How much would vegetarianism benefit humanity?

[Herzblut]

You can not find a reasonable argument against the need to cut down on (not quit) global meat consumption, or if you can, I'd really like to hear it.

Actually, I have not seen any compelling argument in favor of reduction of global meat consumption. But I'm curious, why don't you put forward your most convincing argument(s) and we talk about it?

I'm a proponent of consuming less of everything, not only meat.

Where? In Africa, South America, Asia? What might Africans think of your idea?

Some people here have stated that overpopulation is the big issue regarding food. I agree to some extent, but still have to wonder how much less of a problem it would be if only there'd be some limit to how much an individual would be allowed to consume. Of course there are billions of people who haven't even skimmed the possibilities of modern mass-consumption yet...I shudder to think of the consequences of them getting to the consumption rate we're in now.

I see. You don't want to see others getting as rich as you are.

 

[Perpetual Student]

After having cogitated on this subject for a bit, I have concluded that a worldwide resurgence of cannibalism and a ban on non-human animal consumption would best benefit humanity.
We have an excellence source of animal protein geographically situated exactly where the potential market would be the greatest. Candidates for the slaughter-house would be chosen by random selection.
In the long run, the earth would experience a much needed reduction in humanity, which would result in a reduction of humanity's negative environmental impact. Vegetarians need not participate (except as food) and those who are not eaten would happily see an eventual decline in meat eaters.
After we get the population to a manageable level (opinions are needed as to what that might be), we can all go back to eating pork, beef, chickens as well as our much loved veggies.
In a few centuries we would have to repeat the process.

 

[sol invictus]

After having cogitated on this subject for a bit, I have concluded that a worldwide resurgence of cannibalism and a ban on non-human animal consumption would best benefit humanity.
We have an excellence source of animal protein geographically situated exactly where the potential market would be the greatest.

Excellent idea! It sounds like you're volunteering to go first?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Excellent idea! It sounds like you're volunteering to go first?

No one would want to eat my old, tough, stringy, toxic flesh.
But I did recently eat goat meat for the first time so as a I'm always willing to try something new...

 

[McHrozni]

Yeah, I see your point .

But as an utterly healthy, sporty omnivore (vegetarian/vegan for 10 years until this summer) who has a small amount of meat average 2-3 times a week, six meals including meat a week seems too much to be necessary. I'm ready to be corrected on this one, though.

I don't consider six meat meals per week to be necessary. I consider it reasonable, it doesn't do notable damage yet, and it does bring benefits of filling you up and such
Two to three per week are also healthy, two per month are approximately what is necessary to maintain good health without going to extreme lengths to supplement nutrients from other sources, like vegans have to do.

Of course the ecological impact of ones diet depends a lot on where you live and what kind of meat you eat. For example, in Finland an organic fanatic vegan might be responsible for notably more stress to the environment than a person having a diet of mainly locally grown meat.

Yeah, probably

McHrozni

 

[Baby Nemesis]

I don't consider six meat meals per week to be necessary. I consider it reasonable, it doesn't do notable damage yet, and it does bring benefits of filling you up and such

It's debateable as to whether six meals containing meat a week would damage you; according to a recent study, people ought to be cautious about the amount they eat. Paying a Price for Loving Red Meat

... Now a new study of more than 500,000 Americans has provided the best evidence yet that our affinity for red meat has exacted a hefty price on our health and limited our longevity.

The study found that, other things being equal, the men and women who consumed the most red and processed meat were likely to die sooner, especially from one of our two leading killers, heart disease and cancer, than people who consumed much smaller amounts of these foods.

Results of the decade-long study were published in the March 23 issue of The Archives of Internal Medicine. ...

During the decade, 47,976 men and 23,276 women died, and the researchers kept track of the timing and reasons for each death. Red meat consumption ranged from a low of less than an ounce a day, on average, to a high of four ounces a day, and processed meat consumption ranged from at most once a week to an average of one and a half ounces a day.

The increase in mortality risk tied to the higher levels of meat consumption was described as “modest,” ranging from about 20 percent to nearly 40 percent. But the number of excess deaths that could be attributed to high meat consumption is quite large given the size of the American population.

Extrapolated to all Americans in the age group studied, the new findings suggest that over the course of a decade, the deaths of one million men and perhaps half a million women could be prevented just by eating less red and processed meats, according to estimates prepared by Dr. Barry Popkin, who wrote an editorial accompanying the report. ...

And if you read the articles linked to in the OP, You'll see several reasons put forward as to how when millions eat that amount of meat, it's a drain on the planet's resources that means food production can't feed as many people as it would if everyone had a vegetarian diet.

As for the argument that meat fills people up, certainly it can be far more effective than salads at making people feel full; but there are vegetarian foods that are effective at doing that - rice, pasta and potatoes, to name but a few.

 

[Aepervius]

Firstly, pet peave on me : the red meat is not responsible, excess from people are responsible. the same people would eat fried soaked in oil soja burger in great quantity. So the problem you have now with meat with people going to extremes, would be the same you get with vegetarianism only. Most people eat a normal quantity every day.

Secondly : "The increase in mortality risk tied to the higher levels of meat consumption was described as “modest,” ranging from about 20 percent to nearly 40 percent." so by the magic of statistic they jump from a modest risk , to an extrapolated 1.5 million hecatomb. Statistic lies and damned lies.

To put that in perspective , there was 25+ million death over the same decade.

 

[McHrozni]

It's debateable as to whether six meals containing meat a week would damage you; according to a recent study, people ought to be cautious about the amount they eat. Paying a Price for Loving Red Meat

When I say meat I don't mean exclusively red meat, but all kinds of meat, including polutry and fish, which is what the article suggested.

McHrozni

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Firstly, pet peave on me : the red meat is not responsible, excess from people are responsible. the same people would eat fried soaked in oil soja burger in great quantity. So the problem you have now with meat with people going to extremes, would be the same you get with vegetarianism only. Most people eat a normal quantity every day.

Secondly : "The increase in mortality risk tied to the higher levels of meat consumption was described as “modest,” ranging from about 20 percent to nearly 40 percent." so by the magic of statistic they jump from a modest risk , to an extrapolated 1.5 million hecatomb. Statistic lies and damned lies.

To put that in perspective , there was 25+ million death over the same decade.

Or it may in fact be that the description of "modest" was a bit off. 20%-40% "modest"?!

The article went on to deal with the argument that it was other habits that were probably responsible so red meat consumtion was merely correlated with the risk:

A question that arises from observational studies like this one is whether meat is in fact a hazard or whether other factors associated with meat-eating are the real culprits in raising death rates. The subjects in the study who ate the most red meat had other less-than-healthful habits. They were more likely to smoke, weigh more for their height, and consume more calories and more total fat and saturated fat. They also ate less fruits, vegetables and fiber; took fewer vitamin supplements; and were less physically active.

But in analyzing mortality data in relation to meat consumption, the cancer institute researchers carefully controlled for all these and many other factors that could influence death rates.

The article doesn't say the study recommended eliminating red meat from the diet altogether. It does say the people who ate the most were at more risk. Red meat does have valuable health benefits, such as making it easier for the body to absorb iron. Moderation seems to be the key.

 

[!Kaggen]

Saw a program about this last night on the TV.

Sounds tasty, environmentally sound and kind to pigs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamón_ibérico

Of course this means it costs money.

Then so does houses and cars.

 

[Aepervius]

Or it may in fact be that the description of "modest" was a bit off. 20%-40% "modest"?!

The article went on to deal with the argument that it was other habits that were probably responsible so red meat consumtion was merely correlated with the risk:



The article doesn't say the study recommended eliminating red meat from the diet altogether. It does say the people who ate the most were at more risk. Red meat does have valuable health benefits, such as making it easier for the body to absorb iron. Moderation seems to be the key.

20%-40% is modest. To give you an idea, say you have a 1 chance over 15000 to die of a cancer at a point in life. a 20% increase means you have now 1.2 chance over 15000. That is modest , because some risk factor can literally multiply by an integer factor>1 your risk of death for specific illnesses.

As for teh rest about smoking : of course, and this goes well along my argument, that the red meat is not the ultimate cause, the people with their bad habits are. And that habits would not be solved by vegetarianism as the thread thematic is, those people would take OTHER bad habits.

 

[volatile]

without going to extreme lengths to supplement nutrients from other sources, like vegans have to do.

What made you think that vegans have to go to "extreme lengths"? A nutritionally-complete vegan diet, supplement free, is available from the same stores you currently buy your omnivorous goods from. I think you've been misinformed.

 

[Cuddles]

Everyone stay on topic and keep the personal attacks out of it.

Baby Nemesis - if you continue the gratuitous personal attacks you are likely to face further mod action, up to and including suspension or banning.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[McHrozni]

What made you think that vegans have to go to "extreme lengths"? A nutritionally-complete vegan diet, supplement free, is available from the same stores you currently buy your omnivorous goods from. I think you've been misinformed.

Watching three meals a week to ensure all necessary nutrients are present in the diet is what I'd already call extreme. Most vegans do more that that and many still end up not recieving what is needed.

No, I'm quite sure I'm not misinformed.

McHrozni

 

[volatile]

Watching three meals a week to ensure all necessary nutrients are present in the diet is what I'd already call extreme. Most vegans do more that that and many still end up not recieving what is needed.

No, I'm quite sure I'm not misinformed.

McHrozni

I don't understand what you mean here. It is perfectly possible, and not at all complicated, expensive or exotic, to eat a balanced vegan diet without supplementation. Do some vegans eat poorly? Sure. But then, so do some omnivores. This says nothing about the healthiness, or otherwise, of the diets in question.

I can assure you that vegans do not need to "go to extreme lengths" or use supplementation of any kind, in order to eat a nutritionally-balanced diet. You are mistaken. There is not one component of a healthy vegan diet that one cannot get in reasonable quantities of readily available, normal foods.

 

[McHrozni]

I don't understand what you mean here. It is perfectly possible, and not at all complicated, expensive or exotic, to eat a balanced vegan diet without supplementation. Do some vegans eat poorly? Sure. But then, so do some omnivores. This says nothing about the healthiness, or otherwise, of the diets in question.

It is significantly easier to have a balanced ominovrus diet than to have a balanced vegan diet.

I can assure you that vegans do not need to "go to extreme lengths" or use supplementation of any kind, in order to eat a nutritionally-balanced diet. You are mistaken. There is not one component of a healthy vegan diet that one cannot get in reasonable quantities of readily available, normal foods.

How varied is such a diet? How often do certain dishes and plants have to appear in a weekly or monthly menu?

McHrozni

 

[volatile]

It is significantly easier to have a balanced ominovrus diet than to have a balanced vegan diet.

It really isn't. What do you mean by "easier"? The portion sizes are the same, the shops are the same, the cost is the same, and, after 5 minutes of reading, the things to bear in mind are more-or-less the same. You don't need to cook anything exotic, or eat mountains of some unpalatable smush, or even radically change your meals at all, really.

How varied is such a diet? How often do certain dishes and plants have to appear in a weekly or monthly menu?

As varied as you wish. As often as you wish.

Even omnivores should be paying attention to the nutritional content of their diets. If you eat a narrow omnivorous diet, chances are you'll lack some nutrients. If you eat a narrow vegan diet, chances are you'll lack some nutrients. You do not need to eat a narrow diet, nor should you.

 

[Tapio]

It is significantly easier to have a balanced ominovrus diet than to have a balanced vegan diet.

Have you been a vegan? I've been vegan, now an omnivore and a lot of things in between in the past. In my experience the only thing more difficult in other diets compared to an omnivorous one is the learning of what you need and how much. After you've gone through that initial stage of learning (done in a few hours, which I think would benefit everyone regardless of diet) it's just as simple to hold whatever diet.

 

[McHrozni]

It really isn't. What do you mean by "easier"? The portion sizes are the same, the shops are the same, the cost is the same, and, after 5 minutes of reading, the things to bear in mind are more-or-less the same. You don't need to cook anything exotic, or eat mountains of some unpalatable smush, or even radically change your meals at all, really.

I'm allergic to soy and wheat. Write down a weekly menu for me, please.

As varied as you wish. As often as you wish.

Be more specific, please.

Even omnivores should be paying attention to the nutritional content of their diets. If you eat a narrow omnivorous diet, chances are you'll lack some nutrients. If you eat a narrow vegan diet, chances are you'll lack some nutrients. You do not need to eat a narrow diet, nor should you.

Not by nearly as much.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

In my experience the only thing more difficult in other diets compared to an omnivorous one is the learning of what you need and how much.

If this is so simple, why do so many vegans suffer from poor nutrition? It's a widespread problem among them. Do so many people do such poor research?

McHrozni