Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[bennyboy]

I am also vegetarian, mainly because I feel the mind and sentient life is incredible, special, and has "value." I value human life over all others and if there is no choice (trapped on an island with limited food options) I would ofcourse favor eating meat. However, I personally feel killing creatures with functional minds by choice rather than necessity is wrong (at least for me and my conscience).
My line is generally if it has a brain, then killing it should be necessary not optional. The ability to make moral judgement is one of the major characteristics that seperate us from most if not all other animals and therefore (and I'm speculating about a future retort based on past experience) extending this thought process to a lion in the jungle is ridiculous.
We live in a world of caloric excess (at least in the USA) in which a healthy and complete diet can easily be achieved without killing conscience creatures and I try to make my choices accordingly.

{Please note I am not trying to extrapolate my view to you nor do I advocate forcing others to conform to my viewpoint - I am only advocating my own position}

How about the many critters that are inadvertently killed in industrial farming: voles chewed up in tilling equipment, calves which are born and slaughtered to keep cows making milk, frogs, snakes and so on killed with pesticides, etc. Are you sure that a "vegetarian" lifestyle actually has a net positive effect on the number of animals who suffer and die at the hands of humans?

It's one thing not to directly participate, but how sure are you that the effect you want (or don't want) to have on the world is a reality based on your diet?

[Fromper]

How about the many critters that are inadvertently killed in industrial farming: voles chewed up in tilling equipment, calves which are born and slaughtered to keep cows making milk, frogs, snakes and so on killed with pesticides, etc. Are you sure that a "vegetarian" lifestyle actually has a net positive effect on the number of animals who suffer and die at the hands of humans?

It's one thing not to directly participate, but how sure are you that the effect you want (or don't want) to have on the world is a reality based on your diet?

Vegans don't consume milk for exactly the reason you said - cows are killed in that industry. All of the other side effects you're naming would happen whether people eat meat or not. But because meat farming is less efficient than plant farming, and because there are animals directly killed as a primary effect there are definitely more animals killed when raising them for meat, yes, I'm sure that my vegetarian diet causes less animal death than a meat eating diet. Not to mention all the animals that spend their lives in tiny cages before they're slaughtered for food - at least the animals killed as side effects live natural lives, first.

This argument is like saying "Well, humans die every day of disease and accidents anyway, so there's no reason not to intentionally murder a few more." Just because some death is unavoidable, there's no reason to intentionally add to it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that what benny was alluding to, is whether or not you can actually ameliorate even the "unintentional" death toll- by virtue of a dietary constraint.
(benny didn't invoke any human misery that might be a consequnce of your dietary decisions, mind you, so it was a softball question......I would, however).

[bennyboy]

How about the many critters that are inadvertently killed in industrial farming: voles chewed up in tilling equipment, calves which are born and slaughtered to keep cows making milk, frogs, snakes and so on killed with pesticides, etc. Are you sure that a "vegetarian" lifestyle actually has a net positive effect on the number of animals who suffer and die at the hands of humans?

It's one thing not to directly participate, but how sure are you that the effect you want (or don't want) to have on the world is a reality based on your diet?

Vegans don't consume milk for exactly the reason you said - cows are killed in that industry. All of the other side effects you're naming would happen whether people eat meat or not. But because meat farming is less efficient than plant farming, and because there are animals directly killed as a primary effect there are definitely more animals killed when raising them for meat, yes, I'm sure that my vegetarian diet causes less animal death than a meat eating diet. Not to mention all the animals that spend their lives in tiny cages before they're slaughtered for food - at least the animals killed as side effects live natural lives, first.

This argument is like saying "Well, humans die every day of disease and accidents anyway, so there's no reason not to intentionally murder a few more." Just because some death is unavoidable, there's no reason to intentionally add to it.

Keeping in mind that I'm one of the most avid vegetarians here, you're preaching to the choir. However, on both sides, I'm seeing false dilemmas-- and they all involve people continuing to do things as they do them now.

For example, what if there were laws that all cattle and food animals must be free range. A cow grazing in fields will for sure kill fewer animals than a field capable of producing the same number of calories-- because farming harms animals in the soil. So it isn't really the act of eating cows that causes the misery and death-- it's the evils of the industrial meat industry-- feeding perfectly good grain to cattle because it maximizes the price per head, keeping them enclosed because they can yield more cattle per acre, etc.

But what about a family-run small farm, like used to exist in the US? They might raise a few cattle on their field, a few pigs on garbage and leftovers, for a total of maybe a few deaths per year-- and with the living animals having reasonably good lives. Take the amount of "vegetarian" food you eat per year right now, with industrial food production facilities, and I'd wager you are indirectly responsible for at least as many deaths.

I'm also vegetarian. But in order to make a good argument for vegetarianism, I think we have a responsibility to look a little deeper into our total effect on the animal world (including ecosystems), and not just say, "I'm eating broccoli-- I saved a cow." That's not accurate.

[rexbeccarox]

(snipmine)Meat eating is not necessary-- it is for many enjoyable and convenient, but at least in the developed world, not necessary.

For me as an individual, actually, it's extremely necessary. If you've read my past posts on this matter, then you know I was a veg for a long time, but I have a nut allergy. When I was a vegetarian, I went into anaphylaxis way too many times. Since I began eating meat, my hospital visits are few and far between. I developed a sort of PTSD for eating *in general* when I was a veg, due to my many 'episodes', and now I have a hard time eating at all. I've resigned myself to being an omnivore, and I'm not dead because of it. I'll take that and run with it. Veg's can do what they want. I'll be eating some meat, because that reduces the prospect of me dying young.

[psychoslice]

I am a vegetarian but not a strike one, I will every now and then have fish or a little chicken, I am very healthy for my age and I put this down to my diet. Too many believe that we need heaps of protein which is a big lie, in fact too much protein can case diseases such as cancer. But then what suites my body may not suite another's body, we are all different and the trick is to find what suites your body as I have done.

[bennyboy]

(snipmine)Meat eating is not necessary-- it is for many enjoyable and convenient, but at least in the developed world, not necessary.

For me as an individual, actually, it's extremely necessary. If you've read my past posts on this matter, then you know I was a veg for a long time, but I have a nut allergy. When I was a vegetarian, I went into anaphylaxis way too many times. Since I began eating meat, my hospital visits are few and far between. I developed a sort of PTSD for eating *in general* when I was a veg, due to my many 'episodes', and now I have a hard time eating at all. I've resigned myself to being an omnivore, and I'm not dead because of it. I'll take that and run with it. Veg's can do what they want. I'll be eating some meat, because that reduces the prospect of me dying young.

Yes, I remember your previous posts well. Some people also need insulin, but that's not a sensible argument for all people using it-- it just means that those people's bodies do not function normally and they have needs that others don't.

I'd wager there are some vegetarians who have stories similar to yours-- they are allergic to something in the meat, they got sick from eating meat many times, etc.

But the objective truth is that over a population, vegetarians fare no less well than omnivores. Except in medical conditions such as yours, a person can be vegetarian, healthy and happy, and have the added bonus of feeling good about minimizing their impact on other living things.

---

I am a vegetarian but not a strike one, I will every now and then have fish or a little chicken, I am very healthy for my age and I put this down to my diet. Too many believe that we need heaps of protein which is a big lie, in fact too much protein can case diseases such as cancer. But then what suites my body may not suite another's body, we are all different and the trick is to find what suites your body as I have done.

Yeah, protein really depends on how much hurt you're putting your body through. I'm pretty sure weight-lifters need lots of protein, and I've heard that long-distance runners also need very large amounts due to the constant wear-and-tear.

But most people don't need to eat a massive serving of meat as the main course for dinner every day.

[Michael]

Just putting my hand up as another vegetarian (mostly vegan).

[The Grand Nudger]

I missed this earlier, I always take the time to correct it - "meat farming" -is not- less efficient than "plant farming". This is propaganda. Don't get me wrong, I'd like for it to be, I really would - then I could feel even better about myself...lol. The only reason we even have feedlots is because they operate more efficiently within our current conditions than free range operations do. Similarly, the reason we added livestock to our small farms is that they up the productivity of the farm in toto (both in their ability to convert nutrients into a usable form, and to store them once converted - they are the original food processing plants). We feed "perfectly good" livestock grade grain to cattle because it not only maximizes the price per head, but also the return on the grain, particularly so when growing a higher quality grain is either environmentally or economically unfeasable-for whatever reason. We also feed them leftover high quality grain (that offers nutrients available to human beings with no or marginal processing) when there is a glut of that grain - we can only eat so much of it, but to make sure we don't starve (and for a list of other reasons too long to mention) we devote a hell of alot of space to it. This also maximizes the return off the high quality stuff (where it can be grown) - and this money is what convinces and enables producers to...you know..produce.

[James2014]

I missed this earlier, I always take the time to correct it - "meat farming" -is not- less efficient than "plant farming". This is propaganda. Don't get me wrong, I'd like for it to be, I really would - then I could feel even better about myself...lol. The only reason we even have feedlots is because they operate more efficiently within our current conditions than free range operations do. Similarly, the reason we added livestock to our small farms is that they up the productivity of the farm in toto (both in their ability to convert nutrients into a usable form, and to store them once converted - they are the original food processing plants). We feed "perfectly good" livestock grade grain to cattle because it not only maximizes the price per head, but also the return on the grain, particularly so when growing a higher quality grain is either environmentally or economically unfeasable-for whatever reason. We also feed them leftover high quality grain (that offers nutrients available to human beings with no or marginal processing) when there is a glut of that grain - we can only eat so much of it, but to make sure we don't starve (and for a list of other reasons too long to mention) we devote a hell of alot of space to it. This also maximizes the return off the high quality stuff (where it can be grown) - and this money is what convinces and enables producers to...you know..produce.

It seems to me that you mean meat is more economically efficient for individual farmers. At a population level a plant based diet would use significantly less natural resources, and is therefore more efficient e.g. Pimentel et al state that "The average fossil energy input for all the animal protein production systems studied is 25 kcal fossil energy input per 1 kcal of protein produced. This energy input is more than 11 times greater than that for grain protein production, which is about 2.2 kcal of fossil energy input per 1 kcal of plant protein produced"