Ethical basis for Veganism or Vegetarianism?

[Asmodean]

...Seems I have to crawl out of my TV chair and defend my burgers yet again

[gwyn428]

I have been a Vegetarian for almost 9 months now. My particular diet is ovo-lacto-Vegetarian, which means that I consume dairy, eggs, and anything else that a non-meat eater would consume.

Before switching to the dark side of the Force, I read some things about why Vegetarianism is much better for us than the Omnivore diet. The next day, I told my mother that I would no longer consume meat or seafood and so far I have never looked back to the Omnivore diet. Becoming a Vegetarian was for me that simple and easy, but the first week was not so cool; I was physically weak, shaky, and always hungry. Contrary to the mantras that many anti-Vegetarian people repeat, I am not physically weak, slow, I do not smoke pot, I am not romantic with animals, and I did not die after 4 months from not eating meat. The only difference between my new diet and the previous Omnivore diet is that after eating dinner I do not feel like a brick is in my stomach and I no longer feel tired.

I read before about the animals but I do not really care about them; animals are killed and eaten by many other species too and all the time.

[Kyuuketsuki]

...Seems I have to crawl out of my TV chair and defend my burgers yet again

LOL

Have been thinking about this for some time now. Is vegetarianism the better or the ideal way?

Biologically, I'd have to say neither. Being omnivores, we are supposed to have meat in our diet.

Agreed.

Has anyone tried vegetarianism or thinks it has any non-religious benefits? Would love to hear.

Nope, never tried. Probably never will

Kyu

[Kyuuketsuki]

I'm a vegan

You're from Vega? Have you talked to SETI?

Kyu

[SSY]

It was the introduction of meat into our diet that allowed development of our Brains ( the same behavior can be seen in chimps hunting other monkeys ) many thousands of years ago. I take this to be an endorsement of meat eating from mother nature.

Plus, it is so delicious.

[Asmodean]

Oh I have ... I love a good salad ... as long as it's fed to a cow before being slapped on a grill and served up as steak :pop: Following it, we can both claim to be vegans.  

[DennisK]

Many people equate omnivores with eating meat on a daily basis when, in fact, omnivores' consumption of meat is minimal.  For instance, the chimpanzees of Gombe are largely fruit eaters, and meat composes only about 3% of the time they spend eating overall.  By definition, most of the people in the US are carnivores.  Most Americans eat meat more than once a day which is more than most carnivores in the wild.

The real concern, though, of eating meat is:

Growing demand for meat has become a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening humanity's future, maintains the World Watch Institute, Washington, D.C. Total meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past half-century, putting extreme pressure on Earth's limited resources, including water, land, feed, and fuel.

We care more about our yummy burgers than we do about the health of our planet.

[Asmodean]

Many people equate omnivores with eating meat on a daily basis when, in fact, omnivores' consumption of meat is minimal.

Bears are pretty omnivorous and while some prefer plants, others prefer meat, crows are omnivores too and their diet consists of as much meat as they can get their beaks on. So overall, your point is invalid. "Omnivore" simply means "all-eating" - it does not imply a percent-wise balance beyond that an omnivore is specialised to digest both meat and plant material. An omnivore's consumption of meat is normally anything but minimal. The class you are talking about are herbivores, who will sometimes eat meat but who don't have it on their general menu.

For instance, the chimpanzees of Gombe are largely fruit eaters, and meat composes only about 3% of the time they spend eating overall.  By definition, most of the people in the US are carnivores.  Most Americans eat meat more than once a day which is more than most carnivores in the wild.

1. The chimps are omnivores, but they are hardly a good representative of omnivores in general. Besides, you have to count insects into their animalic diet.

2. A by-definition carnivore does not eat plants, or does so very rarely. Two words: French Fries. So a very big no to that point.

The real concern, though, of eating meat is:

Growing demand for meat has become a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening humanity's future, maintains the World Watch Institute, Washington, D.C. Total meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past half-century, putting extreme pressure on Earth's limited resources, including water, land, feed, and fuel.

We care more about our yummy burgers than we do about the health of our planet.

Yes. I care much more about what's on my plate than what conditions people will live in in 500 years. That said, the increased demand for ANY sort of food will have its own pitfalls and tripwires. Don't try to paint a grayscale picture black and white. Look at all sides.

[DennisK]

Many people equate omnivores with eating meat on a daily basis when, in fact, omnivores' consumption of meat is minimal.

Bears are pretty omnivorous and while some prefer plants, others prefer meat, crows are omnivores too and their diet consists of as much meat as they can get their beaks on. So overall, your point is invalid. "Omnivore" simply means "all-eating" - it does not imply a percent-wise balance beyond that an omnivore is specialised to digest both meat and plant material. An omnivore's consumption of meat is normally anything but minimal. The class you are talking about are herbivores, who will sometimes eat meat but who don't have it on their general menu.

Up to 80-90 percent of the bears' diets is vegetation, especially grasses, sages, berries and roots.

Two words: French Fries. So a very big no to that point.

You're not calling fast food french fry a vegetable are you?  It is a non-meat, however.  The reference of us being carnivores was an exaggeration and not meant to be taken literally.

The real concern, though, of eating meat is:

Growing demand for meat has become a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening humanity's future, maintains the World Watch Institute, Washington, D.C. Total meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past half-century, putting extreme pressure on Earth's limited resources, including water, land, feed, and fuel.

We care more about our yummy burgers than we do about the health of our planet.

Yes. I care much more about what's on my plate than what conditions people will live in in 500 years. That said, the increased demand for ANY sort of food will have its own pitfalls and tripwires. Don't try to paint a grayscale picture black and white. Look at all sides.

It is you who is painting a black and white issue gray.  Do some comparisons on your own.  You will find these claims to be true.  I've put a portion of an article explaining this in the spoiler if you are interested and the link to the article is:http://www.emagazine.com/view/?142
[spoiler:25j6astw]World Hunger and Resources

The 4.8 pounds of grain fed to cattle to produce one pound of beef for human beings represents a colossal waste of resources in a world still teeming with people who suffer from profound hunger and malnutrition.

According to the British group Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn and only two producing cattle. Britainâ€"with 56 million peopleâ€"could support a population of 250 million on an all-vegetable diet. Because 90 percent of U.S. and European meat eaters’ grain consumption is indirect (first being fed to animals), westerners each consume 2,000 pounds of grain a year. Most grain in underdeveloped countries is consumed directly.

While it is true that many animals graze on land that would be unsuitable for cultivation, the demand for meat has taken millions of productive acres away from farm inventories. The cost of that is incalculable. As Diet For a Small Planet author Frances Moore Lappé writes, imagine sitting down to an eight-ounce steak. “Then imagine the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls in front of them. For the ‘feed cost’ of your steak, each of their bowls could be filled with a full cup of cooked cereal grains.”

Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer estimates that reducing meat production by just 10 percent in the U.S. would free enough grain to feed 60 million people. Authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich note that a pound of wheat can be grown with 60 pounds of water, whereas a pound of meat requires 2,500 to 6,000 pounds.

Environmental Costs

Energy-intensive U.S. factory farms generated 1.4 billion tons of animal waste in 1996, which, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, pollutes American waterways more than all other industrial sources combined. Meat production has also been linked to severe erosion of billions of acres of once-productive farmland and to the destruction of rainforests.

McDonald’s took a group of British animal rights activists to court in the 1990s because they had linked the fast food giant to an unhealthy diet and rainforest destruction. The defendants, who fought the company to a standstill, made a convincing case. In court documents, the activists asserted, “From 1970 onwards, beef from cattle reared on ex-rainforest land was supplied to McDonald’s.” In a policy statement, McDonald’s claims that it “does not purchase beef which threatens tropical rainforests anywhere in the world,” but it does not deny past purchases.

According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), livestock raised for food produce 130 times the excrement of the human population, some 87,000 pounds per second. The Union of Concerned Scientists points out that 20 tons of livestock manure is produced annually for every U.S. household. The much-publicized 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska dumped 12 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound, but the relatively unknown 1995 New River hog waste spill in North Carolina poured 25 million gallons of excrement and urine into the water, killing an estimated 10 to 14 million fish and closing 364,000 acres of coastal shellfishing beds. Hog waste spills have caused the rapid spread of a virulent microbe called Pfiesteria piscicida, which has killed a billion fish in North Carolina alone.

More than a third of all raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. are used in animal production. Beef production alone uses more water than is consumed in growing the nation’s entire fruit and vegetable crop. Producing a single hamburger patty uses enough fuel to drive 20 miles and causes the loss of five times its weight in topsoil. In his book The Food Revolution, author John Robbins estimates that “you’d save more water by not eating a pound of California beef than you would by not showering for an entire year.” Because of deforestation to create grazing land, each vegetarian saves an acre of trees per year.

“We definitely take up more environmental space when we eat meat,” says Barbara Bramble of the National Wildlife Federation. “I think it’s consistent with environmental values to eat lower on the food chain.”[/spoiler:25j6astw]

[brekfustuvluzerz]

i didnt feel like reading all four pages about vegetarianism, so forgive me if me post is a repeat. i have two points to make.
one, i feel like if you cant stand the sight or thought of killing the animal, then you should not eat the animal. without being fully aware of what it takes to bring that juicy steak to your plate, you can not fully appreciate the loss of life. from what i know about early humans and what still goes on in tribal life, their is a sense of gratitude expressed by the people towards the animal. also, they do not eat meat every day, three times a day. it is reserved for special occasions. if this was our practice, there would be no need to mass murder these animals. farms and ranches would be able to meet the demand and provide a better environment for the animal as well as better food for us.
and two, i realize that humans have been omnivores for a long time now and that it is an evolved behavior, but that doesnt mean it is the best route. in the case of parasites, the creature has evolved a way to survive by praying on a host, but if the creature eventually developed consciousness and critical thinking, then why not find a better way that doesnt harm another species if possible. eating meat is, in a sense, cheating. you are stealing nutrients from another being. that being finds food for its self, and we kill and eat it to absorb the energy the animal gathered for its self. now this behavior is justified in other meat eaters because they do not have the ability to find other ways of survival, but we do. i like to imagine a future where humans are more responsible for their planet and the other beings that inhabit it. i hope one day humans will stop breeding and killing animals for our own enjoyment and find ways to sustain a healthy lifestyle for ourselves that doesnt involve harming living creatures (not counting plants).
this being said, i eat the hell outta some meat, boay! but i also have no problem with imagining the origin of that meat and what had to happen to bring it to me. in fact, (this might seem a little odd) when my family is praying and thanking god for their meal, i take the moment to be thankful to the animal who died to give me life.

[Asmodean]

Up to 80-90 percent of the bears' diets is vegetation, especially grasses, sages, berries and roots.

Polar bears eat almost exclusively meat. So do some brown bears. Which bears are you refering to exactly?

You're not calling fast food french fry a vegetable are you?  It is a non-meat, however.  The reference of us being carnivores was an exaggeration and not meant to be taken literally.

Potatoes are, to the best of my knowledge, vegetables. So yes, I sure AM calling french fries vegetables. 'sides, bread is another good example of plant produce. And few people have a diet consisting of so much more meat than plant material.

Exaggerated or not, carnivores is a very wrong description for "most" people - and more so for this particular discussion.

The 4.8 pounds of grain fed to cattle to produce one pound of beef for human beings represents a colossal waste of resources in a world still teeming with people who suffer from profound hunger and malnutrition.

The problem is overpopulation. Humans are, in a sense, parasites and it will probably be our doom one day.

According to the British group Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn and only two producing cattle. Britainâ€"with 56 million peopleâ€"could support a population of 250 million on an all-vegetable diet. Because 90 percent of U.S. and European meat eaters’ grain consumption is indirect (first being fed to animals), westerners each consume 2,000 pounds of grain a year. Most grain in underdeveloped countries is consumed directly.

So am I correct to assume that you'd rather continue overpopulating the Earth by providing everyone with enough crappy food rather than controlling population, keeping our eating habits and sustaining some of our other resources longer?

While it is true that many animals graze on land that would be unsuitable for cultivation, the demand for meat has taken millions of productive acres away from farm inventories. The cost of that is incalculable. As Diet For a Small Planet author Frances Moore Lappé writes, imagine sitting down to an eight-ounce steak. “Then imagine the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls in front of them. For the ‘feed cost’ of your steak, each of their bowls could be filled with a full cup of cooked cereal grains.”

...I'd still eat my steak and then eat another one just for the good measure of it, without hesitation.

Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer estimates that reducing meat production by just 10 percent in the U.S. would free enough grain to feed 60 million people. Authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich note that a pound of wheat can be grown with 60 pounds of water, whereas a pound of meat requires 2,500 to 6,000 pounds.

A minor technicality: A good scientist would NOT measure water in pounds. There is a thing called liters. Otherwise, I have nothing to say for or against this claim except that even if it is true, the water runs in a neverending loop so what's the big deal? Most - if not all of it will end up in the clouds sooner or later anyways.

Energy-intensive U.S. factory farms generated 1.4 billion tons of animal waste in 1996, which, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, pollutes American waterways more than all other industrial sources combined. Meat production has also been linked to severe erosion of billions of acres of once-productive farmland and to the destruction of rainforests.

And potatoe chips have been linked to cancer. Most of the rainforest is being destroyed by wood production and plantations. And even more is threatened by the increasing demand for biodiesel

McDonald’s took a group of British animal rights activists to court in the 1990s because they had linked the fast food giant to an unhealthy diet and rainforest destruction. The defendants, who fought the company to a standstill, made a convincing case. In court documents, the activists asserted, “From 1970 onwards, beef from cattle reared on ex-rainforest land was supplied to McDonald’s.” In a policy statement, McDonald’s claims that it “does not purchase beef which threatens tropical rainforests anywhere in the world,” but it does not deny past purchases.

Animal rights activists do know their propaganda, so the fact that they managed to slap together a convincing enough case for the more common variety of judges is not surprising.

According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), livestock raised for food produce 130 times the excrement of the human population, some 87,000 pounds per second. The Union of Concerned Scientists points out that 20 tons of livestock manure is produced annually for every U.S. household. The much-publicized 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska dumped 12 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound, but the relatively unknown 1995 New River hog waste spill in North Carolina poured 25 million gallons of excrement and urine into the water, killing an estimated 10 to 14 million fish and closing 364,000 acres of coastal shellfishing beds. Hog waste spills have caused the rapid spread of a virulent microbe called Pfiesteria piscicida, which has killed a billion fish in North Carolina alone.

Yeah... And the insectocides used on the grain fields are not responsible for even more damage to the environment..? Again, it's painting grayscale in black and white.

More than a third of all raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. are used in animal production. Beef production alone uses more water than is consumed in growing the nation’s entire fruit and vegetable crop. Producing a single hamburger patty uses enough fuel to drive 20 miles and causes the loss of five times its weight in topsoil. In his book The Food Revolution, author John Robbins estimates that “you’d save more water by not eating a pound of California beef than you would by not showering for an entire year.” Because of deforestation to create grazing land, each vegetarian saves an acre of trees per year.

I call bullshit on this one - or rather, the art of half truth, quarter truth and not-quite-lies. It's propaganda. The picture is not nearly that dramatic. Beef production is, by definition, sustainable. It's how you do it that matters.

“We definitely take up more environmental space when we eat meat,” says Barbara Bramble of the National Wildlife Federation. “I think it’s consistent with environmental values to eat lower on the food chain.”

Not really. If you want to be a good environmentalist, try reducing fossil fuel consumption and the population growth. The more humans walk the earth, the more resources they'll need. And even sustainable and environmentally neutral resources can only take this much abuse before they are emptied (like forests, for instance. Or rivers dried up because of irrigation)

I'm sorry if some my comments are a bit short, a bit besides the point and very biased, but it's late, and your post has that feel of propaganda to me so... I'll re-read it and maybe find you some counter-research tomorrow.  Meat eaters can do propaganda too, you know  

[VanReal]

It's worth a look at checking out veggieboards it's a great site and is full of people that live the veggie life style and also many, many that do not believe in any God.  Anyway, our bodies don't digest meat very well and can actually intake protein from sources other than meat more easily.  Beans are a great source of protein along with many other non-meat items.  It is tough though, if you want to maintain good health and make sure you are getting all of the proper nutrition you have to be creative and willing to cook.  I love my scrumptous little animal parts, but prefer to shop locally rather than doing the fast food and market meats.  Yum!

[DennisK]

Asmodean,

I will start putting a   ).  Another point for you (2) .  You can tally from here. )?  Overpopulation is much less of an issue if our demand for meat decreases.

So am I correct to assume that you'd rather continue overpopulating the Earth by providing everyone with enough crappy food rather than controlling population, keeping our eating habits and sustaining some of our other resources longer?

You would be incorrect in that assumption.  Don't let me stop you from assuming, though (sarcasm  Is this a joke?

Animal rights activists do know their propaganda, so the fact that they managed to slap together a convincing enough case for the more common variety of judges is not surprising.

It's much easier to dismiss as propaganda.  Don't look any further, it is settled. ).  That means meat consumption requires 4.8 times more land if you ate the same weight in grain.  Therefore, more pesticides for the grain needed to feed the cattle.  Still gray?

More than a third of all raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. are used in animal production. Beef production alone uses more water than is consumed in growing the nation’s entire fruit and vegetable crop. Producing a single hamburger patty uses enough fuel to drive 20 miles and causes the loss of five times its weight in topsoil. In his book The Food Revolution, author John Robbins estimates that “you’d save more water by not eating a pound of California beef than you would by not showering for an entire year.” Because of deforestation to create grazing land, each vegetarian saves an acre of trees per year.

I call bullshit on this one - or rather, the art of half truth, quarter truth and not-quite-lies. It's propaganda. The picture is not nearly that dramatic. Beef production is, by definition, sustainable. It's how you do it that matters.

I'm going to need a little more than "bullshit" on this one.  And yes, it does make a difference when cattle are raised organically.  Unfortunately, not many do.

Or rivers dried up because of irrigation

What happened to "water runs in a neverending loop so what's the big deal? Most - if not all of it will end up in the clouds sooner or later anyways."  Again, math.

[Ihateyoumike]

vegetables? VEGETABLES?!? That's what FOOD eats!!!  


Alright, all kidding aside, I like to eat meat. I will never even consider a vegetarian diet again. Does that make me a bad guy, or misinformed, or stubborn? No. Because I don't think there's a right or wrong on this one.
Do you want to eat meat? Go ahead. Would you prefer to eat only vegetables? Good for you!
But, that choice is not for me.

Quick side note: What religions tell you not to eat meat? I remember clearly from my "catholic days" the message that animals were put on Earth by god for Humans to eat. In my time looking into other religions' beliefs, I don't remember any of them saying it's a sin to eat meat. Except certain types of meat, or on certain days of the week. All of which, IMHO, is religious mumbo-jumbo, like all the rest of the dogmas.

Anyway, back to the point. I eat once a day, usually. Sometimes, I don't even eat that many times. I am one of those rare people that only eat when I'm hungry. I usually eat whatever I'm craving at the time as well. For the most part, I hate fast food. This is for two reasons: one reason is that it hardly resembles real food at all. Another is that it makes me feel like crap. But you better believe that if I'm hungry, and I only have 2 dollars to my name, the dollar menu will do just fine.
I eat fruits, I eat vegetables, I eat meat, I drink milk (although I'm trying to ween myself off of it because I believe I'm developing lactose-intolerance)
I don't feel bad for any of these, because I just try to eat what makes me feel good. Sometimes I fail. Oh well.

There was a point a couple of years ago when I had a girlfriend who I was madly in love with and would do anything for. She was a vegetarian. Sure enough, she talked me into cutting out the meat from my diet. Boy, was I hating life after a few months. I could never fully satisfy my hunger. I found that I was depressed more often. I didn't sleep well. There were all sorts of problems. I think it was because of my habit for eating only when I'm hungry, and only what I'm craving at the time. I saw no point to make myself suffer, just because of something like food.

Once I got back to my old ways of eating, I felt much better. So I'm going to stick with it. Does that make me right or wrong? Nope. It makes me happier. And since I believe this is the only life I get, that's the route I'm going to take.

If it makes you happier to be a vegetarian, then do it, and be proud of yourself for it. If it makes you happier to be able to eat meat, then do it, and be proud of yourself for it. Through evolution, we've gained the ability to make that choice for ourselves, so make the choice that makes you happy.

[Asmodean]

Asmodean,

I will start putting a   ).  Another point for you (2) .  You can tally from here. is a good way of marking sarcasm. It doesn't let itself translate very well sometimes and so when you say something sarcastic, it looks dead serious to me - the opposite might be true as well, sometimes.

Bring on the NWO and trim the fat, eh (sarcasm )

Then I suppose my point is at least semi-across.

That sounds logical.

Yes, I dismiss propaganda no matter if I think it may be right or not.

It's simple math.  4.8 pounds of grain needed for 1 pound of beef (sorry, I mean 2.1772434 Kg to 0.45359237 Kg

Nothing happened to it. It's still going up in the clouds and falling back down as rain. Not what I'm talking about here.

EDIT: Promised you some research, and I've not forgotten. The problem is that it's on paper (another environmental disaster right there   ) and my burger-eating ass is somewhat lazy. I'll get something coherent for you though. Later today, I think