(July 1, 2013 at 7:36 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I am thinking that we have established that the OP is incorrect in his/her assumption that "childhood-indoctrination" is stopping people from embracing a vegan/vegetarian diet

You can establish for yourself whatever you want, but don't encroach on the judgement of others. Anyway, in between the noise and ad-hominems your side did raise some interesting points and I've certainly learned a great deal about problems of veganism through this discussion, it provided lots of food for thought, so thanks for that!

Quote:I think I would rather get my vitamins and minerals from my food than the pseudo-supplements

Completely agree, I (reluctantly) take exactly one supplement, which is B12. But before you get started, B12 deficient food is more a function of an over-sanitized food production system than it is of veganism per-se.

(June 29, 2013 at 3:21 am)littleendian Wrote: I don't understand why you keep pondering the petrochem thing, I am not advertising conventional ag and I haven't bought conventionally grown crops for years, what I eat is all organic and more and more local.

Where do they get their fertility? Do you want to know? If they aren't going "conventional" the field just narrowed to a host of things I don't think you'll appreciate.

What you guys are talking about is the difference between values and their pragmatic execution. Yes, it is harder to live as a vegan, or even a vegetarian. Humans are obviously omnivores, and meat is a good source of some of our nutrition.

However, while I think "indoctrination" is too leading a term to be useful in a fair debate, it's obvious that culture has as much to do with who is willing to take steps to be vegetarian and who isn't. Go to Texas and tell people to give up steaks, and you're probably wasting your time. Go to Seattle or San Francisco, and you're much more likely to be received positively. This is because at least in part of values that people learned from their parents.

In the end, it's going to come down to economics. Either we stop the growth of humanity, or we have to realize that there IS no natural way to support 10 billion or more people. We'll have either to prevent reproduction, to kill a percentage of the population (through war, or a eugenic holocaust, or through secret viruses or whatever). Overall, a mixed approach is most economic. Some land simply is not arable enough to justify being cultivated by farming.

I personally think we are going to end up with giant food towers, starting with algae, and adding various genetically-modified plants to maximize nutrition. These will provide food to the giant towers of people surrounding them. Obviously, any kind of transported food is unnecessarily expensive: getting fruit from thousands of miles away will be reserved for the rich.

(July 1, 2013 at 7:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: getting fruit from thousands of miles away will be reserved for the rich.

Would they even buy it that way if vertical gardens rendered such useless?

(July 1, 2013 at 7:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I personally think we are going to end up with giant food towers, starting with algae, and adding various genetically-modified plants to maximize nutrition. These will provide food to the giant towers of people surrounding them. Obviously, any kind of transported food is unnecessarily expensive: getting fruit from thousands of miles away will be reserved for the rich.

Fueling conspiracy theories that will outlive me..but..yes, in all likelihood, with the building boom and real estate crash and our ever increasing pop....eventually, just with the tech we have, there will be "food towers". It actually became economically feasible of late - which has always been the sticking point-...so....

As summer mentioned...with vert towers, there isn;t anything you might want to buy that cant be grown locally. I'm gonna take a moment to predict the future....cacao, north of the 49th....gonna make somebody a billionaire in my lifetime.

(July 1, 2013 at 7:07 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote:

(July 1, 2013 at 7:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: getting fruit from thousands of miles away will be reserved for the rich.

Would they even buy it that way if vertical gardens rendered such useless?

Well, in MY totally-made-up future, all those vertical gardens will consist of special GM crops designed much more to sustain future troops, and to recycle human waste, than to taste great-- which won't matter, because those people won't ever have tasted real fruit-- just like my children have never tasted real strawberries.

So the rich will truck in natural fruits and vegetables, and even the knowledge of how they taste will be something for them to talk about in the spa.

(July 28, 2013 at 11:48 am)Forbinator Wrote: Here is a link explaining the fallacy you have committed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Animal testing for human medicine is scientific fraud, and involves some of the worst abuse imaginable. The people who profit from it try to justify it ethically by saying that the animals are different from us, and then try to justify it scientifically by saying that the animals are the same as us. There is no logically consistent way to justify animal testing without subscribing to that contradiction.

Animals are similar, genetically at least (depending on the animal, naturally) and are used thanks to that genetic similarity without having to test on humans directly (not exclusively the case).

There is no logical inconsistency unless you want to give animals that are bread the precise reason of testing methodlolgies that could be fatal to a human the exact same rights as a human. I read an inference in your OP that this is exactly the position you take. Thus any further converstaion would result in an impasse as I am for medical advancement and you seemingly are for eliminating all research that would be conducted on animals, effectively wiping entire fields of medicine that saves lives on a daily basis (such as me).

There is a cause for that argument, but it is not one I would subscribe to.

Question: What would you do if you were diagnosed as a T1 diabetic?

I would also say that there are clear advances in medical science that would be impossible to achieve without first conducting testing on animals (unless you wanted to just test on humans instead). Prion based research on misfolding proteins for example. There is currently no way to test for prions such as CJD in animals unless they exibit symptoms (scrapie) or until they're dead. Same with humans. The only way to analyse and test (and hopefully one day cure) diseases such as CJD and MCD is to test them in controlled environments on animals.

You'll have to explain further how clear results from medical testing on animals that result in treatments/cures thanks to the methodological enterprise that was conducted as such is a post hoc fallacy. Becuase it isn't. Unless you're saying someone magically invented a cure after conducting research on animals and then just invented a link.

You will also need to explain and expand on "worst abuse(s) imaginable", and then continue to expand on how this informs all research as conducted on animals.

Another question: How do you define 'animals'?