Veganism a sham?

[AMS]

21 minutes ago, Outer said:

Veganism isn't a sham because it's the only ethical way of eating.

Health and environment doesn't come before that.

An animal should eat what makes it healthiest.  That is survival.

[AMS]

25 minutes ago, Outer said:

Veganism isn't a sham because it's the only ethical way of eating.

Health and environment doesn't come before that.

Besides, the whole point of this thread was to show that there is another perspective claiming that Veganism is potentially NOT the best option even for ethics.  If you would take the 40 minutes to listen to the podcast I posted (not even needing to read the book) then you can see that it's not as clear cut as you may think.  She proposes rotating grazing animals as being the best solution for health, ethics and sustainability.

[Emerald]

29 minutes ago, Outer said:

Obviously not as you're killing animals for food.

He doesn't care about that. His mind is made up already, and his heart is closed to this issue. He prioritizes (supposed) optimization of his own health over all animal lives and well-being... and he does so consciously because he thinks that's a good thing, unlike most people who do so unconsciously just because it's a folkway and the reality is uncomfortable to face.

And it doesn't matter if you show him that his original argument that "Veganism is a scam" because of field deaths actually works in favor of Veganism... he's going to keep on believing it and trying to find things that already confirm or seem to confirm his pre-existing ideology around an all-meat diet. Just look at our exchange earlier on in the thread.

So, he's not the type of the type of person you can even get through to. He's all closed up around his ideology.

But it doesn't matter anyway in this regard. Animal welfare is a long-range goal. It won't be solved completely in our lifetime. It will require a growing number of Vegans, Vegetarians, etc. to create a demand for cheaply produced lab-grown meat. And as soon as that becomes cheaper to produce than raising an actual animal for slaughter, you'll start actually seeing huge progress made on this issue.

And animal product consumers who genuinely care about animals will also stop needing to repress the unpleasant emotions that come along with engaging in an everyday activity for them that's harms the animals that they actually do care about. This double think creates a lot of repression and unconsciousness. 

Until then, it will be just 1% to 5% of the population who create the demand for that technology to be produced in the first place. 

[AMS]

38 minutes ago, Outer said:

Obviously not as you're killing animals for food.

Yep because from what I've experienced, I need to eat animals as food or else I get sick.  Sometimes that's how nature works.  If you are someone who doesn't seem to have to do that then suit yourself but at least be honest that animals are still dying in order for you to be alive right now and maybe you feel it is a lesser amount than if you were eating meat but the point being made here is maybe it's not as less as you think. 

She makes a point that 6 corporations own the entire world's food supply and farmers are working harder than ever and the crops they harvest gets sold for such a little price (because there is too much of a surplus of grains because of too much agriculture).  The price they sell their crops for is even less than the production cost.  Then the federal government subsidizes some of the gap so the farmers don't go out of business (which in a way just goes to the big corporations).  The farmers then try to produce even extra grains so they can profit which creates even more of a surplus which creates a viscious cycle.  So if you eat grains then you are eating destroyed ecosystems (and supporting generations of animal suffering) because the whole land gets nuked clean and then you are also supporting factory farming because she claims that factory farming only exists because of such a surplus of grains.  Her stance is very against factory farming (she was a vegan for 20 years mainly for animal rights).  Not to mention all your crops use synthetic non renewable fertilizer which is killing the ground so you can't isolate ethics from environment.  How ethical do you think that is, every species on the planet dying and suffering as the apocalypse approaches?  Just a matter of time till fossil fuels run out, can't deny that.



















 

[RabbitHole]

2 hours ago, AMS said:

Yep because from what I've experienced, I need to eat animals as food or else I get sick.  Sometimes that's how nature works.  If you are someone who doesn't seem to have to do that then suit yourself but at least be honest that animals are still dying in order for you to be alive right now and maybe you feel it is a lesser amount than if you were eating meat but the point being made here is maybe it's not as less as you think. 

She makes a point that 6 corporations own the entire world's food supply and farmers are working harder than ever and the crops they harvest gets sold for such a little price (because there is too much of a surplus of grains because of too much agriculture).  The price they sell their crops for is even less than the production cost.  Then the federal government subsidizes some of the gap so the farmers don't go out of business (which in a way just goes to the big corporations).  The farmers then try to produce even extra grains so they can profit which creates even more of a surplus which creates a viscious cycle.  So if you eat grains then you are eating destroyed ecosystems (and supporting generations of animal suffering) because the whole land gets nuked clean and then you are also supporting factory farming because she claims that factory farming only exists because of such a surplus of grains.  Her stance is very against factory farming (she was a vegan for 20 years mainly for animal rights).  Not to mention all your crops use synthetic non renewable fertilizer which is killing the ground so you can't isolate ethics from environment.  How ethical do you think that is, every species on the planet dying and suffering as the apocalypse approaches?  Just a matter of time till fossil fuels run out, can't deny that.



 

You understand that 90% of grains are used for animal not human consumption right? Okay, I see you don't. We do have wayy to much grain, but It's because we nee enormous amount to feed animals. For human consumption we would need maybe 30% of what we have now or even less.

[AMS]

1 hour ago, RabbitHole said:

You understand that 90% of grains are used for animal not human consumption right? Okay, I see you don't. We do have wayy to much grain, but It's because we nee enormous amount to feed animals. For human consumption we would need maybe 30% of what we have now or even less.

I'm sorry mate but this article and study says otherwise...

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed

[AMS]

I didn't write this but it's a good point.

"We aren't feeding the grains to cattle because of the cattle. We are feeding the grains to cattle because grains are highly subsidized and we have to do something with them.

The American prairies - now used for grains - use to be home to a population of buffalo that was larger the number of cattle currently being raised for food.

It's far more complex than any vegan wants to admit, and involves factors like public policy and land use - not just "I want meat so I have to grow grains".

Here's an article you might find useful:

'The surprisingly complicated math of how many wild animals are killed in agriculture'

http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/.../how-many-animals.../ "

Edited August 29, 2018 by AMS

[AMS]

Oh this one's perfect for this discussion!

https://sustainabledish.com/am-i-less-woke-because-i-eat-meat/

 

[AMS]

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

And it doesn't matter if you show him that his original argument that "Veganism is a scam" because of field deaths actually works in favor of Veganism... he's going to keep on believing it and trying to find things that already confirm or seem to confirm his pre-existing ideology around an all-meat diet. Just look at our exchange earlier on in the thread.

6 hours ago, Outer said:

Veganism isn't a sham because it's the only ethical way of eating.

Health and environment doesn't come before that.

Cited from the article above:

"Death happens in plant agriculture, let me count the ways…

First, you need to make a field. Crop fields aren’t “natural”. When you fly over the United States and look down at all of the squares and circles down there, that’s not “nature,” that’s man. Lots of things had to die to make way for that perfect square of only one crop to be there.

Step two, once all trees are cut down and life is removed, it’s time to plow up the soil. This releases carbon and further kills lots of life living close to the surface. Small critters that had their dens underground are decapitated and chopped up. 

Next, time to plant and don’t forget, you need to fertilize. How should the fertilizing be done? There are chemical methods, but I’m sure my blogger friend only eats organic vegetables 100% of the time, right? Ok. How do organic farmers feed their soil? On our farm, we use compost (a mix of dead animals and plants) and other organic tools like blood meal, bone meal, and fish emulsion. There are “veganic” options that use algae, but the production of this has it’s own issues. Life cycle studies of the production of algae for fertilizer shows that they’re not as “green” as many assume, requiring energy and greenhouse gasses and producing waste. Plus, you then have to transport this to a farm with… algae biofuels?

Another problem that happens when we strip away an ecosystem to plant grains and vegetables is that we’re removing the natural cover that  animals like field mice have, making it much easier for a hawk to swoop down and pluck it’s lunch. Exposing that mouse was the result of human interventions.

If we know a death will happen as a result of our actions, but we didn’t directly intend for that death to occur, is the death still our fault? 

Are fish, insects and birds less significant life forms than mammals? Are animals that look closest to humans more important? Is it only important not to kill animals that are considered sentient? Is sentience the only value a being can have? Does death harm some beings more than others?

We need to take responsibility for both intended deaths and unintended deaths due to our impact on the land.

A new paper looking at the number of animal deaths caused by plant agriculture looked at deaths per hectare per year from various different angles. Depending on what you consider “valuable life” and how the animals were counted, deaths could either range from 35-250 mouse deaths per acre to 7.3 billion animals killed every year from plant agriculture if you count birds killed by pesticides, fish deaths from fertilizer runoff, plus reptiles and amphibians poisonings from eating toxic insects. Whether or not you agree with their math is not the issue. I think the issue is, if death happened for your food, then are you morally better than me because you didn’t drink milk or eat a steak? "

[AMS]

Edited August 29, 2018 by AMS

[AMS]

'If you want to save the world, veganism isn’t the answer'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism-intensively-farmed-meat-dairy-soya-maize

Edited August 29, 2018 by AMS

[AMS]

Not written by me.

"There’s this assumption that so-called grain-fed animals eat grain all their lives and that’s simply not true. All US cattle are grass fed until weeks before slaughter. It would be too expensive and counterproductive for ranchers to feed grain exclusively."

[AMS]

'A Meat-Eating Yogi: Is a Veggie Diet the Only Option for a Spiritual Person?'

https://www.elephantjournal.com/2015/05/a-meat-eating-yogi-is-a-veggie-diet-the-only-option-for-a-spiritual-person/

[AMS]

'How to fight desertification and reverse climate change'

https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by AMS

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, AMS said:

Cited from the article above:

"Death happens in plant agriculture, let me count the ways…

First, you need to make a field. Crop fields aren’t “natural”. When you fly over the United States and look down at all of the squares and circles down there, that’s not “nature,” that’s man. Lots of things had to die to make way for that perfect square of only one crop to be there.

Step two, once all trees are cut down and life is removed, it’s time to plow up the soil. This releases carbon and further kills lots of life living close to the surface. Small critters that had their dens underground are decapitated and chopped up. 

Next, time to plant and don’t forget, you need to fertilize. How should the fertilizing be done? There are chemical methods, but I’m sure my blogger friend only eats organic vegetables 100% of the time, right? Ok. How do organic farmers feed their soil? On our farm, we use compost (a mix of dead animals and plants) and other organic tools like blood meal, bone meal, and fish emulsion. There are “veganic” options that use algae, but the production of this has it’s own issues. Life cycle studies of the production of algae for fertilizer shows that they’re not as “green” as many assume, requiring energy and greenhouse gasses and producing waste. Plus, you then have to transport this to a farm with… algae biofuels?

Another problem that happens when we strip away an ecosystem to plant grains and vegetables is that we’re removing the natural cover that  animals like field mice have, making it much easier for a hawk to swoop down and pluck it’s lunch. Exposing that mouse was the result of human interventions.

If we know a death will happen as a result of our actions, but we didn’t directly intend for that death to occur, is the death still our fault? 

Are fish, insects and birds less significant life forms than mammals? Are animals that look closest to humans more important? Is it only important not to kill animals that are considered sentient? Is sentience the only value a being can have? Does death harm some beings more than others?

We need to take responsibility for both intended deaths and unintended deaths due to our impact on the land.

A new paper looking at the number of animal deaths caused by plant agriculture looked at deaths per hectare per year from various different angles. Depending on what you consider “valuable life” and how the animals were counted, deaths could either range from 35-250 mouse deaths per acre to 7.3 billion animals killed every year from plant agriculture if you count birds killed by pesticides, fish deaths from fertilizer runoff, plus reptiles and amphibians poisonings from eating toxic insects. Whether or not you agree with their math is not the issue. I think the issue is, if death happened for your food, then are you morally better than me because you didn’t drink milk or eat a steak? "

Exactly. I agree with you about the unfortunate nature of field deaths. 

So, why continue advocating for the slaughter of animals (even more than usual if everyone did the diet you're doing), when the majority of field crops are growth to feed those animals for slaughter? If you want to cut back on agriculture (and that's your genuine agenda... which it isn't. You don't care about that AT ALL) then you should be Vegan too and/or advocating for Veganism. But you aren't. You're just using field deaths as a way to discredit Veganism so that you can push your own dietary agenda... despite the fact that the 'field deaths' argument runs counter to your dietary agenda.

There are 300 million people in America. There are 160 million cows and pigs raised for slaughter in America. There are also like a billion chickens that are raised for slaughter in America. And they all consume copious amounts of grain... far more than the 300 million people consume. Most U.S. agriculture is done for the purpose of feeding animals who will be slaughtered for meat and raised for milk and eggs. 

So, even if human beings replaced their animal product consumption with plant consumption, there would still be significantly fewer crops needed if Veganism were simply the way of things... thus cutting down on field deaths as well. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Emerald

[ajasatya]

this thread has already gone past ridiculous imo.

talking through someone else's words is a signal of insuficient introspection. gosh, give it time and think it all the way through by yourself first...

i could very much be playing the role of the fool that would post articles defending the veganism and showing vegan body builders and strongman champions.

if you're still trying to convince others that you need meat to survive, it means that you're not in peace with your choice. work on yourself, eat what you think is right and be mindful of the consequences to the environment. if you can't deal with your responsibilities, then shame on you.

Edited August 29, 2018 by ajasatya

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, Outer said:

Which the study admits is wrong.

They also estimated the numbers by including animals killed by other animals (not humans).

So one dies from humans, the rest died from owls, weasels, etc.

Not only this... the field deaths are so high BECAUSE raising animals for slaughter is so prevalent. We could cut down on over 1/2 of grain agriculture (7/10 of the top crops in America are grains) if we didn't grow it for animals to eat so that we can eat them. 

Also, cows, pigs, and chickens aren't really being fed the right diets with all that grain. So even if there were remaining cows, pigs, and chickens due to not slaughtering, they would be fed their natural diets because there's no impetus to grow livestock cheaply and quickly like grains do. 

[Scholar]

On 8/28/2018 at 3:06 PM, AMS said:

This isn't written by me but made some good points in the comments section of Mic The Vegan's debunked vid.

"There is some misleading stuff in this video and it seems you've completely missed a portion of what she has to say. Before I start, let me preface this by saying that I am not against veg^ns. I care about animals and, like most people, I think factory farming is atrocious (as does Lierre). I am currently in the middle of making my decision between going completely vegetarian vs eating free-range meat. I honestly want to choose what will do the most good for the long-term (not just for myself).

1. The study that compares meat eaters and vegetarians (various types). There are several problems here. The meat eaters can just have a personality where they don't care about their health as much (way more meat eaters drink alcohol than vegans, more vegans care about general health than meat eaters, etc). By the way, that same article links to another article in Britain that shows no difference between the two groups. Maybe the difference has to do with culture more than meat vs vegetarian. Obesity is much higher in the US vs Britain, perhaps the disparity in obesity between meat eaters vs vegetarians is bigger in the US which therefore explains the difference between the two studies? So, what I'm getting at is, perhaps there are things that explain why meat eaters don't live as long as vegetarians that don't require them to become vegetarian in order to fix. For example, eating free-range meat instead of processed meat from McDonald's. You can't simply lump all meat eaters in the same box. By the way, she never said to go from vegan to eating any type of meat. She specifically rules out all factory farmed meats (for health, environmental and ethical reasons) and she eats paleo free-range meats in the first interview you showed. By the way, another major flaw (which she talks about) is that it could be that most people who become vegan and get sick stop being vegan and eat meat again. Therefore, most people who are vegan and healthy are the ones who have the genetics which allow them to eat vegan without any health problems.

2. Many studies show that our enzymes (for most people) are simply not as efficient at accepting vegetarian proteins vs meat proteins.

3. Clearly she's wrong that more vegans get diabetes. Although the results of the study you showed could very well be because vegans are less overweight than meat eaters (9.4 % vs 33.3 %). With that big of a difference, all the publication is saying is that because vegans don't tend to be fat, they are also less likely to have diabetes.

4. You can't talk about factory farming as if Lierre is for it, it's misleading. She advocates for the most humane treatment of animals when farming them. --- Like you said at the end, health is only a portion of what she talks about. However, I think that it is extremely important to consider the other points she talks about if our ultimate goal is to provide a positive net outcome and reduce animal suffering as a whole."




All I know is carnivory is healing my body from a digestive illness (and it was a gradual path needing to go so extreme where my gut got to a point where it can only digest fresh beef) and I know of many people world wide doing the same, some for decades (recovering from serious autoimmune dieseases, obesity and even brain disorders like bipolar, not to mention in thriving health).  It makes you wonder if the scientific studies demonizing meat have gotten it wrong and this was a result of there being too many variables (other dietary factors, lifestyle, consciousness for health) then drawing false conclusions.  Not to mention business corrupting science.  We have noticed that we are not able to digest plants easily due to them having defensive mechanisms (such as chemicals they omit to regulate their survival against grazing herbivores).  Herbivores have very complex digestive systems to break down these chemicals (which maybe humans had in the past but not quite as complex anymore since we started eating more meat)...we lack the high amounts of bacteria and other mechanisms (such as a larger appendix) to breakdown all those plants.  Also these many phytochemicals science knows very little about.  Also fiber is very problematic for some and not as necessary as you may think ('Fiber Menace' book).  Zero carbers do not suffer from constipation, they merely expel less waste. 

But yeah I'm not here to necessarily convince anyone, that's still to come (lots of good studies and movement going on now, check out controversial  youtuber Shawn Baker for example, vegan's love him).  I just want to start sharing with you my perspective because this is clearly helping tens of thousands across the world right now (thousands from a vegan background) and pretty shortly there will be no denying it.  Not saying some aren't thriving as vegans, but it definitely ain't for everyone.  I'd get very sick doing such a diet (believe me if that's what it takes then I'd do it), It seems I can't tolerate plants at all, i haven't cheated in 16 months apart from when i ate small amounts of garlic and onion in a chorizo to get my bacterial overgrowth in my gut more active so my antibiotics would kill them more easily, and I reacted badly to those plants.  Before I started being a carnivore I was eating paleo with a lot of veggies and cutting the veggies helped drastically.  Maybe if you were in my position you would had been more open to such a radical and unconventional/controversial diet as this.




 

So you looking for an alternative perspective means you literally search for the comments which debunk the debunk of what you were looking for to debunk your own assumptions? How does that not make you worry about your cognitive bias?

You could research on gut flora and how it effects the ability to digest plant material. Just because avoiding certain foods stops making you feel sick doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually unhealthy for you for some genetic reason. Imagine if walking made you feel pain in your ankle, would you say that walking is unhealthy for you or would you go and fix the reason for why it hurts you?

 

Think about the kind of person who, without a clear understanding of the situation, would be willing to defend the slaughter and enslavement of billions of helpless beings who did nothing to deserve to be in the position they are in. Think about the kind of person who would stand in front of a fully sentient being, look into it's eyes and kill it just so that they could suffer a little less or feel a little healthier and stronger. Imagine the kind of person who would go out of their way to find perspectives which justify that behavior, to find only evidence that makes him feel better about the actions he is taking day by day.

Do you believe that this kind of person is anywhere near the potential they could reach? Do you think they are leading by good example, that they are a reflection of humanity or goodness? The one obsessed with his own health, his own suffering and his own perspective?

 

Accepting and surrendering to reality is very easy if you have blindfolds on that keep you from seeing the world for what it is. How good at accepting reality will you be when you are in the position of the cow which you have no problem of slaughtering?

For me this is not even about the cow, this is about the ego, about our willingness to embrace corruption. It's not even about being vegan or not, it is about us not willing to recognize the lies that we keep telling ourselves.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Scholar

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Caterpillar said:

C is the odd one because it's twice as big as the other pictures. 

[Solace]

"There are no vegan cultures in recorded history and the cultures that are vegetarian have emphasise the importance of some animal products such as milk and eggs."

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10200753686304957&id=1246323290&_rdr

Basically you can be vegan; but you may need lots of supplements for it to be sustainable. I recommend you eat whatever makes you feel more awake, alert, and which digests well (be aware that fruit gives you a sugar rush); and your blood type can help narrow that down. A diet of vegetables for minerals, nuts and seeds for fats, and legumes for protein with superfoods like hemp seeds, flax seeds and spiriluna, chlorella may work really well for some people. I have observed that my body feels doesn't digest nuts, seeds, and legumes that well, thus I eat lots of eggs, and some wild fish and pasture-raised meats instead. I understand that everything is God, and thus no form of life is to be more important or valued over another. What I do not agree with is mass factory farming, but I do support my local farmers who raise happy, healthy and longer lived animals. 

Yes we do consume too much meat, but this world is not ready for pure veganism or fruitarianism for a long time yet (we have a heavy vibration). It's all about finding a balance, and seeing what you digest best, and only you can find that out.

Namaste.