Veganism

Great Debates
141

Blake, when you eat things, they go into your body. Some of the things you ate come out, and some stay in. The things that stay in can lead to you gaining weight. Hence, the relevance of the correlation.

Hopefully by the time they develop edible cell phones, you’ll have realized how silly this last post of yours was.

What we should notice, through all these facts, is that (cell phones or not) affluent nations have higher rathes of heart disease and cancer. They also consume much, much more meat than less wealthy nations.

Not that his has anything to do with the OP.

Best,

TGD

142

No, DrDeth, it’s perfectly clear. Eating meat does have a far greater impact on the environment than eating an equivalent vegan diet. You’re playing devil’s advocate, and also playing that highly annoying “your links and cites aren’t good enough for me” game.

If you just use a little common sense, it’s really quite obvious:

*Vegetable farmers do not burn down large chunks of rainforest to raise veggies.

*Plants do not poo.

*Plants do not fart.

*Plants do not need to be injected with steroids and hormones, and therefore those steroids and hormones do not get released into human and wildlife food chains

*The UK did not need to paint blue and kill ridiculously large number of vegetables, to stop the spread of a disgusting meat-borne disease

*It takes much more water and energy to produce a pound of meat than a pound of vegetables

*Go smell a nice pig factory town in Iowa

But, on the other hand, I could be wrong. All this animal farming leads to cheap meat for lucky rich countries. All that meat leads to general unhealthiness, which leads to premature death. Less big fat consumers is better for the environment than more big fat consumers.

143

  1. Ranchers don’t need to plow and thus destroy vast areas of grasslands- note the “dustbowl”.

  2. Cows don’t need to be sprayed with herbicides

  3. Cows don’t need to be sprayed with chemical fertilizers.

  4. Altho there is some use of pesicides in ranching, there is not the wholescale use of them as in farming. Remember DDT?

  5. Yes, true- plants don’t spread diseases to humans. What effect does “mad cow” have on the environment ?

  6. Prove it. Then, you also have to show what the source of the water is. Water from irrigation (cows are not irrigated) damages the environment- rainfall doesn’t.

  7. Go live in Bakersfield in the fall, when they spray the cotton fields with herbicides.

Look- dudes made an “extraordinary claim” - and now I have asked them to “back it up” with cites- that’s how we do things in GD. So far, the cites have not in any way shape or form shown that animal husbandry isoverall more damaging to the enviroment than farming is. It’s not that the “links & cites aren;t good enough for me”- they aren’t good enough for anyone. Well- at least the few that Daniel tried to use to prove his “that eating meat has a far greater impact on the environment than eating an equivilant vegan diet” claim. Other cites have been good, and proved other points.

Hell, dude- even Brendan seems to agree it isn’t obvious, and it seems to be hard to prove by cites. However, I’ll grant that he seems to be working hard on it, and coming up with good links and valuable input. But let us ask him- Brendan- has your research shown yet that the claim above is “obvious”? Do you think the links so far provided have proved it is “obvious”? I am going to guess the answer will be no. Now- note that Brendan is coming up with some pretty good shit, and I am “worried” he’ll prove the “extraordinary claim”- but so far- he hasn’t.

Umm, yes- Brendan- you are likely right about adding in Dairy. If one does so, then the scales get tipped towards vegetarianism. I will admit that dairy is more effective a source of protien than meat. But Vegans distain dairy also, and the PETAites claim Dairy is also bad for the environment.

144

DrDeth, considering your non-arguments and semantic tricks, I’m bowing out of further discussion on this point with you. Take it as a win if you’d like; I submit you’re arguing disingenuously, something I can’t stand.

Daniel

145

When, oh, when will we do away with this inane, poorly thought-out comparison? I hear this over and over. Vegetarianism may have a lot of reasonable arguements going for it, but this certainly isn’t one.

The water that animals drink doesn’t just magically disappear after it is consumed, it is returned to the environment.

The calories these animals consume don’t turn into just meat, most of it also is returned to the nutrient cycle in the form of manure.

What would sustain a person longer, a pound of beef, or a pound of arbitrary vegetables?

Plus, I’d like to see you dip your moldboard into lots of productive pasture around here to grow vegetables. You’d be farming rocks, eroding soil, and choking nearby streams.

And, again, monoculture versus pasture.

Best,
Dev

146

Daniel- do what you will. The point is- several posters here- Brendan, the Great Dalmuti, and yourself- made a claim that eating vegan is better for the environment than eating omnivore. This is a claim that PETA makes- and they have failed to back it up except with factiods that show either that “Animal husbandry damages the environment” which no one denies- or that compare apples to oranges, such as that “pigs shit more than broccoli”- or sound alarming, but are essentally meaningless in terms of environmental damage “it take a whole bunch more water to make a steak than a cauliflower”. Animal husbandry DOES damage the environment- but does it do so a lot more than farming- which is also damaging the environment?

Now, I made another point- that cattle are not fed the kind of grain you & I eat, and that such forage is grown on second rate land. The first was ageed to by Brendan and is a well known fact. Note that I suppose one could eat feed corn, or Sorghum- it isn’t poison. But it contains a lot of roughage we can’t digest, and would not be tasty. And, yes- the second rate land that these feed crops are grown on are not restricted to only feed crops- it just makes economic sense. These crops are developed to grow on second rate land, without a lot of care or irrigation. They give up such things are tastiness & appearance, too. I am sure Brendan & Dev could back me up on this. Thus, if you were under some impression that I was claiming that these second rate lands COULD ONLY be used for feed crops- I apologize. They can be used to grow human food- it just often isn’t economical. And the yeild would be far less.

I also pointed out that cattle are grazed upon land that is completly unsuitable for agriculture- much of it is National Forest & other government land. But when you add these two facts together it points out that- although yes- cattle are the next step up on the food chain- and whenever you take that step you will lose effeciancy. But we are not suited to eat what cattle eat- they are not feed prime grain- or broccoli. They eat byproducts of our food, stuff grown especially for them- and grass, which we cannot convert to Kcal. However, that point I made isn’t critical to the main arguement of “how much damage a meat diet does to the environment compared to a vegan diet”.

Sure, animal waste can damage the environment- it can also be used as good organic fertilizer (which is where most of thr fertilizer for organic farms comes from). However, farming also used herbicides, pesticides & chemical fertilizers all of which can damage the environment. And- if you simply compare how much damage that cow poop does compared to broccoli poop- you’ll get a meaningless figure. Indeed, what you need to do is factor in the “cow poop”- and the possible effects of overgrazing- and a hundred other things that animal husbandry does that is bad for the environment- and compare that damage to the herbicides, pesticides, tillage, chemical fertilizer run-off and another hundred or so things that farming does to damage the environment.

I really don’t think that such a study has or can be done. It is too big, and there are too many variables. And, I have conceded here that I would not be surprised that if they DID such a study- Animal husbandry would be slightly worse than farming. But I doubt if it is FAR worse. And so far- no one had proven other wise. (and note, I had this exact same arguement on two other , with dudes who got their 'facts" from PETA site etc- and no one was able to back up this claim. It is simply a “fact” that PETA bandies about, and since it sounds good, dudes have taken to saying it like it is a known fact like the Earth going around the sun). So- no one has yet proved that “eating vegan is better for the Earth”- and I don’t think they will or can. And that’s the point.

However- especially it is NOT “clear”. It NOT a “given”. And most certaintly it is NOT a claim that can be bandied about here in GD without being called to account on it. Daniel- you bandied it about- and I called you to back it up. I am sorry if you feel that is- a “non- arguement” a 'semantic trick" or “disingenuous”. You- and Brendan, and Dalmuti and PETA have made the claim. I asked that the claim be backed up. It hasn’t, and I doubt it will be.

147

The link remains just as spurious, the correlation just as hasty.

You implied that because there is a correlation between meat content in the diet and heart disease/obesity this supported your assertion that eating meat caused these diseases. And yet you reject an equally strong correlation between cellular phone use and obesity.

You must understand that correlation =/= causation.

Obesity and heart disease are more heavily linked to lack of exercise than they are to meat consumption. For example Eskimos had very low rates of heart disease under traditional lifestyles, yet their diets were often 80%+ meat. You have totally failed to take into account that those modern societies that consume the most meat (and that have the most cellular phones) are the most affluent. Affluent societies also have the greatest number of sedentary occupations and the greatest usage of mechanical transport. Both reduce the levels of exercise.

As I said above, the suggestion that a link between meat consumption and obesity proves that meat eating causes obesity is about as well founded as the link between cell-phone use and obesity.

This point is very relevant to the OP, which is why you made it in the first place.

Care to support that with a citation?

http://www.savetherainforest.org/savetherainforest_006.htm
‘Shifted cultivators’ is the term used for people who have moved into rainforest areas and established small-scale farming operations. These are the landless peasants who have followed roads into already damaged rainforest areas. The additional damage they are causing is extensive. **Shifted cultivators are currently being blamed for 60% of tropical forest loss **(Colchester & Lohmann).
The reason these people are referred to as ‘shifted’ cultivators is that most of them people have been forced off their own land. For example, in Guatemala, rainforest land was cleared for coffee and sugar plantations. The indigenous people had their land stolen by government and corporations. They became ‘shifted cultivators’, moving into rainforest areas of which they had no previous knowledge in order to sustain themselves and their families (Colchester & Lohmann)……

Undisturbed and logged rainforest areas are being totally cleared to provide land for food crops, tree plantations or for grazing cattle (Colchester & Lohmann). Much of this produce is exported to rich industrialised countries and in many cases, crops are grown for export while the local populace goes hungry.

148

My take on veganism, atkins diet, etc can be summed up in 11 words spoken by Yukon Cornelius: “You eat what you like and I’ll eat what I like!”

Fact is, vegans, diet specialists etc. have no right to tell other people what they should eat. That’s their decision. They should be informed about dangerous food, carcinogens, etc., but still free to consume those carcinogens. At least, that’s my opinion.

149

Well, II, your poster name belies your wisdom. And I agree. However, IF it was true that eating meat was an order of magnitude more damaging to the environment that eating vegan- then those of us with an environmental consious would reconsider our eating habits.

Blake- good point. True- if you go on the “see food” diet, you get fat- and that diet includes meat and every other damn thing that doesn’t struggle too much as you cram it down your cavernous maw. :smiley: But I have known obese vegetarians. Of course- eating meat can lead to a higher cholesterol score, or a lack of fiber can lead to bowel problem. But these can & have been avoided by some of the most avid meat eaters.

Meat tastes good- and is comparitively expensive. Thus affluent nations eat more of it- just like they eat more truffles. But does eating Truffles lead to obesity? No- AFFLUENCE leads to obesity- you have more money, you can eat more of what you like. You eat more, you get fat. It’s a no brainer.

Thanks for the link about Rainforest deforestation, by the way. SCORE!

150

Can’t back you up on this (although I take sorghum on my pancakes and waffles). The only difference between feed corn and sweet corn, in practice, is yield, germination rate & germination speed. The kind of land it is grown on may differ where you are, but not here.

Best,
Dev

151

Yukon Cornelius makes the case, but that does not subtract from telling people what they should know. You agree as we all do that an informed opinon is a component of decision making but I strongly disagree that one group of people have no right to tell other what they should or shouldn’t do. Even unsolicited. The right end when the other person says “shutup” but sometimes the opinion must be offered. Its not as if anyone is saying you must to this or go to jail. For example:

“get out of the water, there is a shark”
“that case is going to explode”
“smoking is bad for you”
“crack will harm your baby” OK you can go to jail here.
“The world is round”

and so on. many times unsolicited opinions change perceptions. then we can all have a logical debate about it.

I must apologise for my delay in my research but I am somewhat (read as oh my bloody hell what am I going to do, I have got to get away from the SDMB for couple of days) approaching a deadline. I truly intend to qualify sources.
One of the things slowing me down is that US production rates are higher (about 15%/ unit for milk and beef) than the rest of the industrialized nations. Absolutely spun my head for while until I found out that rBGH is used. Recombinant Bovine Groth Hormone is rather potent. and should (yes I say should) be a concern for lacto-vegitarians as much as for “meatitarians”
On first inspection this is what I found: Criminal in most of the industrial nations rBGH was approved by the FDA in '93. it can amplify milk and beef production by 10-30% (depending on quality of feed) and I don’t think that it is labeled for consumers. Without labeling it makes it very hard to find stats so the best source is the manufaturer Monsanto. They are rather good at the PR stuff without revealing sales.
Anyway I figure that 10 years of consuming would give an indication if rBGH is completely metabolised or if some is in the products.
A rise in early onset puberty is a clue as well as increase in childhood mass. I think that this will effect growing children more that adults because the heightened activity of human hormones. my question is what is going on? I know the kids are getting fat, could this be a factor? If its bad this might be ammo for the vegan camp.

152

Brendan- we are already off on one tangent. Let us not go off an the tangent about rBGH. The US Government claims it is perfectly safe. So far, no one has proven them wrong. Many do have doubts.

However, let us continue on our current tangent- have you found anything yet which shows that overall- eating vegan is better for the environment that eating omnivore?

153

No, he probably hasn’t found any information. Even if he did, you’d probably say the sources aren’t trustworthy.

If you looked for information stating the opposite, that “eating omnivore” is better for the environment than “eating vegan”, you wouldn’t find much, either.

This is a debate. There is no right and wrong. If you’re waiting for hard-core proof, then you’re going to be waiting for a long time. Other posters have given you links, and you’ve just dismissed them.

So, you trust this guy’s links without hesitation, because you agree with what they say. However, you disagree with all of the links that Daniel threw at you, as they run contrary to your beliefs.

Don’t limit the extent of your knowledge to the internet. Read some books on the subject. I, and I’m sure Daniel have read many books on the subject. Personally, I have neither the time nor the energy to dig out my books, page through them, type out quotes and references, just to have you question their validity.

So, score away. Chalk up another one for the meat and dairy industry. I hope you’re proud to be supporting them, and everything they stand for.

Yes, raising crops is bad for the environment. But most of the plants are to be fed to animals. No animals to feed? Less plants to grow. This, under your own terms, would be better for the environment. You’re really overcomplicating the issue.

This is really all it comes down to. You have this belief, and it ain’t gonna change. So, why are you even debating? At this point, it just seems like you’re just doing it to being a jerk.

DanielWithrow knows more about AR, environmentalism, and “green issues” more than most other people on the SDMB. This could have been a great debate (pun intended), but you just jerked him around.

You’re waiting for an answer, when there is no concrete answer. you’ve shown no interest in debate, as you’ve only passed off everything that runs contraditory to your own opinion.

154

Could I possibly see a reference to support that assertion? I find it very hard to believe that over 50% of the total agricultural plant biomass harvested on this planet is fed to animals. Yet this is what you have said. You are saying that for every tonne of grain, potatoes, sugar, coffee, sunflower, beans, sago etc grown on this planet over half a tonne is fed to animals.

I find that very hard to swallow.

That’s the whole problem isn’t it? Someone stated as concrete fact that a vegetarian diet is more environmentally sound. In fact much more environmentally sound. Not an opinion, but presented as concrete fact. No one has claimed that “eating omnivore” is better for the environment than “eating vegan”, and as such there can be no call for evidence to support the claim. Any such call would be a strawman of the highest order.

As far as I can see most people seem to be willing to concede that eating vegetarian might be marginally better for the environment despite a total lack of evidence, but that any claim that it is far better is built upon propaganda rather than any factual base.

155

Less plants to grow.

And more erosion. And more chemicals. Arguably less biodiversity.

I don’t think he is overcomplicating it at all. Matter of fact, it might be more complicated that without long, in-depth study and calculations we’ll never know an answer. I have lots of environmentalist questions just like it.

How much water and energy does it take for me to wash out this nasty old sour cream tub to get it ready to recycle? Is it worth doing? If I have to drive 8 miles out of my way to the nearest recycling station, is it worth it? Should I roundup my rye or spend 12 gallons of fuel tilling it in? I find myself agonizing over these kind of questions as I try to live an environmentally sound life.

Indeed, I could be convinced to be a vegetarian if the reliable data supporting such could be produced. Yet the little data I see are incomplete, selective and generally presented by people have either an agenda or no knowledge of how farming actually works.

Best,
Dev

156

In fact, I praised & accepted many of the cites given, even by the “pro” side in this debate. True, I did not accept the cites given in ONE, count 'em, ONE of Daniels posts. The first reason is beacuse we had already agreed upon & accepted the idea of unbiased cites, like the USDA site that they linked to. The two cites given were hardly unbiased, and even Daniel didn’t try to say they were. However, that point is moot- as *neither cite presented information to show that * overall animal husbandry is worse for the environment than farming or to put it as the terms of the debate had- neither cite had any information to show that overall “eating vegan is better for the environment than eating omnivore”. If indeed, you could show me that any cite I dismissed did indeed show that point- then you would be fair in accusing me of dismissing cites- fairly or unfairly.

But those cites did not prove the claim. Not at all. They did show that “raising animals can be bad for the environment”- a point that was already conceded- several times. They also did show that pig shit runoff is bad for the environment- again a given- and that pigs crap more than broccoli does- again, a no brainer. :rolleyes:

But what I asked for, and did not get- and what Brendan agreed to- was a cite which compared overall damage to the environment. And since that’s the claim we were debating- I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask for a cite that answers THAT point.

I do agree with you on one thing- there likely IS no “concrete answer”. The problem is possibly too huge, and too complex. Probably, no one can prove that “eating vegan is better for the environment that eating meat” - or even give some good solid support for that statement. And you know something Damuti- that’s exactly how things work here in GD. If someone fires off a line like “eating vegan is better for the environment than eating meat”- then anyone has the right to ask that person to back that claim up. And if you can’t back it up- you have to back down. Now I concede Daniel may know more about the enviroment than I do (and I KNOW that Brendan & Dev know more about farming)- so? Even when an acknowledged expert posts a claim here- he STILL is asked to back it up with a cite- and if he doesn’t- he has to back down- on that claim. Even Bricker or some other legal expert is asked to back things up with cites- and they do so. Cites which are unbiased and address the points under contention. Then- true- sometimes dudes quote other cites, which argue the other side.

In fact, if you’d read all the thread here, there are several points I have conceded. And- Brendan has shown himself to be a fair guy by also conceding some points- and agreeing on fair & reasonable terms to the debate.

There can indeed be a “right or wrong” in a debate- if a factual claim is made. A factual claim was made: “eating vegan is better for the environment than eating meat”. Now, if the point was “it is more moral to eat vegan over eating meat” then yes, you are talking about opinions only- and that is the OP, sorta. And, since that is 100% opinion- we agreed on a debate of a FACTUAL claim- if they can prove that claim, I’ll concede the opinion that “eating vegan is better”. Not that this will make me into a Vegan, or embrace the lifestyle.

For instance- let us say someone starts an OP “SUV’s are evil”. I claim that “yes, they are bad, because they damage the environment more than cars”. I would then be invited to back up that claim. If I did so- I would not have nessesarily proven that SUV’s are evil- just that driving one of them is worse for the environment that driving a compact car. If then someone replied with “OK, but SUV’s are safer” they’d be invited to back that claim up. This is how things work around here. If then someone said- “But I personally need my SUV for these reasons”- that wouldn’t really answer the debate.

Now true- I certainly can’t prove that “eating meat is better for the environment than eating vegan”- and I wasn’t foolish enough to make that claim, either (and I don’t think it is true- they are likely roughly the same). Thus- I don’t have to come up with cites for it- as I didn’t make it. They made a claim- in fact an “extraordinary claim”- thus they have to back up that claim with cites if asked to. I am not being unfair by doing so.

157

Everyone has an agenda.

Humans need to eat something in order to survive, right? Humans can survive on plants alone. Humans cannot survive on only animals. (Don’t bring up the Inuit.) Therefore raising animals to slaughter and eat is superfluous, in a large, rich, and fertile country like the USA. It is not necessary to our survival. We don’t NEED to raise animals. It is not a matter of life or death.

Therefore, even if (as you claim) that omnivorous and vegan diets have roughly the same impact on the environment, the impact of an omnivorous diet is invariably worse, because it is ultimately unnecessary, as it is simply a result of the US (and other countries) being a privledged nation.

Mahy people belive that killing animals for trophies is much worse than killing animals for food, because the “trophies” are unnecesary. Take this line of thought, and then take one step back.

Lastly, I’m sure that many (most?) vegans/vegetarians and environmentalists are not too fond of large aribusinesses, either. Believe me, I’m not a fan of the way that things are being done. But, you have to start somewhere. And the best place to start, it seems, is the meat industry. Because of all the waste, because of all the pesticides from their Roundup Ready feed crops. Because of the RGBh, and hormones and the antibiotics. Because of the rainforests, because of the MsDonalds in school lunchrooms.

Surely you can see the distinction.

158

As far as anyone can tell humans can survive on plants and microorganisms. They apparently can’t live on plants alone.

Of course they can. While a whole raw carcasse will provide all the nutrients and calories necessary to sustain human life the same can’t be said of any individual plant food.

Can you please provide a refernce to support your assertion that Humans cannot survive on only animals?

But people can live solely on animal carcasses, therefore raising plants is equally superfluous isn’t it? If you are trying to argue that we have insufficient land to produce an entirely carnivore diet then we could just as easily argue that we have insufficient land to allow the rangelands to become production wastelands.

Who made that claim? Can you please provide a quote to that effect? Several people have stated that they are likely to be equivalent, but no one has claimed that they actually are equivalent.

Can you expand on that? How does an action resulting from the US being privileged automatically make an action bad? The high life expectancy of Californians is simply a result of the US being a privileged nation. Are you saying that such high life expectancies are invariably worse than the low life expectancies in Bangladesh? I really can’t see how the conclusion follows from the premise.

But no one is employing such a line of reasoning here are they? You seem to be begging the question. We need to accept that killing animals is inherently bad in order to accept your conclusion that killing them for food is wrong. That’s a logically invalid argument.

Again you are begging the question. We need to accept your assertion that meat production is more wasteful, requires more pesticides, utilises more Roundup Ready crops and causes the destruction of more rainforest in order to accept your conclusion that we should begin agricultural reform in the livestock sector. And yet we have yet to see any evidence of any of these things. Your whole argument is now based on assertion. You have asserted that meat production is undesirable because it is more ecologically damaging and are now arguing that it is undesirable and should be reformed because it is more damaging. Can we please have some evidence that meat I more damaging?

Are you in fact willing to address my requests for references to support your assertions. Just to keep it clear, I would like to see any evidence to support your claims that:

1)Vegetable farmers do not burn down large chunks of rainforest to raise veggies.
2)>50% of all crops are fed to animals.
3) Meat production is more wasteful.
4) Meat production utilises more Roundup Ready crops than does plant food production.
5) Meat production causes the destruction of more rainforest than plant production.
Your position seems to be based entirely on these and other similar claims, which you seem to take for granted that all participants accept as fact. I wish to make it clear that I do not accept these claims as being true, and therefore regard any argument built on them to be spurious at best.

159

For some of us, that agenda is truth and rational enquiry.

**[Qoute]
Therefore, even if (as you claim) that omnivorous and vegan diets have roughly the same impact on the environment, the impact of an omnivorous diet is invariably worse, because it is ultimately unnecessary, as it is simply a result of the US (and other countries) being a privledged nation. **
[/QUOTE]

I’m not followin’ you here at all. Can you expand?

Best,
Dev

160

[b/]DrDeth**

Here’s a little bit of proof. (Though you probably won’t agree.)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/14/coolsc.disappearingfish/index.html
-TGD