Vegetarianism: A new path

[Fallofthetyrant]

From a social, ethical, environmental and a neopagan point of view I see it as a form of respect for all life forms which should be adopted
by our modern society.

Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of humankind
Albert Einstein

For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love
Pythagoras (6th century BC)

 

[Tohsaka]

I have often tried to become a non-meat eater, but my lack of willpower has often led my back to meat. It's a valid choice, but I don't see vegetarianism as a form of respect for all lifeforms. Clearly plants are lifeforms too, and I don't think that would change anything.

Other than the obvious points of morals and changes I can reply to the following quotes:

"For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love"

My will kill each other as long as they retain the ability to. As long as man competes and holds an idea of ownership, he will kill. Not eating meat isn't going to change it.

"Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of humankind"

Agreed. But who's to say that it isn't go to before the worst? Evolution has always had it that the organisms that prey on non-mobile food such as plants tend to develop slower movement, yet a larger size. Consider the sloth or the koala.

 

[Diedrupo]

So once we convert the world to vegetarianism what do we do about the animals who only eat meat? Are we gonna make them vegetarianism also?

Becoming a vegetarianism because of some retarded "respect for animals" view is silly. We are carnivores, live with it.

If you were to adopt a mainly vegetarian diet for health or religious reasons, that would be far more palatable than doing it because you think it's unethical to eat animals even though humans are supposed to.

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

A new United Nations report calls cattle the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife.

How can this be? Well, animal products make up the biggest part of your eco footprint. 34% to be exact. Meat, particularly beef, has a very high environmental impact, using much water and land to produce it, and creating significant greenhouse pollution. In fact, one estimate states that if you reduce your intake by just one 150g serve of red meat each week, you'll save 10,000 liters of water and 300kg of greenhouse pollution in a year. Not eating .5kg of beef could save as much water as not showering for an entire year.


The basis behind meat production is to convert plant proteins, like grasses, (which are of little or no use to people as food), into high value animal protein. Intensive farming, like feedlot beef is particularly wasteful, as it uses farmed grain that is suitable for human consumption, to feed its animals. This in itself doesn't seem all that bad, but consider the following;

Livestock currently consume 70 percent of America's grain production. Their grazing accounts for 800 million acres (40 percent) of U.S. land, and 18 percent of all water consumption is devoted to producing feed for livestock.


What's more, modern practices such as these come with a whole range of negative side effects. These include the fuel burned making fertilizer, transporting and harvesting grain to produce the meat. Intensive manure production and runoff issues etc, etc. But the real downside to all this production is that it isn?t a more efficient way of creating edible protein.


Livestock now consume more edible protein than they Produce, Live stock consume 77 million tones of protein contained in feed stuff suitable for human nutrition whereas only 58 million tones of protein are contained in food products that livestock supply. UN report.


The way animals are being treated shouldn't be accepted by our modern society. We are the only ones that can make a difference. Live with it!

 

[Dopples]

So once we convert the world to vegetarianism what do we do about the animals who only eat meat? Are we gonna make them vegetarianism also?

Becoming a vegetarianism because of some retarded "respect for animals" view is silly. We are carnivores, live with it.

If you were to adopt a mainly vegetarian diet for health or religious reasons, that would be far more palatable than doing it because you think it's unethical to eat animals even though humans are supposed to.

Technically, Humans are Omnivores. We eat pretty much anything.


Other then that, Vegetarians are probably even more unhealthy then fat people. They lack the protein needed to grow and stay strong. Lack of meat also makes you more susceptible to disease, along with giving you a lack of energy. Basically, you need to balance your diet to stay healthy. As for it "respecting" nature, carnivores need meat to survive, just like we do. So why aren't they abusing nature?

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

Carnivores aren't 6.7 billions

 

[Andy6000]

Technically, Humans are Omnivores. We eat pretty much anything.


Other then that, Vegetarians are probably even more unhealthy then fat people. They lack the protein needed to grow and stay strong. Lack of meat also makes you more susceptible to disease, along with giving you a lack of energy. Basically, you need to balance your diet to stay healthy. As for it "respecting" nature, carnivores need meat to survive, just like we do. So why aren't they abusing nature?

You're thinking of vegetarians that literally only eat cabbage or something. Meat is one way to get protein, there are others.

Too bad I love steak so much, because this topic does raise a pretty good point about our overpopulation being more of a problem than it strictly needs to be.

 

[Tohsaka]

From a social, ethical, environmental and a neopagan point of view I see it as a form of respect for all life forms which should be adopted by our modern society.

So plants aren't lifeforms?

 

[Diedrupo]

Methinks you need to look at the bigger picture. Those numbers may sound big but they are ultimately meaningless.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill Read this article

Spoiler: dumb stuff

A new United Nations report calls cattle the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife.

How can this be? Well, animal products make up the biggest part of your eco footprint. 34% to be exact. Meat, particularly beef, has a very high environmental impact, using much water and land to produce it, and creating significant greenhouse pollution. In fact, one estimate states that if you reduce your intake by just one 150g serve of red meat each week, you'll save 10,000 liters of water and 300kg of greenhouse pollution in a year. Not eating .5kg of beef could save as much water as not showering for an entire year.


The basis behind meat production is to convert plant proteins, like grasses, (which are of little or no use to people as food), into high value animal protein. Intensive farming, like feedlot beef is particularly wasteful, as it uses farmed grain that is suitable for human consumption, to feed its animals. This in itself doesn't seem all that bad, but consider the following;

Livestock currently consume 70 percent of America's grain production. Their grazing accounts for 800 million acres (40 percent) of U.S. land, and 18 percent of all water consumption is devoted to producing feed for livestock.


What's more, modern practices such as these come with a whole range of negative side effects. These include the fuel burned making fertilizer, transporting and harvesting grain to produce the meat. Intensive manure production and runoff issues etc, etc. But the real downside to all this production is that it isn?t a more efficient way of creating edible protein.


Livestock now consume more edible protein than they Produce, Live stock consume 77 million tones of protein contained in feed stuff suitable for human nutrition whereas only 58 million tones of protein are contained in food products that livestock supply. UN report.


The way animals are being treated shouldn't be accepted by our modern society. We are the only ones that can make a difference. Live with it!

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

Plants are lifeforms and my second post answered your question.

 

[Dopples]

You're thinking of vegetarians that literally only eat cabbage or something. Meat is one way to get protein, there are others.

Too bad I love steak so much, because this topic does raise a pretty good point about our overpopulation being more of a problem than it strictly needs to be.

Well, protein is just one example. There's plenty of other things plants lack that you can only get from meat, that was just the only thing that popped outta my head.

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

The answer is simple:
'Soybeans are considered a "complete protein" source in that they provide all the essential amino acids for human nutrition'

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/300_soy.html
Soy: Health Claims for Soy Protein, Questions About Other Components

 

[Yeyinde]

Were are vegetarians going to get their cholesterol? Even though plants have a small amount of cholesterol, it is not enough.
"For example, to ingest the amount of cholesterol in one egg, one would need to drink about 9.6 litres (19.57 pounds) of pure peanut oil."

 

[Dopples]

Protein isn't the only thing deficient in a Vegan diet. Lack of calcium, iodine, and an omega-3 acid deficiency all contribute to the general malnutrition of vegans. The only vegans I've seen that seem generally "ok" health wise are those who are forced to take supplements. This, in general is a costly thing to keep up.

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

Most vegetarian diets are low in animal products. They’re also usually lower than non-vegetarian diets in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer.



The problems that concern us the most are:
Overpopulation, Factory farming, Animal testing

 

[LosAngeles]

So plants aren't lifeforms?

Well, Vegetarians are not all the same, some are Vegans, who don't eat any product by animals like eggs, milk etc and use and set value on animal-product-free clothing(no leather, cotton) and no cosmetics made under animal testing.
Others are Frutarians, who only eat herbal products without destruction of plants(fruits&nuts for example).
And even others might be Pollotarians, who don't eat meat, but fish(they are another group than vegetarians).
But all see plants as a way to decrease damages to the environment and find alternative to further humans, animals and nature. The plants are never destroyed, they're mostly harvested, so they can grow again.

We are carnivores, live with it.

Humans are actually more Frutarians than Carnivores/Omnivores due to their physique, their teeth and their digestion, because the ability to digest big amounts of cholesterol and to rip raw meat apart is not so well developed than by other Carnivores/Omnivores.

Protein isn't the only thing deficient in a Vegan diet. Lack of calcium, iodine, and an omega-3 acid deficiency all contribute to the general malnutrition of vegans. The only vegans I've seen that seem generally "ok" health wise are those who are forced to take supplements. This, in general is a costly thing to keep up.

The lack of those things in a vegetarian nutrition is of course a point against it, but if more people would be vegetarians, than the availability would increase and it would be easier to substitute and amend them and lower the price, simple demand-offering-system.

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

* Intestinal tract length. Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.

* Stomach acidity. Carnivores' stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.

* Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.

* Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly - they don't have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.

* Fiber. Carnivores don't require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.

* Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore's digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.

* Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.

 

[lunarea]

Animals that are herbivorous cannot chew or digest meat. ~(Wiki)

The very fact that humans can chew and digest meat means that they aren't herbivores - no matter how many similarities they share with other herbivores in nature.

Being a vegetarian is a choice that humans as omnivores can make. However, the simplest (meaning without any supplements for vitamins and whatnot) natural and balanced diet for a human will include both meat and plants.

If you're vegetarian and able to compensate for the nutrients you lose by not eating meat, more power to you.

But please don't try to make it seem that non-vegetarians are unnatural abominations that should be ashamed because they have animal meat and products in their diet.

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

Shame for contributing everyday with the killing of animals.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

What's the difference?
We, more and more every year, are "farming" animals. I don't get the term fully honestly and I think it's just trying to put it in a nicer light, but in truth we are purposely raising and breeding animals for the eventual slaughter. For meat or for clothing or other material goods.

We, more and more every year, are farming plants. This term I understand because that's exactly what we are doing. We are purposely raising and breeding (and cross breeding) plants for the eventual harvest. For food as well as for clothing or other material goods.

We cause a cow to be raised that will have a higher yield of nutrition. We take it and shred it apart and take the food and cart it away. The left overs are put into further processing for material goods, or visa versa.
We cause a potato to be raised that will have a higher yield of nutrition. We take it and shred it apart and take the food and cart it away. The left overs are put into further processing for material goods, or visa versa.

Personally I never understood half the arguments when it came to the human diet. I'm convinced of an omnivore diet being our best option unless we want to take pills and such. And until the day comes that a cheap affordable and easily mass produced healthy synthetic foodstuff is made that contains our basic needs, humans will be eating anything and everything they can either get their hands on, or want to, and to hell with the environment in the mindset. While I think we need to be more careful I sincerely doubt a vegetarian lifestyle is mandatory for the survival of our species or the best possible conclusion in the world. I'll leave saving the planets to the virus and bacteria.