Childhood indoctrination

[Foxaèr]

I was vegan for two and a half years and it was a perfectly healthy lifestyle choice for me. However, I really started to miss meat, so I began to eat it again. Would I ever go back to being a vegan? Probably not. I proved to myself I could do it, and that was as far as I was willing to take it.

[Zen Badger]

So we can say that the OP has been debunked? It is NOT "childhood indoctrination" that causes humans to be meat eating omnivores but more genetics?

I would concede that there might be genetic factors involved, but I do not buy your "75% of population can't biologically be vegan" assertion, which until you back it up with evidence I assume was just plucked out of your lower back.

But much more important than genetics is just simply culture, peers and willingness to make an admittedly radical change. Most tastes are acquired, there are excellent protein sources for vegans, and it's fun to do something different! Plus the people are great, although I admit I personally am not coming across so great seeing the strong reactions here. My fault

And it's also about the benefits one gets from it, most amazingly to me: I've never in my life felt so good and had so much love and compassion in my heart, and I have veganism to thank for that. I will forever be thankful to the person who raised my awareness about this I admit I failed at conveying this in the discussion here at these forums, which is evident in the strong reactions

Dude, if you wish to be a vegan, go for it.

It is a matter of personal choice and I will never judge you for it(because it means more bacon for me)

My only beef(pun intended) is when vegans start claiming that veganism is some sort of moral choice and us omnivorous types are degenerate barbarians for continuing to devour our animal cousins.

Complete and utter bullshit!!!

If we wish to go down that road are you going to go out into the wild and prevent the Lion from killing the Vilderbeest?

Or the Orca from eating the Seal?

Because the principal is the same.

We have evolved to have meat as a part of our diet and Evolution does not care about your delicate moral sensibilities.

And on a final note, while you might be feeling better for your choice I remember hearing a man on Triple J telling how his 17 years of vegetarianism was medically the worst thing that ever happened to him.

[KichigaiNeko]

So we can say that the OP has been debunked? It is NOT "childhood indoctrination" that causes humans to be meat eating omnivores but more genetics?

I would concede that there might be genetic factors involved, but I do not buy your "75% of population can't biologically be vegan" assertion, which until you back it up with evidence I assume was just plucked out of your lower back.

I think I indicated that I was utilising my "lower back" with that guesstimate, striving to include those from "Third world and Second world" countries where this "radical choice" you are advocating may not be available.

But much more important than genetics is just simply culture, peers and willingness to make an admittedly radical change.

You are applying "First world" problems to an issue that is much greater than your narrow view.

Most tastes are acquired, there are excellent protein sources for vegans, and it's fun to do something different! Plus the people are great, although I admit I personally am not coming across so great seeing the strong reactions here. My fault

You never considered that an omnivore would enjoy a vegan meal. Even when one stated as such but kept on with your pseudo religious vilification of omnivores.

And it's also about the benefits one gets from it, most amazingly to me: I've never in my life felt so good and had so much love and compassion in my heart, and I have veganism to thank for that.

Now you are sounding religious, and further indication that you have only replaced one "religion" with another. I am personally glad you feel well and happy with your life and the way you choose to live it I am demanding that you let others do the same.

I will forever be thankful to the person who raised my awareness about this I admit I failed at conveying this in the discussion here at these forums, which is evident in the strong reactions

See that is the rub there. You are being elitist in thinking that YOU are the only one who has considered this lifestyle path and like a true evangelical you must "witness" to all and sundry (whether they like it, been there done that, or not) of your "conversion".

You are also very gullible to think that because we on this forum are rather flippant regarding meat consumption, that we don't care. This is what your "socio-political-masters" would like you to think and this is not accurate.

There are many on this board who ARE vegan/ vegetarian, or some version there of, so you are nothing special. Your verbose infantile tantrums that we on this board are ALL horrid people because some of us prefer (for what ever reason) meat in our diets is insulting to them who you would readily identify with.

Anyway, back to this cock-a-mamy idea that halal/ kosher slaughter is just wizz bang fantastic and humane... who's fucking idea was that and why did it become religious law?

[ideologue08]

And so many of the UK bastards are still trying to get in ideo

To see the Kangaroos?

[bennyboy]

You forgot Susan Sarandon and Helen Miren who are both omnivores, very sexy and are not "youth obsessed" Benny.

---

It is very humorous that all these so called "vegan champions" have vested interests in marketing fad diets and dietary information. Nigella Lawson? Makes no excuses to NOT being professionally trained and just loves food and cooking (much liken to our SummerQueen and is a domestic goddess to boot!)

Nah sorry benny, Forbi, endi et al....no sale for your religiosity regarding the way I live................ but thanks for caring about your own elitism.

---

Oh...almost forgot.

So we can say that the OP has been debunked? It is NOT "childhood indoctrination" that causes humans to be meat eating omnivores but more genetics?

Personally, I view Vegan/ Vegetarianism taken to this extreme of vocalisation and victimisation of non-vegetarians as amounting to nothing more than a replacement for religion/ political manipulation of the populace.
my 2c

I'm not sure that I said what you seem to think I said. Are you maybe responding to someone I quoted or something?

[The Grand Nudger]

Most tastes are acquired, there are excellent protein sources for vegans, and it's fun to do something different!

Not a single one of which eliminates any cruelty, inhumane treatment, or wholesale slaughter of animals both human and non.

End of, amiright?

[littleendian]

Most tastes are acquired, there are excellent protein sources for vegans, and it's fun to do something different!

Not a single one of which eliminates any cruelty, inhumane treatment, or wholesale slaughter of animals both human and non.

I assume you're referring to the notion that animals get harmed when growing crops such as soy for human consumption. Still I hold there is a difference between (a) maximizing killing (and all too often also suffering) by producing meat and (b) defending ones crop production while trying to minimize the amount of suffering necessary to do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you argue for a reduction of meat consumption, but you don't see a reason to cease it completely. Now it's been suggested by a UN report ("Livestocks long shadow", available here) that livestock production is a significant contributor to global warming and also contributes to other major environmental problems. The developing world today asks for more and more meat in their diet, and if they ever reach the levels we Westerners are eating today, this will have significant consequences for the environment, affecting us all and future generations.

How can we ask the third world not to do this to the planet if we're eating steak ourselves? I don't think it would be very convincing to say "Look, Ma, we're eating less" where "less" is not very well defined. Wouldn't it be much more convincing if we could say "Look, Ma, we don't eat it at all!"?

[fr0d0]

Reducto ad absurdum - seems to be Rhythm's argument.

[Forbinator]

Thanks for your post. I guess as long as we have a monetary system, humanity is screwed? That sounds about right, but let's not make innocent animals pay for our mistakes.

LOL, as long as we have a monetary system at least some of us are going to be screwed, yes (not really the fault of ag tho). It isn't just that animals (including ourselves) "pay" for our economic policy- we also "pay" for our technical inability, and perhaps even more than either of the first two we "pay" for the limits of organic chemistry. So long as livestock are capable of processing commodities which we are not (for whatever reason, be it economics or biology) their presence in a food production system will always mean "more food" than would be available in their absence. Until we find a better nutrient source than either the livestock themselves or petrochem (in this regard we could simply find a better way of distributing said resource in the short term..but this would only forestall the same problem..as it is consumed at a greater rate than it occurs by any process that we are aware of) we will be beholden to one or the other.

I noticed in one of your responses that you aren't comfortable conceding that additional fertility (that is, additional to what is naturally occurring) is required - if you would like me to link you a commercial agricultural production manual (for a region with nutrient rich soils) I would be more than happy to oblige. Fertility is required, it does not occur in great enough amounts/density naturally, and it doesn't care whether you or I are comfortable with that - in fact it simply doesn't care at all...it's just chemistry.

I suppose the occasions where "livestock are capable of processing commodities which we are not" depends mostly on the soil type in a given region, and whether it can support fast crop growth? I would still suggest that if the areas that can support crop growth were all used for that purpose, with the resulting food fed to humans (not farmed animals) the extra food would mean we would no longer have the need to exploit animals in the regions that can't support efficient crop growth. I acknowledge that your economic explanation realistically indicates why such wholesale changes to our food system are unlikely as long as we have a monetary system, but I still don't accept that we can justify harming animals on purely economic grounds. If there were instances of humans being farmed, we wouldn't even mention economics; we would be outraged and want to shut them down. The issue with most responses to this thread is that no-one has really addressed the characteristics of farmed animals (when compared to humans) that make it morally permissible to harm them. It seems like something that has been hard-wired into us from a young age, but we don't know why, and certainly no-one can articulate it (childhood indoctrination, if you will).

As far as additional soil fertility goes, I was under the impression that crop rotation was a strategy used to mitigate soil erosion, and also to restore nutrients back into the soil (by leaving the stalks or other remains of plant material behind). I can see that the more intensive operations might be less willing to do this and would instead require fertiliser. If you wanted to provide a link that would be good.

Anglo-Saxon raised as a vegan and was (at age 18) introduced to bacon. Bam! Omnivore. His body said "we NEED this!"

This is further to my point, should yourself or anyone else find that a vegan/vegetarian diet suits your particular metabolism and genetics all kudos to you. Vegan/vegetarianism is NOT a panacea and there are many who are unable to partake of such a diet for mainly genetic or metabolic reasons. That said it is childish and futile to (by way of guilt/ ad populism) argument to say that vegan/vegetarianism will "cure the world"! It won't and many would die (and are dying) as a result.

For me the world is a wondrous amazing place and I am part of this thing called living. I do not strive to set myself above it nor to dictate how it should work.

Your bacon anecdote demonstrates that bacon contains nutrients that humans need. It does NOT indicate that these nutrients are unavailable in elsewhere, or that flesh products are necessary.

I don't believe that veganism is a panacea at all, and you seem intent on building this straw man. If we want to strive for some ideal of "world peace", or whatever you would want to call it, veganism would be necessary but not sufficient. I see it as a moral baseline. We have an obligation not to commit overt harm to others unless there is a damn good reason. From this baseline of not doing overt harm, we can strive as much as we reasonably can to reduce the covert harm that we do, such as by using too much electricity, and by emitting harmful chemicals into the environment.

I acknowledge that there is no such thing as a meal (or other product) that does no harm, and we all have a "footprint" on this earth, but by promoting and supporting direct violence against animals you seem to be taking the position that because we can't eliminate harm, we shouldn't bother with ethics at all.

You should also know that I'm not trying to be "superior" or set myself "above" anyone else. It would be counterproductive at any rate, since what I want is for as many people to go vegan as possible. I'm a part of the same society as you, and we're all at different stages, and will realise things at different times. You could use the same logic to accuse anyone who takes an ethical stance of "elitism", am I right? Perhaps you'd prefer it if we ignore ethics altogether?

The best meal on this planet is a rack of lamb with just about the spices... yum, yum.

And then there are the UGG Boots!!... and the Jackets...And the Blankets!

Blessed be the little baa sheep!

---

One thing that synthetics can't do, and that is have EVERYTHING being utilised as either food, oil/ energy or clothing.

This is a common misconception, as the prime lamb industry (lamb = baby sheep less than one year old), and the Merino wool industry (where shearing is done once a year) are virtually two distinct entities, with very little overlap. The resources are not nearly as efficiently utilised as you would like them to be, although some farms that compromise on either wool quality or meat quality may achieve this to some extent.

I will re-iterate..."IF you are going to kill something, make it a clean quick kill so the animal/ creature in question does not suffer"

You have said this before, but have been unable to explain why it can be justified for a pig or a cow, but not for a human. You haven't provided any biological differences that support this distinction. It seems that you have just assumed that the distinction exists axiomatically, which is just the way the big industries want us to think.

You also cannot get past the fact that the "clean, quick" kill is not realistic in practice. Animals at slaughterhouses are "processed" in such high numbers and at such high speeds that stunning is often not effective, and certain stunning methods (such as electrical or carbon-dioxide) are inherently unreliable. Usually they are killed in view of other animals, and can smell the blood and fear. Basically, the fact that they don't wilfully stroll into the slaughterhouse of their own accord (and need to be forced in/beaten with a stick) precludes your idea of the "perfect" kill with no suffering.

From an Urban Horticulturalist/ Permaculturalist point of view you are far to free [sic] with your wilful murder of plant life.

Farmed animals are fed plants, at a far less efficient conversion ratio than eating the plants myself. If you're worried about plant life, then veganism may be the only logical option for you.

I'm personally investing vast amounts of time and money to create and provide proof of concept (specifically for economic viability in low income/impoverished regions) for an integrated aqua/ag production method and associated business model that provides high quality protein (in the form of freshwater fish , crustaceans, and mollusks) as a byproduct of the manufacture of non-petrochem nutrient sources that are then used to produce large amounts of vegetables in a fantastically dense way (due to being vertical hydro) without any contamination of the soil (as none is present) or water (as the byproducts of one process are used as the inputs of the other - an artificial closed loop). In short, I want to produce more food - of a higher quality, at a lower price, with fewer inputs in a smaller space, for poorer and hungrier people.....all the while, hopefully, turning them a profit.

So when I advocate for the usefulness and reality of livestock in agricultural production -that- is why I do so. Not because I'm some moral midget looking for a way to make it okay to continue supporting cruelty to animals because I like the taste of sirloin tips.

(and Forb..if you're still onboard, lets see that omnivore bingo link again btw..so we can take a crack at where what I just explained falls)

The bingo game is a tool used to mock people for using fallacies, so it is unlikely to apply to you. The system that you're talking about sounds really interesting. Have you considered the use of only animals who don't feel pain (eg clams, oysters, scallops, mussels)? This could improve the ethics of the operation without compromising on sustainability.

I've seen good reasons for opposing the cruel treatment of animals (including ourselves - and I'm onboard), but I haven't seen any good reasons offered up for veganism- as of yet. What seems to be happening here is that a certain segment of us do not comprehend that the one is not synonymous with the other.

You're saying that animal use is not synonymous with cruelty? I agree in the literal sense, but in the practical sense it is very difficult to enforce measures that eliminate the cruel practices at each stage of a given production cycle. Even harder still, would be sourcing products where you are sure that cruelty has not occurred; in fact I would say this is impossible as the labelling doesn't disclose the full process, and you end up just having to trust the process, even though cruelty is favoured financially.

Here is just one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDayT3mLoHQ

Couldn't we handle your objection by giving them a sporting chance to do exactly what we (imagine we) would do presented with death? Open the gate, let em run - I don't mind. Humane doesn't enter in, as you said - but hey, at least it would be fair.

No, this would also be cruel. Domesticated, introduced species are not adapted to live in the wild. Let's reduce the demand for animal products, and stop the breeding altogether. Many species that we farm have been selectively bred for "production" traits, at the expense of their health and quality of life.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Ind :So humane treatment enters in after all. To which I mention - as I did pages ago, that some livestock already lives a better life than some humans - and we could do even better on both counts.

How can we ask the third world not to do this to the planet if we're eating steak ourselves? I don't think it would be very convincing to say "Look, Ma, we're eating less" where "less" is not very well defined. Wouldn't it be much more convincing if we could say "Look, Ma, we don't eat it at all!"?

This..this right here sums it all up. What I'm trying to express is that I'm not in the business of saying "look ma, we're eating less" - to anyone.

AForb

I suppose the occasions where "livestock are capable of processing commodities which we are not" depends mostly on the soil type in a given region, and whether it can support fast crop growth?

It depends on the commodity. You can grow -something- almost anywhere, but there's a long list of somethings that aren't fit for human consumption no matter how fast they grow - or where they were grown. Additionally, just because something is fit for human consumption, doesn't make it the best use of space. Particularly if something else that's fits for consumption can be grown on the same space -for whatever reason- and ends up adding more to the overall pool of available nutrition - for whatever reason-. For example, there are places where we -could- grow food for human consumption..but growing a tiny yellow flower that's used in the extraction of the most common insecticides is a better use of space because it multiplies the productivity of -all- other spaces used for veggies.

As far as additional soil fertility goes, I was under the impression that crop rotation was a strategy used to mitigate soil erosion, and also to restore nutrients back into the soil (by leaving the stalks or other remains of plant material behind). I can see that the more intensive operations might be less willing to do this and would instead require fertiliser. If you wanted to provide a link that would be good.

It is used for that purpose, even by the big boys. Not only does it mitigate loss and erosion it reduces the amount of work they have to do (which would influence their ability to compete on price). Thing is - the fertility in those stalks -came- from somewhere....and we're not standing on top of a perpetual motion machine. The majority of nutrients goes into the parts that we eat, the fruits, the seedpods. There are a few exceptions on this one, but the fertility is exported in the form of commodities leaving only the byproduct - so you end up leaving in less than you take out.

Here's the current commercial guide for my state - to give you an idea of what goes into this.
http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/id/id36/id36.pdf

What you'll notice, is that "best practice" include rotations, preventative IPM, soil conservation, water conservation, reduction of chemical inputs...that's all already there. It all translates not only into "more food" but also "more profit". The two things are tied at the hip to each other.