Vegetarianism vs Omnivoreism .... discussions btw Kichi and bennyboy

[KichigaiNeko]

Firstly, thankyou for responding.

I have to confess that I don't really seeing where you're going with the new thread, Kichi, although I'm willing enough. I'd recommend asking a mod to edit your OP to put the long lists and former-thread quotes in hide tags, and to redo the links, which have been broken by the text cut-and-paste.

Why bother? if the mods don't like it they will let us know and as far as I can see the cut and paste of our convo only serves a a reference point for this thread. Should anyone be interested they are able to follow the link and view that thread to heir hearts content.

Since we're now in the botany science section, I think we can agree that sources should be restricted to reliable ones: government-sourced data, or properly-cited scientific studies. Rhetorical, spiritual, or dogmatic material shouldn't be included, in my opinion, unless they are relevant to whatever path the discussion is on.

Agreed. I found the emotionalism concerning this issue distracting when what I was after was information and discussion.

I think the economy of food would be a good place to start. By economy, I don't mean money-- I mean the efficiency by which the sun's energy is brought to a form usable by humans. At first glance, wheat and rice would be big winners. But there's more to it than that-- economy also includes issues like stability, the cost of delivery, etc.

Yes, which funnily enough involves money, so I don't think you can exclude $$$ from the equation. And yes "at first glance" is often deceptive.

As for the issues of animal rights, suffering, etc., I think these should also be looked from a factual angle. I don't entertain BS arguments like "animals don't really suffer," but nor do I accept BS arguments that every life directly saved represents a net reduction in suffering overall. An example would be choosing between industrial/non-industrial and vegetarian/omnivore food sources.

I may need some more clarity here. Which country are you referring to? And can we clarify "suffering"? (anthropomorphological projection of suffering?)

As a vegetarian you chose the industrial option?

It seems to me, for example, that milk cows endure at least as much suffering as slaughtered animals, since industrial-facitiliy cows are largely enclosed, bred to have unnaturally large and uncomfortable udders, and calves which must be slaughtered, but which most vegetarians don't think about (I think they don't anyway).

You don't seem to know much about agriculture at all. I'll see if I can find a link to a show made in Britain of just how some dairy producers are treating their cattle and the results of how the cattle are "suffering" ...

http://youtu.be/OLkdRg5wk_U

Sorry, currently unable to locate the series this one comes from

Actually, our discussion so far has led me to a lifestyle change-- I've decided I either have to go vegan or to be a head-in-sand hypocrite. Valentine's chocolates have been eaten with gusto, and it's cold-turkey for me.

Why? Even as a vegan you are still causing "suffering". How old are you? The above seems very dramatic and black and white. The world is full of shades of grey and I seriously doubt that farmers want to treat their live-stock badly (not after investing huge amounts of $$$$ in to their health and upkeep.) at least for the majority of farmers.

There are also some ways in which livestock may be said to reduce net suffering in the world. While grain-fed cattle MUST cause more death and suffering than even industrial plant cultivation, I think that industrial harvesting practices probably kill many critters. I'd argue that pure-grazed cattle would not only reduce suffering over industrial grain-fed cattle, but also over industrial grain-fed people (aka vegetarians). So there are at least some cases where the economy of food production makes even a vegetarian diet a killer.

This seems to be the case. Which is why I question the motives of organisations like PETA, Animals Australia et al. They certainly give out a great deal of misinformation. Again, which countries are we talking about? And why MUST grain fed cattle cause more suffering? Any documentation regarding this?

It seems to me that a non-industrial food supply is at least as important as diet choice in reducing suffering. However, this would reduce efficiency greatly-- probably by an order of magnitude at least. Perhaps this loss of efficiency would create more jobs. Perhaps it would mean that the world simply can't sustain 7 billion people while protecting animals.

Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are wrong. Until we have some unbiased studies we really don't know for certain.

As far as I am able to understand it, the world is awash with food. Our biggest issues are the distribution of said food stuffs, both animal and vegetable. Any innovations developed in say Australia or Canada may not be applicable (able to be applied) to other food producing nations and certainly problematical for those nations that currently have limited electrical infrastructure to support these methods. If they did then we can surely end the Live Export trade and ship required amounts of animal protein to these countries rather than get treated to the spectacle of islamic countries and their festivals involving what I can only see as cruelty to animals (I would also wager that the meat tastes terrible)

Perhaps alternative technologies (bio-buildings with gardens on the roof, etc.) could be adapted to provide local sustainability with absolutely no loss of life or suffering.

See, this is where I get stuck. how can you say that eating vegetables only does not cause suffering and loss of life? You are happy to be a hypocrite and regard plants as nothings but get all upset when a mammal is killed for food, then get all upset calling omnivores hypocrites when we acknowledge that some poor creature (plant or animal) had to die so that we might live in good health?

Perhaps technologies which create harvestable meat in organisms bred to have no nervous system would allow people to eat foods with the texture they like while silencing animal-rights people.

It's already been done. Have you not heard of Quorm?

I think these kinds of ideas can be explored with the benefit of charts, numbers and studies, and with little reference to emotionality.

And here you have come to the reason I have started this thread.

For viewing pleasure only
http://youtu.be/A-AIiNF2KmQ

---

Like I said, replies end up as a wall of text....hence this thread.

Interestingly, the following tow articles came across my news feed and can also lend weight to the whole vegetarian/ omnivoreism debate

Why nutrition is so confusingNearly six weeks into the 2014 diet season, it’s a good bet that many of us who made New Year’s resolutions to lose weight have already peaked. If clinical trials are any indication, we’ve lost much of the weight we can expect to lose. In a year or two we’ll be back within three kilos of where we are today.
The question is why. Is this a failure of willpower or of technique? Was our chosen dietary intervention — whether from the latest best-selling diet book or merely a concerted attempt to eat less and exercise more — doomed to failure?

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and...z2tkJvQx7F

It basically goes on to say that misinformation and poor research techniques are doing nothing to promoted good health.

Another one ....

Five myths about dietitiansThe word dietitian might sound about as palatable (pun intended) as the word dentist to some, conjuring images of super-fit health freaks consigning their poor patients to a diet of celery sticks and grapefruit.
Fear not, because the reality is not as bad as you think. Dietitians Susie Burrell, Joel Feren as well as Dietitians Association of Australia spokesperson and dietitian Melanie McGrice dispel a few common misconceptions people might have about their trade.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and...z2tkKzYC2d