comes from micro-organisms. Most vegans consume enough B12 to avoid anemia and nervous system damage, but many do not get enough to minimize potential risk of heart disease or pregnancy complications.

To get the full benefit of a vegan diet, vegans should do one of the following:

Eat fortified foods two or three times a day to get at least three micrograms (mcg or µg) of B12 a day
OR Take one B12 supplement daily providing at least 10 micrograms
OR Take a weekly B12 supplement providing at least 2000 micrograms.

Notice the word "should" up there? All emphasis mine.

I haven't read your reply to my last post yet, but at this point I think you're just being outright dishonest in general. I've read your reply to DG, and his last to you just to check if I'm taking your witterings the wrong way. It appears I'm not, DG seems to be getting the same impression, at least on the B12 aspect.

Have you ever even looked into this? Because I know, for certain, I have. I've given citations, so has DG and yet you remain resistant to the point. I'm pretty much convinced by now that you're fighting it because you weren't even aware of it, it got raised and now you feel like a bit of a wally for coming on here bragging about what virtuous motherfuckers vegans are and your nonsense has been exposed for what it really is - a game of pick and choose.

Many posts back I questioned how new you were to this topic. I now think we have the answer. Very.

 

[Vego]

you're denying that the B12 issue is even so much as a talking point within the vegan community.

I don't know what else to tell you here: you are completely misrepresenting my position. When I said there is no debate, it's because I don't disagree with your quote from the Vegan Society, I never did. You are trying to make it sound like I said that vegans don't need B12 supplementation or fortification: you are wrong. If you think I misstated my position, please quote me saying what you think I said.

 

[*SD*]

but if you are going to make such a big claim ("B12 injection is frequent and even necessary for veganism") then you need a justification, because it sounds like a myth.

Ring any bells?

If it's not frequent or necessary to supplement for B12 if one is vegan, then why would it be such a talking point? Why would the vegan society even acknowledge it if it's just an odd case here or there?

The answer is simple, and obvious. It's an issue for vegans. The vegan society addresses it, vegans are talking about it ( A LOT ) and vegans are acknowledging it.

I placed no emphasis on "injection" as far as I recall. I stated in an earlier post it matters not what form the supplementation takes. The fact that you should supplement shows that the vegan "diet" is lacking.

 

[Vego]

but if you are going to make such a big claim ("B12 injection is frequent and even necessary for veganism") then you need a justification, because it sounds like a myth.

Ring any bells?

If it's not frequent or necessary to supplement for B12 if one is vegan...

Do these two words look the same to you: "injection", "supplement"? Do you think they are synonymous?

 

[*SD*]

Do these two words look the same to you: "injection", "supplement"? Do you think they are synonymous?

Yes. They look exactly the same to me. They have all the same letters in exactly the same order. Guess you win after all.

For
Fuck
Sake

This is the last time I'm going to explain this, in the vein or probably futile hopes that your kale sodden brain can grasp it -

If B12 is taken as a supplement, which vegans, the vegan society, just to name a few advise that vegans SHOULD do - It doesn't matter what form the supplement takes.

It can be an injection, it can be a pill, it can be something you snort up your nose or shove up your shit pipe for all I care - the fact is it's a supplement. Now why are we arguing against supplements? Because a "diet" that requires you to take supplements can't be inclusive of all the nutrients your body needs now can it? OTHERWISE WHY FUCKING TAKE THEM?

Gordon Bennett. Fuck you're dense.

Is having your leg torn off by an alligator EXACTLY the same as having it torn off by a bear? Or a lion? No, probably not but the RESULT is the same isn't it?! Leg, torn off, no more leg. If B12 is being SUPPLEMENTED it doesn't matter which orifice you prefer to shove it in, it doesn't matter if you prefer a needle - it's a FUCKING B12 SUPPLEMENT.

What's a supplement?

sup|ple¦ment

NOUN
a thing added to something else in order to complete or enhance it.

Why would vegans be adding B12 if they were already getting enough of it through what they eat? "Fortified" isn't going to get you out of this because:

for|tify

VERB

provide (a place) with defensive works as protection against attack.
"the whole town was heavily fortified" · [more]
synonyms: build defences round · strengthen with defensive works · secure · [more]
strengthen (someone) mentally or physically.
synonyms: invigorate · strengthen · energize · enliven · liven up · animate · [more]
(fortified)
increase the nutritive value of (food) by adding vitamins.
synonyms: add vitamins/minerals to · boost · improve · beef up

<i></i>

If it's already there in sufficient quantities then fortification of food wouldn't be necessary.

I don't know how much clearer this can be, you are making a fool of your self. If you concede the B12 point we can get back to ethics, which is the area I prefer to argue against when it comes to veganism, but if you won't then I'm just writing you off as too dishonest to even address further.

 

[Vego]

It doesn't matter what form the supplement takes.

As I said previously, it matters for the perception of the difficulty of veganism. A pill is easy to take. An injection is less easy. It may not make a difference to you, but it might to someone else.

Now why are we arguing against supplements? Because a "diet" that requires you to take supplements can't be inclusive of all the nutrients your body needs now can it?

You are arguing against supplements because a diet that requires supplements is not nutritionally complete? I don't dispute the completeness part (I never did, and it's not a difficult issue in practice), but the rest doesn't make sense to me.

As for the "B12 point", I already stated my position multiple times already.

 

[*SD*]

As I said previously, it matters for the perception of the difficulty of veganism

Definitely. And vegans want to play down the difficulties by saying "oh but you can just eat plants instead tho" - and this is clearly not the case

A pill is easy to take

I agree, that probably is quite easy to do. I didn't argue that it wasn't. Plenty of vegans are taking pills. I don't see how this cuts against my point(s)

It's a question of whether one should need to if ones diet is already providing that which vegans are taking in pill form. Let's forget about injections, it only muddies the waters (and yes it was me that brought it up, for good reason)

You are arguing against supplements because a diet that requires supplements is not nutritionally complete?

Yes.

I don't dispute the completeness part

Ok, so why are we arguing about it?

As for the "B12 point", I already stated my position multiple times already.

would you humour me by stating your position on this once again then? Because it's seemed like mixed messages so far. Initially you appeared to be arguing that the B12 thing is a "myth" (you actually used that word) and now you are conceding the point?

Just humour me and state your position on this one aspect of the veganism vs non vegan debate. Please?

 

[Vego]

And vegans want to play down the difficulties by saying "oh but you can just eat plants instead tho" - and this is clearly not the case

In the previous thread and in this one, I insist on the importance of getting informed, which is literally vital when it comes to health. On this point, part of the perceived difficulty is artificial because many people, including non-vegans, don't care enough about proper nutrition. However, in my view, the difficulty regarding injection is not about nutrition, it is about practicality.

You are arguing against supplements because a diet that requires supplements is not nutritionally complete?

Yes.

I don't dispute the completeness part

Ok, so why are we arguing about it?

Sorry if I wasn't clear, this is actually a different point. I don't understand how "a diet requires supplements" leads to "it makes sense to argue against supplements". Or did you mean something else?

would you humour me by stating your position on this once again then?

As far as I can tell, this B12 distraction in the conversation came about because, in my eyes, "injection is required" (looks like a myth to me) is not the same as "supplementation is required". If you use "injection" as a synonym for "supplementation", then we probably do not have a disagreement regarding B12 supplementation, although I would argue that your usage of the word injection is confusing and should be discouraged.

My position is this: everyone, vegan or not, should make sure that their diet is nutritionally balanced and adapted to their individual biology. For vegan diets, some nutrients are not "naturally" present in common plant foods, and may require fortification and/or supplementation (including injection if this specific method is necessary). I generally try to avoid giving details on purpose, but I gave a few links in my opening, some managed by vegan-friendly health professionals with up-to-date information, including B12 (which is also mentioned in the videos).

 

[*SD*]

In the previous thread and in this one, I insist on the importance of getting informed, which is literally vital when it comes to health. On this point, part of the perceived difficulty is artificial because many people, including non-vegans, don't care enough about proper nutrition. However, in my view, the difficulty regarding injection is not about nutrition, it is about practicality.

Getting informed, whatever the topic is always important, we agree.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, this is actually a different point. I don't understand how "a diet requires supplements" leads to "it makes sense to argue against supplements". Or did you mean something else?

It's not so much a position of "supplements are bad full stop" - if someone has some sort of medical condition that means they can't process a certain nutrient properly and has to take additional supplements to counter this condition then that's fine. What I'm saying is that if it's simply a nutrient (or more) lacking through diet, it is preferable to address that deficiency through food rather than pills. I would reject that fortification is a way around this for two reasons:

Fortified foods have still been messed with so as to increase their nutritional value and also that vegans appear to be eating a lot of fortified foods along with supplements.

Granted, that is little more than a preference or opinion on my part but if some doctor told me I was lacking in vitamin Z and I need to either eat more of food X or take a vitamin Z pill I'd go for eating more of food X over the pill. I find it difficult to favour an artificially supplemented diet over a "natural" one. And yes I know where the argument goes at this point so we can go there too.

It's similar (only similar, not identical) to saying I'd prefer to keep my natural hips than have artificial replacements. I realize there are issues with this comparison but I'm not saying it's a perfect one. It should suffice to communicate the point I'm trying to make.

As far as I can tell, this B12 distraction in the conversation came about because

I reject it being a distraction. It's a very relevant point within the topic.
If you don't want to dwell in this area longer then I'm fine with moving on because I think the point has been made by my self and others.

"injection is required" (looks like a myth to me) is not the same as "supplementation is required". If you use "injection" as a synonym for "supplementation", then we probably do not have a disagreement regarding B12 supplementation, although I would argue that your usage of the word injection is confusing and should be discouraged.

To be fair, I have addressed this over and over and you're still hung up on it. I have said, several times that it doesn't matter what form the supplement takes. I've written quite a lot on this thread and I don't really want to re-read all my posts at this exact moment. If I said "You will definitely need B12 supplements and this absolutely must be intramuscular injection" then that's not what I meant. I don't think I said that. I referenced a source that admits to taking B12 in injection form, I don't think I implied that it has to be an injection. Even if I did, I'll have corrected that several times by now so can we at least get passed the word "injection" ?

My position is this: everyone, vegan or not, should make sure that their diet is nutritionally balanced and adapted to their individual biology

Quite. Aside from the fact I don't think many people ponder this too much, I agree.

For vegan diets, some nutrients are not "naturally" present in common plant foods, and may require fortification and/or supplementation (including injection if this specific method is necessary)

Yes. I don't see that as a positive for a vegan diet, I see it as a negative. I have already explained why so I can only refer you back to my previous comments.

I generally try to avoid giving details on purpose

Hmm. Yes. And I have to question why that is. It seems a bit dishonest. For instance have you seen vegan activists? I don't mean the loopy ones standing in front of trucks, just the ones that hang around in streets trying to talk people into going vegan? Joey Carbstrong is a good example of what I'm talking about here. Arguing that we don't need to eat meat, it's cruel, it's bad for us, animals haven't hurt us etc etc. He offers people a business card with some links to resources etc, and challenge 22. At no point (at least not in so far as I've seen) does he OFFER the information about the deficiencies. That seems dishonest. I'm offering him up as an example of what I'm talking about. Earthling Ed is another one.

Even if you can find examples of vegans doing what I'm complaining about them not doing (I haven't watched every video on the internet) it wouldn't negate the fact that vegans are generally not offering this information to potential recruits. Many would argue that being "economical" with the truth is tantamount to lying.

Now I think about it, this exact issue is also discussed in that debate I linked previously.

some managed by vegan-friendly health professionals with up-to-date information, including B12 (which is also mentioned in the videos).

Yeah well I understand you did that, and you can continue to do it, but then I can just go dig up some health professionals who say a vegan diet sucks so this doesn't really go anywhere.

 

[Vego]

If I said "You will definitely need B12 supplements and this absolutely must be intramuscular injection" then that's not what I meant. I don't think I said that. I referenced a source that admits to taking B12 in injection form, I don't think I implied that it has to be an injection.

Thank you, this answers my initial question.

I generally try to avoid giving details on purpose

And I have to question why that is.

At least a few reasons for me:
1) Although there are health claims that I would be able to justify if needed, I am not qualified to give specific nutritional advice: people should take responsibility for their own health and get informed.
2) Even if I wanted to hide it (I don't, why would I?), the information regarding supplementation is actually difficult to miss. The resources I posted, major dietetics organizations, books: they talk about it.
3) Even though it is important, in practice it is at most a minor inconvenience to deal with (assuming proper access to resources, and no special medical circumstances). Even as a "negative" point (somewhat subjective), it's just not a serious obstacle to ethical veganism, where the focus is on addressing animal exploitation.

It seems a bit dishonest.

What would be the point of lying? To trick people into getting sick? It only appears to be a big problem to you because you have decided that it is one, even though (please correct me if I misunderstood) you don't seem to have a specific complaint ("little more than a preference or opinion").

At no point (at least not in so far as I've seen) does he OFFER the information about the deficiencies.

Unless you are claiming that there is some kind of deficiency that vegans cannot easily address, there is not much to "offer". Specific deficiencies can be easy to prevent (it's not just B12), and the "Challenge 22" project collaborates with registered dietitians who are more suited to give this type of information (they even have a page on B12; the website doesn't work well on my device, so I got the page through a web search).

I can just go dig up some health professionals who say a vegan diet sucks so this doesn't really go anywhere.

Unlike me, health professionals are supposed to be qualified to give specific advice. It doesn't mean that they can't be mistaken, and those that I referenced justify their claims using peer-reviewed evidence, so what they say can be verified. I try to do the same when I defend a specific scientific claim, but assessing scientific papers can be very difficult (as I mentioned in my opening). I don't know if there is a simple solution to this (probably not).

 

[*SD*]

At least a few reasons for me:
1) Although there are health claims that I would be able to justify if needed, I am not qualified to give specific nutritional advice: people should take responsibility for their own health and get informed.

Me neither and yes they definitely should.

2) Even if I wanted to hide it (I don't, why would I?), the information regarding supplementation is actually difficult to miss. The resources I posted, major dietetics organizations, books: they talk about it.

You did appear to be resisting it a bit earlier, but I believe we're passed that now.

It is difficult to miss - once you start actually looking into it. The point I was making is that vegans aren't readily offering it up during the conversion talks, perhaps I should have been more specific. They aren't saying "Hey you there! Veganism is awesome because animals are nice so you should be vegan but remember to take your supplements!"
Ya know what I'm saying? They are'n't up front about it, it's only when people start digging that they discover it. Which is how come I'm aware of it.

3) Even though it is important, in practice it is at most a minor inconvenience to deal with (assuming proper access to resources, and no special medical circumstances). Even as a "negative" point (somewhat subjective), it's just not a serious obstacle to ethical veganism, where the focus is on addressing animal exploitation.

I'm not saying it's some difficult feat to pop some pills, the physical act of doing this is pretty easy, but that's not the point. This is also more of an argument for dietary veganism rather than ethical. It's loosely tied to ethics when you look at the bigger picture, but the deficiency side of it is more of a dietary thing.

What would be the point of lying? To trick people into getting sick?

I didn't say anyone was lying about it, I said it's being economical with the truth and many would argue that this is tantamount to lying. If you're selling a car, and you know it overheats but you just don't mention it, you haven't outright lied but you've been dishonest by withholding important information. Saying, upon discovery of this fault by the purchaser - "ah but you didn't ask me if it overheated! If you had I would have said yes!" ain't gonna fly is it.

I don't think it's because vegan recruiters want people to get sick but it's fairly obvious that getting them on the hook is the objective of the mission. Saying up front "I feel really strongly about veganism and I'd really like it if you went vegan too but tbh a vegan diet is incomplete so you'll likely have to take pills" is going to be damaging to this objective.

When Jehovah's Witnesses go door to door trying to gain cult members they don't say "Come join us cos we're really awesome and you'll get to live in happy land! But if your kids need a blood transfusion you'll just have to let them die I'm afraid" - and it's obvious why they don't.

It only appears to be a big problem to you because you have decided that it is one

I have definitely decided that being dishonest is generally bad, yes.

even though (please correct me if I misunderstood) you don't seem to have a specific complaint ("little more than a preference or opinion")

Actually I have, hopefully this post clarifies it a little. If you're referring to the physical act of taking pills then I don't dispute that this is relatively easy to do, I said that quite a few posts back - the issue is the reason why vegans have to do this. To reiterate, if a diet is lacking so as to require supplements, which you conceded a vegan diet is then I don't see that as a positive. Why would I? If you wish to argue that having to take pills because you're deliberately eating an incomplete diet is somehow good then please do so but this is going to be a very hard sell.

Unless you are claiming that there is some kind of deficiency that vegans cannot easily address, there is not much to "offer"

I didn't say it was difficult to address, I said the opposite several posts ago. Swallowing pills is generally not difficult, the contention is that one should not need to do this, and generally does not need to do this (outside of medical conditions) if one's diet is complete in the first place.

Specific deficiencies can be easy to prevent (it's not just B12)

Although I appreciate your admission - this does not help your case. I know it's not just B12, there are far more problems with going vegan than just B12. This just seems to be the one that comes up most often. A bit of research reveals that reasons for abandoning veganism include weight loss, hair loss, depression, skin problems (including a change in colour!) lack of energy, problems concentrating and general unwellness.

Vegans want to argue "but you can just eat plants" and earlier you wanted to sell it as "just buy slightly different stuff" - it is obviously not even nearly that simple.

"Challenge 22" project collaborates with registered dietitians who are more suited to give this type of information (they even have a page on B12

Yes, they do. And they also assign you a mentor, which I believe is optional but recommended. Why is a mentor necessary if all you need to do is just buy slightly different stuff? So much for just eat plants.

All of this demonstrates to the unbiased eye that veganism is not at all as simple as most would have you believe during the recruiting process.

 

[Vego]

You did appear to be resisting it a bit earlier

Fortification/supplementation was briefly discussed in the previous thread, and it is featured in the resources I gave in my opening. My position hasn't changed since then, the issue here seems to be that you think it is a big problem and I don't.

It is difficult to miss - once you start actually looking into it.

I'm not sure what you mean here: the resources I gave talk about it, and in the videos you don't even have to ask for it, it is readily presented (in Unnatural Vegan's video: at around 2:40; in habits 2, 3, and 5 out of 7 at 3:23; "take your supplements" at 5:51). It's not hidden behind a secret door, it's just there.

I don't think it's because vegan recruiters want people to get sick but it's fairly obvious that getting them on the hook is the objective of the mission. Saying up front "I feel really strongly about veganism and I'd really like it if you went vegan too but tbh a vegan diet is incomplete so you'll likely have to take pills" is going to be damaging to this objective.

My message has consistently been "get informed". I am defending veganism, not "recruiters". Saying that you are not happy with their message is not an argument against veganism. And the goal of an ethical vegan diet is not to eat plants, it is to avoid animal products, so "a vegan diet is incomplete without pills" is irrelevant to ethical veganism. And it is not even relevant to health veganism because a strict definition of the word "diet" is not important.

When Jehovah's Witnesses go door to door trying to gain cult members

Veganism is not a cult. A project like "Challenge 22" is just an example of a way to get acquainted with veganism.

It only appears to be a big problem to you because you have decided that it is one

I have definitely decided that being dishonest is generally bad, yes.

You keep trying to attack the messengers: there are dishonest people among vegans and non-vegans, and that is not an argument against veganism.

To reiterate, if a diet is lacking so as to require supplements, which you conceded a vegan diet is then I don't see that as a positive.

I am uninterested in a definition of the word "diet". You have decided to define it in a restrictive way that allows you to claim that "a vegan diet is lacking". A well-planned vegan stuff-consumed-to-live is not "lacking", and this is what matters.

A bit of research reveals that reasons for abandoning veganism include weight loss, hair loss, depression, skin problems (including a change in colour!) lack of energy, problems concentrating and general unwellness.

Does your research also tell you why these issues happen?

And they also assign you a mentor, which I believe is optional but recommended. Why is a mentor necessary if all you need to do is just buy slightly different stuff?

You just said it is "optional", so it can't also be "necessary". Regardless, the first step is to get informed. My guess as to why a mentor is recommended: it could be easier and safer to get personalized advice from an experienced live person rather than having to read books and risk misunderstanding the material, especially if there is some kind of time constraint.

the recruiting process.

Here is my recruiting process: get informed.

 

[*SD*]

Fortification/supplementation was briefly discussed in the previous thread, and it is featured in the resources I gave in my opening. My position hasn't changed since then, the issue here seems to be that you think it is a big problem and I don't.

I'm not talking about the other thread. You've done it here too. Fine so your opinion is worth more than mine? Because you're vegan? Whoop de fucking doo.

I'm not sure what you mean here: the resources I gave talk about it, and in the videos you don't even have to ask for it, it is readily presented (in Unnatural Vegan's video: at around 2:40; in habits 2, 3, and 5 out of 7 at 3:23; "take your supplements" at 5:51). It's not hidden behind a secret door, it's just there.

This is what I was arguing earlier in the thread and you were resisting it. I didn't say it was behind a secret door, I said it isn't offered during the recruiting process.

My message has consistently been "get informed".

Which I don't disagree with, as previously stated.

I am defending veganism, not "recruiters"

So you are defending a position which you aren't trying to persuade others to adopt? Got ya.
No need for anyone to adopt your position then because you aren't here to persuade people. This thread, which you started must exist for some other reason.

Saying that you are not happy with their message is not an argument against veganism

It's an objection to the dishonest tactics they employ to reel people in.

And the goal of an ethical vegan diet is not to eat plants, it is to avoid animal products

:lol: no it isn't! Not according to the definition you're using - that of the vegan society! Vegans have issues with eating roadkill do they?! Not under that definition they don't.

so "a vegan diet is incomplete without pills" is irrelevant to ethical veganism

I said that in my last post! I said it's more on the dietary front than the ethical front.

And it is not even relevant to health veganism because a strict definition of the word "diet" is not important.

Ok! So you don't get to define supplements as part of a diet then - marvelous

Veganism is not a cult

I didn't say it was? Notice how I used different words when talking about JW's to when I was talking about vegans? Please pay attention.

A project like "Challenge 22" is just an example of a way to get acquainted with veganism.

Possibly. Although I maintain it would be more honest for vegan recruiters to offer this information up front, as illustrated by my car example.

You keep trying to attack the messengers

Well, if they are the face of veganism, which it's easy to argue that they are, and they are not offering honest and at least more complete information - then yes - I am attacking them. I refer you back to the car example once again.

there are dishonest people among vegans and non-vegans

Without a doubt. I also said that earlier too.

I am uninterested in a definition of the word "diet". You have decided to define it in a restrictive way that allows you to claim that "a vegan diet is lacking". A well-planned vegan stuff-consumed-to-live is not "lacking", and this is what matters.

What are you talking about? You conceded earlier that you do not dispute that a vegan diet is incomplete! Make up your mind! "Stuff consumed to live" - lol I think that could be classed as your definition of diet? Even though you aren't interested in defining diet?! You are stepping on your dick all over the place.

Does your research also tell you why these issues happen?

It does, yes. Would you like some citations? I'm happy to provide if you want?

You just said it is "optional", so it can't also be "necessary"

I said I believe it's optional, yes? I mean it's not like they can force you to have a mentor is it?! The implication here is clear - if they are assigning mentors to help people cope with veganism then it can't be all that easy to do can it? I don't need a mentor to help me eat a balanced diet and neither does anyone else who isn't a vegan (outside of medical exceptions)

My guess as to why a mentor is recommended: it could be easier and safer to get personalized advice from an experienced live person rather than having to read books and risk misunderstanding the material

As above - why should this be necessary if all we need to do is just eat plants? Safer you say? So in order to avoid the many health detriments associated with a vegan diet if one isn't being coached?!

Should I source an omnivorous diet coach so I don't get sick and try to avoid hair loss and weird coloured skin?! Among other things?!

Here is my recruiting process: get informed.

Here's mine - umm. Oh yeah I don't need one because I'm not trying to turn people away from the default position. And when I see you offering up the information about deficiencies and the myriad of other downsides to a vegan diet in your OP's or elsewhere, I will consider you a very sincere individual. Until then, we part company.

I wanted to get back to the ethics part but it seems that's unlikely now. You keep leaving out significant parts of my posts in your replies so this may be my final post in this thread. I can't be arsed to rehash the same points over and over. I'm going to leave it in the hands of the readers to make up their own minds because I can see this thread going on for the rest of time if I keep responding. I'll let someone else pick up the gauntlet if they do so wish.

ATB,

SD

 

[Vego]

Fine so your opinion is worth more than mine?

You are complaining about what you perceive to be a lack of transparency on my part, and I am telling you that you are mistaken: I provided pointers that I think are useful, and the rest is up to each individual.

So you are defending a position which you aren't trying to persuade others to adopt?

I want people to make informed decisions, I am not interested in tricking or coercing people.

And the goal of an ethical vegan diet is not to eat plants, it is to avoid animal products

:lol: no it isn't! Not according to the definition you're using - that of the vegan society! Vegans have issues with eating roadkill do they?! Not under that definition they don't.

The definition of the Vegan Society says to avoid "all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." I don't have a strong opinion about roadkill, but as far as I can tell, it is not a form of exploitation (if it is really accidental, not "accidental"). Others object to eating any meat as a matter of principle. The animal products that most people buy are generally the result of animal exploitation, and a few exceptions won't change that.

Ok! So you don't get to define supplements as part of a diet

I don't try to define diet. As far as I can tell, when dietitians talk about a well-planned vegan diet, fortification and supplementation are included.

What are you talking about? You conceded earlier that you do not dispute that a vegan diet is incomplete!

Earlier I was talking about "a diet that requires supplements" which has an ambiguity: are the required supplements included in the diet or not? If you use a definition that excludes fortification and supplementation, then yes it is probably incomplete (maybe some future GMO will change that). And it doesn't matter because this strict definition is not useful in practice. A well planned vegan thing-that-I-don't-mind-calling-diet is not incomplete.

It does, yes. Would you like some citations? I'm happy to provide if you want?

Sure, but it's the reason why these issues happen that I am interested in (and importantly, what were these individuals doing compared to what is recommended).

I don't need a mentor to help me eat a balanced diet and neither does anyone else who isn't a vegan (outside of medical exceptions)

Even non-vegans can have poor nutrition: anyone, vegan or not, can be in need of help, even without pre-existing medical conditions. The issue here is not the necessity of a mentor, it is the necessity of good information and planning.

why should this be necessary if all we need to do is just eat plants?

The first thing to do is to get informed. There is an unavoidable learning curve (to compensate for the removal of the animal products), but that doesn't mean it is difficult ("easy" isn't binary).

So in order to avoid the many health detriments associated with a vegan diet if one isn't being coached?!

Why is this about coaching now? You are generalizing from a specific project with a specific goal.

I wanted to get back to the ethics part

You keep jumping to new topics (B12, definition of diet, "recruiters", coaching) while misrepresenting my position, and I am trying to be clearer.

You keep leaving out significant parts of my posts in your replies

Long posts are difficult to read and answer, so I try to be shorter. If you think I should have addressed something specific, please ask again.

 

[Sparhafoc]

This is a vast and complex topic which is rarely (if ever) done justice on internet fora, and this is not least a direct result of evangelizing vegans rehearsing their virtue-signalling routines at strangers.

However, there are useful and interesting discussions to be had if one is careful to ensure that facts rather than feelings are the basis of the discussion.

A good starting point, in my opinion, is to actually look at what is possible in terms of eating, i.e. trophic levels.

There are three primary classes of living organisms divided by the way they consume nutrients to power their bodies: autotrophs, heterotrophs, and detritivores.

Autotrophs' nutrients are wholly inorganic - they consume water, and minerals, and use energy either sunlight or chemical to convert those minerals into their body's building blocks and energy.

Heterotrophs eat the autotrophs (herbivores) and also eat heterotrophs who eat autotrophs (carnivores) or both (omnivores), cutting out the need to perform those basic chemical conversions, instead taking pre-packaged nutrients direct from a living organism's organic stores.

Detritivores break down decomposing organic matter, whether that be the expelled fecal left-over nutrients from the consumed organisms releasing the energy and minerals back into the ecosystem.


Humans, at present, cannot engage much in autotrophy with some quite important, but still minor (from a nutritional perspective) distinctions (salt is a good example). Perhaps technology will change this, but for now, we're not autotrophic. We also cannot perform much of the cellular chemistry required to function as a detritivore, as will become immediately apparent when a human eats something rotten.

So we're stuck being heterotrophs pending the advent of technologies that might furnish us with new ways of acquiring nutrients.

We are ALL heterotrophs, whether we're herbivorous (vegan), omnivorous, or carnivorous (but there are few humans who practice obligate carnivory).

As such, both vegan and non-vegan directly rely on the death of another living organism in order to acquire nutrients for their own body's processes.


This helps remove the obfuscatory moral component in the consumption of meat but we have yet to deal with the subjective, the sensory, and the social components which are necessarily a factor regarding the consumption of animals.

Therein lies the real rub.

The actual moral argument (ignoring any and all references to environmental practices or health reasons for now which are both equally obfuscated and prone to ignorant arguments) is that it is wrong to kill a sentient animal. That is, an animals which can experience both physical and existential pain. Plants do not feel pain, insofar as we know, and therefore killing them doesn't require pain, stress, or any other morally loaded stimuli response. Animals, however, undoubtedly can feel stress and pain, they experience the world subjectively through their sensory perception and the act of killing an animal causes it a (short) period of deep distress which is unpalatable to many, even those who eat meat. Similarly, as plants do not possess the capacity for any subjective processes, they cannot experience any social loss at the death of a loved ones, whereas there are many animals (particularly mammals and birds) who do appear to experience a subjective pain at the loss of a mate, offspring, or member of their group.

Now, the first point there is often where evangelizing vegans hang their hats, but I think it's actually not a very clear argument, and when push comes to shove, they have rarely actually considered their argument and how well it represents their emotional motivation.

This can be explored in two ways: first, vegans should be perfectly willing to eat bivalves. While a bivalve is unarguably an animal, there is little reason to believe they possess subjectivity or even sense pain beyond the most basic avoidance-response to damaging external stimuli which even many plants can do. Following that, there should be a gradient of animals vegans would be willing to eat, and some which vegans would be unsure of eating, through to ones they definitely won't eat due to high confidence in that animal's ability to experience. As most vegans (all evangelizing ones in my experience) don't consider any animal morally acceptable food, regardless of its capacity to experience pain, they're being inconsistent - now, there's nothing wrong necessarily with being inconsistent, but really the point is they need no consistency to be perfectly justified in opting for veganism: they can do it just because, and that's fine... it's in convincing others to follow their preferences where consistency becomes an obligation.

Secondly, it does not account for technology which could simply 'switch off' an animal's brain (which probably factually occurs anyway when you fire a large metal bolt into it) - simply put, which vegan would be prepared to eat beef if they could be convinced beyond doubt that the animal suffered not even a millisecond of pain or stress from the act of killing it? Very few, which should set of some reflection, but so rarely does. Again, this doesn't say 'veganism is wrong' but rather that 'vegans' arguments are incomplete, inconsistent, and poorly conceived'.

That still leaves out the social, and it's actually a very intriguing point that few people bother to explore. Does the killing of a 4 month old calf, piglet, or lamb cause its parents subjective pain and stress? Does the killing of any individual within a group produce that result in other members of that group? If this is established as certain, then the actual victim of the killing is no longer the focus, but rather the web of pain and stress caused to multiple animals which themselves are not the direct victims.

Another thought experiment can be run here, and this time for the meat-eaters: you are on a deserted island, desperate for protein and close to death, and find a group of pigs which you could hunt to eat. We can run social variables. For example, if there are 3 boars and 1 sow, you'd probably consider it less damaging (and therefore less of a moral question) to kill a boar, whereas if there were 3 sows and 1 boar, you'd probably find the contrary - this doesn't need to be emotional, even purely rationally and logically, there's a choice with a more damaging impact on that pig society and a choice with a less damaging impact - no pig feelings need to be considered to show that there is a real social component to the morality. Similar thought experiments can be run comprising sows and piglets where more emotions (both of pig and you the pig-throat-slicer) come into play.

((Incidentally, it's just as useful a thought experiment, albeit for a different point, for a confirmed vegan - do you pass up the protein and lay down your life in sacrifice to the subjective harmony of a pig? Would it truly be morally noble, or just plain stupid?))

There is one other task that a vegan needs to perform when suggesting that it is immoral for others to eat meat. That is the hard, inescapable fact that the production of their food inevitably and directly results in the deaths of numerous animals, many of which are sentient. Examples of this are the large numbers of small mammals killed through the harvesting of crops, not to mention the loss of habitat for agriculture. If a vegan wants to get on their moral high-horse and declaim to the uncouth about their terrible ways where they intentionally kill sentient animals in order to garner nutrients for their own well-being, then they deserve to be mocked mercilessly for their self-ignorance - it shows such people up for what they really are - self-righteous prigs whose smug veganism is at least in part about needing to feel superior to others however they can.

Which is more moral? To intentionally kill a sentient animal to thereby use its organically stored nutrients to maintain one's own life? Or to unintentionally kill an unknown number of sentient animals whose deaths are then merely collateral damage; their experiential pain and suffering conveniently hidden from view on a plate of vegetables?

And that would really be my message here, as it always is with moral questions. Morality is not an absolute - it cannot be; it must always be a process, and that process should only ever stop when the moral agent ceases to be. There can be no simplistic answers because they necessarily represent mere shadows of the gradiated complexity of any morally charged issue, and locking oneself into a position based on ignorance is the antithesis of morality.

 

[Sparhafoc]

This is what I would call ethical veganism, where moral considerations are primordial. Other reasons to be vegan include personal health, environmental concerns, spirituality/religion, economics, etc. They are not mutually exclusive. For example, I currently consider myself to be 50% ethical vegan, 30% environmental vegan, and 20% health vegan.

If you are going to criticize veganism, it is important to understand that ethical vegans are not against eating meat per se. It's just that given our current technology, when we remove the products of animal exploitation we are left with "plants" (loose term including plants, mushrooms, bacteria, yeast...) In other words, ethical vegans have a plant-based diet because there is currently no other realistic option. Ethical vegans also attempt to be lifestyle vegans by generally avoiding other products of animal exploitation, especially in clothing (leather, wool, silk) and cosmetics. Some vegans are also minimalists, and I think that makes sense. Notice "possible and practicable" in the definition above: veganism does not require perfection.

I don't often hear about people going vegan for the environment (could change thanks to Cowspiracy), and yet it would make much more sense than being anti-vegan while claiming to care about water scarcity, deforestation, biodiversity, climate change, etc. Cows, giraffes, dogs, chickens, cute bunnies, ugly rats, eagles, krill: all are earthlings, just like us. And climate change isn't going to wait until lab meat goes mainstream.

Health vegans claim that animal-derived foods are unhealthy and plant-based foods, especially whole plant foods, are beneficial to human health. They may or may not be concerned with animal welfare (Dr Fuhrman's nutritarianism comes to mind), but as dietary vegans they are likely to contribute to the goals of ethical veganism.

Spiritual vegans seem to be looking for some kind of purity or communion with the forces of the universe, or following religious teachings. I am biased against this kind of thinking. However, it can be a powerful motivation for many, and at this stage veganism can use all the help it can get. We are all in this together.

To respond to these, which are at least reasonably original comparative to the nominal ethical veganism, I find all but one lacking.

Health vegans are just talking bollocks. There is nothing stopping a meat-eater getting just as much plant matter as a vegan, plus the meat-eater gets all the major nutritional benefits of consuming meat. Given the trajectory of our evolution, I wish it were possible to run a long-term experiment on this, assuming technological stasis, because the consumption of meat is a very significant part of what made us human giving us this dominion over the life and death of other animals.

Spiritual vegans may fail to appreciate that carnivory could be just a 'spiritual' with exactly the same wild and woolly basis. To wit: the universe is predatory to its thermodynamic fabric - proton gradients is what makes everything go - I am just such a gradient writ large, and the more efficiently I convert energy into surviving, the more objectively I succeed. Communing with nature, which is unarguably red in tooth and claw, would seem to more readily lend itself to ripping out and eating the beating heart of another organism and reveling in the fact of having survived for a little while longer. We are all in this together, which means you're there to be eaten before I am eaten. So yeah, silly.

Religious teaching is just how automatons do morality, in that obeying a command and then retrofitting a personal justification to it has got no bearing on morality at all.

While I personally experience moral turbulence with respect to the oceans of suffering humanity has caused since the agricultural revolution, I personally feel justified in eating meat. However, given contemporary factors (such as the 7 billion humans on a planet fit for around 2), I think an environmental argument (functionally identical to an economic argument) is much more compelling for me personally and has meant I have made dramatic changes both to my sourcing of meat and my consumption patterns of meat comparative to my culturally inherited meat-eating behaviors.

 

[Vego]

vegans should be perfectly willing to eat bivalves

Please watch Unnatural Vegan's video that I linked in my opening post (link). It is only a few minutes long and she does briefly mention bivalves (about 30 seconds in).

More generally, vegans are not of one mind, there are disagreements on the fine points, but that should not detract from the main goal: reducing, if possible eliminating, animal exploitation by humans, starting with the big and relatively obvious (factory farming, industrial fishing, leather/furs, poaching, puppy mills, etc).

which vegan would be prepared to eat beef if they could be convinced beyond doubt that the animal suffered not even a millisecond of pain or stress from the act of killing it?

The killing is only one part of the story, there is a (shortened) lifetime of struggles before. I gave my personal opinion on this point in another thread (this post), and here I will add that human technology is not generally 100% reliable, and that is true of the "bolt" that you talk about: according to this documentary, mis-stunning in Germany can be 9% for cattle and 12% for pigs. Mis-stunning is probably not painless.

In addition, why should vegans be "prepared to eat beef" if we have neither the need nor the will to do so?

do you pass up the protein and lay down your life in sacrifice to the subjective harmony of a pig? Would it truly be morally noble, or just plain stupid?

Your question seems loaded with prejudices, but my opinion is this: veganism is not martyrdom, and you are not expected to commit suicide to save others, human or not. In an extreme survival situation, I will probably do what I have to do to survive; thankfully my daily life is not such a situation.

Examples of this are the large numbers of small mammals killed through the harvesting of crops, not to mention the loss of habitat for agriculture.

A lot of crop is used as animal feed (especially for pigs and chickens, but also for cattle and even farmed fish): less farm animals will lead to less unintentional killing (because meat is less resource-efficient than directly eating plants). And until we develop a technology that allows us to grow plant food without killing anything (maybe growing in space, I don't know) this is simply a problem that doesn't currently have a practical solution. Animal farming does have a practical solution: consuming less of its products.

To intentionally kill a sentient animal to thereby use its organically stored nutrients to maintain one's own life? Or to unintentionally kill an unknown number of sentient animals whose deaths are then merely collateral damage; their experiential pain and suffering conveniently hidden from view on a plate of vegetables?

This is not a fair choice because, in addition of not being biologically necessary for our survival, the one sentient farm animal already requires an unknown number of collateral damage. It's just worse.

There is nothing stopping a meat-eater getting just as much plant matter as a vegan

The health benefits are not only due to the increased consumption of plants, they are also the result of reducing/avoiding animal products (because of saturated fats, biomagnified pollutants, and more).

If you think my pro-vegan sources (for example Plant Positive on saturated fats) are somehow inadequate, you can build a similar picture by looking at the reports from various (non-vegan) health organizations (AHA guidelines, WCRF Second Expert Report -table in summary p. 8-, and more). Expert guidelines tend to reduce animal products, and dietary veganism is just going one step further in this direction.

the meat-eater gets all the major nutritional benefits of consuming meat.

What are these "major nutritional benefits"? Are these benefits absent from a well-planned vegan diet (as promoted by legitimate experts in vegan nutrition)?

Given the trajectory of our evolution, I wish it were possible to run a long-term experiment on this, assuming technological stasis, because the consumption of meat is a very significant part of what made us human giving us this dominion over the life and death of other animals.

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say, but in my opinion this "dominion" comes with heavy responsibilities that are hidden away from modern consumers. And regardless of how useful it has been in the past, it seems to me that we should at least try to change our culture/behavior/technology so that it becomes less prominent in the future.

We are all in this together, which means you're there to be eaten before I am eaten.

What I mean is that some vegans are religious, some are not, but animal exploitation is a phenomenon that concerns us all. And when religious people demand vegan options from businesses, non-religious people can also benefit. This matters because most people in the world are spiritual/religious, so they have potentially more leverage to make big changes (example: Israel).

I think an environmental argument (functionally identical to an economic argument) is much more compelling for me personally

That's fine.

I have made dramatic changes both to my sourcing of meat and my consumption patterns of meat comparative to my culturally inherited meat-eating behaviors.

If these changes result in a reduction in the demand for animal products, I think it is a good thing (for the animals and the environment).

 

[Sparhafoc]

vegans should be perfectly willing to eat bivalves

Please watch Unnatural Vegan's video that I linked in my opening post (link). It is only a few minutes long and she does briefly mention bivalves (about 30 seconds in).

Sorry, I usually won't watch videos because I don't enjoy taking information from passively staring at a screen, but if absolutely required, I can do so. To satisfy this request, I focused just on her response about bivalves.

Of note, I think there, is the fact that she felt obliged to correct herself.

Many vegans, like myself, well maybe not many, but (grin) some vegans like myself consider eating bivalves to be vegan.

So who's right? Why is there a consideration necessary? If you're vegan because you're philosophically soundly (insofar as it is) opposed to causing harm to sentient beings, then eating a bivalve is factually as valid as eating a plant. No consideration necessary. That's an example problem as I was talking about: many vegans, particularly those of the evangelizing streak, make declarations that are obtuse to reality.

But also interestingly, a layer back there, is that she's replying to a question about how to be a vegan and eating healthily, and responding: consider bivalves, which surely suggests that she thinks that eating 'vegan' without eating bivalves is less healthy than eating 'vegan' and bivalves?

And another layer back: isn't it odd that Sam Harris, an academic and researcher, publicly requests help in finding out basic information readily available with even dramatically inferior researching skills? This actually causes a whole host of questions in my mind, but maybe too tangential here.

Which is, of course, not to say that Sam Harris shouldn't go vegan if that's what he feels he needs to do, nor that he shouldn't then happily eat on bivalves for all he's worth if that's what takes his fancy.

More generally, vegans are not of one mind, there are disagreements on the fine points, but that should not detract from the main goal: reducing, if possible eliminating, animal exploitation by humans, starting with the big and relatively obvious (factory farming, industrial fishing, leather/furs, poaching, puppy mills, etc).

I'm more than happy to join you or anyone with that goal, so long as we kind find a way to accommodate the diverse economic situations in which human populations across the globe find themselves in for no fault of their own. I won't agree to a Colonial Veganism!

Technology's got a long way to go before veganism can really become a moral compulsion.

which vegan would be prepared to eat beef if they could be convinced beyond doubt that the animal suffered not even a millisecond of pain or stress from the act of killing it?

The killing is only one part of the story, there is a (shortened) lifetime of struggles before. I gave my personal opinion on this point in another thread (this post), and here I will add that human technology is not generally 100% reliable, and that is true of the "bolt" that you talk about: according to this documentary, mis-stunning in Germany can be 9% for cattle and 12% for pigs. Mis-stunning is probably not painless.

Yes, I know all this, and it's irrelevant. Please follow what I said in that sentence. I was quite explicit in using the second conditional so as to engage in a restricted hypothetical scenario, and I don't think that talking about what actually is has any relevance to the hypothetical question therein. Sorry to be blunt and lacking in social nicety here; I mean you no offense, I am just trying to be very specific with what I write, and consequently don't want what I've taken time writing so specifically to be misinterpreted.

In effect, your answer really is 'I wouldn't be prepared to eat beef even if I could be convinced they don't suffer a millisecond of pain or torture", which surely should be something you're quite clear with yourself about because it hones closer and closer to the actual motivation for you refusing to eat or use animal products. It actually cuts away a number of notions which are obfuscatory.

Most vegans seem unaware of this, but they often find that the very thought of meat is in itself repulsive, and even an imaginary pig who lived a life of wondrous porcine bliss before being killed without a millisecond of pain or stress from the killing act would still not be on their menu, because they are not clear with themselves as to what it is they're repulsed by. Being repulsed by meat is of course not a requirement to be vegan or to choose veganism, but it shows us something about the way our brains work.

In addition, why should vegans be "prepared to eat beef" if we have neither the need nor the will to do so?

I don't really understand your question. It seems like a non-sequitur. Who suggested vegans "would be prepared to eat beef"? It was exactly my point that no vegan would be prepared to eat beef, that rather being the point of the exercise.

Surely you should note that from the very next sentence I wrote?

Very few, which should set of some reflection, but so rarely does.

Ergo, the point is that it is NOT the manner of killing animals, or the actual act of killing animals that specifically motivates most vegans, even when they often take positions contingent on that. Thus, as you can see from the argument I laid out prior to that sentence;

The actual moral argument (ignoring any and all references to environmental practices or health reasons for now which are both equally obfuscated and prone to ignorant arguments) is that it is wrong to kill a sentient animal.

...

Now, the first point there is often where evangelizing vegans hang their hats, but I think it's actually not a very clear argument, and when push comes to shove, they have rarely actually considered their argument and how well it represents their emotional motivation.

So, I would say that there are a number of things this helps us drive towards. The most obvious is that the moral argument is actually about the treatment of the sentient animal while it is alive. This is where I believe there is a real moral argument to be had, and it's where I personally engage with the ethical conundrums.

I do not believe it is actually immoral just to kill a sentient animal, I believe there is a moral context in what leads up to that killing.

do you pass up the protein and lay down your life in sacrifice to the subjective harmony of a pig? Would it truly be morally noble, or just plain stupid?

Your question seems loaded with prejudices,...

What a strange idea. Have you never engaged in thought experiments before? You realize they are spherical cows in a vacuum, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

A spherical cow is a humorous metaphor for highly simplified scientific models of complex real life phenomena.[2][3] The implication is that theoretical physicists will often reduce a problem to the simplest form they can imagine in order to make calculations more feasible, even though such simplification may hinder the model's application to reality.

The phrase comes from a joke that spoofs the simplifying assumptions that are sometimes used in theoretical physics.[4]

Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer, "I have the solution, but it works only in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum".

The idea, of course, is stripped down to a very clearly specified context. If you don't want to accept that context, don't reply to it. Otherwise, tossing out words like 'prejudice' just looks odd.

but my opinion is this: veganism is not martyrdom,...

What? Sorry, what has this got to do with anything I wrote?

... and you are not expected to commit suicide to save others, human or not.

Eh? Sorry, what has this got to do with anything I wrote?

In an extreme survival situation, I will probably do what I have to do to survive; thankfully my daily life is not such a situation.

But... of course it's not, that's kind of the point... no? You probably would NEVER have to face this situation - I was obviously not suggesting you ever would have to actually face this situation, that's why it's called a 'thought experiment' wherein you engage in fantastical scenarios to see the outcome of problems you have never and are unlikely to encounter.

I am a little lost as to what information you're taking from my posts that don't actually contain such information.

Again, your answer is there, but I just fail to see why it's padded with all these gymnastics.

You would kill a pig with your bare hands and eat it if it was for survival.

You seem to think I am trying to trap you or trick you into saying something, when what I am doing - as I thought was manifestly clear - is honing ever closer to the actual philosophical/ethical question as is expressly the purpose and content of the entire post you're replying to. In order to do that, one needs to strip away all the superfluous and define clearly the issue at hand.

I am not hostile to you or to veganism, just hostile to bullshit and woolliness, and so I seek to scalpel it away, strip by strip until we get to the actual meat of the problem.

Examples of this are the large numbers of small mammals killed through the harvesting of crops, not to mention the loss of habitat for agriculture.

A lot of crop is used as animal feed (especially for pigs and chickens, but also for cattle and even farmed fish): less farm animals will lead to less unintentional killing (because meat is less resource-efficient than directly eating plants).

So? That's irrelevant with respect to veganism. Remember, for the non-vegetarians, there's no obligation for them to worry about the deaths of passing voles in the production of the food on their plate.

And until we develop a technology that allows us to grow plant food without killing anything (maybe growing in space, I don't know) this is simply a problem that doesn't currently have a practical solution. Animal farming does have a practical solution: consuming less of its products.

Does not make any sense: the former has just as many practical solutions as the latter, they're just not ones you're willing to countenance, for whatever reason. As already mentioned, the notion of 'practical' is basically economic. Could we do it without causing prices to rise beyond what most people could pay for consumption. That, sadly, is a core argument that keeps factory farms open.

To intentionally kill a sentient animal to thereby use its organically stored nutrients to maintain one's own life? Or to unintentionally kill an unknown number of sentient animals whose deaths are then merely collateral damage; their experiential pain and suffering conveniently hidden from view on a plate of vegetables?

This is not a fair choice...

/shrug reality isn't obliged to be fair.

because, in addition of not being biologically necessary for our survival, the one sentient farm animal already requires an unknown number of collateral damage. It's just worse.

Sorry - what's not biologically necessary for our survival? I do hope you don't mean that eating animals is 'biologically unnecessary for our survival' because that would be a silly contention.

There is nothing stopping a meat-eater getting just as much plant matter as a vegan

The health benefits are not only due to the increased consumption of plants, they are also the result of reducing/avoiding animal products (because of saturated fats, biomagnified pollutants, and more).

I think I was quite clear that I was specifically not talking about alleged health benefits.

Again, right at the start of the post you're replying to...

...(ignoring any and all references to environmental practices or health reasons for now which are both equally obfuscated and prone to ignorant arguments)...

As I already indicated, there's an entirely different discussion to be had there that has bugger all to do with philosophical/ethical stances on the consumption of animals, which is why I said I wouldn't address it. It's also prone to yet more stupid arguments that are frustratingly mired in wilful bullshit which has to be stripped away from a purely fact-based perspective.

If you think my pro-vegan sources (for example Plant Positive on saturated fats) are somehow inadequate, you can build a similar picture by looking at the reports from various (non-vegan) health organizations (AHA guidelines, WCRF Second Expert Report -table in summary p. 8-, and more). Expert guidelines tend to reduce animal products, and dietary veganism is just going one step further in this direction.

Not a discussion I chose to partake in, and quite unlikely I will choose to because I spend far too much of my career on talking about shit like this and it wouldn't be fun for me. Suffice it to say, that it's a vastly more complex topic than you're pointing to, and the same kind of problems arise as with many of my vegan friends in the UK - excerpts from their reality puddle. Humanity is bigger than you and yours.

the meat-eater gets all the major nutritional benefits of consuming meat.

What are these "major nutritional benefits"?

How long have you got?

Let's start with the most obvious; i) protein, ii) inorganic nutrients like zinc, iron, and selenium, iii) vitamins A, B, and D.

Protein is beyond essential for the animal body - it's needed in nearly every function and structure of the human body. Animals provide a very ready source of protein, easily consumed, easily processed, and in large quantities - it's the reason why there are carnivorous animals.

Key inorganic nutrients, like zinc, iron, calcium etc. can be wholly lacking from a vegan diet, and have been at the heart of some very serious situations for some human populations for longer than recorded history. Selenium, for example, is readily available from consuming typical herd ungulates and fish, but is more problematic for the great swathes of populations where both meat and wheat is absent - for a long time, selenium deficiency was almost endemic in parts of China, where poor fertility soil coupled with poor crop staples for selenium together with economic scenarios making meat consumption infrequent led to high levels of selenium deficiency across entire provinces.

Aside from other issues, like vitamins, riboflavin and alpha-linolenic acid, there are also studies showing not just poorer physical health with higher risk of of a set of chronic diseases such as certain cancers and allergies, but also a negative psychological impact from strict vegetarian diets, including depression and anxiety.

But of course, one must know how such studies work to distill wisdom from them, but my primary take-away would be that there is no one-size-fits-all, and any suggestion so is necessarily wrong.

Are these benefits absent from a well-planned vegan diet (as promoted by legitimate experts in vegan nutrition)?

I am not restricting myself to your particular socioeconomic circumstances. I am talking about humans as a whole.

To do otherwise is blind.

For example, if a treatment became available in your country to ensure that an in vitro embryo could be given a fairly expensive treatment to ensure they never had diabetes, for instance, many people and in fact many nations might quickly come to believe it a fundamental requirement - a moral obligation - to perform that treatment (as they do with vaccinations), but if that treatment was unavailable in other countries, or if subsets of the population couldn't afford it, then it is not a situation that can be so simply defined from a moral perspective.

To put it another way: you may well be top of the pyramid, but don't forget that to be there, a vast number of other humans are firmly below you.

As a whole, meat consumption provides exceptional health benefits to humanity.

Given the trajectory of our evolution, I wish it were possible to run a long-term experiment on this, assuming technological stasis, because the consumption of meat is a very significant part of what made us human giving us this dominion over the life and death of other animals.

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say,...

I am mostly talking about the pre-modern human transition from a more vegetarian diet to the role of scavenger, then to hunter-gatherer and its effects on brain and cognitive evolution. Tissue is expensive to make and maintain, and there's only so much to go round. Herbivores tend to have long guts and small brains (by encephalization quotient), carnivores tend to have short guts and larger brains (not least because they need to perform a whole bunch more routines to catch those bloody fast herbivores), omnivores seem to benefit from having mid-sized guts and large brains.

In the evolutionary journey that preceded our species, early human ancestors made a transition from being largely herbivorous (as can be seen by tooth and jaw morphology) to first consuming meat (through capturing carcasses), then specializing in actively hunting that meat. That transition coincided with a dramatic increase in brain volume. It's called 'the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis'.

So my scientific aspiration would be to be able to run simulations of what could occur in terms of future human evolution if we were, as a population, able to cut meat out of our diets altogether while retaining only this level of technology.

Again, it's not meant to be something you need to answer, it's just me discussing ideas with you.

... but in my opinion this "dominion" comes with heavy responsibilities that are hidden away from modern consumers.

Agreed with respect to the responsibilities, and it is worrying when kids don't know that pork comes from pigs, for example... but what happens when consumers are informed but still elect to continue the status quo? Back when I was around 12 or 13, we had an assembly and follow up class which showed the workings of factory farms and industrial abattoirs, including a visit to the latter. I would estimate around 10 to 15 kids from my year of approximately 80 then became vegetarian... although I have no idea how many remained vegetarian. Still, this leaves a large majority who were both informed and elected not to change their behaviors.

And regardless of how useful it has been in the past, it seems to me that we should at least try to change our culture/behavior/technology so that it becomes less prominent in the future.

I genuinely expect that by the time technology produces a scenario where the consumption of animals becomes untenable, the entire concept of veganism would no longer hold any meaning. I expect that in that future model, there'd be more moral wrangling from subsets of people about eating 'natural' food as opposed to eating synthetic food, but the good thing for you looking into that future is that there would be no economic necessity to eat animals any longer, and synthetic foods would be the practical universal option.

We are all in this together, which means you're there to be eaten before I am eaten.

What I mean is that some vegans are religious, some are not, but animal exploitation is a phenomenon that concerns us all.

Well, it does in the sense of us holding other people responsible, but I know huge numbers of people who would not accept your claim there. Whether they are right or wrong to is where the discussion lies, but it's is/ought territory.

And when religious people demand vegan options from businesses, non-religious people can also benefit.

Non-religious vegan people, mostly.

This matters because most people in the world are spiritual/religious, so they have potentially more leverage to make big changes (example: Israel).

By chance, I happen to have read that article before.

But I think it's problematic to hang any hats there, because the Bible and the mindset of Biblical times is wholly dismissive of the roles and internal worlds of animals, except beyond their value to humans (in fact, the Bible and Torah are pretty much Agricultural Revolution narratives). The only religions which potentially could employ a religious narrative towards leveraging this would be Eastern ones, particularly Jainism.

As an aside, living in the most dominant Buddhist nation on the planet, I find it eternally perplexing how little fuck Buddhists give when it comes to the consumption and well-being of animals. In the thousands of Buddhists I've met, only one lay person was a vegetarian.

As such, I personally wouldn't hold too much expectation of religion being a sufficient fulcrum from which to leverage veganism or even a reduction in animal suffering.

I think an environmental argument (functionally identical to an economic argument) is much more compelling for me personally

That's fine.

Well, of course it's fine.

I have made dramatic changes both to my sourcing of meat and my consumption patterns of meat comparative to my culturally inherited meat-eating behaviors.

If these changes result in a reduction in the demand for animal products, I think it is a good thing (for the animals and the environment).

I should imagine so as factory farms are untenable from an ethical perspective, and I don't really have much use for animal products other than for nutritional consumption, only the sneaky ones ever end up in my shopping basket.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Another interesting conundrum aside, at least from my perspective, is the role of veganism with respect to regulating diets on dependents.

For example, veganism & embryo development, veganism and child raising, veganism and pet ownership.

Again, not a gotcha, but from first hand experience I know vegans who refuse their kids and cats meat, while I know vegans who still provide meat in diets for their children and animal companions.

Again, not a simple moral issue. Factually, the former group are being consistent, because to partake in the industry which causes suffering to animals is promoting its continuation, but it also seems damaging and irresponsible to most people, vegans included, to enforce a diet ideology onto growing children and obligate carnivores.

Of course, one ready to go option is simply to not have children or omnivorous pets.