Rational case for Vegetarianism/Veganism?

[Ziggurat]

The oldest and largest civilizations were, and still are, predominant veggie eaters. China, Japan, and India are not hunter gatherer societies. They are very old vegetarian societies.

Japan is not vegetarian. The only real vegetarians in ancient Japan were monks, and vegetarianism is a rarity there now. Yes, there's not a lot of beef in their diet (it's expensive), but there's plenty of fish, and a good amount of chicken, eggs, and pork. And as has already been pointed out, China is only low-meat because of poverty.

Rice is the reason for these civilizations.

In the same way that wheat is the reason for much of western civilization. But that's got nothing to do with being vegetarian - in fact, isn't rice lower in protein than wheat?

Most people on the planet still live off of rice or corn. Maybe potatoes and millet. Not animal protein.

Because of poverty. Which is why you get things like Bushmeat in Africa: it's not that most people want to be vegetarian, or even close, it's that when you're dirt poor, you don't have much choice. And a lot of those people suffer nutritionally because of this meat deficit.

Meat is inefficient compared to vegetables, especially on a calorie basis. But that inefficiency means that having meat production capacity helps a society ensure that it has extra food capacity available in case of crisis. If something really bad happens (war, massive natural disaster, plague, whatever), a society which eats meat can cut back on meat consumption and redirect livestock feed resources towards direct human-consumable crops. A society without meat production capacity lacks this buffer.

 

[Hooloovoo]

Something I've always wondered about is if it takes so much more energy and resources to produce a pound of beef than a pound of a vegetable crop, why are vegetarian burgers and hot dogs so much more expensive than the real deal? I'm not a vegetarian, but I like the convenience of being able to microwave a Boca Burger for lunch. They're tasty, but they're not real cheap.
Maybe we should learn to get over the ickiness factor and learn to eat insects. They can be very high in protein and low in fat. Lots of people already do that in Asia, Africa, and South America.

 

[Wowbagger]

I am actually a vegetarian, myself. Mostly out of personal preference. I used to think there were good dietary reasons for being one. But, the more I learned, the less that seemed to be the case.

But, perhaps I shall research this enviornmental angle. Maybe I can develop some scientifically justifiable reasons to be a vegetarian, yet!!

Something I've always wondered about is if it takes so much more energy and resources to produce a pound of beef than a pound of a vegetable crop, why are vegetarian burgers and hot dogs so much more expensive than the real deal?

I think it has something to do with supply and demand.

Maybe we should learn to get over the ickiness factor and learn to eat insects.

Yes, that would be feasible, if not for that stupid "ickiness" factor.

I think there were actually a few insect restaurants in the U.S. But, I don't think they lasted very long.

Of course, the insects will have to be farmed for the purpose. Insect digestive systems tend to be very primitive, and difficult to remove. The insects will need a special diet of their own, to make sure their human devourers don't take in any toxins.

That's why it's not a good idea to eat wild insects.

By the way: Lots of people eat lobsters, and they are closely related to mosquitos!

 

[X]

Eat insects.

ETA: Dam you, Hooloovoo!
(Hey! That rhymed!)

 

[Hooloovoo]

By the way: Lots of people eat lobsters, and they are closely related to mosquitos!

Bugs are less icky than clams or other delicious bivalves, which lots of people don't give a second thought to slurping down. It's all a matter of what you're used to. I bet lots of insects would be most tasty. Just avoid the free range cockroaches.

I've seen people on PBS and the Travel Channel eating live giant beetle grubs and comparing them to custard. That made me a touch queasy. Don't know if I could ever manage to eat live giant beetle grubs.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

On the other hand...

Okay, I'm one of the many people who eat "less meat than I used to" for the simple reason that since about age 30, meat doesn't digest as well. I still eat it; I have no moral issues against meat; I feed my child meat--in fact, I encourage her to eat MORE, since she seldom does, and is low-weight and small for her age--but I personally consume less.

We evolved to be hunters, with a diet of mixed meat and plant matter. Certain amino acids and nutrients in animal meat and especially animal fat are important, especially in youth and adolescence, and are difficult to substitute on a vegetarian diet (and even more so on a vegan diet). After you pass prime reproductive years, some of that digestive robustness tends to fade.

As to the ecological cost of meat production, don't forget that the farming practices of South America are not tenable in the long-term. Since the rainforest land is functionally free once you clear it, people find it easier to just carve or burn out more field than to actually manage the land they already have. Land use in China is very inefficient because farmers--even farm collectives--have no title to their land. They can't use it as collateral on a loan to get fertilizer, a tractor, or even seed. And for many years, any profit made from the community farm land had to be shared; only the output of the family 'patch' was private. Thus for many years China lived mostly on the output of people's tiny gardens, meant for sustenance of a family but used for generating income.

The current structure of farm 'support' from the US government encourages wasteful and even stupid farming practices. Case in point: If you prudently plant multiple crops and rotate what you grow on which land, and the price of wheat tanks, you have to eat the loss; if you grow only wheat and the price tanks, the government will compensate you for your loss. Monoculture is ecological and economically stupid--except in the light of foolish government incentives. Thus, corn is now being grown specifically for being inefficiently, expensively, and pointlessly used to make "biofuel."

Similarly, we have such ridiculous practices as growing rice in central California, which is barely more than a desert in climate. But since the millions of acre-feet of water used by such farming has been heavily subsidized by the US taxpayers, it makes economic sense to the farmers to do it.

I suspect that the amount of land used for raising meat animals versus crops would change quite a bit if farm policy was rationalized. An earlier poster made the valid point that there is land unsuitable for growing that is used for grazing--and there would be more if the demand for lean as opposed to grain-fattened meat increased.

If you prefer to eat vegetarian, do so! And enjoy every minute. But don't try to build a moral case for it. As in so many issues, the real point of 'moral' arguements is to seek government enforcement of a change of diet. Right now, global warming is being used to justify everything from banning cars from city streets to building mass transit systems that will take more than a century to offset the carbon output from their construction--and that's just in Washington State.

I take such rationalizations with a tablespoon of salt.

 

[Cain]

Overall environmental impact, while somewhat in the spirit a no harm/consume less/do more philosophy, rather misses the point of moral vegetarianism, which is to refrain from violence against morally significant animals. An eco-friendly approach helps humans and non-humans but it seems beside the point. It suggests we can treat animals as biological machines provided we internalize otherwise nasty negative externalities. It's the healthy person argument -- adopting a vegetarian/vegan diet in order to extend life-span -- applied to the planet, and seems to have only one species in mind. (Compare eating locally raised "livestock" against flying in exotic vegetarian foods from overseas. According to this style of argument snuff films are less objectionable than a summer movie with a big chase scene).

There are already dozens of threads on these forums on vegetarianism. Many of the above risible arguments ("we evolved as meat-eaters, hunters") have already been addressed. Amusing as it is to see people helplessly flail in defense of the indefensible, anyone who has thought about the issue at length, subject their beliefs and traditions to contestation, will probably conclude the biggest hurdle veganism faces is not rational argument, but rational people.

 

[Roboramma]

First off, let me say that I agree with a good deal of what you said (that's why I snipped it, no need really to comment on it... )

I suspect that the amount of land used for raising meat animals versus crops would change quite a bit if farm policy was rationalized.

You may suspect this, but what are those suspicions based upon?
It sounds to me like farm policy makes growing crops less efficient, not more so, and "rationalising" it wouldn't make it require more land to grow corn, for instance. It could mean that it require less land to produce the same amount of meat, but you haven't shown that to be the case at all.

An earlier poster made the valid point that there is land unsuitable for growing that is used for grazing--and there would be more if the demand for lean as opposed to grain-fattened meat increased.

That's a valid point, but I'd be interested to know to what extent it is true.
Moveover, assuming that we want some wilderness spaces, allowing "grazing land" to return to wilderness (because it's much less efficient at producing food than other land) might be the most efficient use of that land.

If you prefer to eat vegetarian, do so! And enjoy every minute. But don't try to build a moral case for it.

What if there are people, like myself, who don't want to eat a vegetarian diet, but are led to the conclusion that it may be more ecologically sustainable anyway?
In other words, what if the moral case leads to vegetarianism, rather than the other way around?
(as I said in an earlier post I'm not vegetarian, but I do see some strength in these arguments)

As in so many issues, the real point of 'moral' arguements is to seek government enforcement of a change of diet.

Evidence?

Right now, global warming is being used to justify everything from banning cars from city streets to building mass transit systems that will take more than a century to offset the carbon output from their construction--and that's just in Washington State.

Again, isn't it just possible that you've got the causation backwards here?
That global warming led people to being concerned about emissions, which led to changes in laws, rather than a desire to change the laws and control people led to justifying that with global warming?

Isn't it possible that people are actually motivated by doing what they think is right, rather just simply by a desire to control others for the sake of it?

 

[Amapola]

Darat has a good point. One thing that ruminants (such as goats, cows, sheep, yaks, reindeer, or llamas) can do really well is to take something that humans can not digest (cellulose) and turn it into something humans can digest (protein).

Now, I have no idea if it's "rational" or not, but my land produces weeds and sticks really well, so I raise goats and eat meat! I can't eat weeds and sticks, but I can eat cabrito. I imagine the arctic and sub-arctic people that use reindeer for food and subsistence feel the same way - they can't eat lichens, but the reindeer can, and there is just not a lot growing in that part of the world throughout the year. There are marginal areas everywhere on earth that can produce food right now thanks to the animals.

If some of this area "goes out of production" so to speak, I'm not sure enough grains and other vegetable foods could be grown to make up the difference. In my lifetime I've seen people pave over fields or take out orchards so they can put up strip malls or housing developments or whatever. I guess it's just easier to build on flat land that was used for farming. Unfortunately that means more land out of production.

I've always felt that humans in most of the developed world have the unimaginable luxury of being choosy about their diet. I think that is a really cool thing, that some people in that part of the world who can afford to can become vegan or vegetarian, or only eat "raw" foods, or only seafood or whatever. But why on earth do they need a reason for it? It should be good enough to say, I want to become vegan, and then do it. There is no need to justify your personal choice.

 

[Roboramma]

Darat has a good point. One thing that ruminants (such as goats, cows, sheep, yaks, reindeer, or llamas) can do really well is to take something that humans can not digest (cellulose) and turn it into something humans can digest (protein).

Now, I have no idea if it's "rational" or not, but my land produces weeds and sticks really well, so I raise goats and eat meat! I can't eat weeds and sticks, but I can eat cabrito. I imagine the arctic and sub-arctic people that use reindeer for food and subsistence feel the same way - they can't eat lichens, but the reindeer can, and there is just not a lot growing in that part of the world throughout the year. There are marginal areas everywhere on earth that can produce food right now thanks to the animals.

This is one reason that I think that we should always have some meat production.
The question is, how much of it is efficient in this way, and how much is using land that could more productively produce other foods?

If some of this area "goes out of production" so to speak, I'm not sure enough grains and other vegetable foods could be grown to make up the difference. In my lifetime I've seen people pave over fields or take out orchards so they can put up strip malls or housing developments or whatever. I guess it's just easier to build on flat land that was used for farming. Unfortunately that means more land out of production.

True - I think it's always sad when some of the most fertile land gets paved over.

I've always felt that humans in most of the developed world have the unimaginable luxury of being choosy about their diet.

I think that is a really cool thing, that some people in that part of the world who can afford to can become vegan or vegetarian, or only eat "raw" foods, or only seafood or whatever. But why on earth do they need a reason for it? It should be good enough to say, I want to become vegan, and then do it. There is no need to justify your personal choice.[/QUOTE]

Sure, but what if it isn't a matter of making a justification? What if, as I said in my last post, it's about making a realisation and following to the conclusions that the individual thinks it leads to?
What if, for instance, it's about having learned about the environmental implications of eating meat and then concluding that a vegetarian diet has less of an impact, and choosing it for oneself on that basis?

 

[Hokulele]

Moveover, assuming that we want some wilderness spaces, allowing "grazing land" to return to wilderness (because it's much less efficient at producing food than other land) might be the most efficient use of that land.

There is a major problem on Maui where feral species (pigs, goats, and deer) have taken over much of the wilderness spaces and are decimating the native flora. The goat problem is so bad on parts of other islands that erosion is threatening to permanently destroy what used to be rain forest. Birds are affected as well, as avian malaria was unheard of until pigs and other mammals encouraged the spread of mosquitos and malaria.

The problem of unintended consequences will crop up no matter how well-intentioned policies may be.

Dinner tonight consisted of a goat stew from an animal taken in a local forest reserve. Ecologically-friendly protein. Yummy.

 

[automatthias]

On a more serious note, I now work in a job that involves a fair amount of hard physical work here and there. In order to be strong and healthy enough to do this work, I need protein and nutrients which are not easily obtained from non-meat sources.

Is there any evidence to support that claim?

 

[Rocko]

A healthy vegetarian diet requires a lot of work and planning.

For common-or-garden vegetarianism, that's really not true. Veganism requires a bit more thought (especially for children), but presuming you eat a reasonable cross section of foods, vegetarians don't really have to plan their intake.

 

[Bikewer]

I would note that regarding our ancestors "strangling small animals"....That's precisely what the chimps do...

Also, hunting is not the only source of meat. Scavenging is always available; early humans had the ability to find predator leftovers, or even drive predators away from kills by rock-throwing and such.
Then there are simple traps, snares, pits, and so forth, easily managed by even the most primitive not-quite-humans.
One could go on and on in this vein...

 

[Darat]

I would note that regarding our ancestors "strangling small animals"....That's precisely what the chimps do...

Also, hunting is not the only source of meat. Scavenging is always available; early humans had the ability to find predator leftovers, or even drive predators away from kills by rock-throwing and such.
Then there are simple traps, snares, pits, and so forth, easily managed by even the most primitive not-quite-humans.
One could go on and on in this vein...

Certainly when we are looking at ancestors of modern humans there is no reason at all to assume they would have been bad hunters. They would have had much better senses and be faster and stronger than many other animals and have shared our ability to digest a lot of different foods.

 

[Amapola]

...snip...

Sure, but what if it isn't a matter of making a justification? What if, as I said in my last post, it's about making a realisation and following to the conclusions that the individual thinks it leads to?
What if, for instance, it's about having learned about the environmental implications of eating meat and then concluding that a vegetarian diet has less of an impact, and choosing it for oneself on that basis?

You know, this brings up an interesting point. What if people learn about the environmental implications of paving over farm land, and conclude they'd better tear it all up in order to grow food on it? I think right now some of the problems of the flooding that are going on, are occuring because there is no ground for the water to soak into - it's all pavement and roofs.

It would sure be an interesting turn of events if people conclude that they actually need the land to sustain them and quit building on farm land. If there were ever some sort of idea of going towards global vegetarianism, I would think this would at least get discussed.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

However, I think that eating meat is what nature intended for us, don't believe that animals- who regularly kill and consume each other- should be treated as being above the food chain and love food too much to give up half to two-thirds of it.

Ah, so for you it's a theological argument? This deity you call "nature" has intended that humans eat meat?


Also, not all animals regularly kill and consume each other. Indeed, most--dare I say "the lion's share?"-- of the "meat" humans eat are not predators. For that matter, many animals do lots of behaviors that humans would consider barbaric, uncivilized or even un-human. So I don't see do the same thing as other animals to be a compelling argument.

 

[hecaterin]

In terms of land use I think a low level of meat eating is the most sensible option. Some free range, pasture fed, not grain fed, animals can use land that humans can't get nutrition out of. Mixed small farming is a good thing, and I think better for us in a general sense than agribusinesses monocropping soy and corn.

Check this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm

 

[Herzblut]

Certainly when we are looking at ancestors of modern humans there is no reason at all to assume they would have been bad hunters. They would have had much better senses and be faster and stronger than many other animals and have shared our ability to digest a lot of different foods.

Right. I think the physical fitness of humans is enormous in terms of running endurance, perseverance. Hardly any animal would beat a trained runner in a marathon. Humans could hunt to death practically any land animal, if it's elderly, injured or somehow slighlty weakened, fatally exhausting it over many hours and days.

Together with usage of weapons and with intelligent group collaboration, this makes humans one of the most dangerous hunters I could imagine.

 

[robinson]

Right. I think the physical fitness of humans is enormous in terms of running endurance, perseverance. Hardly any animal would beat a trained runner in a marathon.

Except maybe, the horse, wolf, dog, bison, elephant, deer, wildebeest, caribou, elk, moose, gazelle, giraffe, camel, llama, or pig. But everything else, yeah, we can outrun them with ease.

Oh wait, hyena, goat, cattle, donkey, zebra, okapi and antelope. But other than that ...