I am assuming this is some sort of vegan talking point that since some human teeth are mostly flat, ignoring canines and some particularly sharp front incisors, humans are supposed to eat only plants? Aren't humans omnivores though?
You are interpreting that backwards. I wouldnt say it’s a vegan talking point so much as a non vegan talking point in reverse. It’s commonly argued that because humans have canines were meant to eat meat. Whereas vegans fully acknowledge the capacity to digest meat and evolutionary history that evolved omnivorous diets (but argue the majority of (not all) people have a want rather than a need) . The vegans are just memeing back.
meh I've heard mostly vegans make this dumbass argument.
I definitely support vegans but I don't support pseudoscientific bullshit no matter who says it.
If anything is dumbass pseudoscience, it's the paleo diet, carnivore diet, and all other low carb diets.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs&pp=ygUhcGFsZW9udG9sb2dpc3QgZGVidW5rcyBwYWxlbyBkaWV0
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-problem-with-the-paleo-diet-argument/
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18596505-the-low-carb-fraud
Multiple different things can be dumbass pseudoscience, actually. Any time someone starts talking about what humans "were meant to eat", I'm done listening. Humans can and do survive and thrive on an extremely broad variety of diets. It's part of why societies were able to develop in so many different places.
Right, exactly. This is what I said. Humans _can _ survive on vegan diets. So the question becomes, if it’s possible to live a totally healthy normal life not eating meat, should you? This is the moral line that vegans come down on differently than the typical meat eater.
Nobody is arguing that humans can’t eat meat or that it wasn’t beneficial for our ancestors to be able to. The question is, if it’s not required, is it moral? Btw, veganism is about harm reduction. There are people to this day in impoverished countries who are actually required to eat meat to achieve sufficient nutrient intake. You will find 99% vegans having no problem with those people. But if you live in a country with basic infrastructure you probably have enough to at least significantly reduce meat intake
Hi there! You appear to be interpreting some type of meat eating ideology from my comment. Let me encourage you to take it at face value - the only intent is to criticize the idea that humans are "meant" to eat particular foods, an idea present both in the meme that started this thread and in the above mentioned paleo diet
We are agreeing lol. My point is that vegans do not actually make this argument. I have yet to ever hear it made unironically. Sometimes it is made in jest because it is made to us with sincerity from meat eater ideology.
Another question is: if it’s moral, are you gonna do it for that reason?
I have no arguments against veganism. Vegans are right. Yet I am not a vegan.
People vary in their adherence to their own morals. Some change their morals more often than they change their actions.
I choose to be someone who puts my morals above my wants, at least as often as I can, and I try to learn all the time if there are other ways I am inadvertently going against my own morals.
Edit to add: I also used to agree with veganism and not take part, mainly out of fear it would be too hard and I'd fail or hurt myself. And then one day I just did it. I dont regret it one bit.
This is the “fuck off, I like guns” of meat eating and pretty much the only argument I’m receptive to. I get frustrated when people argue they should be able to do things using bad arguments. But if you say, I don’t have a good argument for this but I’m gonna do it anyway, that’s at least being honest with yourself and I respect that a lot more.
To be honest I do largely agree with you on this. What we did eat should not really determine what we should eat now.
Nutritionfacts is a pseudoscience site.
The paleo diet is definitely, absolutely bullshit, but ketogenic diets have real use and purpose, if you can adhere to a strict ketogenic diet, and can do so without becoming malnourished (both of which are damn near impossible for most people). If you can get your body into a state of ketosis--not ketoacidosis, which is a potentially fatal condition most often associated with diabetes--then you burn off body fat much, much more quickly when you're on a calorie-deficient diet, because your body is already using fats as a primary source for energy rather than carbohydrates. The downside is that you'll feel like absolute dogshit for a few days until you adjust, since glucose is the preferred fuel for cellular respiration.
Your defense of keto boils down to: people need to lose weight fast or they will give up, so its useful? Its an incredibly damaging diet if you were to stay on it for life.
And if you are only meant to use it to lose weight, what exactly do people transition to when done?
Humans have teeth suitable for both meat and plant foods. So I would say humans are omnivores.
I may be wrong, but a 100% vegan only diet I think requires supplements to be taken for certain things like proteins that humans need in order to live. Of course, those certain proteins are found in meats.
However, I think saying humans are carnovires would also be incorrect, and a 100% meat only diet would be I think equally as unhealthy as a 100% plant only diet.
I don’t think you read my post carefully. I said humans have teeth for both meat and plants. I didn’t say that humans aren’t omnivores. I just said (implicitly) that they are not obligate omnivores.
Proteins are not a concern, you can get all essential amino acids through only plant protein. Pretty much the only one that is hard to get enough of is B12. With real determination it can be done but it’s easier to just supplement. By the way, most omnis also do not get enough B12 and eat supplements either directly or through fortified foods. It’s just usually they are getting it through fortified milk which vegans don’t drink.
Milk is not typically fortified with B12. Plant based milk is more likely to be B12 fortified.
a plant based diet is completely healthy as long as you eat varied foods and don't try something stupid like subsisting on apples and dandelions.
There are world renowned athletes who are plant based...
The idea that a pure plant-based diet can't provide all the protein we need has been thoroughly debunked for a long time.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DMwf_9wqWY0&pp=ygUdc3RhbmZvcmQgc2NpZW50aXN0IG9uIHByb3RlaW4%3D
The nutrient you're thinking of is b12. Vegans need to supplement b12 (for now, discoveries are still being made on that front). But at the same time, in a sense, so does everyone else.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UUyiiNwDNLU&pp=ygUOZWQgd2ludGVycyBiMTI%3D
You don't need to supplement b12 if you eat meat unless you have health issues that cause malabsorption.
Not really, many many more people are B12 insufficient than there are vegans/vegetarians. And much of what B12 you get is because supplements are given...to the animals. See e.g. https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/carnivores-need-vitamin-b12-supplements/2013/10/30
My natural diet includes energy drinks, ensuring I have a nutritionally balanced intake that includes B12 :)
(I say this jokingly, but it is literally true)
Where I live, various vegan-targeted foods are fortified with B12, so it might be possible to get enough B12 that way without supplementing.
And going back to your main point, it's really just dubious to draw conclusions about what we are "meant" to eat based on the shape of our teeth. If all we're considering is health and history, it's not entirely accurate to say we're just omnivores. It's more like we are predominantly herbivores with some capacity for opportunistic omnivory in emergencies, but our ability to live on animal foods is rudimentary at best and comes at a high health cost. Also consider that from a Paleolithic standpoint, early humans would have been eating much more bugs as their protein, as that would have been far more abundant and easily gathered. Hunting is unreliable, and in most circumstances would have been a luxury at best (the book "Edible" goes into this).
Of course we also are becoming more intelligent, and have emerged the capacity for moral evolution. The paleo concept as a whole is ultimately just the argument from tradition fallacy. We can do better.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs&pp=ygUhcGFsZW9udG9sb2dpc3QgZGVidW5rcyBwYWxlbyBkaWV0
The paleo argument is about matching the environment of evolutionary adaptedness in diet, not tradition.
People seem to forget that human evolution started 3 billion years ago so our evolutionarily-adapted diet isn’t just “paleo”
Yeah one thing you notice about the ocean is the teeth are designed so if you catch something it can't get away. Look at anglerfish and baleen. White sharks have hundreds of teeth. Most omnivorous land mammals have teeth just like ours.
This is just a bad comparison, but it is funny.
The joke is making fun of people who call us carnivores, though. Our teeth are very different from land carnivores, as well.
I understand that, but my point was that we aren't carnivores at all, we are omnivores.
I am not vegan FWIW, I was just responding to the person who was saying that comparing us to sea carnivores was a bad comparison, when comparing us to land carnivores yields the same results. It seemed kind of like they missed the point of the joke which was to make fun of people who wrongly call us carnivores, especially as a response to veganism.
It was all kind of useless pedantry on my part, anyways, so I apologize.
•
Funny thing is, have You ever seen any human having this kind of teeth naturally? No? Good coz nobody has, maybe (just maybe) as replacements but that would be the really cheap ones.
Neither do cows but I've seen one too many slurp a Snake like spaghetti and eat baby birds as if they were KitKats
Aren't we also "just" animals as well though?
(Not defending either side, I just really dislike it when statements suggest we aren't also literally animals that somehow figured out to think slightly more than others...)
We are animals in a very literal sense, but justifying an immoral act because it's natural for animals to do it opens the door to justifying other immoral acts because animals do them. Humans are animals, but we're uniquely the only animals capable of choosing to act ethically.
Just because an animal does it doesn't mean it's okay for humans to do it
Then comparing human teeth to animal teeth is irrelevant no? Because what the animals do is irrelevant.
Don't kid yourself, Jimmy boi. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!
That depends on which humans and where. There are still plenty of tribes that live in areas where vegetation simply does not support their population. Luckily, humans evolved to be feed on more things than most things on the planet. We can eat plants, fungi, bugs, fish, etc.
So you're right. Humans don't need to kill animals. We can survive by killing just about any living thing on this planet. We can even eat things that would otherwise be super toxic to us by learning how to cook it, peel it, or skin it.
Pufferfish
develops one of the most lethal toxins in the animal kingdom
Humans
Oooh yummy!
Peppers
Develops a chemical that makes them taste like pain for mammals to make it more likely that birds will eat their fruit and spread it farther
Humans
Oooh, spicy! Let's grow lots of these and breed some to maximize that spice!
Peppers
Wait no--oh nm, I guess it's a surprise win.
Soon we’ll be able to produce all the meat we want without any conscious creatures involved
I would be a vegan but I just don't have the time or willpower.
I mean, the amount of time you have to spend bitching about other's dietary choices is exhausting.
I've considered being like A half vegan Like a vegan but I'll occasionally splurge at like events and restaurants
It's not really considered as admirable tho and is just frowned upon by both vegans and non vegans
What if you just did it without getting any credit. You don’t need others approval to make a positive change
I'm proud of you. You're doing something good even if you slip up. Me, I have decided to not go meat free.
You'll find outspoken people on both sides, but despite their words the world is not black and white. Do what you can, do what you feel is best. Any harm reduction is harm reduction and an all or nothing mentality isn't helping anyone anywhere.
I find vegan cooking to be easier, but I'm not a vegan and will eat meat at restaurants or if someone else cooks, or at least cuts the meat which is a total pain in the ass and leaves packaging that makes the garbage stink like nothing else.
The bitching is universal though. I used to take my dad's home cooked food to school and one that got the most questions was the spicy tofu and pork. I could call it literally 'tofu and pork' and people would ask if im vegan and if that's why I'm not muscular at all etc.
Veganism isn't a religion. It's a simple moral framework, a practical moral baseline, and a social movement like any other. Would you call a social justice, anti-genocide, or lgbtq+ rights advocate a religious zealot?
Suuure.
And not all social justice advocates treat it like a religion. But some do.
Also, trying to compare veganism, a system of belief, to genocide resistance and human rights is absurd to the point that it exactly makes my point.
There is no world in which fighting genocide is the same thing as avoiding animal products. None, no way, no how. The arrogance of your statement is so far beyond the usual responses my little troll statement gets that I'm outright flummoxed. I can't believe anyone would be that stupid, that arrogant, that ridiculous.
And that goes just as much for lgbt+ rights. You are outright absurd making that comparison.
And that absurdity is exactly why veganism is a religion to way too many vegans. Like, I'm not anti vegan, I know and love many, I just like getting online vegans riled up for entertainment. But you jumped the damn shark big time homie. That kind of thinking, that's why people that hate vegans hate them.
Man, I find it hard to not just start calling you names because damn, son.
Are you messing with me? Because I'm not in the mood to play games.
If you aren't, I'm afraid we're going to have issues unless we start from a different place.
What I wrote was: >...veganism, a system of belief...
Now, when written that way, the phrase "a system of belief" is being used to specify that that is what veganism is. And that's what it is.
If you don't know what veganism is, I would suggest you ask someone that doesn't troll vegans for a proper answer. Though, to be honest, veganism isn't a single, universally codified system. It's more like a general heading that includes a fairly wide range of what is and isn't "really vegan". So even asking vegans, you can get varied answers.
If you really want my quick and dirty synopsis of veganism, it comes down to two basic principles.
First, that animals must be treated in a way that would be completely without exploitation.
Second, that causing the death of an animal to serve the wants/needs of humans is a very specific and very "wrong" way of exploiting animals.
That's about the core of it. All the rest is essentially defining what is and isn't exploitation.
I'm sure a vegan would at least quibble over that over simplified explanation, but IDGAF, that's what it amounts to looking at it from the outside. A bunch of folks that have strong beliefs about how animals and humans should share the planet.
If you go digging into vegan writing on the ethics of a human/animal interactions, there are a lot of ways of expanding on that simplified version, but having read some of it when offered by vegans I know personally, in real life, I would say that my version is good enough for someone that's never seen the word before.
Now, veganism isn't exactly a unique thing in execution. Plenty of people around the world don't eat meat at all. And there's some of those that don't use animal products at all. But, they aren't necessarily Vegan. It isn't a central part of their identity. It comes down to cultural norms, poverty, availability, or some other factor than a specific belief about human/animal ethics.
Veganism as you'll see in English using forums is quite different from that because it has another central belief that you don't see in most of the writings about it. And that is why I use the specific troll that vegans are religious zealots. That other belief is that they're right and everyone else is wrong, period. And, much like zealots of other religions, the bad vegans will often treat other humans poorly when they don't agree with them.
There is only one TRUE BELIEF, and that is veganism.
That is a wee bit of hyperbole, of course. Not every vegan is an arrogant zealot. No more than any other belief based group. As I said, I have people in my life that are vegan, and I love them. I cherish them in my life. But they're not assholes :)
I cook vegan food for them. I even cook vegan for them when I'm already cooking "regular" food to feed a dozen or so people and they're the only vegan coming.
Anyway, that's not only what veganism is, but why the entire thread happened.
If that didn't answer your question, I'll try to do better.
If you were just trolling the troll, then I'll just let it go and hope you have a good day :)
i wasnt trolling, just that I was surprised that you called it a religious thing when it was just a silly meme about an anti-vegan talking point... at no point was there any kind of theism or superiority complex, it was just a funny joke... but you took a lot of time out of your day to write this so thank you. I'm vegetarian myself and am very well aware of what veganism is. What I didn't agree with is that it was a belief akin to a religion
Are you messing with me? Because I'm not in the mood to play games.
If you aren't, I'm afraid we're going to have issues unless we start from a different place.
What I wrote was: >...veganism, a system of belief...
Now, when written that way, the phrase "a system of belief" is being used to specify that that is what veganism is. And that's what it is.
If you don't know what veganism is, I would suggest you ask someone that doesn't troll vegans for a proper answer. Though, to be honest, veganism isn't a single, universally codified system. It's more like a general heading that includes a fairly wide range of what is and isn't "really vegan". So even asking vegans, you can get varied answers.
If you really want my quick and dirty synopsis of veganism, it comes down to two basic principles.
First, that animals must be treated in a way that would be completely without exploitation.
Second, that causing the death of an animal to serve the wants/needs of humans is a very specific and very "wrong" way of exploiting animals.
That's about the core of it. All the rest is essentially defining what is and isn't exploitation.
I'm sure a vegan would at least quibble over that over simplified explanation, but IDGAF, that's what it amounts to looking at it from the outside. A bunch of folks that have strong beliefs about how animals and humans should share the planet.
If you go digging into vegan writing on the ethics of a human/animal interactions, there are a lot of ways of expanding on that simplified version, but having read some of it when offered by vegans I know personally, in real life, I would say that my version is good enough for someone that's never seen the word before.
Now, veganism isn't exactly a unique thing in execution. Plenty of people around the world don't eat meat at all. And there's some of those that don't use animal products at all. But, they aren't necessarily Vegan. It isn't a central part of their identity. It comes down to cultural norms, poverty, availability, or some other factor than a specific belief about human/animal ethics.
Veganism as you'll see in English using forums is quite different from that because it has another central belief that you don't see in most of the writings about it. And that is why I use the specific troll that vegans are religious zealots. That other belief is that they're right and everyone else is wrong, period. And, much like zealots of other religions, the bad vegans will often treat other humans poorly when they don't agree with them.
There is only one TRUE BELIEF, and that is veganism.
That is a wee bit of hyperbole, of course. Not every vegan is an arrogant zealot. No more than any other belief based group. As I said, I have people in my life that are vegan, and I love them. I cherish them in my life. But they're not assholes :)
I cook vegan food for them. I even cook vegan for them when I'm already cooking "regular" food to feed a dozen or so people and they're the only vegan coming.
Anyway, that's not only what veganism is, but why the entire thread happened.
If that didn't answer your question, I'll try to do better.
If you were just trolling the troll, then I'll just let it go and hope you have a good day :)
My diet has been really deficient in leather jackets since becoming a vegan, at least I can still eat fruit leather.
You are completely ignoring the fact, that for many it is too time consuming and involved to go vegan. And then you are imposing your belief that others should invest the same amount of resources, be it time or money, or they are worse human beings not caring about animals. In other words, being able to switch your diet is usually a sign of at least slight financial privilege. I just had some tofu so you don't have to preach to me. But let others be and do not compare veganism to anti-genocide. It is absolutely ridiculous.
First off, I am not vegan or even vegetarian. But every time I eat meat I am very aware that I am doing this from a very hedonistic point. It is not necessary for either my health or survival, nor is it morally or ethically ok. It just is not. Trying to find anything other than I like how it tastes as an argument is futile. But again, I am saying this as a person who does eat meat, not daily, but regularly.
You are completely ignoring the fact, that for many it is too time consuming and involved to go vegan.
It is not time consuming. Instead of making noodles with minced meat and tomato sauce you make noodles with tomato sauce. You literally leave out one ingredient, that's it. Especially going vegetarian is literally a no brainer. If you aren't too anal about being vegan (trace amounts etc) this is also really not time consuming. You don't need to do fancy vegan recipes with sprouts or quinoa, this is the equivalent of cooking a beef wellington with truffle sauce for lunch. Even your walk through a supermarket is shorter because you don't need to go through the meat aisle.
And then you are imposing your belief that others should invest the same amount of resources, be it time or money, or they are worse human beings not caring about animals.
You and I are less caring about animals and the planet. Even if we buy organic free range meat, we know the carbon footprint. We know that an animal was scared before its life ended untimely and unnecessarily. Let's not fool ourselves here: It's not a belief. It is what it is. It is a choice to make but let's be clear: it is a choice. And as with every choice, it has consequences. Moneywise, I think I won't tell you anything new by pointing out that meat substitute products are expensive, but a plain vegetable based diet is not per se expensive. Although I am very baffled by how little meat can cost - but we are talking about the lowest standard meat here. A kg of free range chicken breast is 30€ where I live. I can't afford that every day for sure. And again, you don't have to buy fancy sprouts, pea protein sausages, quinoa and all that. Rice, a can of kidney beans fried with an onion, and some sauteed veggies are a full meal which will not cost more or is more difficult or time consuming to make than any meat dish. Hell there's even convenience food for vegetarians and vegans, which will - as all convenience products - cost more than if you prepared it yourself, but choose the resource you want to spend.
In other words, being able to switch your diet is usually a sign of at least slight financial privilege.
With a push to leave out meat, fish, and animal products, you are not being told to buy something. You are being told to leave something out. But I absolutely agree that if you are struggling to get by, then a kg of low quality chicken wings will get you fuller than a kg of bell peppers, which might also be more expensive. But the greatest majority of us - those not on food stamps or counting every penny - can absolutely afford to go vegan/vegetarian or at the very least leave out meat once in a while. Especially if you usually try to look for better quality meat (which is on the more expensive site) you can easily save money by leaving out meat.
I just had some tofu so you don't have to preach to me. But let others be and do not compare veganism to anti-genocide. It is absolutely ridiculous.
If anything, not eating meat is more effective and more directly effective on ecological movements than protesting will be on your country's (assumed by me) support of genocide. It's very easy compared to much more complex issues. There are a lot of problems in the world that cannot be compared well but are all very important. You can address one and the other.
There is evidence to suggest that low income households are more likely to be vegan or vegetarian than high income households. So financial privilege is not a good deflection. The reason so many vegans are not sympathetic to the argument about time or effort is that for the vast majority of them they have lived experience contradicting it so it comes across as an excuse. they are not spending any more time or mental effort to eat than anybody else. When you first make the switch maybe you spend 10% more effort to learn new recipes, what you buy or whatever, but it quickly becomes routine as any other dietary system.
(I say they because I don’t identify as vegan for a variety of reasons, but it does make it easier to have a conversation to use labels. I don’t advocate people become vegan, but I do advocate they try to reduce their animal product intake the best they can. In the rare circumstance that the best they can is nothing I don’t judge.)
To me It seems you are upset that people are putting you in a moral category below themselves and your reaction is to assume that means they are wrong. Firstly, don’t think of people as putting you below them morally, but putting your actions into less desirable outcomes. Also, sit with that. Should you feel uncomfortable? If so, what is an appropriate reaction to that discomfort?
I don’t think it’s productive to quibble about whether it’s comparable to human ethical questions, so no comment on the genocide. People have been in trouble in the past for making comparisons to Jim Crow or slavery. I don’t think it’s appropriate either, just as it would be inappropriate to argue whether Palestinian genocide or slavery was worse.
nonetheless, during any time of ethical or moral awakening, there were people complicit with status quo in those scenarios, maybe even sympathetic to some of the arguments but valued social order over progress, who were asked to confront their complicity and they blamed the people pointing this out as the judgy problem starters rather than addressing the root problem.
I have many friends which are vegan and we live in an area + work in an industry with a comparatively high amount of people with such a diet. We have talked about the topic at lengths, and my understanding is that in order to have a healthy diet you have to do quite a bit of research and spend time planning your meals. And then going out on a dinner is often a pain, although this has improved in the recent years.
We eat much less meat than the general public. But going the next step and eliminating meat and then diary products is not trivial. Unless you have less responsibilities and or more prior knowledge to get you up to speed. I simply do not have the time for that, I have a small kid to take care of. And we often struggle to plan enough meals ahead of time in the short period of time between finishing work and doing groceries.
It might sound like an excuse to you. It feels the same on my end, when my concerns are dismissed with some hand waving by people which usually are in a completely different place in their life than me.
The thing is, you could argue you need to do all that research to verify you’re eating enough of the right things, but in some sense you should be doing that regardless of whether your diet is vegan. But most people don’t bother, they just eat whatever and go to the doctor every once in a while and if there is a big gap somewhere the doctor will point it out. The lazy vegan diet is no more unbalanced than a lazy Omni diet. You can just not think about it, it’s not like you will immediately die if you are lacking in some nutrient. If you are supplementing with a multi vitamin or even just taking only B12 and iron, chances are you’re eating enough different kinds of things just by happenstance that you don’t even have to think about “complete proteins”.
If you only eat potatoes and Oreos then yeah you’ll have a bad time, but who is doing that? Do you count your carb, protein, fat intake? Daily caloric intake? Your lysine? Your riboflavin? Why don’t you? How are you so sure you’re getting enough already? Do you think vegans sit around counting that stuff too? I buy the usuals at the grocery store, I just make/eat whatever I feel like and have a couple weeks worth of recipes I rotate through same as everyone else, eat out once or twice a week at normal restaurants with vegan options. It’s not hard no matter how much you insist it should be.
When I hear its too hard my lived experience tells me it’s entirely possible to think about food the absolute minimum required, so it seems either like an excuse or ignorance.
The thing is, you could argue you need to do all that research to verify you’re eating enough of the right things, but in some sense you should be doing that regardless of whether your diet is vegan. But most people don’t bother, they just eat whatever and go to the doctor every once in a while and if there is a big gap somewhere the doctor will point it out. The lazy vegan diet is no more unbalanced than a lazy Omni diet. You can just not think about it, it’s not like you will immediately die if you are lacking in some nutrient. If you are supplementing with a multi vitamin or even just taking only B12 and iron, chances are you’re eating enough different kinds of things just by happenstance that you don’t even have to think about “complete proteins”.
If you only eat potatoes and Oreos then yeah you’ll have a bad time, but who is doing that? Do you count your carb, protein, fat intake? Daily caloric intake? Your lysine? Your riboflavin? Why don’t you? How are you so sure you’re getting enough already? Do you think vegans sit around counting that stuff too? I buy the usuals at the grocery store, I just make/eat whatever I feel like and have a couple weeks worth of recipes I rotate through same as everyone else, eat out once or twice a week at normal restaurants with vegan options. It’s not hard no matter how much you insist it should be.
When I hear its too hard my lived experience tells me it’s entirely possible to think about food the absolute minimum required, so it seems either like an excuse or ignorance.
Don't compare veganism to anti-genocide? My anointed sibling (gnostic gender-neutral idioms >> orthodox gendered ones), every animal product eater/user is complicit in the largest perpetual genocide in human history.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Hershaft
In the first place remember that veganism isn't only about diet. And it's about doing the best that you can, with what you have. Not everyone can go fully vegan, and that's understandable and okay as long as they're doing their best.
Also, I've never owned property. I've never worked a job that paid enough to afford it (or rent) on my own. When I started transitioning my diet, it was when I had switched jobs to a factory setting with 40-48 hour work weeks (post-covid it was almost always 48 hours), 10 hour shifts on my feet all day. Prior to that I was dependent on eating fast food every day (with predictable rapidly declining health). I also lived in a food desert where going vegan meant that I had zero options for takeout.
I had no one in my life willing to help, in fact all the people around me made it even harder to change. I also have adhd, and can't stand the concept of meal prep. So what I did was save up for an Instant Pot, and started making the largest batches of grains and legumes that I could, along with frozen veggies (mainly broccoli). I generally cooked only once a week, and then would combine the helpings of leftovers in different ways each day (to keep it from getting too boring) for both my work lunches and dinners.
And I also sought community. Having vegan friends helps immensely.
Don't assume that I'm as privileged as you think just because I'm vegan. On the other hand I know there are too many people who are far worse off than I am, and everyone who is struggling too much to go fully vegan should never be condemned, on the contrary we should seek to help - because our current food system is killing everyone who is most disadvantaged and impoverished.
Our capitalist wasteland, particularly when you factor in health outcomes, means it's even more important to at least go plant-based (not the same thing as veganism), and to help others do the same.
(Ignoring that our industrial animal-food system is probably a significant contributor to the vast extinctions we're causing, since animal ag is the leading cause of wild habitat destruction).
Would you feel better about the human genocides that occur, if the mass murderers were deliberately and forcibly breeding the victims into existence so they could continue the cycles of killing perpetually? Or is playing word games more important than recognizing the reality of what we are doing collectively?
i wouldn't feel any better about it, but it's not a genocide. if anyone is playing word games, is the person who insists on using the wrong word.
I feel like you missed the point at the detriment of people taking your position seriously. Words and their definitions are very important in communication and I feel like semantics is something that is very undeserving of the flippant treatment it routinely receives.
If someone were to accuse someone else of lying, this also comes with an accusation of intent. It isn't sufficient for someone's statement to be false to be a lie, there also needs to be intent to deceive. Intent to deceive implies that the liar at least knows what they're saying is untrue, and possibly implies they know what is actually true depending on the context. However, if there is no intent to deceive, it's usually a case of that person just being mistaken. How frustrating would it be for someone to be accused of lying when they say something they believe to be true? And how seriously should they take their accusers when not only being told their view of reality is incorrect, but also being informed that their own intent is malignant when stating something they believe is true?
So, when it comes to describing something as a genocide, you're also describing intent. If you tell people that they're killing animals with the intent to extinct them, they're probably not going to take you seriously. It's probably better to have someone tell you what their intentions are rather than just assuming you can slap a piece of paper saying "this is you" on a scarecrow before drop-kicking it.
If they act like a zealot, then yes. Most, like most vegans, are not zealots and we can have a great conversation. Your name gives me the feeling that a productive conversation might be difficult. But, I'll try my best. 😁
I chose my username to make fun of all the people who categorize vegans as militant anytime we speak out at all. It's to highlight that the only vegan who isn't seen that way is a vegan who stays silent and does nothing to speak out against the atrocities being committed against animals.
This is your take, from someone who defines themselves as militant? Lol.
It's absolutely a religion. One of the definitions of religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." The examples you mention are much less narrowly defined. And if they started persecuting people who don't join their specific method, then yes, they would be, too.
I mean, here you are proselytizing with poorly thought out memes. What's more religious than that?
If pursuing something ascribed supreme importance is a religion, then being a doctor is a religion. Doctors ascribe supreme importance to the value of human life and to saving it.
Then it is. Not all doctors do, but ones who do would certainly fall under that category.
You see doctors educating, not badly trying to shame people to, for example, not participate in sports.
You would agree, then, that making fun of anti-vax people is unjustified, hateful, and forcing the religion of medicine down people's throats?
Yes. Education works much better than mockery. Mocking people is for people who need to stroke their own egos. I'm confident in what I believe.
something else wikipedia agrees....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Diet
Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming a wide variety of plant and animal material. Human groups have adopted a range of diets from purely vegan to primarily carnivorous.
Human teeth also have sharp peaks and deeper valleys within them which is the case for the overwhelming majority of omnivorous creatures. Most obligate herbivores have flatter teeth or will regrow them unless they have teeth explicitly for a particular use case.
Source: You can check out scads of scientific resources on herbivores versus omnivore versus carnivore teeth. I assume you know how a search engine works, but here's a solid article on differences.
Also my sister has been one of the veterinary bigwigs at several zoos through her lifetime and we've had multiple discussions on it.
How is a blog a source? All you've given is anecdotal evidence. I have that too. Pandas, sharp teeth, claws, obligate herbivores. Gorillas, sharp teeth, big muscles, obligate herbivores.
I'm sure your sister is a fine veterinarian, and if we're going to get anecdotal I have a degree in biology and don't really care what opinion your sister has. I work for real medical doctors who are anti-vax. Someone's job doesn't make them sensible.
Errrr... are you looking for me to provide you a primary scientific source for how teeth work in animals with differing diets? Most of that is in veterinary texts (which is an amalgam of info), but it's akin to asking for a scientific evidence for gravity. What you're asking is too broad to be covered in a single paper and shows a misunderstanding of how scientific studies focus and function. I was simply giving you a primer since you asked, and that blog is good enough for that (and accurate from the portion I read).
I can point you at papers (such as this one on Tooth root morphology as an indicator for dietary specialization in carnivores) which can help explain part of how food selection works in evolution, but I'm not sure what level of information would satisfy you or why you'd even want it?
Here's one on how tooth wear affects teeth differently based on evolutionary eating habits.
Here's one on the development and evolution of teeth.
Here's one on mammalian teeth in specific.
If you'd like more, feel free to use https://scholar.google.com/ to look for more.
I don't have anything to add, but I want to take a moment to applaud your comment. Well done, truly.
I appreciate it! I mod !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca if you'd ever care to join us.
We try to disagree in good faith and not attack each other there.
I appreciate the effort given, especially on that last link 😅 However I'm not sure we're on the same page. I don't refute any of that. Of course an animal's tooth morphology can help deduce its diet, but it's far, far, from the only factor. Tooth morphology can also be a vestigial trait. Body parts don't just fall off when they stop being useful, like the human tailbone for example. Or the body part may serve a different purpose. In the example I've given of the panda bear and gorilla, the teeth are both, they evolved in their meat eating ancestors AND they help tear apart the plants they eat. In fact this is true for almost all mammals, and your sister should be able to back this up, as does the Wikipedia article thrown at me earlier. Meat eating animals have broad flat molars in the back of their mouth. Herbivorous mammals have sharp incisors to help tear apart plant matter.
So yeah, we may have a couple of sharpish teeth, a characteristic we share with most herbivorous mammals. We have a whole lot of other herbivore characteristics as well.
Are human beings herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores?
Although most of us conduct our lives as omnivores, in that we eat flesh as well as vegetables and fruits, human beings have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores (2). The appendages of carnivores are claws; those of herbivores are hands or hooves. The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores are mainly flat (for grinding). The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (12 times body length). Body cooling of carnivores is done by panting; herbivores, by sweating. Carnivores drink fluids by lapping; herbivores, by sipping. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C, whereas herbivores obtain it from their diet. Thus, humans have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/
The expert I feel expresses my point well enough but the whole article is worth reading. You should send it to your sister and discuss it. :)
That paper is not really a source, it's a literature review. That's not inherently bad, but essentially all it does is pull things in from other (if you check, quite outdated by nearly 60 years, which is a lot, ESPECIALLY for biology) articles and say "... and therefore this other thing may be true." It's essentially philosophizing.
The paper neither invalidate nor proves anything, it simply makes a loose connection to a strange claim.
The author is correct that we do have characteristics of herbivores. However that is not something anyone was questioning; that's literally one of the requirements for being an omnivore. We also have characteristics of carnivores. And even obligate carnivores will often have some characteristics of herbivores due to evolutionary holdovers.
The paper is, essentially, saying nothing of value.
•
Seeing as how we hunted multiple mega fauna to extinction, I'm gonna go ahead and say that humans have been eating meat for a very long time. Also there's shit tons of archeological evidence for our omnivorous diet going back hundreds of thousands of years, but... whatever.
I will never understand why people feel the need to try and prove humans are supposed to be herbivores. Who gives a fuck? There's ample evidence that your can eat a healthy vegan diet, who gives a shit about "supposed to" if you can eat vegan either way?
Obligate. You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In all seriousness, pandas are still bears and can/do eat meat on occasion. Gorillas regularly eat insects and larva, digging up termite and ant nests. Our closest cousins the chimps are not only fully omnivorous, but are accomplished predators. Most herbivores (like ungulates, bovines, etc) will not pass up the opportunity to eat carrion, baby birds, small rodents, and the like.
Cool source (the second one, the first one fucking sucks I hate it 😁). According to it all mammals have canines, even and especially herbivores. The sabre-tooth water deer for example, cited in your source, has extremely pronounced canines. Still a herbivore. Next!
Downvote if you can't refute!
I didn't even take a stance on what the teeth mean for diet. I was just correcting you lol.
I mean the source you provided literally says the bottom canines are less pointy and pronounced than the top set, especially in humans, so I don't feel very corrected? You keep at it though, I believe in you!
the fact that I can digest meat at all suggests that I am an omnivore
it is wonderful that you are vegan but please shut the fuck up trying to pretend that it is humanity's natural state
Okay I won't pretend.
I'll cite factual studies instead.
"Are human beings herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Although most of us conduct our lives as omnivores, in that we eat flesh as well as vegetables and fruits, human beings have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores (2). The appendages of carnivores are claws; those of herbivores are hands or hooves. The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores are mainly flat (for grinding). The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (12 times body length). Body cooling of carnivores is done by panting; herbivores, by sweating. Carnivores drink fluids by lapping; herbivores, by sipping. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C, whereas herbivores obtain it from their diet. Thus, humans have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores."
Anyway if you want to pretend that the current factory farm hellscape is humanitie's natural state, you go ahead because unlike you I have a philosophy of live and let live.
According to it all mammals have canines, even and especially herbivores
Such as this herbivore? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg2mJ4veuAY
Flat teeth, ate meat.
Panda: sharp teeth, eats plants.
Almost like your argument falls apart at the slightest bit of scrutiny. Anyway
You guys are so funny! Okay so FOUR semi-pointy teeth absolutely makes us omnivores I CANNOT believe what an idiot I've been!
i didnt know teeth was the only factor in if you are carnivore or omnivore or whatever. i thought it was the fact that humans have eaten both meat and plants for as long as humans have been around
They’re part of the “If I’m doing nothing then I’m part of the problem” crowd.
Otherwise known as “moralizing busybodies”
People who mentioned veganism: Just you, Bud.
Downvote if you're secretly attracted to your own dad.
- Spin up your own instance
- Set up a bunch of bot accounts to spam downvotes at people that post inflammatory garbage on popular communities
- We all profit
I'm sorry, my reply is inflammatory garbage? Not the person calling out vegans in a comment under a meme? Yeah, okay.
Here, take mine since I'm not attracted to my dad. 🤣 (I applied it for you to the other guy... Maybe I am attracted to my dead dad- I do eat meat and that's obscene according to these vegans)
Did you try just hitting downvote again? 😅
So, I didn't see OPs username. I heretofore concede that someone did mention it. I hope in time we can both take what we learned from this experience and incorporate it into our respective journeys. More importantly I hope this hasn't permanently damaged our relationship. I'd hate to lose what we had.
•
That paper is making some absolutely ridiculously unscientific comparisons, and immediately ignores the existence of omnivores after flatly stating that most people eat an obvious diet. It's absolute trash.
I do concede there's better sources to be found than the one I've provided. However I'm not convinced the effort would be worthwhile when everyone hates you just for questioning societal norms such as the mass incarceration and slaughter of sentient beings. The information is out there, personally I think I'm done with the abusive, downright mean DMs and replies. I tried good faith arguments, humor, matching energy, I realize it's frivolous. People believe what they want to believe and feel attacked when you tell them different. Adam Conover taught me that and I'll always hate him for it.
those of herbivores are hands or hooves
And then it just completely goes downhill from here... Show me a single fucking herbivore that has hands. 👎
Also you realize it's possible that creatures can evolve into omnivores from prolong environmental pressure, right? Are you not familiar with evolution? Did you sleep through life science?
Also, you realize that from that same exact source there are thousands of papers and studies contradicting that paper. You might as well become a farmer with how well you pick cherries.
Show me a single fucking herbivore that has hands.
I mean pandas and gorillas have already been mentioned. Koalas. A quick search turns up tons of new and old world monkeys. So I guess lots of fucking herbivores have hands. 👍
Also you realize it's possible that creatures can evolve into omnivores from prolong environmental pressure, right?
I mean, of course. Would you be willing to concede that herbivorous traits could be selected for over time due to the same factors?
You might as well become a farmer with how well you pick cherries.
That was a pretty sick burn, ngl!
We aren’t carnivores, we are omnivores. An advantage that surely allowed the growth of our brains and allowed us to become the dominant species in the planet.
Our teeth our designed in a way to both rip/tear meat and also grind up plants.
It is great that some sector of the population can be vegetarian or vegan, but it isn’t a realistic option if everyone did so. Farming is destroying hundred of thousands of acres of land every year. Keeping up with a plant-based only diet for 8 billion people isn’t feasible with the current technology and farming practices of today.
Raising animals consumes even more resources because first you have to grow plants to feed to the aninals.
While in general you're right, you're neglecting the fact that theres plenty of land that is suitable for raising animals which isn't suitable for farming. Specifically: The Norwegian population would have been incapable of surviving historically without a bunch livestock living in the un-farmable mountains most of the year.
This is an interesting edge case you're presenting, but it's not representative of the overwhelming majority of agricultural land devoted to livestock, and it's been largely solved by modern supply chains and distribution.
•
That's not an edge case, plenty of countries have little to no arable land. Scotland and Japan have around 10% of arable land, New Zealand has 2%. Growing veggies is a luxury, especially in northern parts of the world.
Yes, but shipping veggies has negligible GHG emissions compared to livestock farming. You're hung up on a small fraction of livestock production when the vast majority is factory farmed.
We are always working at solving problems. Right now the world is trying to figure out how to have its meat and eat it too, and spending all of our energy and money on that.
If we decided the problem was figuring out how to grow plants in those conditions, I bet you'd find we would improve that too.
Take a look at a map of Norway. If you find a way of growing crops on rocks that are dozens of kilometres from the nearest road, and covered in snow 8/12 months a year, please let me know.
Well you'd have to make exceptions for those that can't have their food shipped from better climates and also can't grow their own food. I'd imagine those peoples lives wouldn't change much from now were the rest of the world to stop eating meat.
Everyone who has the ability to avoid eating meat, should. Bringing up exceptions doesnt negate that position, its built in.
Which is why I said "in general, you're right". However, that doesn't take away the fact that most livestock from some countries is primarily raised on land that can't be farmed.
Speaking of supply chains: We could do the math on whether shipping a vegetable-based calorie from Brazil to Norway is more or less of an environmental burden than a meat-based calorie produced in Norway.
Did you read the text on that graphic?
... land conversion for grazing and feed ...
I'm not talking about meat production in general (which I think should be minimised), I'm specifically talking about meat production from land that is not viable for other uses.
This was exactly my point: I'm legitimately interested in how that graphic looks if you consider meat produced on land that cannot be used for other types of agriculture, and which is local so that transportation is a negligible cost, and feed production is close to non-existent, because the livestock primarily lives off the land.
Why are you bringing up historical facts? Noones planning to go back in time to make people vegan earlier.
We are talking about now, and right now, could those Scandinavian countries get by with substantially less meat? I'm not sure but quite a few of them are trying limited promotions like a vegan day of the week to promote health.
Meat is not good for us in large amounts, people need to understand that. They seem to with fish, just apply that to the other meat too, just it kills you slower than mercury poisoning would.
I've seen an operation where someone grew a small food forest on 12 inches of manure spread on an abandoned parking lot, in the midwest.
The idea of what land is suitable for crop use is likely based on what's suitable for industrial monoculture, a highly inflexible cookie-cutter system, which is a problem in and of itself.
I agree, and I'm most interested in what innovations we can come up with in as people start to care more and more about their health and diet, and learn that animals and humans deserve respect no matter how far away they are.
Point being that there is land that is capable of raising livestock and not crops. If you broaden the number of people eating exclusively plants, you need more farmable land, and while that may be possible in the long run, it's not without some significant change. A more practical solution is to reduce where possible, and make slow changes that don't completely uproot ways of life.
I'm not bringing up the state of access to agricultural land as some historical trivia. It's just as true today as ever before.
The point is that plenty of countries/regions cannot be self-sufficient regarding food production without resorting to livestock. There are several reasons to be, at least in part, self-sufficient. From environmental considerations arising from the transport of food from other places, to food security in the case that conflict or crisis strikes the region supplying you with food, a region which you don't control.
Stop acting like this is black and white, and that there's absolutely no reason a country would want the capability of providing for its own people, as if that's a thing of the past.
I never argued each could try should be self-sufficient. Globalism has made it so most people are capable of eating vegan diets, should they choose to. Countries depending on each other to trade food is fine by me, most western countries do this already.
We also dont need to keep growing the human population globally the way we have been, its alright to slow down and figure out how to take care of the people (and animals) that already exist.
You are the one acting like its black and white, saying its either a ban or not at all. Exceptions will need to be made for many reasons were this to be implemented today: for those who can't grow or ship their food in, for those that have to deal with the environmental considerations you mentioned, or those with any number of medical conditions that affect nutrition and diet.
If the self-sufficiency thing is so important to you, can you tell me which countries currently meet that label? Is it most countries? How are the self sufficient countries doing overall?
It seems like you've misunderstood what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that
A) There are legitimate reasons for a country to want to have some degree of self-sufficiency.
B) The environmental impact of producing meat is hugely different depending on how the livestock gets its food, and the environmental impact of transporting goods cannot be neglected.
C) There are countries with terrain suitable for livestock that cannot be used for farming.
Of course: Almost no countries are, or need to be, 100% self-sufficient, because we have trade, but there is a huge difference between 10% and 50% self-sufficiency. If we are to cut out meat entirely, many places would be incapable of maintaining any notable degree of self-sufficiency.
With you third paragraph, it seems like you actually agree with me. I don't know how you got from me saying "there are legitimate reasons to produce meat", to me saying this is a black and white issue. I'm explicitly trying to say that it's not black and white, both because of self-sufficiency arguments, and because of the environmental cost of transportation. Thus, we need a nuanced approach. This means that we should minimise (or eliminate) the use of farmland for livestock production, without condemning livestock production as a whole, because there are legitimate reasons to have livestock, as argued above.
I think the only disagreement I have is that I think we do need to condemn it as a whole, and set the ultimate goal of abolishing the practice. We can still compromise on the way there. I think this is a problem we could solve if we could agree on the goal, although its most important we are heading in the right direction regardless of the end goal.
You think it was a default option to export avocados from South America to Sweden?
It's strange believing we can't live how we lived for thousands of years because we changed our habits the past 300. Explosive human growth is not a necessity for human life. It's a necessity for capitalism to thrive.
Of course: if we just let a significant portion of the human population starve to death THAT will result in us living ethically!
The question of how much energy is used to feed people. Is it more energy efficient to grow an avocado to ship it to sweden, or raise a cow in sweden?
in case you actually want to know the answer:
it's the avocado being shipped. and by, like, a mile and a half. it's not even close.
raising cattle is the single most energy, water, and CO2 intensive food production there currently is.
Farm animals are generally not anymore fed by grazing, but rather from crops that have been grown on farm land. The animals use up energy to sustain their own life, so eating the plants directly is actually more efficient.
Here's a random source, for example: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
On a cow-calf operation, which is where most beef production starts, a typical cow will graze and/or eat hay for about 12 years while breeding, then get slaughtered pretty much the day they're shipped because they aren't worth fattening at that age, they're just going to ground beef.
The culls (mid-life cows, failed to get pregnant) might see a couple months of their at least 36 month existence on grain before slaughter. Older ones might just go straight to slaughter.
Steers and cull heifers (which is most of what gets used for choice cuts like steak) typically see about 14 months typically on pasture and silage/grain being backgrounded on farm, then about 3 months being intensively fed in a feedlot at up to 80% ration before slaughter.
So, by far, the largest proportion of feeding of most cattle is by grazing or stored forage as part of the backgrounding process. It's only when they enter the feedlot that it becomes a grain-intense operation, and that part of the production is very short because feedlots don't make money feeding cows from calf-age to slaughter.
Also, many larger cow-calfs will also hold on to steers and push them, selling them as "fats", which sees much less intense feedlot experience. This isn't a huge proportion of the final months of most steers, but is still an appreciable proportion of the market.
The stockyards of Kansas aren't the typical beef production scenario. They're just very visible.
This is a good infographic because:
- It uses the graphic medium to convey information that requires graphics (the ratios of land space and how the categories relate down the list) (lots of infographics could just be a bullet list or a paragraph without any information lost; this one actually utilizes the graphical medium
- It lists its data source
You are spreading misinformation. Veganism requires vastly less land and water resources. Type “land use food calculator” into google
None of what I said was misinformation. Turning everyone vegan doesn’t resolve factory farming crops. Chemicals to ensure we can actually grow food, monocultures that are terrible for the environment, limitations of where things can grow.
I’m all for reducing meat consumption, but the utopian world where everyone is vegan has many hurdles to overcome that aren’t just magically resolved. Sure, right now we might be able to reduce land usage for farming, but that is one small aspect of commercial farming under capitalism.
How do people afford food when they don’t live in a place that can grow it? How do we ensure we can continue to grow food when we are so dependent on chemicals to do so? How does a developing country support agriculture without the huge subsidies currently required in developed nations? How do you educate 8 billion people on how to properly get the nutrients they need from new sources of food? How do convince society that GMOs aren’t bad?
These are rhetorical, but moving to veganism requires us to think about these types of things before claiming “but less farm land”
They didnt say everyone needed to be vegan, just that being vegan become the norm. There will always be edge cases, and people can do whatever they want in the wild of course.
We can push forward and try to figure out how to slaughter even more despite all the problems that are coming with increased line speeds, or we can choose a different direction and tackle those problems.
Noone said the solution was perfect, just better. Are you afraid of improving yourself?
How do people afford food when they don’t live in a place that can grow it? How do we ensure we can continue to grow food when we are so dependent on chemicals to do so? How does a developing country support agriculture without the huge subsidies currently required in developed nations? How do you educate 8 billion people on how to properly get the nutrients they need from new sources of food? How do convince society that GMOs aren’t bad?
Almost all of those are just straight up the same problems that already exist in the current system though?
Except people who can eat animals can live off fishing and hunting, in places where they can’t grow food.
Also, I think he was making some point about food staying cheap enough so people can buy it even if they don’t produce it, but I’m not sure what factor is being expected to make food more expensive.
And do you have plans to resolve them? I didn’t just make that all up to make veganism sound bad. They are realities that need to be dealt with if we made the ethical decision to not consume animal products anymore. With 80% of the grocery store, currently, relying on animal products, how do we replace them? With agriculture. Those problems now only don’t go away, they get exacerbated. Not to mention all of the pollinator populations dwindling.
I don’t have the solutions, I’m just some fucking guy. But if we don’t want more and more people suffering while reducing or removing animal products from our diets, we would have to take many steps before doing so.
And the person who posted this meme is called “MilitantVegan” and straight up doesn’t seem to understand human evolution or science. I’ve only said things that are true, or what my opinion is based on that truth. It might not be great, it might not be true in 50 years, but just watch a documentary on modern agriculture and you will see that these things are our reality. We farm the soil until it becomes barren, and fix it with pesticides and fertilizers for the sake of commercialization. We can’t keep cutting down natural habitats in the search of usable soil to replace those things without completely ruining the lives of animals…the goal of reducing or eliminating the use of animal products.
They are realities that need to be dealt with
if we made the ethical decision to not consume animal products anymore.
Ftfy
It's kind of just whataboutism. I don't really have a horse in this race, but I find it somewhat unlikely that most reasonable people are suggesting every human immediately stop eating animal products forever. A transition to a world where people eat less of them doesn't need us to figure out how to feed the people of Longyearbyen right now.
I’m not sure if you just aren't aware or are being intentionally obtuse, but that isn’t what keeps the soil healthy or enables plants to grow. Have you grown plants ever?
Sure, photosynthesis takes in CO2 and sunlight and converts that into sugars, but plants need much more than that from the soil and water, which we have to add using modern agriculture.
Growing food on the scale to feed our population now requires crop rotations, fallow fields, nitrogen, phosphates, potash, insecticides, and billions of dollars in agricultural subsidies. You can grow a field of crops once or twice before adding all of the fertilizers and pesticides, but any amount of regular farming requires much much much more than CO2.
I’m familiar with agriculture, having gone to school, read books, and grown plants.
It seems that you are the one being intentionally obtuse. You and I both know that carbon dioxide is kept elevated in greenhouses on purpose because doing so increases the yield of plants grown in those greenhouses.
Yes, other chemicals are necessary to build a plant. The most abundant one however is carbon dioxide. It’s where like 99% of the plant’s mass comes from. And the levels of carbon dioxide in the air change the rate of plant growth.
Nitrogen is also a big limiting factor, but fortunately we’ve found out how to extract nitrogen from the air efficiently using methane, so we can have enough nitrogen fertilizer to feed everyone.
Veganism requires vastly less land and water resources
This too can cause misinformation.
Supporting a vegetarian diet requires less land and water resources.
Veganism requires the overuse of pesticides to the point that it makes the soil become unusable faster and hence needs higher treatment upkeep, essentially causing faster consumption of the limited energy resources we have.
You are spreading misinformation.
You were correct until here, but the land use food calculator will actually only be giving information pertaining to a normal (non-vegan) crop.
What you are missing here is that we wouldn’t need to grow more food than we do now, we would need to grow less. Whatever issue you can point at for growing enough plants to feed the world, we’re already dealing with now. We already grow enough plant based calories to feed the world over, we just feed it to cows and other livestock. We would need to use less pesticides (not to mention antibiotics) even if everyone was vegan.
You are also narrowing in on obscure edge cases. As others have pointed out not all problems need to be solved and not all people need to adopt a vegan diet for us to make progress towards sustainability. It would be like worrying about the grid and battery technology and strip mining required to create solar panels etc. in the transition to renewable energy. worthy causes for sure but not justification to keep using fossil fuels.
And people don’t even have to change their moral judgment in the case of doing it for climate reasons. They are free to keep believing however they do. Though I suspect that once people stop eating meat for pragmatic reasons the motivated reasoning behind their moral judgment will collapse.
What I am putting up there, is that, stopping meat is not the problem.
The problem arises with using the veganism buzzword, which will make people think that paying those who advertise vegan stuff would make anything better.
It would most definitely make it worse than whole vegetarian (which includes putting up with the insects and worms that come during farming) and might even end up being as much of a burden as the meat industry.
People will think they are doing better, while not actually doing better, which is worse than the status quo.
Veganism requires the overuse of pesticides
What makes you think that? Why would growing grain for humans require more pesticides than growing grain for animals, for example?
Why would growing grain for humans require more pesticides than growing grain for animals
Growing grain for the vegan brand will require more pesticides. It's as if noone is really reading.
•
We have plenty of countries like New Zealand and Scotland which barely have any arable land and yet animal farming is allowing them to sustain much bigger populations than they could otherwise and even export meat elsewhere.
Literally impossible, due to energy/biomass transfer up the food chain. The bottom will always be the most efficient.
Most meat eaters are not eating meat that feed on grass. Mostly it’s corn and wheat which humans can eat. If we even made the simple change that banned meat consumption of non grass fed cows that would mitigate 90% of the issue. Also beef will cost like $100 a pound, so
•
What do you mean most? There's no corn/wheat fed meat in Europe. And pretty much anywhere else except for US. Growing special food for animals when you have shitloads of free grass is dumb.
The use of corn-based feed for animals seems to be a universal trend. In Europe it's done less than in the US, but it's an option everywhere and driven by prices. And those prices do not consider the CO2 cost to the ecosystem.
https://www.dairyherd.com/news/european-cows-eat-more-foreign-corn-global-glut-erodes-price
Farming in of itself isn't the problem, rather the process. Too many shortcuts and foreign substances, at least in the U.S.
Amazing, you managed to pack so much patently false bullshit into so few words. Elegant.
Says the person who posted a meme showing sharks with human teeth as an argument against meat consumption.
Well since they were trying to stoke conversation, and you are conversating now, seems like it worked just fine.
•
what a stupid meme. it's almost like sharks don't have arms and hands so they rely on their jaws more than we do. wow look we don't have compartments in our stomach, we must not be fit to eat plants.
Is this an argument that humans did not evolve to eat meat? Because those teeth... Well let's just say the teeth shown aren't what you expect from an herbivore now, is it? Put those on a cow and they would look just as strange.
Nah, it's just mocking the people who claim humans have to eat meat, because evolution/god/whatever gave us teeth to chew meat.
It is correct that our teeth do allow chewing meat (since we are omnivores), but yeah, taking the teeth as basis for any argumentation, that's just ridiculous.
They can be an indicator whether we might be carnivore, herbivore or omnivore. But the actual digestion is what counts. And particularly, the categorization into "omnivore" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Some omnivores might genuinely need to eat both categories. We happen to not need that.
Vegans who actually believe what they preach spend more time on education and less on shaming or meaningless memes.
This is just posturing.
I think you're hitting on an interesting concept with regards to activism: that it can be categorized into actions that raise awareness, and actions that provide education.
Take, for example, this story about climate activists blocking traffic in Amsterdam to protest ING's financing of fossil fuels exploration. Though you may disagree with the methods used in the protest, it's hard to deny the success of it based on the national attention it drew. Because of it, more people who are opposed to the idea of expanding fossil fuel use are aware of ING's funding of it.
I think very few people would say that they are now in favor of fossil fuel exploration, or simply do not care to learn more about environmentalism due to the controversial actions of the protesters.
I suppose my question for you is, what would have made you want to seek more information about veganism, and what about this post made you suddenly not want to lean more?
There's a pretty big gap "making it on the news to raise awareness for your cause" and "mastabatory shitposting on social media"
dude isn't sneaking video evidence of wrongdoing out of a factory farm... just photoshopping bad dentures on sharks.
I agree that any movement needs both friendly and provocative advocacy to affect change, but the only thing these types of posts accomplish is helping OP feel superior.
I can tell you what has led me towards veganism: Friends who knew how to make amazing vegan food. Knowing how to do it economically. Understanding the nutrition concerns and how to work around them. Access to good ingredients. Ways to slowly eat more vegan without rigidly jumping into it. Seeing the environmental impact. Seeing how animals are typically raised and slaughtered. Growing my own veggies and/ or participating in community gardens, etc.
I said I didn't want to learn more about OP or their perspective. Personally, I already know quite a bit about how to eat vegan... which isn't, by the way, the same thing as veganism.
Calling this activism is a stretch at best.
This is the way. Slow, incremental changes that are sustainable. It's how you change your life, it's how we've changed society. Nothing happens overnight. Going from eating meat daily to having a vegetarian night a week is a win, celebrate it.
Pretty much. The idea that there's any species that is purely an herbivore just isn't born out in nature.
All generalizations are incorrect.
Pandas and gorillas have plenty of opportunity and are still obligate herbivores.
But gorillas do eat some bugs. Their diet is mostly plant-based and that's why they are classified as herbivores.
Our canine teeth are pretty shark-like. Not all of our teeth are that way though. So going by our teeth, I think we're omnivores.
But... who ever says that? I've never heard of this idea presented as evidence for why we should eat meat.