How much would vegetarianism benefit humanity?

[paximperium]

I have to admit that I find myself a little annoyed by the vegetarian evangelism that seems to have been happening in the last few months. Everybody seems to want to tell me how bad for the planet my omnivory is.

I have no issue with vegan/vegetarian evangelism except for the fact that much of it is made from crap evidence and from attacking the opposing idea.

Vegetarians who stop eating meat and argue for that due to their own ethical concerns are fine by my book. However I have little respect for arguments like this "analysis". Yes, meat is less efficient source of food that greens. But when people take it to the absurd nonsense that meat is the source of much of the food shortages is when it crosses in pseudo-scientific nonsense.

 

[leftysergeant]

And they're all paragons of capitalism? No, I don't think so. Third-world countries tend to be quite far from free markets.

No, of course they aren't. They are either ecconomic colonies of American or other foreign concerns, governed by the puppets of foreign corproations for the foreign corporations, or they are rebels against that order, cut off from trading because the capitalists decide they need to be punished for not rolling over and taking it. (Cuba is an example of the latter. Venezuela just started moving from colony to rebel status.)

And that's got what, exactly, to do with a lack of land or the use of crops to feed livestock? Nothing.

It has nothing to do with much of anything, other than why Egypt cannot compete successfully and profitably with Hong Kong.

And why aren't those labels saying "Made in Egypt"? Why aren't the garment factories in Cairo?

Because for whatever reason, the entrepreneurs decided to build in Hong Kong. Maybe it has to do with the ease of distribution of their products. The place did exist as a trading post to begin with, you know.

Again, the answers have got nothing to do with a lack of land or the use of crops to feed livestock.

Lack of land is not why the Egyptians are starving. It is mismanagement of the resources.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Vegetarianism is a manifestation of superstition.

It's very obvious indeed that some people are commenting without actually having looked at any of the articles I quoted, and thus are seriously missing the point. The articles quoted in the OP expound on the reason the thread title asks the question, and put the case that there are several good solid practical reasons why at least cutting down on meat would benefit humanity.

Isn't it political then? They export stuff to gain a profit, to buy things like guns. If they feed their people instead, then they wouldn't make a profit and they'd feel all powerless. So it really has nothing to do with meat eating.

That's part of it; but some of the articles I link to go into depth about how it's not the whole story by any means.

And if they are importing grain to feed livestock, then wouldn't they have to import it to feed people too? Then they would miss out on all the other things animal provide (milk, hides, etc.). How easy it is to grow enough grain in Egypt to feed all the people there? Near impossible, right? It's a desert isn't it?

It's fertile near the Nile, where apparently most people live. And the article said:

But what those statistics and that image does not tell you is that the Egyptians produce more than enough grain to feed themselves. Or that the bulk of that grain is used to feed cows to produce meat to satisfy the newly-acquired tastes of the affluent classes. In fact, Egypt feeds more of its grain to animals than it does to humans.

So according to the article, that's the reason they have to import grain to feed the humans.

Animals have this uncanny ability to eat vegetation and then build the right proteins we need to eat, so that we can spend less time chewing cuds compared to them.

From an article called What is Protein?

The chemical definition of protein: protein is a complex molecule made up of amino acids.* Through natural functions, the body can make over half of the amino acids that it needs.* It depends upon food to supply the rest.* If a food can supply all of the amino acids that the body lacks, it is called complete protein; if a food does not supply all of the amino acids that the body lacks, it is called incomplete protein.* The protein in fish, shellfish, meat, poultry and their related products, such as milk, cheese and eggs, supplies all of the amino acids that the body needs to make its own protein, and, therefore, is complete protein.*
No singular plant protein contains all of the necessary amino acids.* However, nuts, certain beans and grains can be combined to supply them.* An understanding of these combinations is essential for a healthy vegetarian diet.

It's just really unnecessary. If everyone went this route, then there wouldn't be enough plant protein to go around. Call me busy or lazy, but I don't have that much time to devote to making sure I got the right amount of amino acids in mine and my childrens' diets via vegetation.

Do you have a source for your claim about how there wouldn't be enough plant protein to go around if everyone was vegetarian?

Here's part of an article advising on things to eat to get combinations of foods that together will provide complete proteins. Again, I can't vouch for its accuracy, so maybe someone could comment on whether it's true? If it is, then getting complete proteins actually seems very easy:

How Does a Vegetarian Get Complete Proteins?

If vegetarians choose to refrain from consuming any animal products, however, it's still no problem to get complete proteins every day. Getting complete proteins can be quite tasty.

Combining Grains and Legumes

Other proteins contain some, but not all, of the essential amino acids. When two of these types of incomplete proteins are eaten together, or within a reasonable amount of time, the body gets all of the essential amino acids without needing to consume any animal products. One combination is grains, such as whole wheat, cornmeal, oats, pasta, or rice with legumes such as beans, lentils, peanuts or soy. A meal like a peanut butter sandwich (legume + grain) or rice and beans (grain + legume) would result in the body receiving all of the amino acids.

Combining Grains and Nuts and Seeds

Vegetarians can also combine grains with nuts or seeds to obtain complete proteins. Nuts or seeds include sesame seeds, sunflower seeds, walnuts, hazelnuts, pecans, cashews and any other type of tree nut. A trail mix made of granola (which contains oats) and a mix of nuts would provide a complete protein. Also, a nut butter, such as almond butter, eaten on whole grain crackers would also provide complete proteins. Vegetarians can get complete proteins even in their snack foods.

Sounds yummy! If it's true, then merely buying a good muesli would provide a good source of protein.

 

[Bluto]

Vegetarian or no, I think the real, underlying problem to shortages of just about anything you care to name is that there's just too damned many of us. Convince everyone on earth to eat granola and millet and we'll still have massive famines if we don't do something to control population.

And even if we figure out how to feed 7 billion people on falafel and arugula, what are we gonna do when we hit 8 billion, and then 9? I think we're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Oh, and since we're talking about cotton and clothes, what do you think is going to happen to wool and leather (and fur? Dare I mention it?) when we quit eating critters? And how about dairy? We just forget about it too?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Vegetarian or no, I think the real, underlying problem to shortages of just about anything you care to name is that there's just too damned many of us. Convince everyone on earth to eat granola and millet and we'll still have massive famines if we don't do something to control population.

And even if we figure out how to feed 7 billion people on falafel and arugula, what are we gonna do when we hit 8 billion, and then 9? I think we're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Oh, and since we're talking about cotton and clothes, what do you think is going to happen to wool and leather (and fur? Dare I mention it?) when we quit eating critters? And how about dairy? We just forget about it too?

There is the underlying problem -- overpopulation. All these arguments about land usage, distribution systems, capitalism, etc. are just bogus air and wind. In order to support 50 billion people, our descendants could eat some highly nutritious factory processed vegetarian mush. Is that what we really want? Vegetarianism is a false doctrine.

 

[sol invictus]

There seems to be a fair amount of hostility here on this topic...

I don't think there's any doubt (surprise me!) that raising grain-fed animals for meat is massively wasteful. Estimates vary, but it takes something like 15 pounds of grain to make one pound of meat, or in other terms something like 54 calories of fossil fuels to make 1 of beef (versus 3 for 1 of grain). Given that most of the meat raised in industrialized nations is grain-fed, and how much meat we eat, I'd be surprised if that didn't have a major impact on global food supplies. The only reason it's economical at all is that mechanized agriculture is very efficient, and energy is quite cheap.

That said, I don't think pure vegetarianism is the most efficient solution. Animals can graze on otherwise inedible grasses, and some, like pigs and chickens, can be largely raised on scraps (although probably only on a small, local scale).

Personally I don't eat a lot of meat, and I look for pastured stuff when I can get it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's just really unnecessary. If everyone went this route, then there wouldn't be enough plant protein to go around. Call me busy or lazy, but I don't have that much time to devote to making sure I got the right amount of amino acids in mine and my childrens' diets via vegetation.

Animals have this uncanny ability to eat vegetation and then build the right proteins we need to eat, so that we can spend less time chewing cuds compared to them.

SOME animals have this ability. There are some animals that are adapted to a purely vegetarian diet. Cows and horses and rabbits and deer and such.

There are some other animals that are adapted to a purely carnivorous diet. Cats and dogs, for example.

Humans are neither. We are adapted to a diet that includes both meat and vegetable material, and we need both in proper balance to achieve our optimal health and strength.

Although it is possible to artificially design a healthy diet for humans, based entirely on vegetable-based material, I should think that the difficulty in doing so ought to stand as sufficient proof that this is not the sort of diet that humans are meant to live on. Why go to a lot of trouble to artificially adapt plant-based proteins for human use, when it is so much easier for us to get our protein from meat?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The population argument is complex, but rather uninteresting. Numerous UN studies have shown that population isn't much of a problem. Linky.

Of course then you get into complications like current food production, versus current wasteful production, versus exuberant eating habits, versus subsistence...

But anyway, overpopulation hand waving won't get you anywhere.

 

[Amapola]

Thanks, sol invictus. I just want to say that for most of the world, feeding grain to animals is a sort of crazy idea - it's one of those crazy ideas that we practice to a certain extent in the USA and a few other countries, but is not practiced world wide. You don't see the alpacas and llamas in the highlands of the Andes eating grain. The reindeer in northern Europe don't eat grain either, or the yaks and sheep in Tibet etc. What ruminants are really good at doing is taking cellulose, which humans can not digest, and turning it into protein, which humans can digest. Furthermore ruminants are really agile, and can roam steep hillsides and mountains where you simply could not grow anything.

I think some people get the totally wrong idea that ruminants can eat nothing but grain. Well, no. They are adapted to eat grasses, herbs and forbs and even trees to a certain extent. Even in the USA, cattle are grazed up in the mountains. Cattle to be fed out for beef do no start their lives in the feed lot; they grow up in pastures or on the mountains, grazng. You don't find mother cow and calf pairs in feed lots. They are finished off on grain, but the whole weight of the cow is not due to grain.

My land grows weeds and sticks really well, but I can't eat weeds and sticks. However, my goats can. I can't grow grain here; no water. I'm sort of stuck with weeds and sticks, and goat meat. Getting rid of my goats and going vegetarian would actually result in me, personally, having to spend far more money for food and would take my land completely out of production of any sort. That seems bad to me; they aren't making more land, it's not like we can keep getting more, we have to use what we have in the best way. I don't think complete world vegetarianism will accomplish that. I think ultimately a mixed effort will be necessary. The problem is too complex for simple answers.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Then why is obesity disproportionately a problem for the poor in the US?

Just to add a data point; a new panhandler has appeared along my usual route to work, bearing the usual cardboard sign that reads “CHANGE FOR FOOD”. I see him almost every day, under the overpass where a freeway system crosses 19th Street in Sacramento, just a few blocks north of Broadway. He does not look like he has ever missed a full meal in his life.

Actually, if I were to give anything to panhandlers, I might give to him. He does seem a good step up from the usual Sacramento breed of panhandlers, the vast majority of whom look and act as if whatever resources they might have ever received for the purpose of obtaining food have instead been mostly used to obtain and consume all manner of destructive drugs.

 

[Perpetual Student]

The population argument is complex, but rather uninteresting. Numerous UN studies have shown that population isn't much of a problem. Linky.

Of course then you get into complications like current food production, versus current wasteful production, versus exuberant eating habits, versus subsistence...

But anyway, overpopulation hand waving won't get you anywhere.

Take a look:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Vegetarian or no, I think the real, underlying problem to shortages of just about anything you care to name is that there's just too damned many of us. Convince everyone on earth to eat granola and millet and we'll still have massive famines if we don't do something to control population.

And even if we figure out how to feed 7 billion people on falafel and arugula, what are we gonna do when we hit 8 billion, and then 9? I think we're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Oh, and since we're talking about cotton and clothes, what do you think is going to happen to wool and leather (and fur? Dare I mention it?) when we quit eating critters? And how about dairy? We just forget about it too?

The sensible approach would perhaps be to have some kind of balance between the amounts of meat eaten now and none at all.

As for population, hopefully the rate of population growth will decrease a lot as countries modernise. Several changes could influence that. Here's an article from Wikipedia about factors affecting birth rates.

It lists several factors, including:

The promotion of a high or low birth rate by governments - contrast the one-child policy of China with the policy in Iran a few years ago where measures were taken to increase the birth rate, partly to replace the population after the war it had with Iraq. Iran now has a high proportion of young people.

The availability of family planning also has a lot to do with the birth rate: - in developing countries, provision tends to be patchy, so many many people don't use it. Also people tend to marry young. With increases in education and career opportunities for women comes an increase in knowledge about family planning, an increase in the purchasing power of the consumer, and a significant delay in the age at which people marry. Look at the marital age in the West over the past 200 years, and you'll see people tend to marry and start families several years later nowadays than they did before. And the availability of contraception and career and educational opportunities has provided so many alternatives that in some countries, the average birth rate is below 2 children per family, which of course means that on paper, the population could decrease in those countries in a generation or so. Immigration will probably make this unlikely to happen in most developed countries. Immigrants with higher birth rates are pushing the averages up.

Another factor is the age of the bulk of the population of a country - it may be that in not too many years, people over child-bearing age will make up a high proportion of the population of some countries, so the birth rate will fall, and when those generations have died, the population will have decreased quite a bit. Again though, immigration of younger people may make this unlikely to happen in practice. However, immigrants who adopt the lifestyles of Westernised young people who often wait years and years to have children - an increasing number wait even till they're in their forties or don't bother having them at all - immigrants who do likewise will naturally contribute to a decrease in the rise in the country's birth rate.

Another factor influencing the birth rate is religious and social beliefs about the use of contraception and abortion, and the age people should marry. The increasing secularisation and apathy towards religion that often accompanies modernisation and better education would bring increasingly liberal values that would allow people more freedom to use contraception and marry later. Here's a horrific example of the way in which religious beliefs can influence the birth rate:

From an article called Nigeria: Child Brides, Stolen Lives

This week's Unreported World reveals the devastating effects of child marriage and pregnancy in Nigeria, where nearly half of all girls in the country's northern states are married by the age of 15, often to much older men.

Reporter Ramita Navai and director Julie Noon travel to Nigeria to investigate why there has been resistance to outlawing child marriage and what it has meant for thousands of young girls.

Nigeria has one of the highest rates of child marriage and pregnancy in the world and the federal government has tried to ban marriage under the age of 18 by passing the Child Rights Act in 2003. However, five years later, only one northern state has adopted the act and even then replaced the age of 18 with "puberty".

The team's journey begins at a village in Kano State on the wedding day of one young bride. Her friends tells Navai that it's traditional for girls to get married from the age of 12 and start having babies. But her friends reveal the devastating consequences of having babies at such a young age, with mothers whose bodies are physically incapable of going through childbirth suffering horrible injuries and being left physically and emotionally scarred for life. In many cases, their child also dies. ...

That programme was on a while ago. The outlawing of the practice is being opposed by Muslim leaders who see early marriage as a way to prevent sexual promiscuity caused by people experiencing pubescent changes doing what their instincts will supposedly urge them to do otherwise.

Increasing prosperity can also lower the birth rate, partly because people don't feel the need to have children to help contribute to the family income any more, which is apparently currently quite a factor in the decisions of many people in developing countries to have large families.

Social/medical programs to decrease infant mortality can also help lower the birth rate - currently in some countries, many families have a lot of children because so many children die there that they want to ensure some at least will survive. If it happens that they all do in a lot of families, naturally they'll be contributing to quite a large population increase.

Another thing that can influence the birth rate is the availability of pensions for old people. Where there aren't any, people will want to have children in the hope they'll look after them in their old age.

---------

So basically, vegetarianism wouldn't be the cure-all for eliminating food shortages; and I don't suppose there are many people who would argue that it would be; what is being argued is that it could contribute to helping a lot.

Of course, one day it might be necessary to take more drastic measures. I think the colonisation of other planets is even being looked into by some.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

I have no issue with vegan/vegetarian evangelism except for the fact that much of it is made from crap evidence and from attacking the opposing idea.

Vegetarians who stop eating meat and argue for that due to their own ethical concerns are fine by my book. However I have little respect for arguments like this "analysis". Yes, meat is less efficient source of food that greens. But when people take it to the absurd nonsense that meat is the source of much of the food shortages is when it crosses in pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Take that to the United Nations.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, of course they aren't. They are either ecconomic colonies of American or other foreign concerns, governed by the puppets of foreign corproations for the foreign corporations, or they are rebels against that order, cut off from trading because the capitalists decide they need to be punished for not rolling over and taking it. (Cuba is an example of the latter. Venezuela just started moving from colony to rebel status.)

Blah, blah, blah, absolutely nothing to do with the issue of available land and the allocation of crops to feeding livestock. This isn't the politics forum, you know.

It has nothing to do with much of anything

Then why are you bringing it up, when it has no bearing on the topic at hand?

Because for whatever reason, the entrepreneurs decided to build in Hong Kong. Maybe it has to do with the ease of distribution of their products.

What, it's not easy to get products to European markets from Cairo? Have you looked at a map?

Lack of land is not why the Egyptians are starving. It is mismanagement of the resources.

I'd agree. And if that's correct, it makes that initial cited article's analysis laughably wrong. Which was my point, which you apparently now agree with.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Take a look:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm

How was that link related? Sure, it talks about population, but from an emissions and consumerism standpoint, not food supply one. In fact, the article doesn't mention food at all.

 

[!Kaggen]

Because for whatever reason, the entrepreneurs decided to build in Hong Kong. Maybe it has to do with the ease of distribution of their products.

What, it's not easy to get products to European markets from Cairo? Have you looked at a map?

Lack of land is not why the Egyptians are starving. It is mismanagement of the resources.

I'd agree. And if that's correct, it makes that initial cited article's analysis laughably wrong. Which was my point, which you apparently now agree with.

An example of successful Egyptian agribusiness

http://www.sekem.com/english/economic/default.aspx

 

[arthwollipot]

Sorry to hear that. I've tried to follow through threads regarding vegetarianism, but I haven't got the same impression. To me the main point is trying to encourage people to keep the portion of meat of their balanced omnivorous diet as small as possible.

When asked about the possibility of reducing their meat consumption (here and in the real world), even in theory, I feel it's rather the people loving to eat meat on a daily basis that are usually holding an unreasonable/fanatic position.

Ii'm not suggesting that vegetarianism isn't a good idea. Giving up smoking was a good idea too. But no amount of people telling me how bad it was convinced me to give it up. In fact the more people told me how bad it was, the more I dug in my heels and lit up again.

Today we seem to be inundated with people telling us that our meat consumption is destroying the environment. Whether this is actually true or not is not my issue. My issue is that people are just getting annoying about saying it. I hear you. I heard you the first time. And the second. And the third, fourth and fifth times. I also heard you the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth times. I heard you! Just shut up already and pass me another ****ing Big Mac.

I have no issue with vegan/vegetarian evangelism except for the fact that much of it is made from crap evidence and from attacking the opposing idea.

I have no issue with vegetarians. Some of my best friends are vegetarians. I know, it sounds like a cliche, but it's true. If I'm at a restaurant with someone who doesn't want to watch me eat meat, then I'll order a vegetarian option. Heck, I'll order vegetarian if it just looks like it will be delicious. But if my dinner partner starts lecturing me at the table, I may just walk out.

I dunno. Perhaps I'm overreacting. In fact, I think I'm definitely overreacting. Feel free to take my poll on the subject.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Lack of land is not why the Egyptians are starving. It is mismanagement of the resources.

I'd agree. And if that's correct, it makes that initial cited article's analysis laughably wrong. Which was my point, which you apparently now agree with.

What are you talking about? Did you only read the first couple of lines of the first article I cited? It said nothing of the sort - it didn't say land was the problem, but that some people assume that the food problems are caused because Egypt doesn't have enough land for all its people, but that in reality the problems have to do first with demands for meat that conflict with the practicalities of growing enough grain for humans in the area because the livestock are eating it, and then with a whole string of measures taken to accommodate the demand for meat and grain that end up meaning even less grain is produced to feed the population and even less land is available to grow it, because cash crops are being grown on it to sell, to pay off the debt they incurred by having to import so much grain, that they wouldn't have needed to import if everyone was vegetarian and ate the grain instead of giving it to the livestock.

 

[David Wong]

Today we seem to be inundated with people telling us that our meat consumption is destroying the environment. Whether this is actually true or not is not my issue. My issue is that people are just getting annoying about saying it.

So... if someone gives you advice, you automatically reject it? And are more prone to do so if they repeat the advice and insist it's important?

Do you acknowledge that if everyone did the same, basically it would be impossible society to ever do anything ever?

"Don't pour mercury in the river? WELL SCREW YOU I'M GOING TO DO IT EVEN MORE NOW!!!"

Seriously, how did you get stuck in a mode that most of us grew out of when we got past our rebellious teen years?

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Ii'm not suggesting that vegetarianism isn't a good idea. Giving up smoking was a good idea too. But no amount of people telling me how bad it was convinced me to give it up. In fact the more people told me how bad it was, the more I dug in my heels and lit up again.

Today we seem to be inundated with people telling us that our meat consumption is destroying the environment. Whether this is actually true or not is not my issue. My issue is that people are just getting annoying about saying it. I hear you. I heard you the first time. And the second. And the third, fourth and fifth times. I also heard you the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth times. I heard you! Just shut up already and pass me another ****ing Big Mac.

I have no issue with vegetarians. Some of my best friends are vegetarians. I know, it sounds like a cliche, but it's true. If I'm at a restaurant with someone who doesn't want to watch me eat meat, then I'll order a vegetarian option. Heck, I'll order vegetarian if it just looks like it will be delicious. But if my dinner partner starts lecturing me at the table, I may just walk out.

I dunno. Perhaps I'm overreacting. In fact, I think I'm definitely overreacting. Feel free to take my poll on the subject.

*shrug* Who cares what you think! Us vegetarian evangelists aren't going to be cowed into not speaking up just because you don't happen to like it; if you can't stand the wheat, stay out of the kitchen.

Did you even read far enough down the OP to realise it wasn't telling people to give up meat, but discussing the issues in order that people have enough information to make up their own minds?? In fact, I'm puzzled as to why you didn't actually manage to glean that just from the very title! What do you think the thread title does, orders people to stop eating meat right now? Are you not familiar enough with sentence construction to have realised it was in fact asking a question, and that a question implies the verdict isn't yet in?

I'm certain you didn't get to the end of the op, or in fact anywhere near it, or you'd have come across the articles on how a balanced diet is recommended by some, rather than giving up meat altogether. How about reading a long OP in its entirety in the future before commenting on it? Yes? Willing to give it a try?

Seriously, I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone on this board would have just not realised that this was an option, but since it seems to be the case, perhaps I need to tell you - and perhaps some others - that if you don't like the subject matter, ... you know, you just don't need to read the thread!

I haven't come across anywhere near the number of threads on the subject you seem to have done. Thus perhaps you could bear in mind before whingeing in the future, that the person who's thread you're joining to do it might not simply be repeating what they know a dozen other people have said just to annoy you, but might in fact not realise that others have made the same points, or in fact might be making new ones that you've simply overlooked in your haste to whine that they're annoying you.

Just bear that in mind in future.

Now shut up.

There. If you can over-react, so can I.