The significance of non-human life

[Bantari]

Our daughter has been vegetarian since her teen days, even before we were. She survived in college on pasta and cheese sauce. It was not a healthy diet. But if we assume that the transition to a vegetarian diet for the masses will be gradual then there is plenty of time to education people on how to eat well. The bottom line is that there is a huge number of studies which show than a vegetarian lifestyle is a healthy one if done correctly. The majority of studies which show eating meat is necessary are sponsored by the meat marketing boards.

Most of the studies I have seen go along these lines:

• World production of plan food, when maximized and expanded to the areas now used for animal production and taking over the resources, is X.
• World population is Y.
• Lets divide X by Y and see how much we can produce per person. We can produce Z per person.
• Ok, sweet, Z is enough for a person to survive. Great, it is possible to all be vegetarians. We just have to solve all the other pesky little problems, which remain unspecified and unsolved, often unmentioned.

It is a very simplistic view.

None of the studies I have seen mentioned (or if they did, they just glossed over and dismissed them) any of the problems that exist and some of which I mentioned in my previous post. Nitrogen ripening, transportation costs, pesticide usage (and production), genetic engineering and other chemical processes we use (and have to use for the industry to be sustainable), and many many more - and the necessary drastic increase in all those bad and expensive things if we as a race do away with meat.

This is why I trust those studies as much as I trust the pro-meat ones.
I have not seen a good honest study which would deal with such question for neither side. There might be some out there, I did not look hard, so who knows. But there are big problems which need to get solved *first* before we can proclaim it is possible for our race to do without meat. And I know at least some of them are not yet solved.

We definitely could produce the necessary food. And if we did not eat meat then there would be no need to produce all the animals which are currently required to supply it. As I posted earlier in the thread, this frankenmeat could be phased out very quickly. Cows, sheep and chicken, as produced by nature are already close to extinction. The ones produced by factory farming are gross distortions pumped full of antibiotics and other drugs in order to plump them up to achieve greater value. When you eat them you also get you share of those same antibiotics, and guess what it does to you.

Here: chemically treated and covered by chemicals frankenveggies and frankenfruit and frankencrops!
Not sure if they are better or worse than frankenmeat. But fair is fair - there is franken-stuff on both sides, and it needs to be mentioned. Or we are running the risk of being viewed as equally biased and one sided and agenda-driven as the studies you mention.

You may not, but there are out there with a little research. Just make sure to ask yourself who is sponsoring any published article. Those which promote vegetarianism are sometimes sponsored by pro-vegetarian groups and organizations, but those which promoted meat-eating are almost always sponsored by those with a financial interest in the matter.

Agendas are on both sides, this is why it is so hard to believe such studies, on either side. Studies cost money, and big studies cost big money. Nobody gives big money for nothing these days. And yes, I am an old cynic, but this is what I learned about the world.

And this is why I rather think for myself. And from what I know, I *know* that some problems are far from being solved right now: transportation, necessity of genetic engineering of plants, pesticides, nitrogen-ripening, just to mention a few.

So studies can go both to sides, but the problems remain. This is why I still think that its not a matter of opinion if we can or cannot all be vegetarians. I simply do not see how we can, unless many other sacrifices are made, some of them in human lives. And this is why I believe both choices are equally valid.

And also - I love bacon!

[Bantari]

Our daughter has been vegetarian since her teen days, even before we were. She survived in college on pasta and cheese sauce. It was not a healthy diet. But if we assume that the transition to a vegetarian diet for the masses will be gradual then there is plenty of time to education people on how to eat well. The bottom line is that there is a huge number of studies which show than a vegetarian lifestyle is a healthy one if done correctly. The majority of studies which show eating meat is necessary are sponsored by the meat marketing boards.

Most of the studies I have seen go along these lines:

Ugh... I re-read it and realized you were talking about different studies. I was writing like 3 posts simultaneously, with ideas cross-pollinating, and got confused.

Anyhow... As for the studies you mention, I agree. The studies which show that eating meat is necessary are all BS. I know plenty of very healthy vegans and vegetarians - more than half of my family falls into this category. You can be perfectly healthy as a vegan or vegetarian, it is proven.

But you can also be perfectly healthy eating meat - The other half of my family and most of my friends falls into that category, so this is proven for me as well.

As I keep stressing - it is a personal choice, and both choices are equally valid. Or equally healthy. If you do it correctly.
The advantages lie in personal views, values, and sometimes religion and are, by definition, personal, and thus subjective. There are people who are one or the other side for health issues, but I think this is only a fringe and not really representative of the population at large.

PS>
Hmm...
For somebody who was supposed to be lurking, I certainly got into all this deep. Well, I find it important, so it might be worth all this fuss. or maybe not, who knows...

[DrStraw]

Hi Steve .....

Indeed it is a huge subject. So much so that if I were to answer all your questions as thoroughly as I would wish I would probably be thrown off the board for monopolizing bandwidth. So here, to the best of my ability, is my attempt at concise answers to most of your points.

Water-based protein. I have not looked into this too closely. But I do know that the catch of many of the common seafoods is declining so ultimately that is not the solution unless we drastically reduce the fishing levels. I wouldn't touch seafood even if I were not a vegetarian. That from the Pacific is full of Fukushima radiation: there are documented reports of lethal levels in fish at the top of the food chain such as tuna. Much of the Atlantic is heavily polluted. Japan is having to fish further afield these days to bring in the same volume as before.

I say western world as meaning the first world nations of Europe and the America and, to a lesser extend a few other countries. The western part of the US is a significant part of that, but far from the major part of it. People in other parts of the world often do not get enough protein, but I do not believe that is due to the lack of meat. It is due to the lack of overall nourishment. The problem is that most people in affluent countries are just as malnourished as those in third world countries. The malnourishment just takes a very different form. It is this western malnourishment, based on an overabundance of unhealthy junk food, primarily meat based, which I am against. I understand that in some parts of the world it is more practical to eat small amounts of meat. I am not saying everyone in the world can become vegetarian, but I do believe that if they could then the overall health of the planet would probably improve.

Monsanto is in the process of trying to hijack the food supply in Africa. If they succeed it will only make matters worse. Independent research has shows that yields of gmo crops are dropping. Many organic and conventional growers are getting higher yields these days. But their crops are being infected by their neighbors gmo pollen and Monsanto is suing innocent farmers for using their crops without a license! And we should not be trying to grow corn here and ship it to Africa. Africa should be growing crops which are native to the continent and which have been grown there for millenia.

As for pesticides the answer is an absolute no. Weeds are prety good at evolving to resist roundup and such. GMO seeds are resitant to roundup and so farmers have been spraying crops with roundup so long now that superwees have evolved which survive it. GMO farmers now are often using more pesticides than organic farmers, and are getting lower yields. Things cannot be changed overnight. It will take a few decades, even if it ever happens. But there are ways to do it which do not involve pollution of the land - they should require a little more enlightened effort. Education is the key.

As for frankenplants, I think the above paragraphs make it clear that they are not needed. They are there purely to put money into the hands of the large corporations. And if we cut out animal protein sure we will need to grow more plants, but what we will not have to do is grow the huge crops of corn and soybeans, 80% of which is fed to animals.

I do not know a single person who speaks of genetic engineering of plants proudly. At least not unless they are big shareholders of Monsanto, Syngenta, et al. That could, of course, be because of the people I associate with. Did you know that Syngenta, a Swiss company, is not allowed to even test its product in its home country so it sends them all over here for testing. And if we killed of all the plants overnight you are correct - we would not have enough "food". What is needed it to make a gradual shift back to normalcy over a few years. And right, most people could not afford to eat organic food right now. But they could 50 years ago when that is all there was. So a return to all organic would not be problem as there would be no premium - because there would be nothing else. I don't even eat a lot of organic food as a lot of it comes from China and is not inspected in this country. Whole Foods, for example, gets organic food from China. I grow as much as possible myself and I make sure that I know the source of the organic food I do eat.

AS for me living on local food and you living in a city in a desert then I have to agree. It is a dilemma for you and others like you. But it would not have to be if the system were to change. You are spot on when you say it is not solvable right now. But I think you are wrong when you say that because if that we cannot even try to solve them over a prolonged period.

[tchan001]

Water-based protein. I have not looked into this too closely. But I do know that the catch of many of the common seafoods is declining so ultimately that is not the solution unless we drastically reduce the fishing levels. I wouldn't touch seafood even if I were not a vegetarian. That from the Pacific is full of Fukushima radiation: there are documented reports of lethal levels in fish at the top of the food chain such as tuna. Much of the Atlantic is heavily polluted. Japan is having to fish further afield these days to bring in the same volume as before.

Water-based protein is not only fishing from the ocean. There is aquaculture for both freshwater fish and saltwater fish.
There are also integrated livestock-fish farming systems where the manure from the livestock is used to feed the fish so the production is more efficient.

It is this western malnourishment, based on an overabundance of unhealthy junk food, primarily meat based, which I am against.

I don't think unhealthy junk food is primarily meat based. There is quite a huge amount of vegetarian junk food such as potato chips, french fries, cookies, candy, carbonated soft drinks and beer. Why would you primarily be against meat based junk food? Perhaps a vegetarian diet of beer and potato chips while watching TV all day is not the best combo for the health of the planet.

[DrStraw]

Water-based protein is not only fishing from the ocean. There is aquaculture for both freshwater fish and saltwater fish.
There are also integrated livestock-fish farming systems where the manure from the livestock is used to feed the fish so the production is more efficient.

I don't think unhealthy junk food is primarily meat based. There is quite a huge amount of vegetarian junk food such as potato chips, french fries, cookies, candy, carbonated soft drinks and beer. Why would you primarily be against meat based junk food? Perhaps a vegetarian diet of beer and potato chips while watching TV all day is not the best combo for the health of the planet.

If you want to eat fish fed on livestock manure then go ahead. I don't.

I agree that there is a lot of junk food which is not meat based, but I was thinking primarily of fast food outlets. I stand corrected, but I think my point is still valid.

[tchan001]

I'm sure manure is used as fertilizers for plant based food in some parts of the world. What's the difference?

Surely making use of the manure for conversion to food is much better for the health of the planet than leaving it around to pollute nearby water sources such as rivers, lakes, and oceans.

[daal]

I am not really sure what you are trying to tell me. Its a very complex issue, as I have said.

Uberdude's "drive-by" comment was on-topic, pointing out the viability of a large population of vegetarians. I assumed that yours was likewise on-topic, and designed to highlight the fallacies in his comment. I didn't realize that in a thread about a very complex issue that you were just spouting out at the mouth.

As to the quoted article, the point I wanted to make was less about fossil fuels, and more replying to your question as to whether it's viable to replace meat protein with plant protein. Your assertion that some land is better suited to feeding protein-producing animals than growing protein-producing plants is one I can't verify. Much of the fields now used to grow plants were once forests. Amazing what can be done when people set their minds to it.

[HermanHiddema]

I do not know a single person who speaks of genetic engineering of plants proudly.

Checking in then!

I think genetic engineering is the way forward, that it provides enormous benefits, has very few downsides and is, sadly, heavily over-regulated. I admire companies like Monsanto. They do good work while putting up with an incredible amount of baseless fear and anger from poorly informed anti-science types.

[hyperpape]

I have a weakly held belief that genetically engineered crops are a good idea, mostly because I believe they can increase yields and therefore reduce environmental impacts. Monsanto's treatment of intellectual property in their products is awful, however.

[HermanHiddema]

Monsanto's treatment of intellectual property in their products is awful, however.

It is? Why?

[SmoothOper]

Something that I have always thought was about the vegan movement that was a-moral, is the way they anthropomorphize animals and project human feelings onto the animals. I feel it really does two disservices. 1) It prevents animals from being treated in a manner that they prefer. 2) It opens up the door to treat people like certain other animals. An example of the former is, what about vegan cats, an example of the latter are any number of lewd sayings. I say stop it, treat your animals good for the animals they are. I can list numerous examples, but I will save it for later posts.

[tchan001]

I think genetic engineering is the way forward, that it provides enormous benefits, has very few downsides and is, sadly, heavily over-regulated. I admire companies like Monsanto. They do good work while putting up with an incredible amount of baseless fear and anger from poorly informed anti-science types.

Must be talking about the enormous benefits to the shareholders of such companies
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rbicide-p/
http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-content/ ... Seneff.pdf
http://www.activistpost.com/2014/01/sup ... -full.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_a ... santo.html

[HermanHiddema]

I think genetic engineering is the way forward, that it provides enormous benefits, has very few downsides and is, sadly, heavily over-regulated. I admire companies like Monsanto. They do good work while putting up with an incredible amount of baseless fear and anger from poorly informed anti-science types.

Must be talking about the enormous benefits to the shareholders of such companies
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rbicide-p/
http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-content/ ... Seneff.pdf
http://www.activistpost.com/2014/01/sup ... -full.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_a ... santo.html

I'm sorry tchan, but this is exactly the stuff I'm talking about. Lets take them from the top:

1. A study by Eric Seralini. Seralini is widely known for his flawed and biased studies. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair
2. A bogus paper: http://www.examiner.com/article/bogus-p ... e-internet
3. See 5
4. Good law, which protects farmers and seed suppliers from frivolous lawsuits and abuse of the legal system. Basically an "innocent until proven guilty" provision.
5. Same case as 3. OSGATA sued Monsanto, claiming that Monsanto sues small farmers over accidental contamination of their crops with patented GMO crops. Except Monsanto has actually never sued anyone for accidental contamination. Really more of a publicity lawsuit than anything. Dismissed by the judge as a "transparent effort to create a controversy where none exists."

So yeah, bad links.

[Mike Novack]

Except Monsanto has actually never sued anyone for accidental contamination. Really more of a publicity lawsuit than anything. Dismissed by the judge as a "transparent effort to create a controversy where none exists."
So yeah, bad links.

Actually, they did try it on. In the (actual) lawsuit where that Canadian farmer was sued over infringing with "Roundup Ready Rape" they initially attempted to get a ruling that all they had to show was that the genes had entered his crop, even were that accidental, a natural process.

They lost that <<the decision that they really wanted>>

They then proceeded to produce evidence that "this was no accident" and the jury agreed and found the farmer guilty. I must say that I agree with that since in a civil suit the rule isn't "without a reasonable doubt" but "preponderance of evidence" and the actions of that farmer did appear to be "selecting for resistance to Roundup" (the possibly accidentally introduced genes). Otherwise, why would he have been applying "Roundup" to his supposedly non-resistant crop.

In other words, Monsanto won the battle but lost the war. They were not trying to win a claim against just this farmer for his intentional actions but to use this case to win broad ownership rights even when "Nature did it" <<as was sure to happen>>

[skydyr]

As to the quoted article, the point I wanted to make was less about fossil fuels, and more replying to your question as to whether it's viable to replace meat protein with plant protein. Your assertion that some land is better suited to feeding protein-producing animals than growing protein-producing plants is one I can't verify. Much of the fields now used to grow plants were once forests. Amazing what can be done when people set their minds to it.

As one example, in Iceland, the most common crop that's grown is hay, because much of the country is not suitable to the large scale cultivation of grains and vegetables. Most of the vegetables on the island, if they aren't imported, are grown in greenhouses, which really don't scale. This is not to say that there are no grains and such grown there, but compared to pasture and meadows, it's quite difficult to do on a scale to feed the entire island. Unsurprisingly, the only real way to convert grass and hay to food for people is to use it to raise animals, and they have a diet that's heavy on sheep and other meats as a result, along with seafood and whatever can be hunted.

Similarly, the Inuit of the North American tundra traditionally have a diet that is almost all meat due to a lack of alternatives, and I don't see a time when large scale agriculture is viable on permafrost.