Why people should go vegan

[Thief]

It was not that kind of situation.

which bears to mind....
if the animal does not grasp the situation....
does it matter?

 

[savagewind]

I understand vegetarianism but not veganism. Surely, nobody believes milk and eggs are conscious! But, I do understand that the animals that provide them should always be treated humanely. I don't think that boycotting eggs, milk, and cheese would change the way Big Business handles the animals unless plenty people went without. If the trend went that way I would join it until the treatment of the animals improved a lot.

On the other hand, I'll venture to say that Mankind is so very messed up because God is busy comforting the other animals. They are innocent for the most part. We are not.

 

[youknowme]

You can tell me. Please let us know what
info you have.

The general health message to the public about meat consumption is both confusing and misleading. It is stated that meat is not good for health because meat is rich in fat and cholesterol and high intakes are associated with increased blood cholesterol levels and coronary heart disease (CHD). This paper reviewed 54 studies from the literature in relation to red meat consumption and CHD risk factors. Substantial evidence from recent studies shows that lean red meat trimmed of visible fat does not raise total blood cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol levels. Dietary intake of total and saturated fat mainly comes from fast foods, snack foods, oils, spreads, other processed foods and the visible fat of meat, rather than lean meat. In fact, lean red meat is low in saturated fat, and if consumed in a diet low in SFA is associated with reductions in LDL-cholesterol in both healthy and hypercholesterolemia subjects. Lean red meat consumption has no effect on in vivo and ex vivo production of thromboxane and prostacyclin or the activity of haemostatic factors. Lean red meat is also a good source of protein, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B12, niacin, zinc and iron. In conclusion, lean red meat, trimmed of visible fat, which is consumed in a diet low in saturated fat does not increase cardiovascular risk factors (plasma cholesterol levels or thrombotic risk factors).

A balanced and broadly varied dietary intake plays a critical role in human health. Human and pre-human diet history shows that for a period of at least two million years the human ancestral line had been consuming increasing quantities of meat. During that time, evolutional selection was in action, adapting our genetic make up and hence our physiological features to a diet high in lean meat.1 This meat was wild game meat, low in total and saturated fat (SFA) and relatively rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA).2

Conclusion Dietary intervention and cross-sectional studies showed that visible fat trimmed lean red meat does not raise blood cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol levels, and does not change thrombotic risk factors such as thromboxane and prostacyclin production, platelet function and haemostatic factors. In fact, low SFA diets containing lean red meat are associated with a reduction of LDL-cholesterol levels in both subjects with hypercholesterolemia and healthy subjects. Lean red meat is also a good source of protein, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B12, niacin, zinc and iron.

http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJCN/14/2/113.pdf

There is something to start with.

 

[Shaul]

There are various arguments for veganism. However the “moral” argument is one of the weaker arguments. Although it seems plausible at first glance, it does not withstand close scrutiny.

It is quite possible to obtain meat for consumption without inflicting suffering on animals. It is also possible to grow vegetarian food sources in such a way that causes massive harm and suffering to animals. There is nothing about eating meat, per se, that causes more suffering than veganism.

 

[Shaul]

It is simple: Be kind to animals by not eating them.

Animals in the wild live short, brutish lives in constant danger. Animals raised by humans, when done right, live well cared for lives and can be harvest in painless ways. IOW, human use of animals can be quite beneficial to the animals. Please explain why eating an animal is necessarily unkind to it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the issue is whether the human body as such
needs animal products to be well nourished.

I am inclined to think it does not.

Some animals, such as fish (not technically an animal, I know), are provide so many things good for our body I'm inclined to think it's leaving out things that body can definitely use for optimal performance.

I am such a city girl, I have actually never gone fishing.
Probably I have missed out on something interesting.

Definitely. Especially because you can go "fishing," in which you pretty much cast out into water and hope something bites while enjoying being outside and the company of friends, or you can go "fishing" in which catching fish is more deliberate and intentional (trolling and fish finders help a lot) so you get to enjoy catching yummy fish while enjoying being outside and enjoying the company of friends.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is quite possible to obtain meat for consumption without inflicting suffering on animals. It is also possible to grow vegetarian food sources in such a way that causes massive harm and suffering to animals. There is nothing about eating meat, per se, that causes more suffering than veganism.

On this we do agree. The way we farm, be it for plants or meats, is just downright appalling and is very destructive and extremely wasteful of resources (including food at all points of the "seed-to-table" process). Any sustainable solutions cannot bank on us all turning vegan and assuming everything is now just fine. The way we approach farming and food transportation and distribution is going to have to be overhauled from the ground up, and this does include the crops we grow.
It's incredibly short sighted for someone to claim that everyone going vegan will save the environment. We'll just tear down more forests to start cranking out more soy, and still continue to waste a ton of water, oil, packaging supplies, and food in a way that is unsustainable.
If we keep sustainability in mind, there is no reason we can't eat meat (just not nearly as much) because the concerns and issues over our unsustainable farming will be addressed instead of taking a misguided crap shot of a band aid solution.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So neither of you are able to cite any evidence by which to conclude that animal-eaters are healthier than vegans, nor that humans need to eat animals. Is that correct? If you can cite such evidence, just do so. There's no need to keep under your skirt.

I just did post evidence that meat eaters are living longer.

 

[Bird123]

A couple of days back I made a post about the nature of the soul. Eventually, someone stated that the concept of “the soul” is in fact an ancient error. This made me do some thinking and I have now discarded the concept.

If we don’t have souls, then to what do we attribute our sentience and powers of agency? I’d say consciousness. Consciousness is a much better concept than the soul. We know that it exists. We know that we ourselves are conscious (we think therefore we are) and via the use of empathy we can say that others are too. We can observe it in systems of cause and effect. And we can observe both suffering and joy, as states of consciousness. I no longer believe that anyone has a “soul” – instead I believe we are all conscious – whether we are biological or technological in nature (as a Simulist I believe all conscious beings are in fact programs within a computer simulation).

But here’s a thing: animals are conscious. This cannot be denied in the same way that we can deny that they have souls. We can plainly observe that beasts can feel pain and can suffer. If cruelty to humans should be avoided because suffering and harm is bad then I’d say the suffering of animals should be valued as equally bad: suffering is suffering, regardless of the characteristics of the subject. Just because beasts cannot articulate pain and suffering as we can doesn’t mean their pain and suffering are any less real than it is for us humans – and doesn’t mean we have any less of a duty to either stop or prevent it.

I believe that “human” is a sub-set of “person” and that “animal” is also a sub-set of “person” – and I define personhood as what one has if one is conscious: Contrast “person” with “commodity”. I believe that personhood entitles one to be ethically treated. Of course, personhood comes in all shapes and sizes. And treating Being A equally, in the same spirit as Being B does not mean treating them the same in practical terms – e.g. how one should treat a human with compassion and dignity is different from how one should treat a wild animal with compassion and dignity.

If a maxim (e.g. “cause no harm”) can be applied to one type of conscious being (on account of harm being negatively valued in our moral and practical calculations) then why can it not be applied to other beings that are endowed with the same ability to suffer? Why is the suffering of a beast seen as less undesirable than the suffering of a human? The ethical spirit in which we treat humans should I think be extended to animals, as when it comes to consciousness humans and animals are demonstrably equal, so should therefore be treated in the same spirit, as though both are parts of the same family of life. Logically, I’d say that if we should be ethical to humans then we should be just as ethical to animals too as the reasons for being ethical to humans also applies to animals.

On account of all this, I now firmly believe in veganism – primarily for ethical reasons (but there are other concerns) – and intend to live my life accordingly. I now believe that eating should be about survival and fellowship, not stuffing one’s face. And that it should be done as ethically as possible.

Basically: people should go vegan - discuss.

How about this: We are all Spiritual beings in our true natures. I have direct experience to this. We are trapped within a physical body while we are in this physical universe. We are all children of God.

Aren't animals the very same as us only we have more capabilities? You bet! This can be seen if one really observes animals closely. Animals are children of God as well.

Is Vegan really what God wants? I don't think so simply because of vitamin B12. It comes from meat. It is a vitamin the body needs.

The food chain is part of the system. Death is also a part of the system. There are good reasons these things exist.

Cruelty will always be wrong. You make an excellent point with that. When people choose cruelty for any reason, it speaks to who they are. Further, they do not realize the lessons they are choosing to show up at their door.

Cruelty exists with food animals. Seems mankind cares very little about anything but money. Would it hurt to allow food animals quality of life until it's time for them to leave this world? Of course not. I know if I were in their shoes, I would want that quality.

Now, one could go Vegan in protest, however that will not solve the problem. There is much to do. Mankind will not even guaranty every person on Earth is fed. How can one expect mankind to care about animals when they do not even care about themselves? Still it's lessons many are choosing for themselves.

As I see it. Helping others see speaks to who you are and the many others out there helping as well. Let's all keep pointing them in the right direction.

 

[Valjean]

If those are your ethics then your conclusion seems sound.
Except that also plants can perceive things, and we don't know really whether they are conscious or not. Same for (some) invertebrate animals.

Perception and ability to suffer are two different things, though. Why and how would an organism develop a biologically useless capacity, particularly a metabolically costly useless capacity?

"Eat and be eaten" is the order of nature.

As are many anti-social acts that are currently illegal...

I think people can chose for them self what they feel they can eat or drink. If people does not want to eat meat or dairy products that is fine, but no need to say "why people should" then it is suddenly not a choice

All laws limit freedom, but they're necessary if we're to live together harmoniously in such numbers.
"Why?" is a crucial consideration. Free choice must be curbed if we're to live in societies larger than hunter-gatherer bands.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As are many anti-social acts that are currently illegal...

Anti-social behaviors go against our nature as social animals, and often times are indicative of emotional disturbances.

 

[Valjean]

I think people can chose for them self what they feel they can eat or drink. If people does not want to eat meat or dairy products that is fine, but no need to say "why people should" then it is suddenly not a choice

But is it wrong, then, to limit choice? Don't all laws limit choice?
We have laws preventing persons from harming or exploiting others. Are they wrong?

I have no interest in forcing people into lifestyle options they don’t want

I don’t care if you personally eat meat and would never want to deny you that freedom

So you'd have no desire to deny rapists, murderers or slavers their freedom?
If, as Eddi maintains, the moral criterion is ability to suffer, wouldn't a lifestyle promoting suffering be immoral?

Cite the evidence by which to draw that conclusion.

We are not natural vegetarians. Our species would not have survived the Pleistocene had we been exclusively veggie. There are also essential nutrients that are very difficult to obtain on a vegan diet.

 

[Valjean]

I have no interest in forcing people into lifestyle options they don’t want

I do.
I don't want violent, destructive thieves, rapists and killers freely exercising their lifestyles.

I'm fine with this for me. However I decided a while back it's not my job to determine what is right and wrong for others.

You're a perfect anarchist, then?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't want violent, destructive thieves, rapists and killers freely exercising their lifestyles.

Such honestly is rarely expressed. Of course we all want restrictions placed upon certain people. Ted Bundy and Charles Manson would have killed way more people than they did if we didn't. There would have been no basis to oppose the Nazis. Rapist would be able to freely rape. People could sell snake **** and call it medicine and face no repercussions. Our romanticized obsession with "personal liberty" and "doing what you want" to a Nietzschean degree without realizing the inherent need for restraint is sickening. We want to love to say whatever we want, and shirk the responsibility that our words directly harmed others when we shouted "fire" in a crowded theater. So we placed a restriction on being able to freely do that.

 

[Audie]

Some animals, such as fish (not technically an animal, I know), are provide so many things good for our body I'm inclined to think it's leaving out things that body can definitely use for optimal performance.

Definitely. Especially because you can go "fishing," in which you pretty much cast out into water and hope something bites while enjoying being outside and the company of friends, or you can go "fishing" in which catching fish is more deliberate and intentional (trolling and fish finders help a lot) so you get to enjoy catching yummy fish while enjoying being outside and enjoying the company of friends.

Speaking from my biology courses, fish are animals.
And yes, lots of good nutrition, depending a bit on species.

I think fishing must be so varied, with many different kinds in
different places

At a beach -property in Texas (Galveston) the men were doing the
most lazy kind of fishing! From upstairs they watch football on
the deck, with a drone to fly the bait far out to deep water.

I hoped they will not catch anything, which they did not.

The shrimp there are so delicious! Who needs a fish in that
case.

 

[Valjean]

Not to knock your personal choice, which I fully support, but many of the animals that you note have some level of consciousness, eat other animals that also may have some level of consciousness. They are often not very polite or kind in how they go about it either.

But as an ethical comparison this doesn't follow. Humans have options and the psychological flexibility to follow them. Other animals do not, so are not moral agents.

Humans are omnivores. Vegan is sort of a cultural illusion, since good vegan nutrition is dependent on grocery stores stocking items from all over the world, so we have sufficient fresh veggies, even when they are out of season, locally.

If you went back 100 years and had to depend on just local produce, there are no fresh veggies during the winter, unless you live near the equator. Try a natural local vegan diet for a year, where you only can eat local plant matter and there is nothing fresh 6 months per year.

Meat on the other hand, opens up your fresh food options, year round, using local food stocks. This has selective advantage, if natural living is important.

One observation I noticed is humans eat primarily vegan animals, like cows, sheep, chicken, deer. We don't normally eat carnivore animals like dogs, cats, lions, wolves.

Pigs are omnivores, and since they deviate from the vegan animals they are taboo in some culture. We do eat fish, which can be either vegan or carnivore. We eat the primarily animals that are a natural food source for the carnivore animals of the earth. This is in harmony with the ways of nature.

Excellent points, Wellwisher. We're not natural vegans, and veganism is practicable primarily due to our cosmopolitan civilization.
Omnivory is certainly selective, and definitely opens up a lot of options, but the thread concerns morality or ethics, not practicality. Morality often involves curbing our natural behaviors; behaviors useful in a band of plains apes, but problematic in a large, multicultural civilization.
Extending compassion to non-band members is not usually a selective behavior.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

At a beach -property in Texas (Galveston) the men were doing the
most lazy kind of fishing! From upstairs they watch football on
the deck, with a drone to fly the bait far out to deep water.

Wow, yeah, that's really lazy. Would have been funny had something big nibbled on the bait and dragged the drone down in the process.

The shrimp there are so delicious! Who needs a fish in that
case.

I definitely agree. Without doubt shrimp are my favorite of the fish/seafood menu.

 

[youknowme]

Vegans and vegetarians would reach more people if they suggested that people try to eat less meat, instead of claiming a moral high ground. The only thing that is going to do is push people away.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Extending compassion to non-band members is not usually a selective behavior.

On a selective basis we have probably always extended compassion to non-human animals, most notably canines and cats. Some other animals as well, but those two especially have been valued and with us for a very long time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Vegans and vegetarians would reach more people if they suggested that people try to eat less meat, instead of claiming a moral high ground. The only thing that is going to do is push people away.

Yup. Trying to ague it from a perspective of morality only reveals to us how subjective morality really is, and that it typically does require someone to say "as a matter of fact my position is morally superior" so that we may reach a position of better morality as a society.
I think world hunger is still too great of an issue for veganism to be promoted as a default system of better morality, because it implies those who must eat meat for survival are morally inferior. Perhaps when we have sustainable farming methods and have significantly tackled world hunger. But today there are still too many who depend on local wildlife to fill their freezer.