Obvious solution in our face, we fund research to preserve AGW causing industries

[Unabogie]

Thanks all the gods that we human are all automaton and taste and pleasure of eating has no place whatsoever in our psychic well being.

Aside from the fact that vegan food is nutritious and delightful, if what tasted good to you were the only criteria, wouldn't cannibalism be both moral and legal if you really liked eating people and it made you happy? Would there be a moral conundrum for you to adopt large dogs at the shelter to be used for food? Do you not make moral choices in your diet at all?

 

[Cuddles]

You are cherry picking and twisting the meaning of the conclusions.

No I am not. Please read what I actually posted instead of trying to assign motives in order to dismiss anything that disagrees with you.

You are conflating eating fewer calories with swapping out specific foods.

Again, no I am not. I very explicitly made the point that they are two entirely different things, but that the one you advocate is likely to be much more difficult to convince people to do.

They are not the same, even though they are both dietary changes. Look at trans fats, childhood obesity, previous dietary changes, and the dietary patterns in the reverse (countries where meat eating have increases dramatically). The "just so" theory that there can be no more vegans or vegetarians or we won't change our diet is just silly and ahistorical. India even labels their food vegetarian vs containing animal products because so many are vegetarian.

This does not appear to be in any way relevant to anything I have posted. If you want to convince anyone of your point, you are going to have to a much better job of addressing the actual replies rather than straw men of your own imagination.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No I am not. Please read what I actually posted instead of trying to assign motives in order to dismiss anything that disagrees with you.

Yes, you are. It has nothing to do with motives but the content of your argument. Curiously, you did not reply to where I explained how you were cherry picking and instead assigned a motive to me whilst telling me not to assign motives!

Again, no I am not. I very explicitly made the point that they are two entirely different things, but that the one you advocate is likely to be much more difficult to convince people to do.[ /quote]

And you did this based on no evidence but this statement "people can't be convinced to simply eat slightly less, how exactly do you think you could convince them to change their eating habits entirely?" Which rather contradicts your disclaimer that you realise they are very different, and relies on them being very comparable.

This does not appear to be in any way relevant to anything I have posted. If you want to convince anyone of your point, you are going to have to a much better job of addressing the actual replies rather than straw men of your own imagination.

You are the who appealed to the difficulty/improbability of diet change as evidence of the practicality or feasibility of The Vegan Solution (TM). I merely gave more cromulent examples of widespread diet changes and different vegetarian level equilibriums taking place.

 

[Dessi]

Thanks all the gods that we human are all automaton and taste and pleasure of eating has no place whatsoever in our psychic well being.

Chickpea-brocolli wraps

3 cups cooked chickpeas (rehydrated or 2-15 oz cans), rinsed and drained
1 large crown brocolli, chopped into chickpea-sized pieces
1 large yellow onion, diced
1 red bell pepper, diced
4 cloves minced garlic
3 tbs olive oil
2 tbs soy sauce, tamari, or liquid aminos (can be omitted)
2 tsp chili powder
1 tsp ground cumin
1 tsp ground paprika
1/2 tsp ground coriander
pinch of freshly ground pepper

Preheat oven to 425 F
Mix chickpeas and chopped veggies in a glass baking pan.
Mix remaining ingredients (olive oil, soy sauce, spices) until veggies are evenly coated.
Bake 20 minutes, mix veggies around, bake for another 15 minutes

Serve inside flour tortilla topped with avocado, diced tomato, shredded carrot, any tender dark leafy green such as spinach or arugula, and other fresh veggies to complete your wrap.

Variations:
- 3 medium golden potatoes in place of chickpeas

I hope this advice improves your eating pleasure and psychic well-being.

 

[TimCallahan]

Because needlessly releasing 0.2X tonnes of GHG is still a big, needless problem even though it is less that X tonnes. There is no reason why 0.2X is acceptable when there is so much reduction that needs to take place. It is like punching someone once instead of twice.

Less is still less. Using your example, which I've hilited, would amount to an 80% reduction in agriculturally generated GHG. So, it is not a cop out. Using most livestock for production of dairy products, with very little used for meat would make a great impact, particularly since much of the corn and soybean crop used to feed cattle goes to fatten them up in the last quarter of their lives, just before slaughter. Ruminants, after all, have bacteria in their fore-stomachs that can digest any starch source + nitrogen source to give the cow nutrition.

I should also point out that the likelihood of everyone radically changing their diet to a strict vegan discipline is nil. However, a campaign to greatly reduce beef and pork consumption has a reasonable chance of success.

I should also point out that your only punching someone in the face once simile could be used to argue that switching from gas guzzlers to efficient hybrids or even electric cars is a cop out. Of course, it isn't, and neither is greatly reducing the beef and pork intake of the western world.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I have provided two points of evidence that people as a majority do not care or do not want to be vegetarian.

1) market force. Vegetarian/vegan restaurants are the minority. Vegetarian / Vegan mix are sometime added, but they are for the crushing majority of restaurants not the main fare
2) again cantine. Whereas it is true that vegetarian/vegan meal are increasingly proposed , the queues and the demands are on the meat and fish meals.

Err, I am well aware that the dominant norm is animal consumption. That is rather the point of the thread .

What you seem to NOT get is that for some people a meal without meat is nourishing but without enjoyment.

Just for clarification, earlier people are taking about feeling terrible and not feeling full, not enjoyment or lack thereof. These "some people" sound absurd making such a blanket statement.

And yes , at least in western country where food is plentiful, meal enjoyment is a major factor.

You are asking to change something which is deeply ingrained into us as part of our culture and as part of our enjoyment of life. You might as well ask people to give up sex, video game, alcohol, and other life enjoyment (and yes some people will state that they are well without alcohol (me) or without video game or sex --- good for them, the majority will still enjoy those).

People who consider meat eating, sex, and videogames to be pleasures that the lack of which would cause diminished enjoyment in life alike should be removed from the gene pool. Find me some study of quality of life or happiness that reflects this insane idea that a loss of a sense pleasure equates to a reduced enjoyment in life. I shall wait for Godot as well, because psychology doesn't work that way. And don't get me started on throwing sex in there.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Less is still less. Using your example, which I've hilited, would amount to an 80% reduction in agriculturally generated GHG. So, it is not a cop out. Using most livestock for production of dairy products, with very little used for meat would make a great impact, particularly since much of the corn and soybean crop used to feed cattle goes to fatten them up in the last quarter of their lives, just before slaughter. Ruminants, after all, have bacteria in their fore-stomachs that can digest any starch source + nitrogen source to give the cow nutrition.

But this doesn't answer why 20% is acceptable to put out when it is just as needless and damaging as the first 80%. There is no rational reason for this cut off of "less harm", which is what makes it a chip out. Also:

I should also point out that the likelihood of everyone radically changing their diet to a strict vegan discipline is nil. However, a campaign to greatly reduce beef and pork consumption has a reasonable chance of success.

This is a case for going 100% as well, if not everyone is going to be getting on board.

I should also point out that your only punching someone in the face once simile could be used to argue that switching from gas guzzlers to efficient hybrids or even electric cars is a cop out. Of course, it isn't, and neither is greatly reducing the beef and pork intake of the western world.

False analogy on many fronts. First of all we are only recently getting the technology it there for hybrids and electric cars, and even then studies show the impact isn't all that much. Secondly, switching out meat does not cause the disruption up the chain of human progress that banning all forms of polluting transport would. It would necessitate a progressive shift in agriculture, not upending how our society is organized and dismantling or economy.

 

[Cain]

I've long been skeptical of environmentalism-as-a-justification-for-veganism. That argument, even though it's solid, will never rise above second tier; it will never be more than a "bonus" for "doing the right thing." Even among eco-conscious citizens who think global warming could devastate civilization (such as it is), there's always the concern for action at the "institutional"-level, which we've seen here, in part because the opportunities to free-ride are readily available.

I've also been skeptical of so-called "flexitarians," like the famed blogger and "foodie"* Ezra Klein. Still, "Meatless Mondays" and assorted gimmicky ******** probably have a role to play in the quest for real change. I heard some clam** quote Tony Robbins: "People overestimate what they can do a year, but underestimate what they can do in a decade." The worst thing about that cornball **** is that it might contain an element of truth. As ridiculous as it sounds, maybe people give up meat just one day a week and realize, "hey, this isn't impossible." People need to be eased into veganism. You also have to trick them into thinking it was their idea all along, especially with the raging egos you'll find on this board. "I've always wanted to cut back..."

Tell people they have to stop subjecting animals to needless cruelty give up meat, and they'll take up arms. If you encourage them to cut back, it sounds more reasonable. It's not more reasonable, but it sounds more reasonable. "You mean, one day out of the week I need to punish my tongue in order to promote life on earth?" Yeah. Can you do it?

*Foodie -- what a loathsome word.
** This refers to the female species. Great word.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

But it is actually far more easier to part of that nutrition to come from animal source.
You need to have a well balanced plant diet to have all your amino acid.

No you don't. Unless your idea of "well balanced" is eating rice and beans. Or wheat and corn. Or millet and oats. Or bananas and potatoes. Or mangos, plantains, and celery. Or sweet potatoes and tomatoes with lettuce. In other words, it's almost impossible to design a diet deficient in amino acids unless you are doing something extremely bizarre such as eating corn and nothing else, which nobody would do anyways, just like nobody would eat only steak (which would be equally ill-advised).

It's not rocket science. Just eat more than one thing, a variety, if you will (as most people already do) and you're pretty much there, as long as you are eating enough calories, as with any diet. Your statement is based on an outdated understanding of amino acids and protein.

Take the steak off the plate, instead of 1 baked potato eat 5 baked potatoes (with some good seasonings or salsa, if desired), the broccoli, and the bread and you'll be good to go. Pretty simple, really. And to the poster saying a meal without meat is a meal without enjoyment, are you serious? That's laughable.

I remember that meat tastes good (although it's been 20 years since I've tasted it), but so do other things. The idea that only meat can provide enjoyment is ridiculous and doesn't reflect reality. I eat a vegan diet and love all of the food I eat. When I have the pleasure of offering it to friends and family who like to eat meat, they love the vegan food, too.

Our species would not have survived for long if only meat provided taste pleasure.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

And don't get me started on throwing sex in there.

Actually, this was where you lost me. And I've eaten a vegan diet for the past 20 years, so I'm basically on your side (although I have no delusions that the majority of humanity will ever be eating a vegan or vegetarian diet...the meat abundance genie has been let out of the bottle and isn't ever going back in).

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Actually, this was where you lost me. And I've eaten a vegan diet for the past 20 years, so I'm basically on your side (although I have no delusions that the majority of humanity will ever be eating a vegan or vegetarian diet...the meat abundance genie has been let out of the bottle and isn't ever going back in).

But I hadn't even started on it, so what are you disagreeing with ?

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

But I hadn't even started on it, so what are you disagreeing with ?

Well, it's a derail, but the part where you said:

People who consider...sex...to be [a] pleasure...the lack of which would cause diminished enjoyment in life...should be removed from the gene pool.

If I were to be denied the opportunity to engage in mutually pleasurable sexual encounters with other people, I believe that would diminish my enjoyment of life, so I disagree with the statement I quoted.

 

[Polaris]

Well, it's a derail, but the part where you said:



If I were to be denied the opportunity to engage in mutually pleasurable sexual encounters with other people, I believe that would diminish my enjoyment of life, so I disagree with the statement I quoted.

I gave Tsukasa Buddha the benefit of the doubt and took that to mean anybody who put sex, meat and video games on the same level of enjoyment before I broke the glass on the emergency pitchfork cabinet.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Our species would not have survived for long if only meat provided taste pleasure.

I would similarly point out that heavy meat diets are mostly limited to people certain nations/cultures, though it is spreading with globalization.

But the claim about people already acculturated to meat every meal is not exactly the same, so there is a gap with that response. Still silly, given that nonvegans easy vegan friendly food all the time and get satiated, because no one eats meat all the time and not many I can find for every single meal. Not even paleos go that far.

According to this study, slightly less than a third of people eat meat in 5 or more times per week. Just doesn't jibe with the majority of people needing meat every meal.

http://media.npr.org/documents/2012/june/NPR_report_MeatConsumption_1203.pdf

 

[Kahalachan]

So...rather than try to transition to a non-fossil-fuel economy, you think the EASIER option is to convince every man, woman, and child on Earth to go vegan?

LOL this.

I'd rather not have a car and eat meat, than have a car and be vegan.

Let's go solar, geothermal, and nuclear. Then the meat eating can be the last thing we need to deal with. And by then there should be a yummy synthetic substitute. I hope

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

LOL this.

I'd rather not have a car and eat meat, than have a car and be vegan.

Let's go solar, geothermal, and nuclear. Then the meat eating can be the last thing we need to deal with. And by then there should be a yummy synthetic substitute. I hope

Why are you depending on those solutions and future hopeful technologies that studies show aren't enough of an answer (this might have to go over to the S&T forum). It is like not stopping my $1000 in monthly gaming purchases to balance my budget deficit because I might get a better job next month that might get me $100 more per month. One is clearly the most rational and direct action to take, but there is no reason to be limited to one or the other.

 

[Kahalachan]

Because realistically from a psychological and social standpoint, it's easier to encourage the gradual change people can easily become accustomed to. Wiping out all meat eating isn't going to work no matter how rational it may be.

 

[TimCallahan]

But this doesn't answer why 20% is acceptable to put out when it is just as needless and damaging as the first 80%. There is no rational reason for this cut off of "less harm", which is what makes it a chip out. Also:

20% is as damaging as 80%? Did you, by any chance, flunk math?

This is a case for going 100% as well, if not everyone is going to be getting on board.

Here's one thing you haven't really explained: How are we going to get everyone on board? By main force?

False analogy on many fronts. First of all we are only recently getting the technology it there for hybrids and electric cars, and even then studies show the impact isn't all that much. Secondly, switching out meat does not cause the disruption up the chain of human progress that banning all forms of polluting transport would. It would necessitate a progressive shift in agriculture, not upending how our society is organized and dismantling or economy.

Fair enough. However, a progressive shift in agriculture will likely involve compromises such as eating less meat.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Because realistically from a psychological and social standpoint, it's easier to encourage the gradual change people can easily become accustomed to. Wiping out all meat eating isn't going to work no matter how rational it may be.

Ah ah, I'm not going to let you dodge from your original point, mostly because I thought of another objection! The current predicament is not one where we have the luxury of waiting to see how one (or three) solutions will pan out. It begs the question of when you decide that course is no longer viable and will take up the other, and what how much worse the situation will be at that point.

But anyway, this response seems to be the common shirking of responsibility in this thread. Your worrying about the campaigning to "other people" does not change the facts as they apply to yourself. And if you invoke the composition fallacy I will not buy it.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

20% is as damaging as 80%? Did you, by any chance, flunk math?

Cute, but no. Context and reading comprehension should be enough to tell you I was referring to the constituent parts of each group (the needlessly produced GHG), not the percentages themselves. If you flunked English, I will forgive your insult .

One could argue that there is declining harm, because a lower total atmospheric number does less harm, but we are not in the position to do such maths. And again, that is not as simplistic as you were making it.

Here's one thing you haven't really explained: How are we going to get everyone on board? By main force?

Fair enough. However, a progressive shift in agriculture will likely involve compromises such as eating less meat.

Why are people acting like I wrote a campaign platform? I do analysis, not politicking. If people are so attached to animal consumption that they destroy their environment, it changes nothing of the analysis or my (or your or anyone's) responsibility.