• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Vegetarian: Arguments For and Against Vegetarianism

There was a time that I considered vegetarianism but my friends talked me out of it because it limits some required inputs not found in other places.
I'm having problems interpreting the phrase "limits some required inputs not found in other places". For me, it sounds like the qualifiers, when all strung together, don't quite fit.

Can you clarify?
 
Personally I think we eat a little too much meat (especially red meat) in our society. We are certainly omnivorous and evolved to eat meat, but not slabs the size of our hand every evening, especially given our sedentary nature.

On the argument of morality, why do people keep pushing it as if it's an objective, universal concept? Morals are the expectations of our community, and not embedded in the fabric of time and space. If your community kills cows and eats them, they consider it moral. If your own personal tofu-eating community doesn't find it moral, fine. There is no rule that one can point to that says the other must change on moralistic grounds.

Athon
 
I'm having problems interpreting the phrase "limits some required inputs not found in other places". For me, it sounds like the qualifiers, when all strung together, don't quite fit.

Can you clarify?
Meat has some nutrients that you can't get from a vegetarian diet.
 
3. Animal fat carries flavour and makes things taste good.

While that can be a bad thing if overdone (esp. in our consumer-based, technological first world economies), it was obviously something that we evolved into. Something that tastes good must be so for an evolutionary reason (good or bad, might I inject).

I don't get the 'guilt trip' aspect associated with eating meat as portrayed by vegetarians. If it were truly 'bad' then all forms of hominids would have evaporated from the evolutionary scene because it was maleficent. And it doesn't help any 'vegan' case that probably half (if not more) of animal life is carnivorous - like it's a sin against nature to be so or something. It almost conjures images of the oh-so stupid 'pristine' garden of Eden before the fall scenario where the lions ate dandelions and the hyenas laughed at cabbage. What?

As intimated in my last post, fat also creates fat in humans. There is probably a very good (almost certainly, actually) evolutionary reason for this. Care to guess? Cold? Adaptation? Anyone? ;)
 
As intimated in my last post, fat also creates fat in humans. There is probably a very good (almost certainly, actually) evolutionary reason for this. Care to guess? Cold? Adaptation? Anyone? ;)
Not quite. In moderation, fat does not make you fat. An excess of fat, more than we can use, does.

As athon said, in our society, we tend to eat too much of it.
 
Meat has some nutrients that you can't get from a vegetarian diet.

The reason that I was so vague is it depends upon the definition of 'nutrients'. Some people don't include amino acids, fat, and so on as 'nutrients'. Succinctly, it isn't about what is deemed just 'healthy' but what is systemically required. Pregnant women don't eat healthy. And there is a damned good reason - they are perpetuating the construction of a new human being. That requires a fair amount of 'nutrients' - not all vitamin c and ruffage. ;)
 
Meat has some nutrients that you can't get from a vegetarian diet.
Alright... so which nutrients?

ETA: By the way, I'd include amino acids as nutrients. As far as I know, there shouldn't be any problems getting amino acids from a balanced vegetarian diet--it shouldn't even be difficult. I could buy an argument that it'd be easier to get nutrients from meat, but, especially how vegetarianism was defined in the OP, I'm going to have to be convinced that there are nutrients you cannot get from meat.

Not only that, I would actually want to be convinced... though I'm not a vegetarian myself, I don't eat much meat, and I want to make sure I know what to look out for.
 
Last edited:
Not quite. In moderation, fat does not make you fat. An excess of fat, more than we can use, does.

As athon said, in our society, we tend to eat too much of it.

Yes and yes. But there was obviously a reason to eat enough to store it even if it was more appropo to our more distant past. That we eat too much and become obese is a side-effect of more recent societal paradigms.
 
Alright... so which nutrients?

ETA: By the way, I'd include amino acids as nutrients. As far as I know, there shouldn't be any problems getting amino acids from a balanced vegetarian diet--it shouldn't even be difficult. I could buy an argument that it'd be easier to get nutrients from meat, but, especially how vegetarianism was defined in the OP, I'm going to have to be convinced that there are nutrients you cannot get from meat.

Not only that, I would actually want to be convinced... though I'm not a vegetarian myself, I don't eat much meat, and I want to make sure I know what to look out for.

Blindly, I'm going with this one from the wiki (add salt but not as preservative):

Most meats contain a full complement of the amino acids required for the human diet. Fruits and vegetables, by contrast, are usually lacking several essential amino acids contained in meat. It is for this reason that people who abstain from eating all meat need to plan their diet carefully to include sources of all the necessary amino acids.

So, it seems there is a convenience factor (not 'freedom' factor) to this. In a perfect world, we would glean all of our energy from our sun through some form of photosynthesis. But that is not how evolution played the cards. In the end, it played like this: some lifeforms get their energy and sustenance from solar energy, some get it from lifeforms that get their energy from solar energy, some get it from lifeforms that get their energy from lifeforms that get their energy from solar energy. Seems like there is a theme here, eh?

Meat is a high energy, high nutrient energy source to which we are 'partially' adapted. Yes, one can eschew it for purely vegetarian sources. But it is at the cost of requiring a very regimented and calculated diet which includes fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, soy, grains in proper proportions. The cliched phrase "Man cannot live by bread alone" rings in my head. One can do so but at the cost of proper nutrition. And one can even attain proper nutrition with a purely vegetarian diet but at the cost of making it an all-consuming ritual. Why must people deny reality in order to feel good about themselves?
 
Last edited:
Personally I think we eat a little too much meat (especially red meat) in our society. We are certainly omnivorous and evolved to eat meat, but not slabs the size of our hand every evening, especially given our sedentary nature.

On the argument of morality, why do people keep pushing it as if it's an objective, universal concept? Morals are the expectations of our community, and not embedded in the fabric of time and space. If your community kills cows and eats them, they consider it moral. If your own personal tofu-eating community doesn't find it moral, fine. There is no rule that one can point to that says the other must change on moralistic grounds.

Athon

Meat portions are ridiculous in our societies (and I'm from an Italian background where 'mange' is the mantra). I've learned to eat what fits my size and it has kept me 'in bounds' for 45 years. And it is surely a sign of changing society through technology that we have recently started to see a trade-off between previous diets and current activity.

From a 'carnivorous' point of view, killing animals for food doesn't affect me as much. I do hate that our 'domesticated' animals are basically treated with the least amount of care commercially viable for profits. But then we are now a different animal than our predatory counterparts by far. We no longer truly hunt animals for food as our sole survival strategy. We now breed them in captivity. To me, that does raise concerns about animals as food simply being produced, bred to maturity, and then slaughtered with no concern about how this affects 'the future'. Like I said, I dislike it but realize the reason that this situation continues. As Jeff Foxworthy said, there are no 'free range' chickens. Chickens are a completely domesticated bird which has no more wild representatives.

We could add in dogs, cats, cows, sheep, pigs, ... which are now so genetically and evolutionarily manipulated by humans that they are no longer very viable without us.
 
Obvious cases supporting a vegetarian diet include:
1. Health, nutrition
Yeah? Really? I call "bollocks" on this... prove me wrong


Obvious cases supporting a vegetarian diet include:
2. Ethics
So what? An argument from popularity is a logical fallacy. Deal with it

Obvious cases supporting a vegetarian diet include:
3. Self-reliance
Yeah... right...

On which planet?
 
Blindly, I'm going with this one from the wiki (add salt but not as preservative):

Most meats contain a full complement of the amino acids required for the human diet. Fruits and vegetables, by contrast, are usually lacking several essential amino acids contained in meat. It is for this reason that people who abstain from eating all meat need to plan their diet carefully to include sources of all the necessary amino acids.
This seems to have come from the wiki article on meatWP.

I don't think that's phrased right on the wiki--in fact, I think the way it's phrase, it's flat out wrong. The sentence isn't cited. But at the end of the paragraph there's a citation. If you go to the web site, you'll see this at the top:
With careful planning, a vegetarian diet can provide all the essential vitamins and minerals necessary for a long and healthy life.​
...which is where I think the author of that sentence got the phrase. But, later on:
A complete protein has all the amino acids necessary to make up protein. Most individual plant foods are not complete proteins; they only have some of the amino acids. Soy is the only complete vegetable protein.

It was once thought that vegetarians needed to combine plant foods at each meal to ensure they consumed complete proteins. Recent research has found that this is not the case. Consuming various sources of amino acids throughout the day should provide the complete complement of protein.

This seems to align with what I've dug up in research years ago; furthermore, I don't seem to have any issues with protein (measured by blood lipids), and I highly doubt that I get an adequate supply of the essential amino acids I need from the little meat that I eat.
So, it seems there is a convenience factor (not 'freedom' factor) to this.
I doubt there's much of a convenience factor for essential amino acids. The same web site cited from the wiki article goes on to make this recommendation:
It is recommended that vegetarians eat legumes and nuts daily, along with wholegrain cereals, to ensure adequate nutrient intakes.​
...which doesn't sound all that complicated at all.
In a perfect world, we would glean all of our energy from our sun through some form of photosynthesis. But that is not how evolution played the cards. In the end, it played like this: some lifeforms get their energy and sustenance from solar energy, some get it from lifeforms that get their energy from solar energy, some get it from lifeforms that get their energy from lifeforms that get their energy from solar energy. Seems like there is a theme here, eh?
Now you seem to be selling meat as a pitch. That's not what I was after. But while we're at it, this characterization is flawed.

We get our energy from macronutrients--carbohydrates, proteins, and fats (alcohols also contribute). But the main concerns, as I understand them, are with micronutrients--things we need to keep in good health.
Meat is a high energy, high nutrient energy source to which we are 'partially' adapted. Yes, one can eschew it for purely vegetarian sources. But it is at the cost of requiring a very regimented and calculated diet which includes fruits, vegetables, beans in proper proportions. The cliched phrase "Man cannot live by bread alone" rings in my head. One can do so but at the cost of proper nutrition. And one can even attain proper nutrition with a purely vegetarian diet but at the cost of making it an all-consuming ritual. Why must people deny reality in order to feel good about themselves?
Well, I'm not a vegetarian myself; in practice, my diet's described by the word pescetarian. But the reason why I do it is for my health!

But don't misread this. I'm not promoting pescetarianism for health reasons. People generally have different health needs. I have particular needs which drive my diet. Nevertheless, I'm the same brand of critter the rest you guys are, so in spite of my particular needs I have the same general ones.

But I also don't want people to be scared off of such diets. My diet works very well, and the alternative would be medications, and it's not the huge burden that you're making it out to be. Recently I've been avoiding the meats for, and you're going to love this reason... variety! (The meats are technically "allowed" by the diet, not required).
 
129063784292083557.jpg
 
In his book Good To Eat:
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Eat-Ridd...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261923262&sr=8-1
Anthropologist Marvin Harris explores some of this thinking. (In addition to many others)

Harris points out that most societies around the world that live on a vegetarian diet do so out of poverty rather than notions of ethics or nutrition. Given the chance to eat meat, they do.
He quotes Soviet premier Gorbachev as saying "If I could put two kilos of meat on the average Russian table per week, we wouldn't have any unrest..."
A recent NPR report on the rising financial condition of the average Chinese citizen featured interviews with previously dirt-poor farmers who said that previously they could not afford meat at all, but now they can have it weekly or even more often...They consider this a huge improvement.

Meat is a nutritionally-rich and compact food that provides complete proteins and other needed nutrients. Replacing all this with a vegetarian diet can certainly be done, but it requires a large amount of differing plant foods and considerable knowledge and preparation time.
Something only available to wealthy nations with a huge agricultural sector, and those involved enough to do the work.

Factory-scale livestock production causes many problems, both with waste and pollution and also with the consumption of large amounts of plant foods that could be better used... The whole sector could well be improved and done more efficiently.
Still, I don't think the Western world is going to abandon their pork chops and hamburgers any time soon.
 
Sheep (to pick one tasty example) are actually less intelligent than most vegetables, and only slightly smarter than gravy. I have few qualms about eating them.
 
I don't see how eating meat could be considered immoral/unethical. No animal can survive without killing things. I will admit that over-consuming or wasting animal products could be considered unethical, as could there domestic treatment.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom