UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet
 

This is exciting. It might be the most "legitimate" endorsement veganism has ever received (still waiting on Oprah).

I know what you're thinking and I've heard it before: the entire population isn't going to go vegan all of a sudden. Well - if that's your excuse for doing nothing then have a good sleep tonight. For those of you who are in a position to do so (and if you're using a computer to post to TFP, that might be a sign you are in a socio-economic class capable of making the necessary changes) it's time to stop making excuses. Even some changes now, with a mind towards more later, is something.

I am being blunt because there's a lot of anger in me this year. We keep hearing of environmental disasters every year hoping someone will clean it up, and inevitably it does... but to what end? Where is this all heading? I've drawn my line in the sand and sometimes I feel like a kook for doing so, but a UN endorsement of this lifestyle is reassuring.

Sorry man but I will never give up eating meat. I don't eat it with every meal every day, but I do eat meat several times a weak. I like it, it is part of a balanced diet, and I'm going to continue to eat it.

The sentiment's admirable, but the thinking's a little late, even for the UN. Raising & slaughtering won't go away, in spite of the UN, & in other cases because of it. Pass me that rib-eye.

I am a carnivore. I am an obligate carnivore. I am a human being, a highly evolved superpredator that's spent the past 5.-odd million years evolving to get up here.

I like meat. I like the way it tastes, the energy it gives me, and yes, I am a killer ape: hunting is -fun-. OTOH, I also slaughter my own chickens, and my family raises our own beef cattle. I know where my food comes from; I've washed its' blood out of my jeans and hair.

On the other hand, I will flap my wings and migrate south for Winter before I trust anything coming out that crowd of meddling, micro-managing, freedom-destroying Statist control-freaks at the UN. If the UN wants to recommend veganism, fine: UN delegates and scientists who push this can go first. No animal products of any kind: let's start with all those nice leather-covered chairs in the UN hall. I'd like one for my office.

A further question: if livestock production is such a huge problem, why did not the enormous herds of ruminants (bison, deer, antelope, etc) roaming the pre-Columbian Americas not cause this problem? Likewise the equally impressive herds of large animals which inhabited Africa until the 1890s?

I am as evolved as you are and I am a vegan. Take from that what you will.

There are so many reasons!

1. The herds you speak of would roam after grazing, and all their shit would be dispersed over a wide area, giving the ecosystem a chance to break it down.

2. They were eating the grass which they evolved to digest, not corn which leads to digestive problems and eventually resistant strains of bacteria like the e.coli.

3. Call me lazy but I'm not even going to bother checking whether the herds you mention were anywhere near as big as the factory farm populations used to feed the earth's humans.

4. The herds you mention (and again maybe I'm lazy on the fact checking) never developed the technology or opposable thumbs needed to clear cut swaths of rainforest in order to obtain grazing land.

I'm encouraged by this.

My own situation is that I have the desire for vegetarianism and veganism, but I have a weak will. I'll admit it.

Meat tastes good, and animal products have played a huge role in our development as humans. But I'll also admit that animal products are no longer a requirement thanks to research, knowledge, and technologies developed over the past few decades.

With the exception of those with some kind of disorder or extreme genetic disposition, humans are not obligate carnivores; they're omnivores fully capable of thriving as herbivores.

Humans aren't highly evolved superpredators; they're highly evolved supergeneralists. The inability or unwillingness to adopt a more vegetarian-based diet is a strike against this generalist precondition, which renders one more susceptible to environmental pressures where meat or animal products may be difficult or impossible to come by.

By the end of the year I'll at least be a weekday vegetarian (weekend meat eater) consuming organic locally-sourced meat only if not on an entirely vegan diet. The only thing standing in my way is the cost and good enough local sources. There's really just no good excuses left for those of us with working brains.

I don't really care to debate this with you but it could be argued that true carnivores are not only capable of capturing and killing prey through their strength, speed and bare hands but could also eat it without the aid of fire and knives. Their intestines are also much shorter than ours to allow for the much quicker passing of meat through the body...etc.

I'd assume it's because the current factory farm system of meat production - much more factory than actual farm - didn't exist then.

It's nice to see Aberkok and BG beat me to the punch.

The UN is off-base here. Nothing wrong with people choosing to be vegan or vegetarian, but it's simply not in our genes. Rather than focus on extremes, the UN should be working to drastically reduce global consumption of meat and dairy. It'd be a lot more successful. A lot of people could be convinced to put less focus on meat, but telling people they shouldn't do something at all is a quick way to be ignored. Limiting meat eating to weekends, like Manic_Skafe has done, is perfectly reasonable if it became embedded into our culture.

We're not carnivores, but we are omnivores. Meat is a natural and essential part of our diet. It's also not naturally a very large part of our diet, but it has its place. Telling people to avoid meat altogether will be about as successful as promoting abstinence education: some people will comply and most will ignore.

I'm a happy, healthy vegetarian.

I would gladly go vegan were I living in a community where it were supported and encouraged.

BUT... in general I find the vegan lifestyle extreme. (I'm not about to give up angora wool). I am also skeptical of the general population's ability to maintain a balanced and healthy vegan diet.

Taking antibiotics and using electricity and indoor plumbing aren't in our genes either, but I think there are few who would give these up.

This is a public relations/awareness issue. I agree that the tack should be more about reducing one's dependency on animal products of all kinds.

About 2% of the American population would prove otherwise. "Natural," maybe, but essential? I don't think it is.

We are omnivores, which means that plant matter and animal products are a part of our diet. We're designed to digest both, but this doesn't mean we require meat. A requirement of meat makes a species an "obligate carnivore." Cats, for example, fit into this description. Even dogs are considered omnivores. Consider bears as well.

There are many carnivores that have diets consisting of 50% or more that is meat intake. Animals like this require meat. Humans do not.

Many cultures look at meat as a "condiment" or "supplement." These same cultures tend to have far fewer problems with obesity, heart disease, and certain cancers. Yes, there is a correlation: they eat less/little (or no) meat (and often little/no animal products in general), which means they eat more plants --- this kind of balance tends to ward against these health problems.

I never understood this sort of statement. Unless you have some sort of advanced knowledge of nutrition, you are basically saying that a vegan isn't possible.

Nice quotation from Kurt Elling. I had the privilege of accompanying him back in 2005 and he is a fantastic musician, and has managed the herculean task of being a jazz vocalist I can tolerate (yes I am name dropping).

That's basically my point. I'm not saying we require meat, just that humans are naturally going to want some meat. Reducing is a much more reasonable goal than restricting. I'd be happy to see most people eating meat only twice a week, and I think that's something that is a reasonable goal. The difference between electricity, etc being unnatural is that those are adding something to our lives. It's a lot harder to avoid something that is natural than to do something that is not natural.
Nutritionally, of course it's possible. In terms of global culture, yes, I'm saying veganism isn't possible.Nothing wrong with that, and very cool :) He's one of my favorites.

Well despite my fiery rhetoric, I am down with anyone who is trying to reduce - it's not quite an all or nothing proposal from my point of view, but this word "natural" you keep using...

As humans, we have the power to decide what is natural. It's a construct. How is it natural to love our pets and in the same day opt into a diet which kills other animals we don't know personally? How is it natural to decide we want to grow edible plants in order to feed something else that we then eat?

Yes, let's eat less meat. Veganism is not something I could do. I'm not a fan of extremes. However, I do try to eat less meat for both health and environmental reasons (as well as practical ones).

I figure all of the people who keep harping on their need for meat will (eventually) do me (and the planet) the favor of removing themselves from the planet at some point, given that cardiovascular disease kills someone in the United States every 38 seconds (from data taken in 2006, according to the American Heart Association).

As individuals yes. There's a difference between the will of the individual and the will of the entire global population. I don't see individuals being vegan as proof that the entire global population could be vegan.

---------- Post added at 02:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

That will happen to some extent, but it'll be balanced out by the less intelligent vegans who don't realize the importance of watching their nutritional intake. Which fits well with my entire point: The greatest success will be found in the middle ground. Eat meat, but much less of it.

Actually, this is no different than any other discussion of diets. Diets don't generally work in the long term when they're based on restricting food. Diets based on moderation, however, are much more successful. Eat (almost) all the same things you enjoy now, but change the frequency and portion. We need to take the same approach with meat, not proclamations that the world should be vegan.

Oh, and finally, since natural selection was brought up, the things that we think are most beneficial are not necessarily what nature will see as beneficial. It could be argued, for example, that higher intelligence is slowly being rejected by nature as less intelligent people procreate far more. The fact that so many people have a hostile attitude toward vegetarianism (I don't, but I don't think restrictive extremes are the way to go) demonstrates that we do have a certain innate interest in eating meat, even if we don't need to eat nearly as much as we currently do.

No doubt, smeth. There was a great case study in my nutrition textbook about a otherwise-very-healthy vegan who didn't watch his B12 intake, and ended up in the hospital in a coma as a result. The doctors were puzzled by his condition, given his overall health, until his GP remembered that his patient was a vegan. A couple B12 shots later and the guy was good to go.

Fuck that, I'm eating steak.

Well smeth, I think you'd find a lot more people would be willing to cease their consumption of meat if they were forced to meet the realities of doing so. The factory farm system isn't pretty and it really doesn't matter how much you cut back when even the moderate consumption of antibiotics, pesticides, hormones, steroids, etc. is far from within the interests of being in good health.

A healthy vegan lifestyle is difficult to maintain but probably wouldn't be any more so than consuming meat if the resources, options and levels of access were the same.

I find it amazing that so many are so blind to what the REAL PROBLEM IS here.:confused: The problem is not in anyone's diet, the REAL PROBLEM IS THE GROSS OVERPOPULATION OF THE PLANET! That is what is out of balance, and reducing population is the only long term sustainable (to us a popular buzzword) solution. Changing the world population into herd of rice and bean eaters will do nothing other than postpone the inevitable day of reckoning. And what about the increase in methane emissions from the human cattle?
As usual, those from the crowded, overpopulated, polluted, (because of overpopulation) poverty stricken, (because of overpopulation) crime-ridden, (because of overpopulation) urban areas will want to force a solution to THEIR PROBLEM onto the rural areas whose only real problems are caused by urban offal.

There is a lot of anger in me (and others, I'm sure) that American family farmers should be asked to change their diet because someplace like Indonesia is already populated to three times what their own ecosystem can sustain, and is unable to deal with that.:mad: Continued overpopulation will eventually push all or most of the world into anarchy, and although some cheer its approach, in anarchy nothing is sustainable.

Lindy

Our love for meat is not unlike our love for sweets. As something we used to have much less ability to obtain, we've grown to enjoy it quite a bit more than, say, lettuce. Just like with sweets, we need to keep ourselves in check now that we have the technology to create an overabundence of food, but just like sweets we need to recognize that we're not going to eliminate it from our global diet (again, individuals yes, global civilization no).

We're all mostly on the same side here: I'm all for a serious social discussion about reducing our meat consumption, I just think focusing on extremes like veganism hurts the cause rather than helps it.

---------- Post added at 03:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 PM ----------

Lindy, unfortunately your issue is no different than the one we're discussing. There's a reason I initially drew a parallel with abstinance. Things like eating and sex are so hard-coded into our behaviour, there's very little we can truly do to avoid it.

---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 PM ----------

Manic: there's a real and unfortunate problem with human perception that we tend not to comprehend things that aren't directly in front of us. Most people are well aware, to some extent, of the disgusting nature of the current food industry. They still eat at McDonald's.

If you think you need meat more than once every week or so, you're being a big baby. I've cut back my meat consumption over the past year to only eating about 100 grams (about a daily allowance of protein) a week. I've never felt better in my life and, honestly, I don't miss it at all. Tonight I'm having barbecued chicken from a farm just north of San Jose (organic feed, free-range, shipped locally, of course). Next week I'll be having Alaskan salmon, and the week after that will be homemade pork tacos. Otherwise, I'm not eating anything with parents. I enjoy eggs, nuts, legumes, vegetables, fruits, and a bit of dairy (I love cheese). I'm not missing a single nutrient from my diet, I'm full and satisfied after meals and snacks.

BTW, if you love steak, you must love ammonia, bovine urine, feces, and puss, and of course e. coli and bovine spongiform. Bon apetite!

As far as sustainability is concerned, it's my understanding that it's the American food and energy consumption in particular that's a major problem. Indonesia is a blip on the radar compared to the U.S. Indonesia's problem is self-sustainability, not overall impact on global sustainability.

The thing about the U.S. to keep in mind is that they're blessed with a disproportionately large land mass with a high proportion of it arable land. Despite this, Americans place far more pressure on the ecosystem than any other people in the world, and in many cases they do so more than several nations combined.

In a way, anything we eat has parents. Your remark about steak, will, is a little bit much.

I included links to support my insinuations. There are dangers to meat beyond it being inefficient as food in a heavily industrialized system that's required to feed so many people. Ammonia in meat is a real problem. Quality standards are a huge problem. Bovine spongaform is deadly and we don't know at all if it's in the American beef system. These are real dangers.

will your problem is with preparation, not meat itself

Does it sit right with you Smeth, that these problems in meat can be solved with correct preparation? As in: "well this is sickly meat but if I prepare it correctly it won't harm me?" And you'll just go on with your day?

..

aberkok, I don't mean cooking preparation, I mean actual farming instead of industrial production of food. Our problem is that we've bypassed nature's controls, not that we eat meat in the first place.

QFMFT! My cows eat, shit, sleep, live and die in the outdoors. They eat grass, shrubs, corn and some silage with extra gluten for when things get a little lean in the winter. The meat is more tender, more flavorful, less yellow-fatty, and with better grain and muscle-tone than anything I've ever seen in a store or in any American restaurant where the steak cost less than $65.00. And guess what? work the numbers, and I only pay $4.00/lb for everything from hamburger to Prime Rib and aged Brisket.

Factory farming? A smelly, invasive, noisome and toxic process that produces low-quality meat that tastes like cardboard with no texture worth mentioning. Humans evolved to eat meat. What comes out of a modern factory farm would make a Neandertal retch, cause an iron-age Celt to question our sanity, and if it squeaked through into Nelson's Royal Navy would have killed every weevil and rat in the whole bloody Fleet.

They're linked via mass production. Mass produced meat would seem to be dangerous by its very nature. It's not just the US that worries about mad cow, it's all industrialized beef production in the world. While grass fed beef is available, it's incredibly expensive and thus off limits to most people. Shoot, I only have it maybe a few times a year and I spend way too much money on food.

You mean like this guy?


Yeah, I guess he is kinda pale...but I don't think his diet has anything to do with it.


[Yes, I'm risking feeding a troll; but I'm feeding it a vegan diet. :thumbsup:]

Mm, Baraka. Here's my favorite example of a successful vegan athlete, ultramarathoner Scott Jurek:
Ultramarathoner Jurek Takes Diet to the Extreme - NYTimes.com

http://www.badwater.com/2005web/images/story11_1.jpg

That's a good point, snowy. Vegan is an entire subclass of marathoner.

Here's another famous vegan athlete, bodybuilder Robert Cheeke doing a 210-lb. dumbbell bench press warm-up:

Plus one, Dun.:thumbsup:
I suspect that most tfp folks have never been anywhere close to actual beef on the hoof. I grew up with range fed beef and lamb, and a barnyard full of chickens and geese. I agree that factory farming sucks, and that includes factory farmed grain and produce, which is the only large scale alternative.

How nice it would be if some of the people on here would spend some time on a family farm instead of getting their information about meat from the veganazis.:shakehead:

Lindy
on the road in Indiana

Wow, presume much?

It would be nice if America (and Canada, really) was actually fed for the most part by family farms instead of being left to choose from a majority of products from factory farms paid for in large part by government subsidies.

I'd be willing to accept that there are more problems coming from the Meat and Dairy Loebbels Lobby than from the "veganazis."

Yeah, seriously presumptive. I'm fortunate enough to live near a few butcher shops (that's right, actual butcher shops) that only serve locally sourced, grass fed and truly organic meat so I'm fully aware of how good it can be when you step outside of the world of factory farmed meat. Sadly, factory farmed meat represents most of what's available to most of us and thusly the aforementioned issues concerning the consumption of meat hold true.

Good thing I've got a George Foreman grill and buy cube steak, right?

Something tells me that meat alone isn't killing America's fatties.

...

Really interesting article on the evolution of human brain development and the consumption of meat

Here's the thing...

If North America were to switch entirely to family farm and were to ditch the use of factory farms and feed lots you would see a great reduction in the amount of meat consumed. First there would be fewer animals being raised and second, demand would cause the price to go up.

I think that's a great idea.

Exactly, and I think that's a much more reasonable and achievable goal than telling people to ditch meat from their diet entirely.

This podcast showed up in Google Reader for me today and pertains to this subject...

CBC Ideas - Have Your Meat and Eat It Too - Part One
CBC Ideas - Have Your Meat and Eat It Too - Part Two

So completely transforming the chain of supply and demand to a paradigm which arguably will not even meet the demand is more practical than opting out entirely? How would this be implemented? Would the governments be required to outlaw corn feedlots? I don't think it's any more achievable than getting people off of eating animals. I would hope that at least it becomes half and half.

I think the discussion should stay on this point: whether the meat production system can change entirely to small farm/grass fed more practically than people just opting out entirely. I personally think it's a pipe dream perpetuated by Michael Pollan et al., in order to soften his message and make it... palatable for people who aren't really interested in actually making any sacrifices. And to that - when I calm down, I could speak of how my life is actually filled with more excess and variety than when I ate meat.

I'm also curious what effects you think the UN's statement will have and if there's a history of them making statements like this.

Points hashed in other threads and maybe not pertinent here: the ethical inconsistencies of meat eating and the "necessity" for humans to eat meat. Plan9 - that is a cool article with too many big words for me to finish this year. I will get to it but thanks for putting a good source out there.

I would imagine you are buying that grass fed beef at a whole foods
type establishment? Where I live, there are many small farms in the
area that I can buy the grass fed organic beef directly from the farmers,
no middlemen involved. I pay about 4.50 to 5.00 dollars a pound.

Red meat is a treat & a condiment for me. A once a month happening.

I cannot understand people that insist on eating red meat every or every other day. It's unhealthy for the individual, and our environment.

As others have stated, the UN is attempting to raise awareness.

Once people are aware of the problem, and continue to hold on to their
"gimme my steak, dammit" proclamations, I become frustrated and angry
by their selfish & short-sighted attitudes.

Yes, that's how unreasonable it is to expect people to give up eating animals entirely. It's simply not going to happen. Case in point: I care about the environmental impact of meat eating far more than your average person, and I still have absolutely no interest in giving up meat entirely. It's not even entirely a conscious choice: humans evolved to eat meat, we didn't just choose it after we got smart and lazy. We have certain teeth specifically designed for that purpose. It's a core part of our being. That doesn't mean we need to be gluttonous about it, and it doesn't mean that we need to mass produce meat in factories the way we've been doing, but the ability of individuals to forgo meat consumption simply does not translate to the human population as a whole. It really is no different than abstinence education: there are plenty of health reasons (and overpopulation reasons) why we'd all benefit if people only had sex in committed relationships, but it's just not going to happen.

Specific to this topic, I don't know, but the UN does have a history of making statements that have no basis in reality and no force of, well, anything. I like the UN, but they're not the most effectual organization in the world. As for the impact of this statement, that's actually my biggest problem with it. It's simply not going to have the impact that the UN wants it to have - regardless of whether global veganism is a pipe dream or not. At best, the statement is pointless. I think it actually does a disservice to the whole discussion, though, because now people and industries who have no interest in changing anything will see all pushes for change as coming from "those crazies at PETA and the UN who want us to give up meat." It's one of the same problems the environmental movement has: many people who are not as engaged in the issues see all environmental advocacy as coming from "those crazies at Greenpeace," not people hoping for reasonable compromise.

As someone who would actually like to see a cultural shift away from daily meat consumption and factory processing of meat, I think this UN statement completely undermines the movement. Thankfully - at least in this case - most people already ignore the UN anyway.

That's exactly right. There are cattle around the Bay Area and heading in to the SJ valley, but finding local grass-fed meat isn't easy or cheap. I'm hoping, as time goes on, the feeding of grass to cattle becomes more and more common as demand increases. There's a ton of demand here.

I also get my cheese from Whole Foods here. It's magnificent. :thumbsup:
http://serve.mysmiley.net/confused/confused0054.gif That's incredible!

That price is for the ground round. The steaks are a few dollars more a pound,
but I don't usually buy them.

The price is even less if you buy in bulk, 1/4 or 1/2 of the whole animal.
If one has the freezer space, it's great.

Will, when you speak of the demand, I'm wondering how many people
that prefer the grass fed beef, still want to eat it every or every other day.

I believe the only way this could be a sustainable industry, is if
people drastically reduced their current meat consumption.

Using healthy meat as a condiment, yes it will be more expensive,
on the same order as some of the spices in the cabinet.

Dang, whole cardomom is expensive.

The feed lots and the corn surplus that created them are a direct product of the US Farm Bill that subsidizes the price of corn and soy. Change the Farm Bill and you will change the way food is grown.

It will not happen over night but it will happen.

The real issue lies in the policy that was designed to create cheap food. We have cheap (very cheap) food and it's killing us and the environment (especially when you factor in all of the negative externalities of the oil industry).

It will be far easier to implement this sort of long term change than it will be to get everyone to stop eating meat.


Veganism isn't going to take the world by storm anytime soon. I live in a part of the world where meat *is* expensive and people eat with a portion control that would shock many North Americans. And yet, they still eat meat and fish (a lot of fish).

Someone above mentioned that the millions in Indonesia are the problem... hardly. The average footprint of each of those Indonesians (who eat a lot less meat and way more veg and grains) is infinitesimal compared to the average North American. The gluttony that we see in North America is a recent invention. Prior to the 70s food was not as cheap and not as processed.

We can revert to older ways of doing things but there will be a cost in the price of food. There will be a cost in the reliability of crops (famine sucks). There will be cost in the number of people that can be sustained.

Money needs to be invested in developing sustainable, healthy farming. Farm Bills need to be re-written to bring change to the entire industry. We are already seeing the cost of cheap food in the alarming rise of obesity and various associated health issues.

Ever wonder why poor people in other parts of the world are so skinny and yet they are obese in North America? Think about it.





1. I think like most UN statements, this will be ignored by the majority of Americans.

2. I don't think there is anything ethically wrong per se with eating meat.

The difference is rather astonishing.

More Info on Ag

This is where the term "corn-fed American" comes from.

I tried to think of something to add to the thread. But really Fugly said it already.

Full disclosure: I long for the day when everyone gives up killing and abusing animals for food, but I know it may not come, and am almost certain it won't come in my lifetime.

If I say things like: "well... it'll never happen, so I might as well keep eating meat" then nothing happens. Statements like: "I'll buy organic/grass fed beef when I can, so I can feel better about myself and add dollars to a sustainable form of farming" might make you feel better about your place in the chain, and I accept that, but to me it's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

I have chosen not to "speak down" on the issue and do my best not to pull any punches. Smeth - you fear this undermines such movements, but I can speak from personal experience that it it these kinds of voices that motivated me to make the change, and I feel that those who are turned off/become defensive at the sound of the outspoken were never going to help anyways. I have already motivated 4 people to all but eliminate animal products from their diet. It is my hope that the UN statement will cause some to think twice. Besides... this is an issue where there's nothing to lose - it's not like anyone will go out and open a factory farm or eat more steaks because they are indignant at what the UN has to say.

Charlatan, I am curious about the "per se" in the:

Ah, see, you're an ethical vegan then? That's part of why we differ, because I find the ethical argument, by far, the least convincing of any. Tell a tiger how it's unethical to kill and eat an antelope. We're animals too after all. No one is ever going to make me feel bad about killing animals, and it's the same for many, many other people. Nothing wrong with being relatively clean and humane while doing it, but I have no problem eating Bessie the Cow no matter how beautiful her dark brown eyes are.

On another note, I haven't had a chance to read this book, but it pertains to this thread:

Should we also tell a tiger how it's unethical to let mothers rear young on their own? Or to kill another's young to make the female more receptive to having yours? It's an odd thing, turning to tigers to teach morality and ethics. Actually, it's outright nonsense, if I might say so.

Yes, we're animals, but I kind of like the idea of human ethics, don't you?

Ah, so why didn't you just leave the tiger out of this then? This is what it comes down to: when it comes to food production, you will never feel bad about playing a role in the suffering of animals.

I will admit I feel guilty when I think about my own participation.

Thanks for beating me to the punch BG.

So - an appeal to nature as a model for how we ought to conduct ourselves? Because we are also animals (we are), we can ignore our capacity for altruism and ethical behaviour to justify killing other animals?

The question I have yet to hear a convincing answer for, then, is why do we say it's alright to kill one kind of animal and not others? For example, if I was to suggest eating somebody's pet dog or cat, or go kill a bunch of dolphins for food, how can a meat eater deny me that and be ethically consistent?

Well first off, I have no problem with people eating dog or cat. Eating someone's pet is wrong because it's their property, not because it's a dog or cat.

More to the point, though, I don't really have much interest in trying to create a consistent ethics with regards to biological imperatives. We like to eat animals. We didn't choose that out of some conscious choice, so we can't expect to cram that interest into a consistent ethical philosophy. No, that doesn't mean that we should act like the animals we are in all situations, but accepting this fact goes a long way toward avoiding unreasonable extremes, not to mention the mental gymnastics required to do what our bodies tell us to but also make cerebral excuses for our actions. Sometimes we just do things because we feel like it, and that will never change no matter how hard we try. (Again, see abstinence education). You're right that people aren't generally consistent about what they will and will not eat, but you presuppose that that lack of consistency is a problem. I don't think it is. It's just part of being human.

Veganism is the tyranny of the superego over the id, and that's fine for people who choose it, but it's also why it will never happen on a global scale.

There's no switch I can flip to turn the world vegan, and that's not what I'm advocating. Instead, I see it as social progress.

Let's be clear. I am arguing for why the whole world could one day become vegan, and not for why the whole world should go vegan all at once (which would be ridiculous).

You compare the overcoming of biological imperatives to abstinence education, but that is a moral movement, not an ethical one. I think the concept of birth control is a better analog. Birth control is a situation where we can overcome our biological imperatives. Not the whole world at once, but when given the chance and education, one at a time.

The idea of monogamy may not be based on rigorous ethical conclusions, but it is another situation where we overcome our biological imperatives in order to meet societal standards.

So this "ultimate challenge" of overcoming biology to stop eating meat is overstating the challenge, at least in modern North America. Meat eating is really just a habit. If it was some Herculean task to stay off meat, I probably wouldn't manage! It was just a matter of changing my habits one at a time.

Oh... and saying it's wrong to eat someone's pet because it's property was a dodge. Would you eat your own pet?

If you want to talk about imperatives and overrides, then consider why throughout our evolution that we depended on meat: food security. We have had a long history of killing animals for food with little problem on an ethical level because it was often "eat or die." It's much easier to accept the suffering of others if it is for the benefit, and especially survival, of one's family.

We have, however, come to a point in our evolution (by which I include social, scientific, and technological progress) where the consumption of meat is not required for survival. It has even come to a point for many where the consumption of meat (i.e. excessive) is harmful.

This is where the game changes. Meat is no longer a part of the food security equation for many. The security mechanism triggered when it comes to seeking and securing food is now more focused on indirect systems/resources, namely, employment, money, assets (i.e. a place to store and prepare food). The security mechanism is no longer geared toward whether a type of food will be available---at least not in developed countries.

What this has done is create an environment of food security awash in choice: we can choose what we eat on an unprecedented scale. We also have a keener knowledge of nutrition and the human body. This environment makes room for other factors that may influence choice, such as ethics, emotion, and reason. We can choose foods emotionally and eat junk food when we're feeling good or bad. We can reason that we should cut down on bacon because of saturated fat. Ethically, we can decide to not eat meat at all because we no longer wish to force animals to suffer the pain of death after a miserable farm life. These choices are a luxury that previous generations would have never imagined.

For many of us, we no longer need to eat meat. That's where we are right now. Our survival no longer depends on it. Because of that, we can decide either to a) continue eating it because it's so goddamn delicious and we don't care what has happened to the animal and its environment before its flesh reached our plates, or b) stop eating it because of the suffering the animal goes through and the impact on the planet to produce such food.

I may have oversimplified it, but we have that choice.

Birth control isn't overcoming biological imperatives at all; in fact, it's the exact opposite. It's a tool we use to protect us from the consequences of giving in to those biological imperatives.

Monogamy is also not overcoming a biological imperative because it is, in part, a biological imperative. As far as we know, humans are programmed to be serially monogamous and, lo and behold, that's exactly what most are.

Not meant to be a dodge at all. No, I wouldn't eat my own pet, but I've already said I really have no interest in trying to be ethically consistent in all things. I've tried, and I've decided it's simply not worth the necessary mental gymnastics and anguish. Life is a lot more pleasant when you focus on being proactive while also going with the flow. You assume a lack of consistency is a bad thing; I disagree. Unfortunately, I don't think there's really any way to move beyond that core disagreement.

Come on now, we didn't kill animals out of self-defense. We fled animals that tried to kill us, we killed animals that we were stronger or smarter than. This topic does relate to our need to eat less meat - the hunt used to be nature's control so that we didn't go overboard on meat - but we definitely didn't eat meat simply because "oops, had to kill that poor animal, I guess we'll eat it." Meat was a luxury to be sure (and it should return to being a luxury), but it had nothing to do with self-defense.

No disagreement there, but it doesn't change that we generally have a taste for meat. That some people have less taste for meat and can successfully become vegans doesn't negate the overall general taste for at least occasional meat that exists in the species as a whole.

But you did oversimplify it, because there's c) reform our food production system so that animals are treated better before being killed - because it's better for them and for us - and allow the monetary price of meat to reflect its true cost so that we naturally reduce meat consumption in our day-to-day diet. It's really very important to include option c, because if the argument is simplified to options a and b... you're going to be disappointed that a ton of your fellow humans would rather pick a, and those people aren't going away any time soon (or ever).

Case in point: I'm pretty sure I'm more aware and concerned about these issues than your average person and around 50% of my friends are vegetarian or vegan, and I still have no interest in giving up meat completely. If you can't convince me to go vegetarian (let alone vegan), then you're never going to convince Joe Blow in Kansas.

I wasn't referring to self-defense at all. I was referring to food only. I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.

I have a taste for scotch, but I don't need to drink it. I absolutely love the taste of meat of all kinds. Of the reasons why I still eat it, most of them are emotional ones. For the years when I was a vegetarian (practically vegan incidentally), I didn't crave meat. I was too busy eating other delicious food.

Treating the animals kindly before they're put to death would be nice, but not ideal really. It'd be like a death spa. You'd get a nice enough life during your stay before you "check out."

I'm not all that concerned about Joe Blow in Kansas, or even Joe Blow from Idaho either. What concerns me the most as it stands is related more to your option C, I suppose.

You're right about the price of meat. I think the price of all food should be fully reflected in the cost of food. The price of meat is way cheaper than it should be and so consumers are actually paying more for it than they think through tax dollars via subsidies. I think the price of most meat would be 30 to 50% higher if it weren't subsidized (the irony here is that vegetarians and vegans pay for up to half of the meat consumed by the typical person in a given year despite choosing not to "support such an industry"). If I'm wrong, I bet it's because it's even higher than that.

The price of meat in North America is a deceptive situation of subconsciously thinking we're "getting something from nothing." The resources that go into meat production aren't accounted for on the price tags in the supermarket.

It's the fucking fact that we have bypassed nature's controls ( whatever that means ) that we can grow so much fucking food, both meat and vegetables. We are also living longer and procreating more while eating all of this "unhealthy, processed" food. You can't even be a healthy vegan without bypassing nature's controls. Meat provides a lot of nutrients that are hard/almost impossible to find in natural vegetation. A lot of these nutrients, especially and excess of protein, led to our brain growth, which then led to higher intelligence, etc.

Yes, we can now get these nutrients in a vegan diet, for the most part, but really only if we supplement somehow, such as the b12 deficiency mentioned prior. This person could have also just ate a small amount of meat occasionally...

I'll go ahead and admit that there are valid arguments to reduce our dependance on meat and dairy, since now we can, and it might help the environment. We also need to curb population growth, or else we're going to eat ourselves out of house and home, planet-wise.

On a side note, it's really neat how we used animals all along as food factories. Ruminants would eat grasses and other vegetation that we could not digest, and then we would eat them, because they were digestible. Or we could milk them. Most of the biomass of vegetation on this planet was in forms we couldn't eat, mainly grass.

Could you let us know what these magical hard/almost-impossible-to-come-by nutrients are? I'm not sure I know about them, and I know a lot about nutrition.

There is a lot of protein in plant matter, especially in legumes, nuts, seeds.

And the B12 issue with vegans? It has mostly to do with the problem with pesticides and cleaning our food too well. Where do you think herbivores get their B12?

What other nutrients are you talking about?

Or milk, or eggs. Or a fortified cereal. I think sometimes we forget the majority of cereals in the United States are massively fortified (and for good reason, to be honest).

And Baraka, most herbivores get B12 from bacteria in their gut, so that doesn't really work for us, unfortunately.

Where does the bacteria come from?

iiiiiiiiiii

Gut flora generally comes from two sources: the environment and initial colonization via colostrum and milk. However, where the bacteria comes from is not nearly as relevant as what these animals have that we do not: a rumen. Until we have a stomach that allows us to ferment what we eat, we're not going to be able to produce our own B12. Further, a cow must eat a food source with cobalt in it to be able to produce B12.

Well, we're not cows, nor are we herbivores, clearly. My general point was that our source of B12 traditionally comes from the soil, whether directly (on plant foods) or indirectly (in animal flesh).

Many of us supplement for B12 mainly by eating meat, since we tend to clean our food too much due to pesticides. But with the advance of technology, we can now supplement in other ways. Vegetarians and vegans supplement through fortified foods, as we know.

My ultimate point is that meat doesn't contain any nutrients that can't be obtained elsewhere.

---------- Post added at 12:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------

I go in cycles. I'm currently coming out of a long meaty cycle, I think. This thread and recent interactions with aberkok are encouraging me to move back toward my vegetarianism. Last week I switched back to soymilk from skim milk. I find that I enjoy the taste of a good quality unsweetened soymilk better than I do skim milk. It just so happens that skim milk is cheaper, and I tend to drink a lot of milk, at least 2 glasses a day.

I've been thinking more about my health. I tend to be more health conscious when I'm vegetarian. This is because my reasons for vegetarianism are comprehensive. Health is one of the big reasons. I've been neglectful recently, depending on multivitamins.

When I eat a vegetarian diet I'm more conscious of my health and nutrient intake, and so I'll balance it more with actual meals instead of "quick bites." I don't eat enough vegetables currently.

Absolutely.

Actually, I would go a step further to say that meat is a strong source of a rather limited array of nutrients. This is why eating too much meat while crowding out plant-based foods is a bad thing. Meat doesn't contain phytonutrients and lacks many vitamins and minerals.

Though it is good as a source of protein and b vitamins, and a few minerals.

Sorry to state this, but I get the UN and EU syndications/conglomerations of countries mixed up more often than necessary by way of embarassment, if only because I know the US doesn't like be included/excluded from both or either.

Additionally, what good is a global endorsement by politicians if they don't reinforce it by placing mandatory restrictions? Good intentions can only go so far as advice does, and that's not as far as saying you've had enough.

And is this statisticc still true: in that the US is but a tenth of the world's population, but consumes a third of its meat products? Good luck having the UN sway the mind, intentions, and habits of the most arrogant nation on Earth.

Or more likely (and more likely to be successful), shifting subsidies and incentivizing veggie purchase/growth.

That I can agree with, but still something akin to a taxation on the stuff, whatever they may be, is the only way in which it can curb an entire populus; or those old-school slaughterhouse educational schoolhouse videos that tell the "truth" of a how a chicken, fish, pig, deer, steer, horse, octopus, etc. gets upon thine plate is a good enough way to recruit some followers, I'd think.

I don't think anyone on either side of the argument (save for the fanaticals) would want to portray "meat as murder" and would do anything and everything to stop its production/consumption around them, so I guess a global awareness campaign on the process, both locally, abroad and environmentally, should be the logical first step (right as me, I tend to skip a few steps and immediately look to see if the "endgame" is feasible or not. sorry.)

iiiiiiiiiii

Aberkok... the "per se" is a qualifier used to excuse myself from the industrial farming practices that I find abhorrent.

I have no trouble with rearing and killing animals for food. In fact, I have been thinking that if I ever move back to Canada I would like to have a small holding farm so I can raise my own meat.

As an addition to something said earlier, I have no trouble eating just about any animal, even cats and dogs (the dog I've eaten was just okay but I suspect it was the preparation rather than the meat itself... bad chef).

I too think the meat industry does need a major overhaul, while our large population does almost necessitate large industrial farms steps could be taken to encourage the use of smaller local farms that produce a healthier (and tastier) cut of meat. At the very least we could be insisting on higher/stricter standards at industrial farms, especially when meat is such a large part of our diet.

Personally I'd have no problem eating a pet if the situation presented itself, however due to my own attachments to the creature (or respect to another family) its simply easier to look elsewhere for meat. Having said that if I or my family were starving Rover would be on the dinner table as fast as I could fire up the grill. I've just never viewed killing and eating animals as an ethical question and besides being ethically consistent in all aspects of life simply isn't realistic and only serves to make life more difficult (if not make for stubborn/interesting discussions). That of course presumes that we even need to extend our concept of ethics to the animal world in the first place or at the very least weather or not the same moral values should apply. While I see no reason to be needlessly cruel to animals, I also stop short of consulting my book on ethics everytime I squeeze the trigger or tuck into a juicy steak. But thats just me, everybody views the world differently and it takes all kinds I suppose.

I don't know in the end the whole thing simply comes down to ones opinion on the matter and anyone's diet is their own personal choice. I can say that I'm not sure I can picture a world turning completely vegan, that seems a little far fetched to me.

That's the thing... none of us are in a survival situation. If we were in survival mode, then sure... there is an argument to be made for eating animals.

It's not about being consistent in all aspects of life, and it's not about being perfect. It's just about trying to improve oneself one little bit at a time. It's not an all or nothing proposition, and being vegan is only a beginning I'm sorry to say. I am not perfect. Though I've 99.9% eliminated animals from my diet, I do not lead a packaging free life, and that's an area where I want to improve. It bothers me that every week a load of garbage or recycling gets picked up because of me (where is it going?). I don't know that the labour practices of the companies that supply my food are sound, but I try to act upon what I learn.

Lest anyone jump on this as "mental gymnastics" or "philosophical rigour," let me assure you that it's just a part of the regular reflection that we should all be doing about our place in the world. I find this process is getting overstated as an excuse not to do it - especially on this thread.

Choosing not to kill animals is not a matter of extending our ethics to the animal world (if there even is such a division given that we are animals). Ethics is about how we act.

The only time I've heard of someone in Western society eating an animal that was clearly a pet and not food was my own grandfather--he and his family ate the neighbor's cat during the Dutch famine of 1944. It was definitely a survival situation; in the cities, people were starving to death and my grandfather spent the majority of his days out in the country, trying to find food.

I seriously believe it would have to come down to that kind of survival situation before anyone would seriously consider eating a pet.

Or people could just start having less kids?

"The number of children desired or considered ideal remains highest in western and middle Africa
with an average of 6 children desired. About 70 percent of women who have 4 children still want more
children in this region. In southern and eastern Africa, the picture is significantly different with an
average of 4.5 children desired and an average of 42 percent of women with 4 children who want more.
The desired number of children is much lower in countries in North Africa, Asia, Latin America and the
Caribbean, ranging from 2 to 4."

http://www.populationmedia.org/2010/...r-of-children/

aberkok, even with doublethink we are all in a survival situation. Eating meat is a trivial matter compared to arguing about it.

While number of children per family is a good point, and certainly a factor, we should keep degrees of magnitude in perspective here. Clearly population is an issue, or places like China wouldn't have public policies geared towards limiting it.

However, your example perhaps points out a disparity of magnitude. While the typical African family is larger than the typical Chinese or American family, we need to keep other factors included in the picture. I'm thinking namely of the topic of this thread, which is the consumption of meat and dairy and the impact it has on the planet.

For example, take a look at this information:
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u...onsumption.jpg
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u...vestock2-1.jpg
3. Global and regional food consumption patterns and trends — FAO

You will see that the average meat and dairy consumption in Sub-Saharan Africa is practically a tenth of what it is in "industrialized countries." I imagine if you were to compare it to the U.S. alone, the disparity would be even greater.

Now consider this: the average Sub-Saharan African eats at least 75 kg (165 lbs.) less meat than the average American each year. Also consider that the grain required to produce just one kilogram (2.2 lbs.) of beef can amount up to 5 kg. (11 lbs.) Now realize that instead of eating that meat, many of these Africans are eating the grains directly.

Some quick (but basic) math: a modest* 4 oz. (113 g.) serving of beef requires 20 oz. (1.25 lbs.) of grain.

I'm assuming you can get anywhere up to 5 to 10 servings of prepared cereal from that amount of grain.

Sure, the families are larger—and I don't deny that population is a problem—but if you want to look at where you can make the most impact, I think the consumption of meat is a good place to start.

It's a question of what you and I can do. I don't know about you, but have no kids, so I'm no where near 4 or more children. So what do I do? Take that as my contribution? Should I start campaigning against Africans, of whom I might never meet? Against a place I may never visit?

I'm not sure North America has a population problem. At least when you look at food consumption. I'd say that if you look at it as food consumption patterns vs. population patterns that the food consumption is the much bigger problem.



*For fun, consider that juicy 10 oz. ribeye, which requires at least 50 oz. (1.4 kg/3.1 lbs.) of grain.

I'll just link bomb, because I don't have the patience to lead people to the google.

Malnutrition that doesn't happen with a regular diet, even to twinkie popping fatties:
Parents of girl brought up on vegan diet may face charges - ParentDish

Not impossible, but takes more work, and intelligence than most people have:
Vegan, vitamin B12, and children

Face it, it's easier to get nutrients with meat in your diet. In my anthropology class the statistic for hunter/gatherers was meat was 10% of the mass of food eaten and 90% of the nutrients. Plant were 90% of the bulk and only 10% of the total nutrients. Meat is much more nutrient dense and we are not made to eat so much vegetation. Luckily we can cook and process vegetation and if we cross our t's and dot our i's we can survive, and maybe thrive on a vegan diet these days.

I may have been out of line with the cursing above, but you cannot pretend that modern meat factories are any less natural than the vegetation factories we use for food. Agriculture in general is killing off our planet's resources, not just meat production. If we are to switch to vegan, we will have to raise a whole lot more vegetation than is currently used for our food. Some foods that ruminants eat, we cannot, so farms will somehow have to be retooled to provide vegetation that we can eat. Most of which won't grow in the areas we grow the grass that animals can eat.

In the end, we need to thin out our herd to sustain, whether or not we eat vegan or a more natural omnivore diet.

Pretty interesting take on agriculture:
Spencer Wells: 'At root, we're still hunters' - Science, News - The Independent

Just for fun, let's consider calling numbers to mean things. That's what the UN is doing, though it's been apparent for quite some time it doesn't add properly. Equating eating meat with the roots of our problems is a part of it. Peace-keeping forces are another.
Making pronouncements is ridiculously difficult, but trying to change such diverse dietary habits & preferences with words is impotent.

...an equally interesting take on agriculture, Iliftrocks, is available from pai mei, in that utopian thread about domestication.

Um, obesity and a lack of food variety are risk factors of malnutrition as well. And a balanced vegetarian diet is a "regular" diet. So is balanced omnivorous diet. So is a balanced vegan diet. So is....a balanced diet.

Eating fortified foods isn't more work; people do it every day. I'm assuming you do to, since you live in the U.S. Some of it is government mandated.

I don't deny that meat is a quick way to get things like lots of protein, in addition to b vitamins, iron, zinc, and a few other minerals.

The points I've made in above posts indicate that we're not a hunter/gatherer society; we're a grocery-store-customer society. And I sincerely doubt that the average American has 10% of the food mass consumption as meat. The other thing, too, is that many hunter/gatherers were eating only certain plant foods limited to their region, mainly fruits and vegetables (berries, tubers, etc.). We have access to a far greater variety of food now, plus we have a greater amount of knowledge regarding food and nutrition. The proportion of food source/nutrients are more easily rearranged and have been for years.

But I like your point. If only the average American reduced their meat intake to 10% of food mass. Cancer researchers say that only 27% of Americans eat a healthy proportion of meat to plants.

We weren't made to eat so much meat either. I would say that we're far better made for eating too much vegetation than we are too much meat. If we look at what is possible and what one can thrive on, then we look towards reducing our meat intake, not increasing it or even keeping it as it is with the average intake. The bottom line is that Americans should reduce their meat intake, even if you look at it as a health issue. The environmental benefit would be a pleasant side effect.

Umm....what are the animals eating? What if....we ate it instead?

Much of the meat industry is fuelled by corn and oats, and a few other grains I think. I don't think it would take much to "retool" these farms to produce grains and other products for human consumption.

We produce enough food to feed at least 10 times our current global population. We'd just have to stop eating meat. That's just an off-the-cuff guess, but I would't be surprised if it were true. Okay maybe 5 times our current population is a safer guess, but still, that's incredible.

You know what, though? I don't care if anybody becomes vegan. If everyone simply reduced their meat intake to 10% of their diet and instead filled those calories with natural plant foods, it would solve a whole slew of environmental and health problems.

I think the traditional Okinawans can teach us a lot, not just in terms of diet, but in lifestyle as well. Sure, they eat some fish and pork (but no other meat, and very little in the way of eggs and dairy), but 6% of their caloric intake is soy and other legumes. Americans tend to eat too much protein and not enough of the good stuff.

Here's a calm and well reasoned outlook on vegan diets, courtesy of Marion Nestle. Should assuage any fears about rare instances of malnourished childrens that are being bandied about here. Perhaps a well meaning mod could properly embed it for me:

How Healthy Is Vegetarianism?Really? | Marion Nestle | Big Think

I know this has zig-zagged all over the place, but I thought you were advocating discussion of the UN's ability to be effective advocating the world's diets, not promoting how you would wish to change them.