Meat eater/Vegetarian/Vegan. What are you?

[Shpongled247]

This thread is actually better than i thought it would be at least!

I look forward to the day our childrens children look back on the meat industry as we know it as barbaric!

Also of course one shouldn't care what other people eat, but frankly shouldn't people care what other people kill?

 

[Padmapani]

On 7 September 2018 at 9:16 PM, tsotsi said:

back in savannah days we scavenged for bone marrow left over after the lions and hyenas had their share.

not really. the most likely scenario is that we were the number one persistance hunters in the savannahs, because we're damn good at it. we're not the fastest runners but we are well adapted to travel large distances in energy efficient ways, as well as cooling ourselves by sweating, which our prey cannot. so it is natural for humans to chase down animals until they die of exhaustion and many african tribesmen still practise hunting like this today.

[Tsotsi]

3 hours ago, Padmapani said:

not really. the most likely scenario is that we were the number one persistance hunters in the savannahs, because we're damn good at it. we're not the fastest runners but we are well adapted to travel large distances in energy efficient ways, as well as cooling ourselves by sweating, which our prey cannot. so it is natural for humans to chase down animals until they die of exhaustion and many african tribesmen still practise hunting like this today.

I think you're right but I'm going back past hunting days. I'm quoting Yuval Noah Harrari from Sapiens here. He or his source think that before fire we didn't have much reason to hunt animals so we did the whole bone marrow thing. Then fire came along and we used it to burn forests down to kill and cook animals in one hit. 

Then we started hunting. 

[Padmapani]

19 hours ago, tsotsi said:

I think you're right but I'm going back past hunting days. I'm quoting Yuval Noah Harrari from Sapiens here. He or his source think that before fire we didn't have much reason to hunt animals so we did the whole bone marrow thing. Then fire came along and we used it to burn forests down to kill and cook animals in one hit. 

Then we started hunting. 

i did some research and it seems you are right and our ancestors were scavengers before. at least our evidence for scavenging is older than our evidence for hunting. still this evidence goes back 2 million years, dating to times of homo erectus and coincides with the fist use of more sophisticated tools and seems to be a little older than our evidence for controlled fire (somwhere between 1.7 and 0.3 million years). homo erectus sure discovered a few useful things for us ;). interesting.

and apparently making use of forest fires for food is something chimps still do today...

[Shineingrid]

On 9/2/2018 at 11:03 PM, reger said:

Farming is still the way to go, big or small depends on sustainability, unless we go for every house hold having their own garden and animals for meat and dairy.

 

The way to feed the world is to stop eating meat, so all the area used on animal food and animals in general can be used for human food. It takes a lot more land and water to produce meat than plants. 

[Tsotsi]

7 hours ago, Shineingrid said:

The way to feed the world is to stop eating meat, so all the area used on animal food and animals in general can be used for human food. It takes a lot more land and water to produce meat than plants. 

I thought the same but have a few issues with what this would mean. 

First that guardian article I posted explains how vegan farms actually destroy vital parts of the ecosystem and inhibit life from taking place via fungus, small critters, bugs, birds etc. I never considered the effect of mass use of pesticides and herbicides. 

Second is more an issue with the world system of capitalism and anthropocentricism, my fear is that once animals become useless to us we will stop considering them necessary when push comes to shove. 

[thanosp81]

Maybe it's time to face the fact that we are too many here to keep any kind of balance in any way. We have to move 

[Redo]

.

[thanosp81]

32 minutes ago, Redo said:

Move to the soul stone, right Thanos?

lol. or mars.

[Padmapani]

feeding the world is not the problem. feeding the world in a way that maximises profit is the problem. in our society profits count, starvation doesn't.

we have more than enough food for everyone and everyone with money has access to food.one third of the food over here simply gets thrown away, even though it's still fine. the waste containers of the supermarkets are locked to prevent people getting perfectly fine food without paying. after all they have to make sure the prices don't drop; that would be ruin the profits.

if you'd abolish making use of animal products, this would change nothing for hunger. capitalism is the problem here, not meat eating.

[psychedelic chipmunk]

Can't imagine my diet without a hint of meat or fish.

The various documentaries (of cows or pigs or whatever) that show you which atrocities are committed by so and so are a red herring (as an argument). Appeals are made to the viewer's emotions. Furthermore, extreme examples aren't convincing, either. I'm now supposed to believe that's how all the slaughterhouses in the world work, is that it?

One must be aware of potential contamination issues, though. At least in the developed countries, we have dedicated institutes for that.

 

Long story short, eat your steak, your body needs it.

[Void Mantra]

On 10/5/2018 at 4:43 AM, psychedelic chipmunk said:

Can't imagine my diet without a hint of meat or fish.

The various documentaries (of cows or pigs or whatever) that show you which atrocities are committed by so and so are a red herring (as an argument). Appeals are made to the viewer's emotions. Furthermore, extreme examples aren't convincing, either. I'm now supposed to believe that's how all the slaughterhouses in the world work, is that it?

One must be aware of potential contamination issues, though. At least in the developed countries, we have dedicated institutes for that.

 

Long story short, eat your steak, your body needs it.

Wrong. 

"Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses." - Harvard Medical School

" [...] appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." - The American Dietetic Association

" [...] a well-planned vegan diet can support healthy living in people of all ages” - British Dietetic Association

 

Please educate yourself. 

[Void Mantra]

To those rare few meat eaters still willing to take responsibily for their actions, or lack thereof; this one is for you:
 

My respect to all meat eaters out there who watch the whole thing. 

[psychedelic chipmunk]

The movie is biased, it presents exactly the same message as the movie Earthlings. Everybody in their right state  of mind realises such treatment of animals will yield VERY poor product - be it meat or dairy products or eggs or what have you. Therefore, it is not a sensible course of action (therefore anyone interested in lasting business won't do something like this). I won't even get into the lack of proper research presentation in either movie. Let's overcome the cognitive dissonance and recognise propaganda for what it is, ok? Great.

 

I wasn't able to find any relevant work on the claims of either Dietetic institution and I don't mean a pop-science article, rather I mean the reports of the specialists that carried out this research. My guess is that the people behind the research are more interested in finding alternative sufficient food sources and their work is being ripped out of context. It is customary to state in the abstract of a report the purpose of  research at hand. Pop science articles are known to use legitimate works and results falsely to promote whatever propaganda seems profitable at the time.

On skimming the BDA's article it is mentioned that the BDA provides excellent nutritional advice by dietitians based on (you're gonna love this part) evidence.

Well, that's reassuring, but where do I find the research of these scientists?

I should not even waste more time on reading articles without actual references 

 

Cognitive dissonance check!

 

 

[Void Mantra]

8 hours ago, psychedelic chipmunk said:

The movie is biased, it presents exactly the same message as the movie Earthlings. Everybody in their right state  of mind realises such treatment of animals will yield VERY poor product - be it meat or dairy products or eggs or what have you. Therefore, it is not a sensible course of action (therefore anyone interested in lasting business won't do something like this). I won't even get into the lack of proper research presentation in either movie. Let's overcome the cognitive dissonance and recognise propaganda for what it is, ok? Great.

 

I wasn't able to find any relevant work on the claims of either Dietetic institution and I don't mean a pop-science article, rather I mean the reports of the specialists that carried out this research. My guess is that the people behind the research are more interested in finding alternative sufficient food sources and their work is being ripped out of context. It is customary to state in the abstract of a report the purpose of  research at hand. Pop science articles are known to use legitimate works and results falsely to promote whatever propaganda seems profitable at the time.

On skimming the BDA's article it is mentioned that the BDA provides excellent nutritional advice by dietitians based on (you're gonna love this part) evidence.

Well, that's reassuring, but where do I find the research of these scientists?

I should not even waste more time on reading articles without actual references 

 

Cognitive dissonance check!

 

 

https://www.eatrightpro.org/-/media/eatrightpro-files/practice/position-and-practice-papers/position-papers/vegetarian-diet.pdf?la=en&hash=13D2FB5B600CF0778F6FE12B50ED9CE2645CAEF9

The peer-reviewed paper in question with 100+ references. Have fun. 

You're in denial. Wake up. 

[psychedelic chipmunk]

Fair  enough, I'll bite. What you posted is a pop science article and it aptly demonstrates what I mentioned earlier.  For the sake of discussion, pop science has no peer review that's worth mentioning. Among the references are actual researches with their own goals and conclusions - these are certainly peer reviewed.

As for the article

A few excerpts.

Vegetarians generally consume as
much iron as, or slightly more than,
omnivores.

Said to be the concluded from [16]. Let's see [16], then. The purpose of [16] is clearly stated in their abstract - the study of bioavailability of iron and what controls (or inhibits) absorbtion - groups of Dutch people seem to be tested. [16] is obviously being quoted out of context for they make no such claim.

There is no way of knowing, in general, that either one consumes more iron than the other. Rather, it is important, that either diet could provide sufficient amount of iron.

The article poses an empty statement to meet some necessary word count or some such.

-------------------------

Many scientists are calling for a
substantial reduction of livestock products
in the diet of humans as a major way
to reverse climate change.

Wrong. The following conclusion is arrived at in [107].

Conclusions
Consuming a more plant-based diet could to an extent alleviate the negative environmental impacts related to food production. As a method to feed ourselves more sustainably, behavioural adjustments appear to be a very important tool.

They make no certain claims, rather suggest that this is worth investigating and I agree, but this does not imply what was said in the article.

-------------------------

I also found this gem

In addition, beef production
generates considerably more manure
waste than from any other animal food
production.

This is said to be [108], which contains political statements in its conclusion. A big nono, so we'll regard that as a tongue-in-cheek essay.

As for manure itself, it is a fertiliser  Around here, that's how seasonal agriculture functions. The land is fertilised with captured manure. Live stock is as essential to plant life as it is to live stock.

-------------------------

So, by now I think we get the picture. It is not about which diet is 'better', rather which diets are suitable for which people. As a prevalent characteristic of many references of the article - the goals of those works are to study the effects of either diet and to find balance. As an extreme example there is a certain condition that may cause (near) paralysis for people on a daily basis. Consuming more meat products significantly alleviates the condition (this is a recent discovery by G. Pilz based on relevant theory, he recently gave a talk in our university and as he himself suffers from this near paralysis condition, he applied the theory to narrow down his diet very quickly to determine which products he should discard).

We should distinguish between veganism and veganism*. The latter is a political crusade, while the former is merely another way of life. I know people who have tried vegan diets for months only to end up more in despair and I also know people who have no problems with having only plant foods. Lots of interesting research is carried out on the subject of diets, but the crusaders are incorrectly quoting these discoveries. This is no surprise, though, while the meat eaters don't have their clips of loons with flamethrowers burning down bushes of berries, plenty of pop science has been written against vegan diets. It is not so well-known simply because it's not the stance promoted by the propaganda machine.

Don't become a crusader, please. If your diet works for you, then all is well. As long as you are honest with yourself, you shouldn't get into health trouble.

Now, I need me a lamb leg, baked potatoes, some tomato salad and lots of gravy. Have fun 

 

[thanosp81]

3 hours ago, psychedelic chipmunk said:

Fair  enough, I'll bite. What you posted is a pop science article and it aptly demonstrates what I mentioned earlier.  For the sake of discussion, pop science has no peer review that's worth mentioning. Among the references are actual researches with their own goals and conclusions - these are certainly peer reviewed.

As for the article

A few excerpts.

Vegetarians generally consume as
much iron as, or slightly more than,
omnivores.

Said to be the concluded from [16]. Let's see [16], then. The purpose of [16] is clearly stated in their abstract - the study of bioavailability of iron and what controls (or inhibits) absorbtion - groups of Dutch people seem to be tested. [16] is obviously being quoted out of context for they make no such claim.

There is no way of knowing, in general, that either one consumes more iron than the other. Rather, it is important, that either diet could provide sufficient amount of iron.

The article poses an empty statement to meet some necessary word count or some such.

-------------------------

Many scientists are calling for a
substantial reduction of livestock products
in the diet of humans as a major way
to reverse climate change.

Wrong. The following conclusion is arrived at in [107].

Conclusions
Consuming a more plant-based diet could to an extent alleviate the negative environmental impacts related to food production. As a method to feed ourselves more sustainably, behavioural adjustments appear to be a very important tool.

They make no certain claims, rather suggest that this is worth investigating and I agree, but this does not imply what was said in the article.

-------------------------

I also found this gem

In addition, beef production
generates considerably more manure
waste than from any other animal food
production.

This is said to be [108], which contains political statements in its conclusion. A big nono, so we'll regard that as a tongue-in-cheek essay.

As for manure itself, it is a fertiliser  Around here, that's how seasonal agriculture functions. The land is fertilised with captured manure. Live stock is as essential to plant life as it is to live stock.

-------------------------

So, by now I think we get the picture. It is not about which diet is 'better', rather which diets are suitable for which people. As a prevalent characteristic of many references of the article - the goals of those works are to study the effects of either diet and to find balance. As an extreme example there is a certain condition that may cause (near) paralysis for people on a daily basis. Consuming more meat products significantly alleviates the condition (this is a recent discovery by G. Pilz based on relevant theory, he recently gave a talk in our university and as he himself suffers from this near paralysis condition, he applied the theory to narrow down his diet very quickly to determine which products he should discard).

We should distinguish between veganism and veganism*. The latter is a political crusade, while the former is merely another way of life. I know people who have tried vegan diets for months only to end up more in despair and I also know people who have no problems with having only plant foods. Lots of interesting research is carried out on the subject of diets, but the crusaders are incorrectly quoting these discoveries. This is no surprise, though, while the meat eaters don't have their clips of loons with flamethrowers burning down bushes of berries, plenty of pop science has been written against vegan diets. It is not so well-known simply because it's not the stance promoted by the propaganda machine.

Don't become a crusader, please. If your diet works for you, then all is well. As long as you are honest with yourself, you shouldn't get into health trouble.

Now, I need me a lamb leg, baked potatoes, some tomato salad and lots of gravy. Have fun 

 

Unfortunately you have to be a research scientist to know how to properly read a paper. The majority of people don't. Kudos for taking the time and posting it here. I couldn't bother explaining it to people.  

[Void Mantra]

Chimp, calling the position of Harvard Medical School and ADA on dietetics as "pop science" is not only laughable but completely delusional, you know that right? Quite frankly you give climate change deniers and flat earthers a run for their money. What are you credentials on nutrition again? Probably nothing too spectacular judging from your rebuttals. 

You first made a bold statement that the body needs meat thrive; which is factually, empirically not true. That's when I came in and what I argued against. Some people has been vegetarians for some 50+ years and still kicking. Then, in the face of evidence, your position change to "if your diet works for you, then all is well." At this point, you're obviously just being intellectually dishonest and simply try to win the argument for the sake of it. 

Also, "We should distinguish between veganism and veganism*. The latter is a political crusade, while the former is merely another way of life." LMAO. That's a real beauty right there.

 

 

[Void Mantra]

@Thanosp81 Have you watched the whole documentary I posted above? 

 

 

[psychedelic chipmunk]

The works of the dietitians are most likely credible. To elaborate: the actual research is not pop science, for sure. However, these compilation articles are pop science because of two main reasons. Imprecise language or incorrect use of references. The imprecise language is forgivable, since the aim is to also make this "readable" for the "general public". But then they should be very careful about what they claim. Wild claims are made BASED on legitimate works. This in turn leads the reader to believe that the researchers themselves make these claims. No, they don't. This is a problem.

Climate change and flat earth business is irrelevant for this discussion. I am not working in nutrition, I am (among other activities) trained to read publications and see whether relevant works are correctly quoted or if the references allow certain claims to be made. One does not need to be a nutrition expert to be able to do that, thankfully.

I never said "that the body needs meat to thrive" as you incorrectly quoted me. I merely said eat your food, your body needs it - which is a trivially true statement. I conveniently replaced the word 'food' with 'steak', so I admit, it was a trap. I mean no offense. Let us not act on prejudice, rather remain objective

For whatever good it does you may claim the win for that argument.

As for veganism*. It's similar to the situation between religious nuts and people that choose to believe in god, where veganism* represents the religious nuts that need to preach left and right.

[Void Mantra]

@Chipmunk
 

"I never said "that the body needs meat to thrive" as you incorrectly quoted me."

You said: "eat your steak, your body needs it." which is the same as saying "the body needs meat to thrive". Thanks for admitting it was a trap, I appreciate.

"As for veganism*. It's similar to the situation with religious nuts and people that choose to believe in god, where veganism* represents the religious nuts that need to preach left and right."

Not exactly. You were the one "preaching" for meat consumption with no evidence whatsoever to back up your statement; I merely proposed a rebuttal.

When it comes to veganism, I'll copy-paste what I said earlier on the dairy industry.

1) A cow is continually fisted/inseminated against her will. (In human term, we call that "rape").
2) Her baby cows are quickly and repeadetly taken away from her (usually 36 hours after birth, so the milk goes to the humans, not the calves). Thereafter, the mother cow calls for her babies for days.
3) A good portion of the male calves go the slaughterhouses.
4) When the mother cow is about 5 years old and no longer productive (mostly due to stress, exhaustion and diseases), she's slaughtered for meat. Keep in mind that the cow's natural lifespan is 20 years on average.
5) In the slaughterhouse, she's usually shocked with a bolt gun, hanged by the legs to finally have her throat cut open. 
 

It's not political. It's not religious. It's a stand against needless killing and exploitation. Adult mammals don't need to be breastfed.

[psychedelic chipmunk]

and I support that stand with both hands. There are some gaps of logic in cause and effect, though.

If the baby cows are immediately taken away from mama cow and the milk that's supposed to feed the calves is, let's call it, stolen - by which miracle of god do the baby calves survive or if they don't is it then implied that as the cow gives birth, she is (almost) immediately reinseminated? She would then, in theory, produce milk for the next X months. Wash rinse repeat?

For number 3) I know a few instances where a newborn  calf was executed because of some serious illness. Unfortunate, but you pick the lesser of two evils. Naturally, not harvested for meat.

(Speculation) I assume the meat acquired from mistreated likely malnutrioned cows is low-grade. This is not in line with the interests of companies that deal with meat products, so I simply can't imagine this mistreatment being a widespread practice. It just doesn't make sense. It may very well depend on the scale of the farm, where some (less reputable) dairy companies hope to save money by taking some shortcuts only to have it slap them in the face.

The EU regulations, for instance, are very strict regarding the quality of animal or dairy products (see here, for instance).

 

So, I'm all for stopping needless slaughter. What or how does any of this have to do with veganism and meat eating?

[thanosp81]

1 hour ago, Void Mantra said:

@Thanosp81 Have you watched the whole documentary I posted above? 

 

 

Nope  

[Void Mantra]

"and I support that stand with both hands."

No you don't. You can't be eating meat AND be truly concerned about animal well-being and their will to live. Can't have it both ways, sorry.

If the baby cows are immediately taken away from mama cow and the milk that's supposed to feed the calves is, let's call it, stolen - by which miracle of god do the baby calves survive or if they don't is it then implied that as the cow gives birth, she is (almost) immediately reinseminated? She would then, in theory, produce milk for the next X months. Wash rinse repeat?

I was raised on a dairy farm and spent my childhood there, so I think I know a thing or two about cows. Baby calves survive because they drink a sufficient amount of colostrum from their mother, usually within 12 hrs of birth. Believe me, we didn't keep male calves for more than a couple of days. Thereafter, the calves are sold to other farms where they are raised for veal. In that case, they are either grain fed or "milk" fed. I put milk in quotes because it's actually milk powder. Otherwise, the baby calves are sent directly to slaughterhouses thanks to the changing consumer demand and fluctuating market prices. The gestation period for the cow is 9 months (on average) during which she is re-inseminated after 3 months so that she can give birth and consequently keep on producing milk. 60 days before the next calving, the cow is dry, she can't produce milk anymore. Repeat that cycle 3 to 4 times, the cow is not longer profitable and is sent to a slaughterhouse for low grade meat (i.e. minced meat); many of whom still pregnant. A dairy cow live, on average, 4 to 5 years, which is the quarter of their natural lifespan. 

I assume the meat acquired from mistreated likely malnutrioned cows is low-grade.

Wrong again. For exemple, calves are put in chronic iron deficiency anemia so that their meat looks pale. They are also put into crates so small that they can barely move. Why? For the flesh to be tender. How? By preventing muscle development. Still to this day, there's no federal law in the US banning veal crates that I know of. Fortunately, several states have individual bans on these practices. So yeah, that's just one exemple. Also, checkout the downer cow syndrome and its legislation.

The EU regulations, for instance, are very strict regarding the quality of animal or dairy products (see here, for instance).

Let's be clear here; being strict is saying no to the animal exploitation and slaughter on the basis that they're fairly evolved, highly social sentient beings capable of well-being, pain, emotions such as fear and anxiety and have a will to live. You wouldn't accept "strict" regulations in regard to slavery wouldn't you? I hope not.

So, I'm all for stopping needless slaughter.

Again, you're not.

What or how does any of this have to do with veganism and meat eating?

If you genuinely still don't know how animal slaughter is related to veganism you're either retarded (and I don't think you are) or drunk. Otherwise, you're being intellectually dishonest; your pick. 

Alright, that's it for me. 

[mudpeople]

I mostly eat vegetarian, but from time to time have some kind of meat.  I've never been a huge dairy person, except for cheese.  Don't like straight milk, though I have ready access to raw milk from 2 very well-treated cows who live right near me (honestly I'm even less enthusiastic about raw milk).  

Anthony Bourdain made a great point, that vegetarianism as a moral choice is a First World luxury, that people in developing places don't really have the option and are just trying to survive with whatever they can scrounge, whatever it may be.  

But, I was curious and looked up the typical diets of common chimpanzees and bonobos, our 2 closest living primate relatives, and they're "omnivorous frugivores", eating whatever, but mostly fruit.  So it's certainly in our biology to only eat fruit.