How much would vegetarianism benefit humanity?

[icerat]

I haven't read this whole thread, so my apologies if I'm repeating the discussed. I've been studying this area quite a lot for some years from a variety of perspectives, but mostly from a health & nutrition viewpoint. What I've concluded is that vegetarians are generally much healthier than meat eaters - but it's not because they don't eat meat, it's because meat eaters tend to eat way too much meat.

While it's possible to get optimal nutrition from a vegetarian diet (but not from a vegan one), it's much, much harder. An optimal diet would thus have a small amount of meat. If you look at the typical human omnivore's diet though, they eat A LOT of meat, bringing on the negative consequences of too much of certain types of fat.

Similar issues arise when you look economically and environmentally. Depending on various factors like location, geography, climate etc, sometimes the meat industry is a more effective method of food production - the problem is it's enormous extent today. Any ethical considerations aside, eating meat per se isn't a problem. Eating as much meat as most do - that's a problem.

 

[Lonewulf]

But it's natural to have a steak every other day! It's what God and Mother Nature intended!

 

[Flo]

If you really wanted to go vegetarian, I'd recommend picking up some Chinese and other asian textbooks; they have a lot of variety for vegetarians, given that a good majority of their numbers are Buddhist.

Wrong. Being buddhists certainly doesn't make the Chinese and Japanese vegetarians, except for a very small subset of believers (monks and those on a specific, and generally temporary, religious quest). I happen to spend a lot of time in Japanese bookstores and specialized libraries whenever I go there, which is almost each year, and to subscribe to a number of Japanese food magazines, and I can assure you you won't find many books on vegetarian cuisine, or purely vegetarian recipes. In more than 30 years, monks excepted, I've only met one Japanese who wouldn't eat fish, and none who wouldn't eat meat. I've yet to meet a vegetarian Chinese, but I admit I know less Chinese than Japanese.

Some cookbooks aimed at a Western clientele specialize in vegetarian dishes, but they are usually adaptations of the original recipes which almost always comprise some animal based parts (like the basic broth for cooking almost everything, that is made of an infusion of fish flakes -katsuobushi- and kelp).

The only places in Japan where you can be almost certain of eating pure vegetarian cuisine is Shojin Ryori (buddhist temples restaurants), since even some of the most reputed vegetarian restaurants do serve "hybrid" meals.

 

[Flo]

You forgot the red vegetable juice in the glass in front of you and of course the exercise after christmas lunch tossing around those iron ball thingy's.

Red, white, and fizzy. And we don't touch iron balls when it's freezing, we usually move more vegetable juices in order to get warm (cognac, armagnac, fine, ...).

 

[Lonewulf]

Wrong. Being buddhists certainly doesn't make the Chinese and Japanese vegetarians, except for a very small subset of believers (monks and those on a specific, and generally temporary, religious quest). I happen to spend a lot of time in Japanese bookstores and specialized libraries whenever I go there, which is almost each year, and to subscribe to a number of Japanese food magazines, and I can assure you you won't find many books on vegetarian cuisine, or purely vegetarian recipes. In more than 30 years, monks excepted, I've only met one Japanese who wouldn't eat fish, and none who wouldn't eat meat. I've yet to meet a vegetarian Chinese, but I admit I know less Chinese than Japanese.

Japan is not directly equal to China or Singapore, m'kay?

This is what my friend in Singapore has to say:

[05:30] 通りすがりのJayne: most chinese (dominant population) practise strict vegetarianism at least one day per week for religious purposes (buddhism)
[05:31] 通りすがりのJayne: also, let me link you to chinese vegetarian cookbooks
05:32] 通りすがりのJayne: http://www.thegreenbook.com/Tgbnews...ch=chinese+-+vegetarian+restaurants&hgd=&hid= chinese vegetarian restuarants in singapore
[05:32] 通りすがりのJayne: take note of the island's size
[05:33] 通りすがりのJayne: and finally, they sell thise cheaply most everywhere http://cgi.ebay.com.sg/Chinese-Vegetarian-Cooking-Cookbook_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQitemZ250427483167
[05:33] 通りすがりのJayne: along with other cookbooks
[05:34] 通りすがりのJayne: just because we asians eat all sort of stuff doesn't make us strictly meat only eaters
[05:34] 通りすがりのJayne: we probably also have a more extensive vegetarian cuisine than you guys, guess who invented tofu and mock meats?
[05:36] 通りすがりのJayne: additionally, most hawker centeres here (centralized eating place where vendors gather, like food courts) all have one vegetarian kiosk

Oh my gosh! I'm being linked to the mythical cookbook that doesn't exist, and mythical vegetarian restaurants! It's like manna from heaven, a miracle!

I'd also think that she would be a tad more educated than you on the subject, since she's lived in Singapore all her life, whereas you, obviously, have not.

I talked to her about Buddhism, which I'm apparently ignorant on.

[05:38] Lonewulf: The main argument is that buddhists practice a more rational diet, with only a little bit of meat, but aren't vegetarian all the way through
[05:39] 通りすがりのJayne: nah
[05:39] 通りすがりのJayne: buddhists are expressly forbidden from killing or encouraging it
[05:39] 通りすがりのJayne: you can only eat meat in very specific circumstances
[05:39] 通りすがりのJayne: 1. when you're offered it and have no other choice
[05:39] 通りすがりのJayne: 2. where it doesn;t harm the animal, like milk and honey

(So obviously not outright vegans)

It's not like buddhists go out for steak once a week, or even once a month, regularly.

[05:40] 通りすがりのJayne: however, the buddhist vegetarian policy isn't strictly enforced, so casual participants aren't really expected to be vegeratarians
[05:41] 通りすがりのJayne: the temple my parents visit are quite strict, though, they refuse anything which has egg in it too
[05:42] 通りすがりのJayne: http://www.vegetarian-society.org/ non religious vegetarian society of singapore
[05:42] 通りすがりのJayne: also, buddhists can't eat spices which foul the tempers, or something
[05:42] 通りすがりのJayne: like garlic

Given the arguments, it certainly seems like there is an above average presence of vegetarians in Singapore. Maybe we should ask them if they like fish and extrapolate from that.

As to Japan:

[05:46] 通りすがりのJayne: Japanese vegetarian cuisine is rather bland, so i'm not surprised if the japanese mainstream don't practise vegetariaism often even if they are buddhist
[05:47] 通りすがりのJayne: but I'm quite sure they stick to it during important festivals or events
05:47] 通りすがりのJayne: so if anything, being buddhist does open up an element of vegetarianism in one's life

 

[Flo]

You confuse the intent of the information with the impact it had on you. In other words, just because someone puts something like that on a message board, it does not mean they have an intent to emotionally blackmail. If you feel emotionally put-upon, don't make the mistake of assuming it was their intention that you should. The likelihood is that they would have no idea what emotional impact it would have on you. How could they? Your emotions are caused by your own reactions, not by anyone else.

You don't know the impact it has on me (if you want to know, I'm annoyed at seeing how, on a forum devoted to critical thinking, someone is still thinking that the way to persuade me to stop eating meat is to try to manipulate my emotions, and then has the gall to tell me it's my fault if I feel put-upon. I've been in slaughterhouses, and seen how some farmers will butcher an animal on occasion, and it never did put me off my meat. Made me demand that animals be treated better, though). Showing, even with a warning, gruesome things is an attempt at manipulating people's emotions. It's a propaganda trick towards a political/religous/ideological goal, not a rational argument for a rational discussion on a skeptical forum.

Even if they did want you to feel some emotion, it is fallacious to attribute the motive of intent to emotionally blackmail to them. You cannot reasonably know their motive, unless they have told you what it is.

Oh please ! You cannot reasonably know how the majority of people will react if you show them stomach-turning imagery ?

We're on a skeptical forum: let's discuss data, not anecdotes, however spectacular.

I agree there are abuses in the meat industry, let's identify them and discuss how they can be corrected (including by eating less meat, shunning the big industrial meat producers, etc.), but please stop with the silly justification for "hurting people's sensibilities" !

Your reaction to my quote about slaughterhouses is precisely the kind of reason I was doubtful as to whether holier-than-thou vegetarians really existed, and wondered if the phenomenon was in fact merely an imaginary construct, built on the emotional reaction of the meat-eater themselves being confronted with the information who was offended at hearing it, and made the mistake of thinking their feelings were actually being caused by the vegetarian in question, rather than being generated by their own minds.

It's not the information, but the way it is conveyed, that I do object to, be it about the abuses in the way animals are treated, or all the silly stuff about what's going on in a meat-eater's guts, etc., that I've heard systematically from the fanatical-preachy-vegans (who are, mercifully, not the majority).

 

[Flo]

Japan is not directly equal to China or Singapore, m'kay?

This is what my friend in Singapore has to say:

Singapore is not necessarily representative of the whole of China. I know mostly Chinese from the mainland and Taiwan. No vegetarians in sights, but as I said earlier, my sample size is not statistically significant.

As I said, my experience is more with Japan, where all vegetarian food is scarce (and I know most Chinese think Japanese cuisine as a whole is rather bland, vegetarian or not).

 

[Lonewulf]

Singapore is not necessarily representative of the whole of China.

Considering I was originally bringing up Singapore independently, as they're #4 on the list for longevity, I'm not sure if I'm all too worried about that.

I suppose I could have worded myself better.

I know mostly Chinese from the mainland and Taiwan. No vegetarians in sights, but as I said earlier, my sample size is not statistically significant.

As I said, my experience is more with Japan, where all vegetarian food is scarce (and I know most Chinese think Japanese cuisine as a whole is rather bland, vegetarian or not).

Right. So bringing up Singapore would be more significant to the discussion, as Japan has been discarded as not significant vegetarian-wise.

Yet Singapore still rates #4 in longevity, and yet they have:

A) Vegetarian cookbooks for cheap almost everywhere.
B) Several vegetarian restaurants, and vegetarian options in restaurants
C) A nearly mandatory vegetarian kiosk when there's a cluster.

Does this necessarily mean that most Singaporeans are vegetarian? No. But the simple fact that it's much easier to eat vegetarian meals and the fact that there is the presence of a majority religion that pushes you more towards vegetarianism (even if you never fully get there) suggests to me that vegetarianism would necessarily be higher in Singapore than it would, say, here in Texas, where steak is king.

In the absence of a "Do you like fish?" survey, it's the best I got.

Personally, I'm still supportive of a less-meat diet in general, and I'm not a full-out vegetarian myself, but I'm still skeptical of the claims that vegetarianism is harmful, although I suppose no one really made that claim. I suppose that most of us are in agreement in general, and I'm just railing against imaginary foes.

 

[leftysergeant]

There are ways of getting adequate protein in a vegan diet, but it does ytake a wide variety of foods. I would not stick to a specific cuisine, either, for good recipes. Some cultures find interesting ways to use foods that others have no use for.

I am currently experiementing with Ethiopian cooking and some Central American dishes. I would say that, based on the data I have been able to look up, there is more than adequate nutrition to be had from vegetable sources. Variety is essential, and so far, the Ethiopian, if you use at least a reasonable amount of teff, is one of the best.

The entire Christian population of Ethiopia goes utterly vegan for Lent, so they have developed some marvelous recipes for that period over about 1600 years. The idea is not mortification of the flesh, but purification. I can see how that works in more ways than one.

Remember that, if you are eating meat, especially chicken or pork, you may very well be participating in industrial-scale cruelty. No creature should have to live the life that a factory-farmed pig or chicken must endure. If the demand for meat were sharply reduced, such factory farms would become obsolete in short order, and bloody good riddance to them.

Does it take research on the part of a cook to find and develop a good menu from all the cuisines of the world? Of course, but that is part of the fun of cooking.

I am omnivorous, myself, but I realize that heavy reliance on meat is not really that good for either our own bodies or for the eccosystem that sustains us. I also find that heavy reliance on meat also limits the choices available because there is less and less room to grow other crops as land is turned over to grazing or production of crops specificly to feed to animals.

 

[Flo]

Considering I was originally bringing up Singapore independently, as they're #4 on the list for longevity, I'm not sure if I'm all too worried about that.

I'm pretty sure the longevity is not so much due to whether Singaporians eat veg or meat based food as to its variety and the general prosperity of the place (regularity of food supplies, hygiene, health services, etc.), as is the case in most of the countries/regions where people tend to live long and healthy lives (Okinawa, Mediterannean countries, etc.).

Personally, I'm still supportive of a less-meat diet in general, and I'm not a full-out vegetarian myself, but I'm still skeptical of the claims that vegetarianism is harmful, although I suppose no one really made that claim. I suppose that most of us are in agreement in general, and I'm just railing against imaginary foes.

I'm certain that vegetarianism, in our affluent countries, can be perfectly healthy, but I doubt it is possible for a large part of the World population, if only for geographic and climatic reasons. And given the data about the most healthy populations on Earth, there are powerful indications that we should eat far less animal proteins/fats than we currently do, not to mention the environmental effects of the current industrial processes.

 

[icerat]

I would say that, based on the data I have been able to look up, there is more than adequate nutrition to be had from vegetable sources.

Well, I strongly disagree there, depending what you mean by "adequate". It's virtually impossible in any kind of normal diet to get significant amounts of DHA from non-animal sources. Even something as simple as iron is problematic, with non-heme iron much less bioavailable. I believe this is one reason why you find "successful" vegetarians either have low muscle mass, and thus less iron requirements, or are the type that train a lot and thus can consume large amounts in their diet without a problem of excess weight gain.

I have a hunch that this is one of the reasons why there seems to be so many more vegetarian women than men. While women have a problem of monthly loss, the larger muscle mass of men means they feel iron depletion or deficiency much acutely, with issues of tiredness, breathlessness etc. When they return meat to the diet they often feel much better quite quickly. Women and men with low muscle mass don't feel it quite as acutely.

To get enough iron from vegetarian sources, you either need to be someone with low daily requirements, or consumer a lot of calories.

Anyway, that's just a hunch. The data on things like DHA and B12 requires no hunches, it's pretty clear.

But I repeat what I said before - most meat eaters eat way too much meat and would be much healthier with a higher percentage of their calories from fruit & vegetables.

 

[leftysergeant]

I have a hunch that this is one of the reasons why there seems to be so many more vegetarian women than men. While women have a problem of monthly loss, the larger muscle mass of men means they feel iron depletion or deficiency much acutely, with issues of tiredness, breathlessness etc. When they return meat to the diet they often feel much better quite quickly. Women and men with low muscle mass don't feel it quite as acutely.

To get enough iron from vegetarian sources, you either need to be someone with low daily requirements, or consumer a lot of calories.

Again, there is not a strong indication that a vegetarian diet is seriously deicient in iron. The availability of the iron in the diet varies, with some vegetable sources being hard for the body to metabolize, but the fact that so many cultures that greatly limit meat intake exist at high altitudes would suggest that this is less a concern than it might appear. Again, it requires the addition of specific vegetable sources. Ethiopia is a good example, where teff is a major part of the diet. It is a rich source of iron, and it would appear to be quite effective, given the performance of Ethiopian athletes in running events.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

You don't know the impact it has on me

Precisely! That's what I just said to you! No, I had no idea what impact it was going to have on anyone when I posted it - in fact, it didn't even cross my mind for one second to even wonder what impact it was having on anyone! I posted it for purely factual reasons. Note that I didn't post a quote from the article the first time I linked to it, because it was so gruesome! Funny how that bit of my post has been totally forgotten by you in your rush to judgment.

You don't know the impact it has on me (if you want to know, I'm annoyed at seeing how, on a forum devoted to critical thinking, someone is still thinking that the way to persuade me to stop eating meat is to try to manipulate my emotions, and then has the gall to tell me it's my fault if I feel put-upon.

And I'm surprised that on a critical thinking forum, you should still be making those judgments about people's motives, even after I cautioned you against doing so! Perhaps some lessons take a while to sink into people's minds. I suppose that a lifetime of thinking one way isn't going to be reversed just because of a single post refuting the mind-set.

Now where did I express one single sentiment about wanting to persuade people to stop eating meat? Where, in this entire thread? Just one? I thought I had made it clear from the outset that I welcomed all viewpoints on the matter so different angles could be considered and an informed conclusion could be come to that weighed up all sides of the arguments.

The purpose of my quotes about slaughterhouses was to inform on one aspect of the argument. I still entirely fail to understand why this would be undesireable in a conversation. And you haven't clarified things, despite my questions. It didn't even occur to me that the information might provoke an emotional response in some, because I am not in the habit of introspectively analysing my posts, worrying over what impact they might be having.

The only thing I could have said that could possibly have made anyone think I was trying to make people stop eating meat was to jokingly refer to myself as a vegetarian evangelist. That was a tongue-in-cheek reference to someone else's post, where, without any evidence that it was actually the case, they complained about "vegetarian evangelists" starting threads like this to try to stop people eating meat. In reality, I am no such thing.

As for trying to manipulate people's emotions, how, on a critical thinking board, can you assume that just because this topic is emotional for some, and that quote I posted might have been more emotion-inducing than many, it was my intent to appeal to emotion? Just how?! You quote the very sentence where I caution against confusing someone's intent in posting something with the emotional impact on you of what they posted, and in your reply, you clearly show that despite quoting the very thing I said, you didn't take the point in.

You have absolutely no idea what my intention was in posting the quote about interviews with people in slaughterhouses. You might have a bit more if you'd taken the trouble to read my very own explanation of why I posted it, in the very message that contains the quote you're complaining about - where I said it was to query Prometheus's assertion that moral concerns about animals were bogus and that he could say with a certainty that his own freedom from grief over the loss of meat in his diet was more of a benefit than the well-being of the animals that were being killed was a concern. Thankfully, he is obviously level-headed and responded rationally, rather than with emotional hasty accusations and protests! You would be able to make a better case for yourself if you would do likewise.

This is the kind of thing that makes meat-eaters look like the irrational ones and leads to the suspicion that any complaints they have about holier-than-thou vegetarians are actually just them being over-sensitive.

And of course people's emotions are generated by their own minds rather than being caused by others! It's a simple biological fact. That doesn't mean the person you perceive to have provoked you hasn't actually done so. Of course it doesn't. It simply means your reaction has to do with your own emotional response, and isn't directly caused by them, as if they're a puppet master who can control you and you're just a puppet. Would you deny that and claim that you are in fact just a puppet under the control of anyone on any old Internet forum who wants to control you? No? Then I suspect you're getting my point.

But since you might not be, I'll quote from one of the articles I link to in my signature, about improving marriage relationships, which explains it nicely:

... She says one thing she's found helpful in calming her feelings and preventing arguments is to realise that other people don't cause us to have feelings. We might have them because of their actions, but we often get them because of what we believe about those actions, not because of the actions themselves.

She gives an example, saying that her husband's driving often makes her angry, because she thinks he drives too close to the car in front. But when she has examined her thoughts to work out why she's getting so angry, she's realised it's because she interprets it as meaning he's being uncaring, since she's told him it makes her uncomfortable many times but he still does it. But he isn't really being uncaring; he just doesn't think he does drive too close to the car in front. So she says it's really fear causing her anger, not her husband.

She says it'll often be the way that something within a person is causing their feelings, not really their spouse.

She gives another example, saying that one morning, she woke up feeling depressed and angry, but she didn't know why. While her husband was making their breakfast as usual, she felt irritable with him and could have shouted at him. She was trying to read an article in the paper and she thought he was interrupting it with shallow conversation and wanted him to just go to work. It was a big effort for her to keep from shouting at him, but she kept quiet. After he'd gone, she realised that the reason she was feeling the way she was was because she'd been upset by things she couldn't do anything to stop, but which were nothing to do with her husband. For instance, someone often came into the library where she worked and looked at pornography in front of everyone, including children, but she'd been told by the boss that she wasn't allowed to do anything about it.

So her feelings could have made her shout at her husband, and their breakfast time would have turned into an argument and been ruined, when really, what was upsetting her had nothing to do with him. ...

She says a friend of hers became very angry because her husband kept leaving the toilet seat up, even though he knew it irritated her a lot. She thought it was a sign that he didn't love and respect her, whereas really, it could have just meant he didn't see why it was a problem and was forgetful.

Do you understand the concept more now?

I've been in slaughterhouses, and seen how some farmers will butcher an animal on occasion, and it never did put me off my meat. Made me demand that animals be treated better, though). Showing, even with a warning, gruesome things is an attempt at manipulating people's emotions. It's a propaganda trick towards
a political/religous/ideological goal, not a rational argument for a rational discussion on a skeptical forum.

Well, good for you in trying to get conditions improved.

But I'm baffled by your line of argument. I truly am! Do you honestly believe that censoring gruesome information promotes critical thinking? You might just have a point if all I ever did was put gruesome things on here. But you'd still likely be basing your views on an irrational judgment about my motives. However, have you actually looked at the rest of the thread? Have you actually looked at the first post I put in it? You won't find one single gruesome thing in that, unless you count a few health statistics as gruesome. Would you like to go and look at it, and then see if you still want to make these accusations against me?

As for thinking gruesome things are never appropriate, apart from me being utterly baffled by such an argument, answer me this: If what you needed to do to get conditions improved in slaughterhouses was to write to your local member of parliament and convince him it was necessary, do you honestly believe you could manage it without saying one word that could be interpreted as gruesome? Just how effective have you been in trying to improve conditions in slaughterhouses for animals?

I started a thread here a while ago which contained quite a bit of gruesome information. It was all about the terrible treatment still inflicted in some parts of the world on women and children thought to be witches. You can view it if you like. Now tell me: Just how could have I conveyed the information that such terrible things were going on without actually describing what those things were? Just how could it be done non-gruesomely? Or would it be more acceptable to describe the gruesome things that were happening because the victims happen to be human this time?

If not, then likewise, if all the facts about slaughterhouses are to be examined, just how can that be done if all the facts aren't brought to the fore? Why hide the worst of them? It truly doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.

There's an enormous difference between covering up facts and putting a very one-sided view by means of appeal to emotion, and bringing all the facts to the fore, even the gruesome ones. On a discussion forum, it would be very difficult for anyone to censor one side of an argument and just appeal to emotion to convince people of their distorted perspective, since so many people will often be available to put the other side of the argument!

And that's just what you and other meat-eaters should have done, if you knew of a valid one, rather than angrily complaining that I should dare to quote the gruesome descriptions at all.

Oh please ! You cannot reasonably know how the majority of people will react if you show them stomach-turning imagery ?

Just what "imagery" are you talking about here?

And no, I suspect that if you put your skeptical goggles on, you will have to agree that there are likely to be all kinds of degrees of reaction, from non-emotional to upset. You yourself said you were annoyed. Was I supposed to have predicted that? Is that how you imagine the "majority" of people would have reacted, or are you suggesting that you're somehow different from the majority so your reactions would have been different?

We're on a skeptical forum: let's discuss data, not anecdotes, however spectacular.

Surely part of the collection of data will involve interviews with the actual workers in places like that! If you want to refute the idea that things are as bad as the interviewees were saying, then you should provide data that does so, not simply angrily complain that such-and-such a thing is not appropriate for a skeptical forum! Surely part of the process of active skepticism is demonstrating just why what you're complaining about isn't appropriate for a skeptical forum. You have failed to do so. Just saying it isn't appropriate isn't likely to be convincing, and frankly, being apparently proud of your skeptical credentials, you should already know this.

I agree there are abuses in the meat industry, let's identify them and discuss how they can be corrected (including by eating less meat, shunning the big industrial meat producers, etc.),

Hey yeah, something we can agree on! But I completely fail to understand how this is going to be possible if we make all efforts to censor any gruesome information from ever reaching the public.

but please stop with the silly justification for "hurting people's sensibilities" !

I've got no idea what you're talking about there. If you imagine I am deliberately trying to hurt anyone's sensibilities, please explain what has brought you to such a conclusion. I'll be surprised if you can find genuine evidence.

So: Now we've got all that out the way, please could you explain just how we can go about changing things without reference to anything gruesome? We have to censor ourselves? And please elaborate on why this is necessary. I truly haven't got the point.

By the way, if you look at my OP, you'll see it has very little to do with individual choices about meat consumption, but is about how much mankind as a whole would benefit from being vegetarian or cutting down on meat. Maybe you could look at it and see if that post meets with your approval.

It's not the information, but the way it is conveyed, that I do object to, be it about the abuses in the way animals are treated, or all the silly stuff about what's going on in a meat-eater's guts, etc., that I've heard systematically from the fanatical-preachy-vegans (who are, mercifully, not the majority).

Aha, so you're judging my post by all the distasteful things you've ever heard in the past from vegetarians?? Is that a skeptical thing to do? (rhetorical question, of course)

This kind of thing is perhaps what accounts for much of the over-reaction of some meat-eaters to what vegetarians say. Hence the reason they can make themselves look irrational.

Perhaps you could give me a lesson in how to talk about all the dreadful things that go on in meat production non-gruesomely? I'm at a bit of a loss, but perhaps since you seem so confident that it is possible to do such a thing, you could show me how?

 

[Lonewulf]

I want people to consider my feelings and never show me an image of someone dying or being in pain.

Vietnam war, holocaust, etc. Think about my feelings, don't manipulate them! Don't tell me about people suffering, I don't want to hear it!

 

[Flo]

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.

 

[Lonewulf]

If you don't care about it, or delight in it, then how the hell would showing you images turn you over to the cause?

Your premises do not reach the conclusion.

And at one point of time, I didn't know what was happening in the meat industry. After seeing the shocking images, I started having an idea. Are you now claiming I'm a moron?

 

[icerat]

Again, there is not a strong indication that a vegetarian diet is seriously deicient in iron. The availability of the iron in the diet varies, with some vegetable sources being hard for the body to metabolize, but the fact that so many cultures that greatly limit meat intake exist at high altitudes would suggest that this is less a concern than it might appear. Again, it requires the addition of specific vegetable sources. Ethiopia is a good example, where teff is a major part of the diet. It is a rich source of iron, and it would appear to be quite effective, given the performance of Ethiopian athletes in running events.

I didn't say it couldn't be done, I just said it was a lot harder! You'll also note that Ethiopian athletes are quite poor in strength events, which require more muscle mass and blood volume, which are the major factors in determining individual iron requirements. Ethiopian middle distance runners tend to be small, so despite higher aerobic capacities, their iron requirements may easily be less than the average manhattan office worker.

As for their being little indication of iron deficiency being an issue for vegetarians, it's my hypothesis that's partially a self-selection issue - those with higher iron needs who try vegetarianism find it has a negative effect on their health, so return to meat eating. Thus "successful" vegetarians are, virtually by definition, those with either (a) lower needs or (b) high enough caloric intakes.

As I said though, it's merely a hypothesis.

 

[mumblethrax]

It's virtually impossible in any kind of normal diet to get significant amounts of DHA from non-animal sources.

I think it's pretty easy, really. I take a DHA supplement, and many brands of non-dairy milk are now fortified with DHA (and have long been fortified with B12). I'm not exactly walking over broken glass, y'know?

I'd define as constituent of a 'normal diet' anything that I can procure corner grocer, and I can certainly get an optimally nutritious vegan diet that way. These nutritional deficiencies in the typical plant-based diet only become an issue where they cannot be readily addressed.

 

[icerat]

I think it's pretty easy, really. I take a DHA supplement, and many brands of non-dairy milk are now fortified with DHA (and have long been fortified with B12). I'm not exactly walking over broken glass, y'know?

It depends on the individual product, but most DHA fortified foods, and most supplements, are still using animal sources for the DHA. There is a limited supply being created from algae, but there's a production bottleneck making it difficult to make significant amounts - certainly not enough to provide all current vegetarians with DHA, let alone if the numbers increased. That will hopefully change, but it's still a way off.

 

[mumblethrax]

It depends on the individual product, but most DHA fortified foods, and most supplements, are still using animal sources for the DHA. There is a limited supply being created from algae, but there's a production bottleneck making it difficult to make significant amounts - certainly not enough to provide all current vegetarians with DHA, let alone if the numbers increased. That will hopefully change, but it's still a way off.

Those targeted at vegans are all from algae-sources. Silk is the major producer of soy milk in the US, and they use only algal DHA, as does the manufacturer of the supplements I take.

But if someone were worried about DHA and couldn't find an alternative, they'd certainly have a better-than-usual argument for consuming at least some fish oil. There is such a thing as diminishing marginal utility in a vegan diet.