• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

alongside a juicy rib-eye. hmmm

Barf. People seem to be under the misconception that vegans really miss meat. I've never met one who did. I sometimes hear people say they miss cheese, but never meat. To me it just sounds like a really great way to ruin my fries. It's like someone plopped some poo on your plate and then tried to get you to say how much better the meal became.
 
I probably should have left out the bit about flunking math. That was a bit snarky. However any significant lessening of the production of GHG is beneficial, and I still say that cutting back on beef consumption is not a cop out. Bear in mind also that people may well transition into a pure vegan diet through steps. Eating less and less meat may well convince them that they don't need it at all.

However, if you are cutting out beef because you recognise the need to cut that contribution to AGW, then you are in the position of recognising that you are keeping the contribution of chickens to AGW which should be stopped... because of personal preference/convenience/taste. That just isn't a balanced situation.

If you and I and others on this thread can agree that excessive dependence on beef, in particular, poses a grave threat to the environment, then, logically, it would be a good idea to have some impact on beef consumption, the greater the better. Therefore, it's reasonable to speculate on how we might get people to consume less meat. I think you will agree that force is not an option. Education might help, as well as introduction to non-western cuisines that are either meat-free or at least use a lot less meat. Do you have any ideas on the subject?

Here are some proposals:

Mooney and collaborators are proposing that their meat model be used in a continuing global assessment of the livestock industry. A more extensive application will inform policies that take into account the environmental benefits and consequences of global trade of grain, in addition to the economic benefits that may exist.

"A recoupling of crop and livestock systems is needed-if not physically, then through pricing and other policy mechanisms that reflect social costs of resource use and ecological abuse," wrote Naylor, director of the Program on Food Security and the Environment and William Wrigley Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute, in the journal Science.

"That's fundamental and that's true for all food," Mooney said. "We should pay the real cost, and that would make a huge difference for the environment."

One solution is for countries to adopt policies that provide incentives for better management practices that focus on land conservation and more efficient water and fertilizer use, Mooney said.

So much of the problem comes down to the individual consumer, he stressed, adding that one solution could be to get people in developed countries to eat less meat and to consider how and where the meat that they do eat is produced. At the same time, people in certain regions of the world, such as southern Africa, are suffering from a deficiency of animal protein, and the means to enrich their diets is needed. "I am always hopeful that as people learn more, they do change their behavior," Mooney said. "If they are informed that they do have choices to help build a more sustainable and equitable world, they can make better choices."

Linky.

There has been a decline in the US that could be looked at, but it is hard to tell from what.
 

Not at all. It's the main reason fries are not as good as they used to be. Donuts fried in lard were also far superior to all others, though that was never a standard, at least not in my lifetime.
 
I hope some day you can respond to what people actually said instead of erecting straw men and moving goalposts. You've shown zero intellectual honestly thus far. I have no incentive to discuss something with someone who intentionally misrepresents what was said. Keeps that post count high though.



Your denial is getting in the way of your reading comprehension.
 
If a vegan eats a triple bacon cheese-burger after years of not even a glass of milk or shred of cheddar jack, would his heavy, bloated, tired feeling be mental or physical?


Alright, this demonstrates the underlying cause of this "I feel bad if I don't eat meat" stance. Someone who eats meat every meal (! That's unhealthy, don't you know?) has set their body and mind system for that particular diet. Being completely unwilling to even contemplate a change in diet, this becomes a mental barrier exacerbated by the physical withdrawal, and no doubt lack of attention to proper nutrition.

Not surprisingly, your feeling bad is a genuine result. But it's not a barrier to realistic approach to changing diet and agricultural industry for the good of the planet and human civilisation.

As to variety, a vegetarian diet easily lends itself to providing far more variety than the endless repetition of the common place meat and two veg (potatoes and peas more often than not).

And all the nutrients are easily obtained without over thinking dietary inclusions. A few basic principles, such as consuming some cereals (rice etc) and some legumes (such as lentils, or beans or for variety nuts and seeds in salads and crumbles etc) and for the past 40 years I have had no health problems, remaining lean and fit throughout.

I see desperation (and aggression) when such facts of nutrition are dismissed as lies, in another poster's irrational rejection of the whole notion of changing diet.
 
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. What you seem to NOT get is that for some people a meal without meat is nourishing but without enjoyment. 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).


The hilited part is amusing. Whenever I was at an Open University summer school, I opted for the vegetarian meals signing up for the course. Invariably at the dinner table, all the meat eaters would complain about their repetitious meat trash, and effusively yearn for the tasty and interestingly varied meals I was given every day. Every day I heard several people saying how they wished they had opted for the vegetarian meals.

So your insistence that a meal without meat is without enjoyment is simply a psychological block preventing you from discovering the wide ranging pleasures to be had from vegetarian meals.

You are prejudiced.
 
However, if you are cutting out beef because you recognise the need to cut that contribution to AGW, then you are in the position of recognising that you are keeping the contribution of chickens to AGW which should be stopped... because of personal preference/convenience/taste. That just isn't a balanced situation.

Again, if cattle used in dairy production are fed on grass, rather than on soy and corn, and are allowed to freely graze, I suspect they would pose a very minor GHG problem. Likewise, I suspect the same would be true for free range chickens raised for egg production. In both cases the food eaten by the animals is something we wouldn't eat, and it's converted into a high protein food with balanced amino acids.

You and I my have to agree to disagree on your assertion that merely lowering meat consumption is a cop out.

Here are some proposals:

Linky.

I like the idea of livestock producers being taxed or fined for their impact on the environment. One educational tool might be to have tour buses of those being educated drive by "Cowshwitz," as my wife and I have to when we take the I-5 from L.A. up to visit friends in the San Francisco Bay area. Not only the sight, but the smell of the place should drive home the environmental impact of factory farming.

Taxing or fining factory farms for their environmental impact is reasonable. Naturally, meat producers would pass such costs on to the consumer, making the cost of meat more realistically reflect its impact.

There has been a decline in the US that could be looked at, but it is hard to tell from what.

I suspect there are a lot of causes, each of which, by itself, is inconsequential, all of which combined are substantial.
 
The hilited part is amusing. Whenever I was at an Open University summer school, I opted for the vegetarian meals signing up for the course. Invariably at the dinner table, all the meat eaters would complain about their repetitious meat trash, and effusively yearn for the tasty and interestingly varied meals I was given every day. Every day I heard several people saying how they wished they had opted for the vegetarian meals.
By contrast, when my employer keeps us on-campus for extended hours during the weeks-long launch phase of a new product, they cater lunch and dinner every day. Us meat-eaters get varied menus during that fortnight, while the vegetarians see an endless cycle of the same three or four dishes over and over again.

So your insistence that a meal without meat is without enjoyment is simply a psychological block preventing you from discovering the wide ranging pleasures to be had from vegetarian meals.
Depends on the canteen. Last product launch, scores of my fellow employees would have agreed with Aepervius, not you.

You are prejudiced.
So is every vegetarian--and vegedilettantarian--I've ever met.
 
Hey now cannibalism is a good option too! Eating half the population could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by up to 50%!

Yeah, I've seen veggie types make the argument that there's not any difference between cannibalism and eating animals in terms of ethics, too.

The problem with the argument is that ethics are driven pretty much entirely by empathy, and empathy has no requirement that it be logically consistent. Mostly, we empathize with those who can potentially reciprocate. To extend that to the part of the human race that cannot (handicapped in some way, babies, etc.) is also pretty normal. Dogs and cats (the most popular pets) also at least appear to be able to reciprocate emotionally to a degree.

Chickens and cows, however, are near impossible to build any sort of rapport with... at least in any way which is reciprocated. I've been around them enough to notice that pretty much all they want you for is the food you give them (and of course, vice versa in the long run). Other than that, there doesn't appear to be much attachment from the other side no matter how attached the human feels. Their herd instincts seem to differ from ours too much for that sort of a relationship.

So... that's a good part of why you don't see many country boys going veggie, although we are actually the ones that come into the closest contact with the animals we use for meat. I suppose there's culture involved, as well... but there's enough of us rebels out here that I don't think socialization is the primary factor. Hell, some of us even end up liberal and atheist, despite the culture being decisively not, but I've never met a veggie farm boy (that doesn't mean they don't exist, but I've never met one that grew up around the animals in question).

Logical consistency throughout the animal kingdom isn't particularly required because that which drives ethics isn't particularly logical to begin with. I feel approximately as sorry for a chicken I eat as I do for roaches when I call the exterminator. To try to change my empathetic tendencies in this with logic is pretty pointless. Logic ain't where it comes from in the first place. I place the line where it seems right to me... trying to shame me for that will not work.

(Note: particular post suggesting this line of thought chosen somewhat at random... there's been many posts going that direction in part, and I'm really just using it as an intro)
 
Last edited:
The problem with the argument is that ethics are driven pretty much entirely by empathy, and empathy has no requirement that it be logically consistent. Mostly, we empathize with those who can potentially reciprocate. To extend that to the part of the human race that cannot (handicapped in some way, babies, etc.) is also pretty normal. Dogs and cats (the most popular pets) also at least appear to be able to reciprocate emotionally to a degree.

It's normal for otherwise intelligent people to make moronic arguments. I'm just a little disappointed with how often those arguments get repeated.

Anyway, long live the white race!
 
So your insistence that a meal without meat is without enjoyment is simply a psychological block preventing you from discovering the wide ranging pleasures to be had from vegetarian meals.

This really highlights the problem that the vegetarian side of the argument always seems to have. The mistake you make here is assuming that because someone likes meat, they only like meat and never eat anything without it. In reality, most people are perfectly capable of eating meals without meat as well. It's not the meat-eaters missing out on anything - we can, and do, eat all our meals and all of yours. Argue for vegetarianism on ethical or taste grounds and it's at least possible to make a sensible argument even if not everyone agrees with it. But claiming that everyone else is missing out on a wide range of things because they're willing to eat a much wider range of things than you is just utterly absurd.
 
By contrast, when my employer keeps us on-campus for extended hours during the weeks-long launch phase of a new product, they cater lunch and dinner every day. Us meat-eaters get varied menus during that fortnight, while the vegetarians see an endless cycle of the same three or four dishes over and over again. . . . (snip) . . .

Back when I was basing my diet on recipes from Frances Moore Lappe's book Diet For a Small Planet, I attended a luncheon meeting and made the mistake of ordering the "vegetarian" lunch. Thus, while others were enjoying reasonably cooked meals of beef, chicken or fish, plus potatoes and side vegetables, I was served a dish of over-boiled rubbery vegetables in a cheese sauce that was strictly Velveeta. It helps if the cook knows what he or she is doing. Many of them haven't got a clue as to how to cook a vegetarian cuisine. There's no reason for either a meat-eating diet or an ovo-lacto-vegetarian diet or a vegan diet to be monotonous or unappetizing.
 
Last edited:
It's normal for otherwise intelligent people to make moronic arguments. I'm just a little disappointed with how often those arguments get repeated.

Anyway, long live the white race!

Indeed, repeated nonsense like eating meat being related to cannibalism does get a little freaking old... as does the empty catcalling devoid of substance that you always come up with when someone tries to explain that there's a bit of a difference.
 
Last edited:
Cuddles said:
This really highlights the problem that the vegetarian side of the argument always seems to have. The mistake you make here is assuming that because someone likes meat, they only like meat and never eat anything without it. In reality, most people are perfectly capable of eating meals without meat as well. It's not the meat-eaters missing out on anything - we can, and do, eat all our meals and all of yours. Argue for vegetarianism on ethical or taste grounds and it's at least possible to make a sensible argument even if not everyone agrees with it. But claiming that everyone else is missing out on a wide range of things because they're willing to eat a much wider range of things than you is just utterly absurd.



My post was in answer to Aepervius' (and others) saying meals without meat are without enjoyment (quoted below), which disproves your assertion that they know what they are talking about. Vegetarian cuisine is vast and various, whereas common meat meals are generally relying mostly on the meat to provide enjoyment, and are simply meat and two veg for the most part, in my observation. Monotonously unimaginative. So much for your "wider range".

But all of this anecdotal tit for tat is a distraction from the scientific validity of the OP. Its only relevance to that is the absolute refusal of some people to even consider a change in their diet which would benefit the ecology and well-being of the entire planet and all the other people on it.

An action so easy to make, left unconsidered.


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.

What you seem to NOT get is that for some people a meal without meat is nourishing but without enjoyment. 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).
 
Tsukasa Buddha,
Step back a second from your Vegan advocacy, and instead look at your very first post on this thread, which does have some merit but also at least one fairly obvious flaw. Now lets look at one claim you made, backed by a link, and apply critical thinking to it.

You said:
Surely this is a problem of the evil factory farms and not the good, old fashioned ones with organic, grass-fed, pasture-raised, petted on the way to the slaughter animals? Nope.

Your link said:
On the environmental front, studies by Yan et al (2009) in Ireland used growth chambers to evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions from cattle with varying levels of forage and grain in the diet. Coupling these results with a 30% increase of harvest age of grass-fed cattle compared to grain-fed, it becomes clear there is a 500% increase in greenhouse gas emissions for each pound of beef produced from grass-fed compared to grain-fed cattle.

You see the inappropriate conclusion you made? It isn't a comparison of pasture raised with industrial CAFO raised. Both are confined in growth chambers. In essence the only thing the study measured was the difference between CAFO beef fed with hay compared to CAFO beef fed with grain. It's improper to conclude there is a similar net result in pasture. They haven't even measured the pasture at all. There isn't even a pasture. Just a hay field which they also failed to measure. Not a mention at all of SOC or SOM measurements. It's a carbon cycle. Both emissions and sequestration. That's a mistake both you and the article author Dr. John Comerford made.

You should be careful using meat industry propaganda to back your Vegan agenda. That dance with the devil will undermine your arguments.
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha,
Step back a second from your Vegan advocacy, and instead look at your very first post on this thread, which does have some merit but also at least one fairly obvious flaw. Now lets look at one claim you made, backed by a link, and apply critical thinking to it.

You said:

Your link said:

You see the inappropriate conclusion you made? It isn't a comparison of pasture raised with industrial CAFO raised. Both are confined in growth chambers. In essence the only thing the study measured was the difference between CAFO beef fed with hay compared to CAFO beef fed with grain. It's improper to conclude there is a similar net result in pasture. They haven't even measured the pasture at all. There isn't even a pasture. Just a hay field which they also failed to measure. Not a mention at all of SOC or SOM measurements. It's a carbon cycle. Both emissions and sequestration. That's a mistake both you and the article author Dr. John Comerford made.

You should be careful using meat industry propaganda to back your Vegan agenda. That dance with the devil will undermine your arguments.

Good points. The fact that both the grass-fed and grain-fed cattle were in a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) would seem to invalidate the findings. In any case, I'd like to see more than one study on this subject.

Another apparent flaw in the argument is that considerable energy is used to grow soy and corn, meaning a considerable output of carbon dioxide. Thus, merely by eating these crops, the cattle are consuming more energy and contributing greatly to greenhouse gases. Cattle and other ruminants don't really need these crops, since the bacteria in their fore-stomachs can break down just about any organic source. In Diet for a Small Planet, Frances Moore Lappe mentioned an experiment in which cattle were fed cardboard soaked in urine, giving their bacteria an organic carbon source and a nitrogen source. While I'm not proposing such a diet for cattle, the experiment does drive home the fact that they don't need to be fed either corn or soy.

I'm also not sure what objection there can be to eating dairy products from grass-fed cattle. While one can point to dairy cattle being treated badly, with undue confinement etc., inhumane treatment isn't either a necessity or a given in the dairy industry. The same can be said for eggs from free range chickens.
 

Back
Top Bottom