Vegetarianism versus Veganism versus Meat Eating

[redfarmer]

Since this is the elephant in the room on the foie gras thread, I thought I would start a thread on the merits of vegetarianism and veganism versus meat eating. I will start the discussion and hopefully we can critically think on some issues in this area.

I am a meat eater but I am also a former vegetarian. The reason I was a vegetarian was largely an emotional response from watching PETA videos, a reason I don't consider sufficient anymore to justify not eating meat. I, like most vegetarians and vegans I knew, were big into animal rights, which, along with the "health benefits argument", seems to be one of the biggest reasons for going vegetarian or vegan in our society right now.

So, I present for your consideration, this well-written blog article I found earlier:
Let Them Eat Meat - How the Ethical Argument for Veganism Fails and One Possible Way to Fix It

Essentially, the author argues that people do not become vegans because they want to reduce suffering; if that were the case, all you would have to do is say no to one Slim Jim in your life and you've reduced suffering. The vegan is committed to a rights approach which says that animals have rights. However, even the vegan cannot avoid causing suffering to animals unless they commit suicide, an option all sides will consider extreme. The vegan, he argues, unintentionally kills animals in the process of harvesting crops.

The author also presents some possible solutions for vegans. I'd be interested in some thoughtful responses to the article to start out a discussion of the merits of veganism/vegetarianism versus meat eating.

 

[shemp]

Meat tastes good. Case closed.

 

[RobDegraves]

Dumb response.. but what can you hope for.

Meat tastes good. Case closed.

Drugs feel good. Case closed.

Raping women feels good (assuming you like that sort of thing). Case closed.

People taste good (so I read). Case closed.

So... sometimes, even if it feels good, you might not want to do it.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Dumb response.. but what can you hope for.



Drugs feel good. Case closed.

Raping women feels good (assuming you like that sort of thing). Case closed.

People taste good (so I read). Case closed.

So... sometimes, even if it feels good, you might not want to do it.

Drugs feel good, but...
Rape (why you should treat it as a gender issue escapes me, but that's an aside) feels good, but....
People taste good, but...

Your job was to come up with the 'but'. Meat does taste good. If there isn't a convincing 'but', then the argument suffices.

Syllogism:

1) Bacon
2) Bacon
3) Bacon

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Meat tastes good. Case closed.

This.

 

[citizenzen]

Essentially, the author argues that people do not become vegans because they want to reduce suffering ...

It's not quite so simple, Slim.

Another argument for vegetarianism is that it takes fewer resources to produce vegetable protein vs. an equal amount of animal protein.

Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment

David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel
From the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

ABSTRACT

Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The US food production system uses about 50% of the total US land area, 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil energy used in the country. The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable. The use of land and energy resources devoted to an average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian (plant-based) diet is analyzed in this report. In both diets, the daily quantity of calories consumed are kept constant at about 3533 kcal per person. The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.
​

If you don't care about the suffering, consider the sustainability.

 

[shemp]

Dumb response.. but what can you hope for.



Drugs feel good. Case closed.

Raping women feels good (assuming you like that sort of thing). Case closed.

People taste good (so I read). Case closed.

So... sometimes, even if it feels good, you might not want to do it.

Enjoy your tofu and bean sprouts. Scrut and I will be having steaks hot off the grill.

 

[Furcifer]

Drugs feel good. Case closed.

Nobody ever got hooked on bacon and died from it.

(not for lack of trying)

 

[Furcifer]

If you don't care about the suffering, consider the sustainability.

A good point and the reason I went veggie myself. It's currently sustainable though so I don't think there's any reason to preach. When it isn't sustainable the cost at the supermarket will do the preaching anyways. Money speaks louder than self righteous vegetarians.

 

[citizenzen]

A good point and the reason I went veggie myself. It's currently sustainable though so I don't think there's any reason to preach. When it isn't sustainable the cost at the supermarket will do the preaching anyways. Money speaks louder than self righteous vegetarians.

I just gave you information.

Who's preaching?

Sounds to me like you're a little too sensitive when it comes to this subject.

 

[RobDegraves]

Enjoy your tofu and bean sprouts. Scrut and I will be having steaks hot off the grill.

I'm not a vegetarian... I was just pointing out the lack of logic in your short and silly statement.

Your job was to come up with the 'but'. Meat does taste good. If there isn't a convincing 'but', then the argument suffices.

Sigh.. the argument does not suffice because there is a "but".

1. As pointed out above, meat requires more energy vs plant based diets.

2. Though it is not an overwhelming problem yet, rising populations could make it a significant one.

3. Large scale, industrial meat production has a number of fairly significant flaws that have yet to be addressed... assuming they ever can be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THIODWTqx5E

I don't have a problem eating meat, depending on certain guidelines... however I often wonder at the difference between humans and animals. So far, I can see quantitative differences but not qualitative ones. So.. why not eat people? Of course, you would likely not start in the US... to much fast food to be healthy.

 

[goodm0urning]

Dietary reasons and taste-related reasons are understandable. And sustainability, I suppose, though that may be a better argument for cutting back on meat rather than giving it up entirely.

Animal suffering is an argument for improving the conditions of livestock. Animal rights seems to be a rather unsupportable equivalence between animals and humans.

 

[epepke]

With respect to the article, I think the most important point is anti-suffering versus anti-exploitation. PETA is more along the lines of anti-exploitation. They don't seem to mind killing animals or making them suffer, as they cause it to happen and have gotten into legal trouble for doing so.

 

[citizenzen]

Animal rights seems to be a rather unsupportable equivalence between animals and humans.

I'm curious why you assert that there's "unsupportable equivalence between animals and humans.". If you consider mammals, much of our physiology is quite similar. Surely mentally we are quite different. But physically, not so much.

 

[Furcifer]

I just gave you information.

Who's preaching?

Sounds to me like you're a little too sensitive when it comes to this subject.

I'm not saying you're preaching.

That being said, there very nature of the thread is indicative of the preachy nature of vegetarians. You NEVER see a "jeans" vs. "cords" thread because people don't preach the wonderful choice of cotton denim over cotton polyester mix textured fabrics (although I usually wear jeans, cords are softer and more comfortable). Meat eaters tend to just eat meat and not think too much about not eating meat.

I think you're too sensitive. You're not a vegan with a persecution complex are you?

 

[tyr_13]

It's not quite so simple, Slim.

Another argument for vegetarianism is that it takes fewer resources to produce vegetable protein vs. an equal amount of animal protein.

Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment

David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel
From the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

ABSTRACT

Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The US food production system uses about 50% of the total US land area, 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil energy used in the country. The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable. The use of land and energy resources devoted to an average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian (plant-based) diet is analyzed in this report. In both diets, the daily quantity of calories consumed are kept constant at about 3533 kcal per person. The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.
​

If you don't care about the suffering, consider the sustainability.

It's an oversimplified argument. Absolute vegetarinism doesn't make sense from a sustainability standpoint either as animals can be raised on marginal lands not suited for other food production. It generally isn't, but that's an argument for changing the amount of meat produced, and it's method of production. It's not one to abandon meat completely.

My brother's girlfriend has an environmental degree (I forget the specific one), and doesn't eat meat that she doesn't know the source of. The meat she buys is all local to the point where she can walk around the farm and watch the slaughtering, and the other meat she eats comes from her own hunting.

Basically my criticism is that arguing from a sustainability standpoint is using and overly broad brush.

 

[citizenzen]

Basically my criticism is that arguing from a sustainability standpoint is using and overly broad brush.

No more than saying you should "save gas" means you need to get rid of your car and walk everywhere.

I'm arguing for wiser and informed choices, not donning a sackcloth and personal deprivation.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm arguing for wiser and informed choices...

I agree. That's why I eat meat.

Pass me a cheeseburger.

 

[citizenzen]

I agree. That's why I eat meat.

Pass me a cheeseburger.

And redfarmer worries about vegetarians evangelizing.

 

[Furcifer]

And redfarmer worries about vegetarians evangelizing.

No that was me.

We've got a religion devoted to pasta, that's a start.