Vegetarianism seen through the skeptical eye

volatile said:
I think non-dogmatic vegetarianism (and I'd probably go as far as saying "non-dogmatic veganism") is the most rational diet for someone living in a developed economy in the 21st century...
Click to expand...

I'd agree that it's the least likely to get disrupted by any upheavals. When even vegans can't get the foods they're used to, the situation is dire for everyone involved.

I have a vegetable patch, fruit trees, and soft-fruits, right next to my house. I also have roses. Now that's what I call rational :).
 
I would think that one thing that you could be able to prove as harmful is that meateaters are much more likely to have weight problems and all the health problems associated with it, than vegetarians. I guarantee that none of the obese and overweight people you see are vegetarians or vegans. Likewise, I can't remember the last overweight vegetarian I've met.

However, that's not a testament to the dangers of carnivorism, that's a testament to the dangers of overeating. Overeating food in general, alot of which is probably meat.
 
Last edited:
umm... I'm an overweight vegan. There's plenty of calories in plant food.
 
volatile said:
As I said in my post (which no-one responded to! :(), I don't think that that's an untenable or outlandish axiom. In fact, it follows from the broader ethics which has lead to the introduction of animal cruelty legislation, and the unwillingness of people to eat dogs whilst they're totally happy to eat pigs.[/quoted]

Excellent point. And it's a good counter to the argument that if I really thought the factory farms and mass slaughter of food animals was so horrendous that I'd treat it as an ongoing Holocaust and do everything in my power to end it. Fact is, I don't feel that way. I recognize that causing animals to suffer for food preferences isn't as bad a thing as torturing a human.

I also don't try to persuade other people not to eat meat as they see fit. I recognize that it's a moral decision I've made that the population at large doesn't see the same way.

EeneyMinnieMoe said:
I guarantee that none of the obese and overweight people you see are vegetarians or vegans. Likewise, I can't remember the last overweight vegetarian I've met.
Click to expand...
I see overweight vegetarians on a weekly basis.

As for me, I'm in good shape and pretty healthy despite my junk food vegetarian diet, not because of it. (I exercise a lot.)
Click to expand...
 
I don't eat the following:

beef, pork, lamb, bison, deer, elk, rabbit, or any other mammal

drink milk, eat ice cream, chocolate or butter (but I can eat yogurt & aged cheese & eggs)

tuna or lobster, limit the amount of shrimp (allergies).

I do eat chicken (white meat) and fish, also limited amounts of turkey.

Why? Well for me, it is health related. I just don't digest the above items, they sit in my stomach until I either throw them up or pass them painfully (sorry, TMI). Always been that way. Runs in the family. I used to be able to eat some pork as a child, but haven't eaten any of the above since I was 20 - things seemed to get worse then.

When I tell people I don't eat (beef, pork, lamb, whatever is in question) many assume I'm a vegetarian, so I'm fairly familiar with the arguments for/against vegetarianism. Alternatively, they may assume it's religious. When I tell them it's due to dietary issues, some don't believe me.

That being said, I don't have a problem with people who choose to eat lower on the food chain. The argument that if you don't eat meat, you should feel guilty about eating plants is somewhat vacuous, IMHO. Obviously we have can't eat rocks. We have to eat something or we die. I have no problem with those who prefer to eat living items that haven't the neural capacity to process fear.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I also don't try to persuade other people not to eat meat as they see fit. I recognize that it's a moral decision I've made that the population at large doesn't see the same way.
Click to expand...

I agree, though I don't think veganism is an unreasonable moral position. It doesn't (necessarily) rely on spurious metaphysics, though I accept that a lot of vegetarians and perhaps most vegans do frame their beliefs in that way.

Nevertheless, it is scientific fact (and manifestly obvious if you spend any time around livestock) that cows, pigs, chickens and sheep feel pain and are capable of experiencing emotional distress. It's not a metaphysical position to assert that this is true. For me, veganism is a moral position derived from a sound empirical basis as far as I can tell.

I certainly don't preach about my personal dietary choices, and I hate to burden other people with them and act all high and mighty or make unreasonable demands that my preferences be accommodated. That said, I do often ask people why they eat meat when people (not unreasonably) ask me why I'm vegan. It's interesting to note how many people hadn't even thought of that question (as I said, I certainly hadn't).
 
A few decades ago, I read an interesting book; "Los Viejos"; don't recall the author.
It focused on an area in Ecuador that had an unusually high number of people over 100 years old. The author went there to discover their dietary secrets, hoping to uncover some magic bullet to share with the rest of us.

Turns out these folks were all peasants, in the patron system. They farmed land they didn't own; had to walk enourmous distances in mountainous terrain, and were fairly stress-free, as they had no hope of ever rising up on the social ladder.
Yet, they got enough to eat. They weren't starving, but they were always hungry.

When asked about their diets, almost all who were interviewed were actually perplexed by the question. They ate anything and everything they could, of course. They had no dietary restictions at all, but their life styles insured that rich foods were hard to come by; it was mostly yams and fruits and the occasional chicken, coupled with strenuous exercise.
The author was quite dissapointed by his findings, hoping instead to discover some mushroom, or some dietary discipline that could be usefull for wealthier people.

He did discover that these old ones had a very rich sense of romance.

go figure.
 
CapelDodger said:
Ron Tomkins sees no difference between those sheep and two cabbages torn from the ground. For the record : I do see a difference, and I'm sure you do too.
Click to expand...

Hell, I know that I see a difference... you wouldn't grill a cabbage, or boil sheep steaks. :D
 
Ron Tomkins,

I am a vegan. It is for moral reasons. And there is a difference between plants and animals. It has nothing to do with how intelligent they are, or how cute they are, or any of that. It is the fact that they suffer the same we do. Plants are not sentient beings, with the ability to suffer. I do not look at a rat any differently I do then my two dogs in terms of their right to live and not suffer. Especially now when there are so many options out there and the meat and dairy out there is incredibly unhealthy.

"All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals...."
-Aristotle
 
at least pretend said:
Ron Tomkins,

I am a vegan. It is for moral reasons. And there is a difference between plants and animals. It has nothing to do with how intelligent they are, or how cute they are, or any of that. It is the fact that they suffer the same we do. Plants are not sentient beings, with the ability to suffer. I do not look at a rat any differently I do then my two dogs in terms of their right to live and not suffer. Especially now when there are so many options out there and the meat and dairy out there is incredibly unhealthy.

"All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals...."
-Aristotle
Click to expand...



Well, sir, I acknowledge that reason: That animals suffer the way we do. However that is not enough reason not to eat meat. There are animals who eat other animals and thus they suffer. Sure, we have the hability to choose but as long as the reason why we're killling the animal is to eat it and not just to kill him out of recreation, I don't see anything inmoral about it. So the suffering part isn't enough justification for me unfortunately. What I was looking for was scientific evidence that eating animal flesh for a long period of time can result in permanent damage and thus, shouldn't be done. But as it has been determined, our bodies were made for the consumption of both vegetables and meat.
 
I'm a veggie; I certainly don't do it for health reasons. My reasons came from the fact that I simply couldn't justify animals dying for me to have a greater choice on the dinner plate. I miss meat; even after 10 years - but not enough to go back to eating it.

One thing that does wind me up is the perception of vegetarians as ceaseless proselytisers; IME that's very rarely the case. Most veggies just get on with it; the idea of trying to convert people to their diet just isn't a consideration.

Far more common are the hilarious carnivores who, on finding out you don't eat meat, will wave bits of bacon or sausage in your face and then bang on and on about how amazing meat is, how they *love* steak etc etc. IME that's a far more common phenomenon than the preaching vegetarian.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Well, sir, I acknowledge that reason: That animals suffer the way we do. However that is not enough reason not to eat meat. There are animals who eat other animals and thus they suffer.
Click to expand...

There are also animals that do any number of behaviors that humans would consider immoral or at least undesirable in humans. That point is completely irrelevant to a discussion of human morality. It is an example of the "natural fallacy" (that whatever happens in the non-human natural world is somehow good or desirable).
 
quarky said:
A few decades ago, I read an interesting book; "Los Viejos"; don't recall the author.
It focused on an area in Ecuador that had an unusually high number of people over 100 years old. The author went there to discover their dietary secrets, hoping to uncover some magic bullet to share with the rest of us.
Click to expand...
While I think your point is well taken (that there's no magic mushroom for longevity, but rather that low-calorie diets seem to be healthier), but I'd take that legend with a grain of salt.

I think you're referring to Vilcabamba. I spent a couple of years in Ecuador. I don't have first hand info on Vilcabamba, but I'd heard that the legend of an inordinately high number of centenarians was never verified, but just oral tradition. (I have also seen poor people in the sierra who in fact looked MUCH older than they were. The extremely short stature of many Indians was almost certainly the result of childhood malnutrition.) I also know there's a big gullibility streak in that culture. I saw guys making a living literally selling snake oil in the streets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom