How much would vegetarianism benefit humanity?

[icerat]

Fine. Yet all you have to show that vegans are lacking in DHA is faulty statistics already debunked.

No I don't. There's the definition of vegan which includes "don't eat anything that has significant amounts of DHA in it"

You also seem to ignore that it is possible to have algae-derived DHA, thus ignoring that there are DHA supplements available.

I haven't ignored it at all. Supplements are not diet. Their supplements to diet. I'm talking about diet. Having said that, if you have any evidence to support the idea that the majority of vegans take DHA supplements I'd appreciate a link or source.

Sorry, but fail. Come back when you have something.

Umm, no. I'd suggest you're the one suggesting something extraordinary that requires evidence. Please provide some kind of support that extremely large intakes of algae are a normal part of the average vegan's diet.

For a (slightly) easier task, please provide evidence vegan's typically supplement with DHA.

Right now you're pretty much claiming I need evidence to back up an assertion akin to "people who have no iron in their diet have low iron levels". Unless you have a whole new nutritional theory, it's just silly.

 

[Herzblut]

It is the way that nature designed us. Cow's milk is not really all that good for humans, really. Too high in fat for one thing.

Mother's milk is greasier than industrial cow milk, from what I tasted... And biological evolution eliminated human lactose intolerance for cow milk quite quickly and efficiently. From that perspective, I see no reason not to consume cow milk.

The ethical concern of veganism is not to enslave or kill an animal for the benefit of humans.

I totally disagree to that kind of ethics, honestly.

 

[icerat]

Does that relate somehow to being a breast-fed child, or not? Is breast-feeding compliant to vegetarian/vegan ideologies at all?

Well, there's a few interesting things there. One is that women are more efficient at converting ALA, a form of omega-3 found in plant sources, in to DHA. Still way less efficent than marine sources, but they do it much better than men, and concentrate it in breast milk.

A lack of DHA in breast milk (or otherwise in the diet) has been linked to impaired cognitive functioning in children.

Still ... that does raise another vegan acceptable source of DHA, assuming a willing female with a sufficiently large ALA intake.

 

[Herzblut]

A lack of DHA in breast milk (or otherwise in the diet) has been linked to impaired cognitive functioning in children.

Good. And I assume that lack of DHA in breast milk is linked to the mother's nutrition. I assume that a mother's vegan/vegetarian diat increases the risk, correct?

 

[Baby Nemesis]

It's not the telling about, or even the description, it's treating people as morons who aren't supposed to know or care about it (or, worse, who are supposed to delight in it), and who could be turned over to the cause by showing them shocking images.

There you go again, attributing motives! After everything I've said! What do I need to do to convince you that just because you think someone has a certain purpose, they might not have that purpose at all?

I know, I'll quote a bit more from that thing linked to in my signature about improving marriage relations. Here's an interesting little story:

When Faulty Interpretations of Another Person's Actions Cause Anger

She says another thing she found helpful was recognising that her husband didn't cause her to be angry, even when he seemed to be provoking her deliberately; what did make her angry was her interpretation of the reasons he was doing what he did.

She gives an example, saying that she used to love to stop for donuts on the way back from church with her family. It just made Sunday seem special. But her husband would never offer to stop and she thought he should. She'd wait and wait for him to say something about it, but he wouldn't. After they'd passed the donut shop, she started to become mightily angry about it. She says her whole day was ruined because she thought he was stingy and thoughtless and mean.

She got over it when she began to think of things differently. She realised that when they left church, he was thinking about what to do with the rest of his day. Donuts were nothing special to him, so he never gave them a thought. When she started reminding him to stop to get some, he was happy to, and enjoyed the time together eating them as much as she did.

She says her anger was coming from her own faulty thinking processes where she was making judgments about what he was thinking, not from reality.

I could quote more of that stuff, but perhaps you could oblige me by following the link and reading it yourself?

And why would someone be a moron just because they didn't know about the worst details about what goes on in slaughterhouses?

 

[Baby Nemesis]

I would guess that it's probably an evolutionary adaptation. Hunter/gatherer societies would value members who do not require starvation in order to be motivated to go and hunt, and bring back more than they need for themselves personally. I'd be very surpised if this adaptation is not widespread in the human population, even if socialization and obsolescence has buried it.

If that's what it is, do you think you'd get the same narcotic-like pleasure from gathering berries and nuts as you do from killing animals?

 

[leftysergeant]

Mother's milk is greasier than industrial cow milk, from what I tasted... And biological evolution eliminated human lactose intolerance for cow milk quite quickly and efficiently. From that perspective, I see no reason not to consume cow milk.

Only in certain ethnic groups is it not a problem.

I know a lot of Native Americans who suffer serious intestinal distress after even the least bit of cow's milk. The ability to digest lactose has no survival benefit among non-dairy-herding peoples, and may actually be a detriment in some.

 

[Prometheus]

If that's what it is, do you think you'd get the same narcotic-like pleasure from gathering berries and nuts as you do from killing animals?

No, I don't think so. For one thing, nuts and berries are unlikely to fight back, and not nearly as dangerous as, say, a wooly mammoth--so there's no need for any extra motivation to overcome fear and go get them. Besides, that humans are, by nature, omnivorous predators is biological fact, so it's not like I'm just pulling a random justification out of thin air.

 

[icerat]

Good. And I assume that lack of DHA in breast milk is linked to the mother's nutrition.

Primarily, yes.

I assume that a mother's vegan/vegetarian diat increases the risk, correct?

I don't know if that's ever been properly studied, but that's a reasonable assumption. Mind you, nutrition is never that simple. For example, the decreased levels of omega-6 in a generally "healthier" vegetarian diet compared to diets with high levels of meat consumption also means the omega-3 may be more effectively utilised by both mother and infant, so the smaller amounts could potentially be more effective than larger amounts. Context matters.

 

[icerat]

Some references -

DHA During Pregnancy and Breastfeeding: Fast Facts (commercial but well referenced)

Essential fatty acid requirements of vegetarians in pregnancy, lactation, and infancy

Long-chain n–3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in plasma in British meat-eating, vegetarian, and vegan men

Seems I was wrong about vegetarians possibly having better omega-6 proportions, it's the reverse

 

[Lonewulf]

No I don't. There's the definition of vegan which includes "don't eat anything that has significant amounts of DHA in it"



I haven't ignored it at all. Supplements are not diet. Their supplements to diet. I'm talking about diet. Having said that, if you have any evidence to support the idea that the majority of vegans take DHA supplements I'd appreciate a link or source.



Umm, no. I'd suggest you're the one suggesting something extraordinary that requires evidence. Please provide some kind of support that extremely large intakes of algae are a normal part of the average vegan's diet.

For a (slightly) easier task, please provide evidence vegan's typically supplement with DHA.

Right now you're pretty much claiming I need evidence to back up an assertion akin to "people who have no iron in their diet have low iron levels". Unless you have a whole new nutritional theory, it's just silly.

It's extraordinary to claim that you can supplement your meals?

Also, from what I'm reading, DHA primarily affects the first years of life. So what about vegans that switch over later on in life? How much, exactly, would their IQ drop? And how impossible is it to supplement your diet? C'mon, let's see some real figures here, you're the one making the claim about the IQ drop.

I know this is a newsflash, but we live in the year 2009. This means that can use, you know, modern technology. Like cars!

What are you really arguing? That vegans don't typically use supplements? That isn't an argument against veganism, that's an argument against better education of one's diet.

 

[icerat]

It's extraordinary to claim that you can supplement your meals?

No, but you're challenging my claim about vegan diets, not vegan diets plus supplements, which I never addressed. It's like arguing that guns can kill people and you're disputing it because everyone could wear head to toe body armour.

Also, from what I'm reading, DHA primarily affects the first years of life.

While crucial in brain development, it's neede in the brain on a daily basis. I did hear a doctor claim on a BBC documentary that you don't need it much past early childhood. What that said was he hasn't read any research for 20 years

So what about vegans that switch over later on in life? How much, exactly, would their IQ drop? And how impossible is it to supplement your diet? C'mon, let's see some real figures here, you're the one making the claim about the IQ drop.

It's going to vary depending on the individuals. This isn't rocket science lonewulf, go read what DHA is used for in the brain. Substitution of other fats changes the membrane potential of the cells. Do you seriously think that has no influence?

I know this is a newsflash, but we live in the year 2009. This means that can use, you know, modern technology. Like cars!

Do you always argue with yourself?

What are you really arguing? That vegans don't typically use supplements? That isn't an argument against veganism, that's an argument against better education of one's diet.

So ... let me see. I pointed out that vegans and vegetarians have a tougher time getting DHA, so I clearly must have been arguing against them.

I also pointed out that meat eaters eat way too much meat and that causes all sorts of health problems, worse than vegetarianism, so I clearly must have been arguing against them too ...

Obviously I'm arguing for breatharianism ....

But wait! Breathing oxygen causes free radical production, which damages cells! So clearly I must be arguing against breathing too!

good grief some people are sensitive ...

 

[Baby Nemesis]

I might be misreading you, and if I am then I apologize. But I don't see that there's much of a distinction in principle between a supplemented and a non-supplemented diet, yet I frequently see the distinction made in these discussions as if it weighed against a vegan or vegetarian diet. Some people supplement with fish, I supplement with algae. So what?


I'll take your word for it. In any case, it seems we both agree that this is a hurdle that is likely to be overcome.


If we modify that to say that it's something we need to be aware of, rather than a difficulty, I'm on board. My reason for responding here is that I just don't see it as difficult to schlep down to the corner market to buy some fortified soy milk to pour over my cornflakes in the morning, or to remember to take a pill at lunch. I don't disagree that it's easier not to be vegan, I just don't think that hard (certainly not 'virtually impossible'), and it becomes a lot easier as society adapts to a significant population of vegetarians and vegans. For example, we can see that producers have fortified exactly those foods we are most likely to eat with exactly those nutrients we are most likely to miss out on.

Don't forget that this thread's talking about vegetarianism in global terms. Many people might have easy access to supplements, but billions won't.

Then again, the people with easiest access to supplements are also the people living in the countries where by far the most meat is eaten. So veganism might be an option for many people who live where more-than-healthy amounts of meat tend to be eaten so the practices used to cater for meat-eaters are the most damaging to animal welfare, health and the environment, whereas it wouldn't be recommended for people living in countries where the people tend to have fewer vegetarian options so meat or animal products are important for good health. I expect you'd agree.

 

[!Kaggen]

~snip~
good grief some people are sensitive ...

Funnily enough I often find that the overly sensitive ones, are vegans/vegetarians.
Must have something to do with DHA and IQ or the lack of desire to hunt.
They should just be thankful for supplements and that us meat eaters/providers put up with them

 

[leftysergeant]

Then again, the people with easiest access to supplements are also the people living in the countries where by far the most meat is eaten. So veganism might be an option for many people who live where more-than-healthy amounts of meat tend to be eaten so the practices used to cater for meat-eaters are the most damaging to animal welfare, health and the environment, whereas it wouldn't be recommended for people living in countries where the people tend to have fewer vegetarian options so meat or animal products are important for good health.

It would do all of us a lot of good if meat consumption were radically scaled back. The environment cannot long support increasing animal husbandry without there being a reduction in over-all food available for human use.

In those countries where there are not ample vegetable sources of protein, there is not likely to be a lot of animal protein available, either. Land too dry for barley or teff is not likely to sustain especially large herds of ruminants without serious problems of erosion. Swine are competitors for food with humans. Poultry in areas given to frequent locust infestations might actually provide to benefits at once.

In many histories of the Irish Potato Famine, it is pointed out that Ireland was exporting thousands of head of cattle. A large part of the problem of starvation world-wide is a result of people not having control of the resources which they need to survive because of corrupt governments and colonialism or the simple greed of land owners who squeeze out small holders.

There is a good reason why one of the laws given to Moses before the people entered the promised land was that farmland could not be sold fee-simple.

What I, personally am advocating is that everyone should cut back meat consumption to a bare minimum. Live simply that others may simply live.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

... In those countries where there are not ample vegetable sources of protein, there is not likely to be a lot of animal protein available, either. Land too dry for barley or teff is not likely to sustain especially large herds of ruminants without serious problems of erosion. ...

That reminds me: I once heard that herding goats might have contributed a lot to the desertification of places like the Sahara, because they would eat anything, and without roots in place keeping the soil there, fertile soil would have eroded because the wind would have blown it away, and the occasional heavy rainfall would have washed quite a bit of it away.

I've found an article about the causes of soil erosion and what's being done about it. It says there are several things that cause it and possible solutions. But part of it says:

In Inner Mongolia, efforts to halt the advancing desert and to reclaim the land for productive uses rely on planting desert shrubs to stabilize the sand dunes. And in many situations, sheep and goats have been banned entirely. In Helin County, south of the provincial capital of Hohhot, the planting of desert shrubs on abandoned cropland has now stabilized the soil on the county’s first 7,000-hectare reclamation plot. Based on this success, the reclamation effort
is being expanded. ...

The only viable way to eliminate overgrazing on the two fifths of the earth’s land surface classified as rangelands is to reduce the size of flocks and herds. Not only do the excessive numbers of cattle, and particularly sheep and goats, remove the vegetation, but their hoofs pulverize the protective crust of soil that is formed by rainfall and that checks wind erosion. In some situations, the only viable option is to keep the animals in enclosures, bringing the forage to them. India, which has successfully adopted this practice for its thriving dairy industry, is the model for other countries.

 

[leftysergeant]

I've found an article about the causes of soil erosion and what's being done about it. It says there are several things that cause it and possible solutions. But part of it says:

Exactly what I was talking about.

And then there is the damage that commercial fishing has done to fish populations, world-wide. the Atlantic true cod may, in reality, be extinct already, even with a few living specimens, because they cannot sustain a large enough breeding population. And then there is the damage that bottom-dragging nets do to kelp beds.

An embarrassing abundance of animal-based protein now may result, because of the damage done in producing it, in an utter famine within a very few years.

 

[!Kaggen]

That reminds me: I once heard that herding goats might have contributed a lot to the desertification of places like the Sahara, because they would eat anything, and without roots in place keeping the soil there, fertile soil would have eroded because the wind would have blown it away, and the occasional heavy rainfall would have washed quite a bit of it away.

And I thought the Sahara was caused by a little man with a silver axe

 

[Baby Nemesis]

And I thought the Sahara was caused by a little man with a silver axe

There were probably multiple causes, just as there are multiple causes of soil erosion today. Over-grazing may well have been one of them, just as it is today.

The first part of the article I quoted from says:

In reviewing the literature on soil erosion, references to the “loss of protective vegetation” occur again and again. Over the last half-century, we have removed so much of that protective cover by clearcutting, overgrazing, and overplowing that we are fast losing soil accumulated over long stretches of geological time. Preserving the biological productivity of highly erodible cropland depends on planting it in grass or trees before it becomes wasteland....

Another article about soil erosion explains the reasons for it in easy-to-understand terms, unlike some of the other one. Part of it says:

THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANTS
Plants provide protective cover on the land and prevent soil erosion for the following reasons:

* plants slow down water as it flows over the land (runoff) and this allows much of the rain to soak into the ground;

* plant roots hold the soil in position and prevent it from being washed away;

* plants break the impact of a raindrop before it hits the soil, thus reducing its ability to erode;

* plants in wetlands and on the banks of rivers are of particular importance as they slow down the flow of the water and their roots bind the soil, thus preventing erosion.

The loss of protective vegetation through deforestation (see Enviro Facts "Deforestation"), over-grazing, ploughing, and fire makes soil vulnerable to being swept away by wind and water. In addition, over-cultivation and compaction cause the soil to lose its structure and cohesion and it becomes more easily eroded. Erosion will remove the top-soil first. Once this nutrient-rich layer of soil is gone, few plants will grow in the soil again. Without soil and plants the land becomes desert-like and unable to support life - this process is called desertification (see Enviro Facts "Desertification"). It is very difficult and often impossible to restore desertified land.

In South Africa apartheid policies ensured that 42% of the people lived on 13 % of the land (the "homelands"). This overcrowding has resulted in severe erosion. As the land became increasingly degraded and thus less productive, subsistence farmers were forced to further overuse the land. The intensive agriculture and overgrazing that followed caused greater degradation. ...

So obviously more things need to happen to stop soil erosion than simply stopping over-grazing; but it is a factor.

 

[Lonewulf]

No, but you're challenging my claim about vegan diets, not vegan diets plus supplements, which I never addressed. It's like arguing that guns can kill people and you're disputing it because everyone could wear head to toe body armour.

I drink chocolate soy milk. For all I know, many vegans in this area to do the same thing. Just by drinking that milk, they drink supplements; just like I do. And normal milk is often fortified with some other ingredient, to add yet more supplements into your diet.

Furthermore, cereal (not just for vegans or vegetarians) also contain supplements. For instance, limestone is very often added to cereal to give a boost to calcium. Ingesting supplements is not in any way comparable to "wearing head to toe body armour", and if you truly think so, then I'm not the one with the lower IQ here.

So assuming that vegans never take supplements is a lot like assuming skeptics do not drive cars. It's equally moronic.

I'm currently going to drive down to H-E-B and amongst the things I will buy are milk, chocolate soy milk, cereal, and a plethora of other things that almost all contain fortification or supplements of various sorts, through fortification, additives, etc. So tell me what I have to do to go out of my way that's at all equivalent to "wearing head to toe body armour"? Or is it that hard to buy such ingredients in the UK (I assume so because of the spelling of "armor")?

While crucial in brain development, it's neede in the brain on a daily basis. I did hear a doctor claim on a BBC documentary that you don't need it much past early childhood. What that said was he hasn't read any research for 20 years

Okay. Show us the research. So far, all you have that's definitive is some study with a poorly represented group; how much IQ would I lose, definitively, if I went off DHA for 1 year? 5 years? 10 years?

For all the words in your post, you haven't addressed my similar question.