Veganism: I honestly don't understand it

[madurobob]

I appologize. Perahps I'm just thick. There is an ongoing discussion regarding direct consumption of grain by humans compared with the use of grain for the raising of animals for consumption.

I don't understand the importance of the discussion.

I actually jumped in with both feet when you appeared to suggest that cattle are not big eaters of grain. I showed that they are.

But, the initial discussion started, I believe, with a claim that meat is more efficient. So, the amount of energy put into feeding our meat-farmed animals became an important bit of data. One piece of that is just how much grain we farm to feed the critters.

So what I'm looking for is a bottom line comparison that is a bit more than we would produce more grain and less green house gases. By how much?

Sorry if I was not clear.

Oh, that's easy. The UN has chimed in on this a few times.

When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 per cent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 per cent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 per cent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year, the report notes. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.

We would produce more grain? I don't think so.. perhaps marginally less. More of it would be destined for direct human consumption, though. We'd generate no incremental greenhouse gasses since we're generating them today farming the land for grain to feed the animals. But, we'd see direct incremental greenhouse gas reduction by reducing meat-farming. The upper limits of that reduction are outlined in the UN quote, above.

 

[CosCos]

Our bodies depend on nutrients. The essential nutrients (something 50 different molecules) are the ones our bodies can't produce themselves--the ones we must get from our diet. As I've been arguing throughout this thread, there is no essential nutrient that isn't available from sources other than meat. It makes no difference to our bodies what food those molecules come in.

Since no one else will say it: I choose to eat meat because it is tasty, and I don’t feel the least bit guilty about saying that. I don’t give a flip about nutrients coming from other sources and all the other clap-trap vegan guilt-mongers like to throw out there.

Frankly I’m sick of privileged elites telling me what I “need” or “don’t need.” Good for you if you don’t need meat to survive, now stop trying to enforce your ideals upon everyone else. After all, you don’t need the following to survive (and this is by no means comprehensive):

Internet
TV
Books
Entertainment
Clothes (ok you can wear a loin cloth in winter.......on second thought you don't "need" to live wherever it is you live where it gets cold, move to Jamaica)

Etc

If we lived life by what we “need” merely to survive then the standard of living as we know it will cease to exist. Yet it seems this is what vegans espouse on an Internet message board dedicated to critical thinking without the merest hint of irony.

Again, save your guilt trips for someone who cares, I enjoy the taste of animals and I won’t be losing much sleep if that knocks me down a notch in the eyes of some oh so enlightened people here.


JoeTheJuggler, my comments are not aimed directly at you even though it may seem that way. I quoted you because you were the last one to make that point even though it has been made by several others throughout the thread.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm an insurance auditor. I work in the southern tip of the San Joaquin Valley and the Mojave dessert home of some of the largest farms in the world. From my anecdotal observations it doesn't appear that there is a shortage of land to grow crops. Not even close. In fact, think we use a tiny fraction of land capable of growing crops.

Is there any evidence that we face a shortage of landmass for growing crops?

Well, from some google searching:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/25/2042554.htm

An agricultural industry group is warning that fruit and vegetable prices are now likely to fluctuate more dramatically when there are crop shortages.

And even if we didn't convert land to farms, perhaps we could start to grow new forests. I found this interesting, and it does introduce some ideas for land use: http://www.amazingcarbon.com/PDF/Jeff Parr - PhytOC2.pdf

Again, save your guilt trips for someone who cares,[...]

If you don't care, you're free to not participate in the discussion. Yes, there are other shiny threads for you. Shoo, shoo.

 

[Drudgewire]

Again, save your guilt trips for someone who cares, I enjoy the taste of animals and I won’t be losing much sleep if that knocks me down a notch in the eyes of some oh so enlightened people here.

I believe Dennis Miller said best way back when he was funny:

"Oh, if I could talk to the animals... I wouldn't. Because they're ing animals."

 

[Lonewulf]

I believe Dennis Miller said best way back when he was funny:

"Oh, if I could talk to the animals... I wouldn't. Because they're ing animals."

I'd rather talk to animals than some people...

 

[RandFan]

Well, from some google searching:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/25/2042554.htm

What do crop shortages have to do with available land for growing food?

 

[CosCos]

If you don't care, you're free to not participate in the discussion. Yes, there are other shiny threads for you. Shoo, shoo.

Nice attempt at dismissive condescension, but in your haste to post a witty non-sequitor I'm afraid you missed the point. I said "save the guilt trip for someone who cares", not "save the discussion......" Or are you saying you can't discuss this topic without imparting guilt trips?

 

[Lonewulf]

Nice attempt at dismissive condescension, but in your haste to post a witty non-sequitor I'm afraid you missed the point. I said "save the guilt trip for someone who cares", not "save the discussion......" Or are you saying you can't discuss this topic without imparting guilt trips?

I'm not saying any of that stuff. I'm just being condescending because I'm a bit of an asshat, and I really just don't like you.


I do think, however, that one cannot argue morality without suggesting that the party that is doing the supposedly immoral action is guilty of something. Not that I'm making a moral argument myself, necessarily, although I do think that morality comes up in my argument sooner or later.

What do crop shortages have to do with available land for growing food?

Why is the land not being used, though, if it could be used to lessen the prices?

 

[RandFan]

I actually jumped in with both feet when you appeared to suggest that cattle are not big eaters of grain. I showed that they are.

Not a claim by me. I only claim that it's really not an easy equation or claim to make that cows are inefficient when it comes to converting grain to food given that so many cows produce milk first and graze on grass grown on land not suitable for farming and that cows eat silage which is not suitable for humans. I don't think a bottom line number has been established in this thread or elsewhere.

But, the initial discussion started, I believe, with a claim that meat is more efficient. So, the amount of energy put into feeding our meat-farmed animals became an important bit of data. One piece of that is just how much grain we farm to feed the critters.

Yes, but how much less efficient is animal husbandry for providing calories and nutrition compared to a system based mostly or entirely on plants alone?

 

[RandFan]

If we lived life by what we “need” merely to survive then the standard of living as we know it will cease to exist. Yet it seems this is what vegans espouse on an Internet message board dedicated to critical thinking without the merest hint of irony.

What would be the environmental impact of eliminating recreational driving? What would be the environmental impact of eliminating personal forms of gasoline based transportation?

I think those are fair questions.

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes, but how much less efficient is animal husbandry for providing calories and nutrition compared to a system based mostly or entirely on plants alone?

Based on plants alone? Well, I dunno.

Fruits. Nuts. Seeds. Vegetables. Calcium's a kicker, but we can extract calcium supplements from coral.

With animals, the system isn't particularly efficient.

There's the waste to handle, the food to grow, the waste, the water to give to 'em, the waste, and even if you have the land, you gotta set up the resources (and upkeep it) to keep 'em in.

Oh, and not to mention the waste. From what I hear, some factory farms got pretty bad with waste management issues. Better today, but it really devalued housing in the nearby area, and caused a great deal of pollution.

 

[CosCos]

I'm not saying any of that stuff. I'm just being condescending because I'm a bit of an asshat*, and I really just don't like you.

I do think, however, that one cannot argue morality without suggesting that the party that is doing the supposedly immoral action is guilty of something. Not that I'm making a moral argument myself, necessarily, although I do think that morality comes up in my argument sooner or later.

Wow, you don't like me and see no reason to like me.......because I eat meat and refuse to be chided for doing so? How open-minded and enlightened of you. If all people thought like you, why the world would be such a happier place!

Oh and good job reconciling "I'm not saying any of that stuff" with your entire second paragraph which was a rambling way of "saying that stuff."

*At least one statement in your post was correct.

 

[Lonewulf]

Wow, you don't like me and see no reason to like me.......because I eat meat

Nice speculation, but no. Actually, I eat meat myself.

and refuse to be chided for doing so?

More of the way you opened your posts, if anything.

How open-minded and enlightened of you.

Never said I was open-minded or enlightened. I'm fully willing to be a close-minded bigot. Can't wait until I become dictator, even.

If all people thought like you, why the world would be such a happier place!

Only when I'm in charge. :<

Oh and good job reconciling "I'm not saying any of that stuff" with your entire second paragraph which was a rambling way of "saying that stuff."

You said what I said. I wasn't saying that. I then said what I thought.

*At least one statement in your post was correct.

M'glad you think so!

 

[CosCos]

What would be the environmental impact of eliminating recreational driving? What would be the environmental impact of eliminating personal forms of gasoline based transportation?

I think those are fair questions.

The argument I object to (you don't "need" meat) has nothing to do with environmental impact, at least not in the way this argument is being presented here (I realize there is more than one argument being discussed in this thread though).

To me, the argument of "you don't need meat because you can derive the same nutrients from other sources" sounds the same as "you don't need high-speed Internet because you can get to the same destination on a 28.8 modem." Or "you don't need that 50" plasma, this 9" black and white will do just fine."

 

[Lonewulf]

Except that there are people that constantly note that we need meat, and keep making that claim over and over again. But they get a free pass, because they're defending the argument that the mainstream agrees with.

 

[madurobob]

Not a claim by me.

As I said "appeared". It sure looked to me like that was your claim, but we settled that earlier, I think.

Yes, but how much less efficient is animal husbandry for providing calories and nutrition compared to a system based mostly or entirely on plants alone?

Beats me. How would you like to have that quantified? What inclusionary criteria do you consider acceptable?

I'm content that the various links provided so far in this thread expose a growing consensus of the net negative impact of the meat farming industry as it exists today (taken as a whole). This has been studied heavily in the past several years and there is lots of data available online (lots of BS, too). Tell me how you think we should reasonably quantify "how much less efficient is animal husbandry for providing calories and nutrition compared to a system based mostly or entirely on plants alone" and I bet I can find a study that does that.

 

[RandFan]

Beats me. How would you like to have that quantified? What inclusionary criteria do you consider acceptable?

I'm content that the various links provided so far in this thread expose a growing consensus of the net negative impact of the meat farming industry as it exists today (taken as a whole). This has been studied heavily in the past several years and there is lots of data available online (lots of BS, too). Tell me how you think we should reasonably quantify "how much less efficient is animal husbandry for providing calories and nutrition compared to a system based mostly or entirely on plants alone" and I bet I can find a study that does that.

I've committed to a meat free day each week because I accept that there is a growing consensus of the net negative impact of meat farming. I'm also willing to curtail discretionary driving. I actively recycle (P&T's BS notwithstanding) and I'm willing to do more for the environment.

That said, I'm a skeptic and I take a dim view of those who evangelically embrace any cause without a willingness to ask questions as to relative harm, unintended consequences and realistic expectations. I just want to know more. You don't have to be the one to provide the data.

If you are looking for someone who is willing to work reasonably for environmentalism then you've found your guy. If you are looking for a mindless follower you're waisting your time with me.

 

[Lonewulf]

I've committed to a meat free day each week because I accept that there is a growing consensus of the net negative impact of meat farming. I'm also willing to curtail discretionary driving. I actively recycle (P&T's BS notwithstanding) and I'm willing to do more for the environment.

I greatly respect that, by the way. Just to let you know.

That said, I'm a skeptic and I take a dim view of those who evangelically embrace any cause without a willingness to ask questions as to relative harm, unintended consequences and realistic expectations. I just want to know more. You don't have to be the one to provide the data.

And I agree with that, as well. But it's hard to prepare for unintended consequences. Oh, it's possible to avoid some obvious ones, but the subtle ones can be almost impossible to avoid with the utmost caution taken.

If you are looking for someone who is willing to work reasonably for environmentalism then you've found your guy. If you are looking for a mindless follower you're waisting your time with me.

And this I also respect.

 

[madurobob]

If you are looking for someone who is willing to work reasonably for environmentalism then you've found your guy. If you are looking for a mindless follower you're waisting your time with me.

I hear ya. I'm not one of those "Meat is Murder!" folks. I've never advocated a meat-free diet for the world. But, I know a lot of meat eaters intentionally bury their heads in the sand WRT the negative impacts of meat farming. That bugs me.

I don't care if someone else chooses to eat Kobe beef. I do care if they refuse to understand the impact of their choice. When too many refuse to think beyond their own taste buds and stomach we run into trouble.

 

[GreNME]

The argument I object to (you don't "need" meat) has nothing to do with environmental impact, at least not in the way this argument is being presented here (I realize there is more than one argument being discussed in this thread though).

To me, the argument of "you don't need meat because you can derive the same nutrients from other sources" sounds the same as "you don't need high-speed Internet because you can get to the same destination on a 28.8 modem." Or "you don't need that 50" plasma, this 9" black and white will do just fine."

I can sympathize with the message you're expressing. I really can. However, with a few exceptions in this and a couple other threads, most of the people who have a vegan or vegetarian diet that have posted here have been fairly "live and let live" about it.

At this point, the conversation seems to be leaning more toward the question (using your analogy) "can I have the 50" plasma and still be ecologically responsible?" I don't think it's an unreasonable question to ask, mostly because I think the answer is "yes" in this case.