Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

[ddraig]

So it's a lifestyle choice, rather than a moral imperative?

no, not for the cat. Cats don't have much choice
We as humans do, so (with all the caveats going about access/location in world etc etc etc etc etc) why if you had the choice to let an animal live and eat something else would you still have that animal killed for your plate, that's the choice

 

[platinumsage]

no, not for the cat. Cats don't have much choice
We as humans do, so (with all the caveats going about access/location in world etc etc etc etc etc) why if you had the choice to let an animal live and eat something else would you still have that animal killed for your plate, that's the choice

Yes a lifestyle choice. As an omnivore I can choose to eat an animal that has been killed for me rather than plants that have been killed for me. I can also choose to not eat kittens, much as a cat can choose not to eat the duck that is its friend but to eat something else instead. If the cat changes it's mind one day and eats the friendly duck, is it acting immorally?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think ddraig is right with one proviso. It is a choice, but only in modern industrial society where we have access to vitamin B12 supplements that have been grown by bacteria in a lab. Without modern industrial processes like that, humans are obligate omnivores. We have evolved to eat both animal and plants in combination as we cannot synthesise vitamin B12 and it is only found reliably in animal products.

 

[ddraig]

Yes a lifestyle choice. As an omnivore I can choose to eat an animal that has been killed for me rather than plants that have been killed for me. I can also choose to not eat kittens, much as a cat can choose not to eat the duck that is its friend but to eat something else instead. If the cat changes it's mind one day and eats the friendly duck, is it acting immorally?

Cats don't work like that, why are you trying to make out they do?

 

[ddraig]

I think ddraig is right with one proviso. It is a choice, but only in modern industrial society where we have access to vitamin B12 supplements that have been grown by bacteria in a lab. Without modern industrial processes like that, humans are obligate omnivores. We have evolved to eat both animal and plants in combination as we cannot synthesise vitamin B12 and it is only found reliably in animal products.

Are you for fucking real?
Oh, of course it's LBJ and his "authority on everything" stance

You are certain that every single veggie and vegan takes supplements now?

 

[Pickman's model]

Are you for fucking real?
Oh, of course it's LBJ and his "authority on everything" stance

You are certain that every single veggie and vegan takes supplements now?

it makes you wonder how groups who have enjoyed a vegetarian diet since ancient times have survived.

 

[NoXion]

it makes you wonder how groups who have enjoyed a vegetarian diet since ancient times have survived.

I can think of a couple of reasons; insect contamination (as unappealing as they look to most modern Westerners, they're nutritious), and being lacto-ovo-veg instead of strictly vegan

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A strictly vegan diet without the necessary B12 supplement will make you anaemic. Anbody thinking of becoming vegan needs to know that.

Milk and eggs contain it, and a traditional Indian vegetarian diet, for instance, will generally contain milk products - yoghurt, butter, ghee.

 

[ddraig]

A strictly vegan diet without the necessary B12 supplement will make you anaemic. Anbody thinking of becoming vegan needs to know that.

Milk and eggs contain it, and a traditional Indian vegetarian diet, for instance, will generally contain milk products - yoghurt, butter, ghee.

So you are not claiming anyone who doesn't eat meat needs supplements or not then?
Are you a nutritionist or doctor?

 

[WouldBe]

No, you would or wouldn't eat something depending on whether they were someone's pet or not, transparent

You should have seen yesterday's "The farmer's country showdown." then. Small farmers keeping pigs, goats and cows almost treated like pets (getting played with and tickled) but ultimately raised for meat.

 

[ddraig]

So you are not claiming anyone who doesn't eat meat needs supplements or not then?
Are you a nutritionist or doctor?

littlebabyjesus
Thanks

 

[Spymaster]

Come on littlebabyjesus ! You are oredered to answer

This is like watching Phil Mitchell take on Einstein.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not sure I've got much to add, but the moral case for veganism is imo weakened by the fact that we're obligate omnivores. Evolution has placed certain constraints on us. We also get ill if we don't eat at least some cooked/marinaded food. A totally raw diet is no good for us - we've evolved to depend on cooking to do some of the digestion for us.

At the very least that fact makes the choice to avoid animal products something dependent on modern scientific industrial society. If you eat a mix of veg, fruit and meat, you easily get all the nutrients you need without having to think too much about it. That's because we are 'naturally' omnivorous. If you're a dairy/egg-eating veggie, you're also likely to be fine. Vegans have to be a little careful to make sure they're getting enough complete proteins, and that's easy enough - bowl of rice and beans will do it. But vit B12 is a problem, one that can only be overcome via modern industrial knowledge and processes. Until very recently, it was impossible to eat a healthy vegan diet.

I've no problem at all with people advocating vegan diets, and I'm certainly not going to mock anybody for it, but I do have a bit of a problem when vegans preach at non-vegans about the evils of an omnivorous diet, the very diet that we have evolved to eat.

 

[Spymaster]

Not sure I've got much to add, but the moral case for veganism is imo weakened by the fact that we're obligate omnivores. Evolution has placed certain constraints on us. We also get ill if we don't eat at least some cooked/marinaded food. A totally raw diet is no good for us - we've evolved to depend on cooking to do some of the digestion for us.

At the very least that fact makes the choice to avoid animal products something dependent on modern scientific industrial society. If you eat a mix of veg, fruit and meat, you easily get all the nutrients you need without having to think too much about it. That's because we are 'naturally' omnivorous. If you're a dairy/egg-eating veggie, you're also likely to be fine. Vegans have to be a little careful to make sure they're getting enough complete proteins, and that's easy enough - bowl of rice and beans will do it. But vit B12 is a problem, one that can only be overcome via modern industrial knowledge and processes. Until very recently, it was impossible to eat a healthy vegan diet.

I've no problem at all with people advocating vegan diets, and I'm certainly not going to mock anybody for it, but I do have a bit of a problem when vegans preach at non-vegans about the evils of an omnivorous diet, the very diet that we have evolved to eat.

Would a B12 deficiency cause sufferers to make cretinous arguments on the internet?

 

[editor]

I've no problem at all with people advocating vegan diets, and I'm certainly not going to mock anybody for it, but I do have a bit of a problem when vegans preach at non-vegans about the evils of an omnivorous diet, the very diet that we have evolved to eat.

I didn't realise that humans had 'evolved' to eat hormone-stuffed, factory farmed animals living a freakishly unnatural life.

Not sure I've got much to add, but the moral case for veganism is imo weakened by the fact that we're obligate omnivores. Evolution has placed certain constraints on us. We also get ill if we don't eat at least some cooked/marinaded food. A totally raw diet is no good for us - we've evolved to depend on cooking to do some of the digestion for us.

Strange, I could have sworn that there are millions - if not hundreds of millions - of people living perfectly healthy lives without meat.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I didn't realise that humans had 'evolved' to eat hormone-stuffed, factory farmed animals living a freakishly unnatural life.

Strange, I could have sworn that there are millions - if not billions - of people living perfectly healthy lives without meat.

Non-meat animal products, such as milk and eggs, also provide for that 'omnivorous' bit. Do keep up.

 

[editor]

You should have seen yesterday's "The farmer's country showdown." then. Small farmers keeping pigs, goats and cows almost treated like pets (getting played with and tickled) but ultimately raised for meat.

And what percentage of animals bred for food get that kind of cutesy, lovey dovey treatment do you think?

 

[editor]

Non-meat animal products, such as milk and eggs, also provide for that 'omnivorous' bit. Do keep up.

But what is your actual point? If you're going to put down vegans by arguing that they have to rely on 'modern industrial knowledge and processes' to get their food, how's any different to the exact same 'modern industrial knowledge and processes' being used to produce vast quantities of cheap meat for the masses?

 

[WouldBe]

And what percentage of animals bred for food get that kind of cutesy, lovey dovey treatment do you think?

Probably way more than the percentage of cruelly treated animals.

 

[editor]

Probably way more than the percentage of cruelly treated animals.

The denial is impressive. I'm sure those factory farmed animals are just loving their life.

 

[Spymaster]

Probably way more than the percentage of cruelly treated animals.

There's no point in denying that a lot of meat production causes suffering. It does. The question is, how much animal suffering is acceptable?

That's going to depend on your circumstances.

 

[ddraig]

Not sure I've got much to add, but the moral case for veganism is imo weakened by the fact that we're obligate omnivores. Evolution has placed certain constraints on us. We also get ill if we don't eat at least some cooked/marinaded food. A totally raw diet is no good for us - we've evolved to depend on cooking to do some of the digestion for us.

At the very least that fact makes the choice to avoid animal products something dependent on modern scientific industrial society. If you eat a mix of veg, fruit and meat, you easily get all the nutrients you need without having to think too much about it. That's because we are 'naturally' omnivorous. If you're a dairy/egg-eating veggie, you're also likely to be fine. Vegans have to be a little careful to make sure they're getting enough complete proteins, and that's easy enough - bowl of rice and beans will do it. But vit B12 is a problem, one that can only be overcome via modern industrial knowledge and processes. Until very recently, it was impossible to eat a healthy vegan diet.

I've no problem at all with people advocating vegan diets, and I'm certainly not going to mock anybody for it, but I do have a bit of a problem when vegans preach at non-vegans about the evils of an omnivorous diet, the very diet that we have evolved to eat.

So you are NOT saying that all people who eat meat need supplements then? Thanks for clarifying in your roundabout waffly (never admit when you're wrong) style of "debate"/posting

Who the fuck do you think you are stating so much as fact that you can't or won't back up?
i.e. "Until very recently, it was impossible to eat a healthy vegan diet."

 

[platinumsage]

Normally these conversations go round in circles e.g.:

"Why don't you eat meat"
"Farming causes suffering so I don't eat meat"
"Would you eat ethical meat from animals that had led a full natural life"
"No, meat produces loads of CO2"
"Would you replace high CO2 veggies in your diet with low CO2 meat"
"No meat gives you cancer"
etc etc...

Why not just accept that people are perfectly capable of balancing multiple factors and arriving at their own decisions about their diets, and that these will vary from person to person?

 

[ddraig]

Normally these conversations go round in circles e.g.:

"Why don't you eat meat"
"Farming causes suffering so I don't eat meat"
"Would you eat ethical meat from animals that had led a full natural life"
"No, meat produces loads of CO2"
"Would you replace high CO2 veggies in your diet with low CO2 meat"
"No meat gives you cancer"
etc etc...

Why not just accept that people are perfectly capable of balancing multiple factors and arriving at their own decisions about their diets, and that these will vary from person to person?

If someone claims that you are not healthy and the choices you make are not healthy and doesn't back it up out of ignorance or avoidance, that wouldn't bother you??

 

[platinumsage]

If someone claims that you are not healthy and the choices you make are not healthy and doesn't back it up out of ignorance or avoidance, that wouldn't bother you??

No

 

[ddraig]

No

So any old dick (or group of dicks) can make any claims about you and your choices without backing them up and it's all fine?

 

[Spymaster]

Guess what's coming next

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We end up talking past one another, normally. If you think killing animals in order to eat them when you don't absolutely have to do it to survive is morally wrong, there isn't really any middle ground with people who don't think it's morally wrong. So you can talk about animal welfare, the benefits of mixed farming, etc, but it will always come back to the moment of killing. When it comes down to it, I'm comfortable with the idea of killing animals to eat them. Ultimately that can't really be explained with an argument.

 

[ddraig]

We end up talking past one another, normally. If you think killing animals in order to eat them when you don't absolutely have to do it to survive is morally wrong, there isn't really any middle ground with people who don't think it's morally wrong. So you can talk about animal welfare, the benefits of mixed farming, etc, but it will always come back to the moment of killing. When it comes down to it, I'm comfortable with the idea of killing animals to eat them. Ultimately that can't really be explained with an argument.

But you go much further and rubbish those who don't eat meat and their choices, and even claim they are unhealthy

 

[platinumsage]

So any old dick (or group of dicks) can make any claims about you and your choices without backing them up and it's all fine?

Of course. Why would I care whether someone thinks I ought not to eat less butter because saturated fats are bad, or that I shouldn't buy dates from Israel because Palestinians, or that my avocado air miles are too much, or that eggs are only free range and not organic or whatever. I've already made my own decisions on these matters and obviously I know that not everyone will share my opinions. Why should I care what all those other people think or say about my choices