Yeah, I know she was a vegetarian but
Yeah, it's weird that, when a person makes sacrifices for their health, planet, and morals, a lot of people react by giving them trout for it.Originally Posted by Loony BoB
I've sat on both sides of this fence and I agree that they get trout for being vegetarian/vegan but as I've stated earlier I don't believe they're doing their health or the planet any good. Morals don't come in to this for me. Though I also see how much trout slinging the vegetarian and vegan community do towards those who enjoy eating meat. I think it's a case of those in glass houses should not throw stones. I'm more of the live and let live demeanour, I don't care that you're a vegetarian or a omnivore or even if you insist on a diet that contains meat and nothing else (almost impossible but I'm sure someone would find a way) and class yourself as a carnivore. So long as there isn't trout slinging in my direction for my personal choices when it comes to food I'm going to leave everyone else's choices alone. Of course when I get a militant vegan/vegetarian call me things like "traitor" or "scum" because I started eating meat again I destroy their puny little dreams and existence, I rip their bubble of ignorance and bliss away with the scathing facts that unless they wish to cull over a third of the Earth's human population a vegan/vegetarian only society is impossible and demand to know how they propose to solve the situation or how they propose to make an industry that generates billions of dollars a year globally to take heed?Yeah, it's weird that, when a person makes sacrifices for their health, planet, and morals, a lot of people react by giving them trout for it.
I too also follow the live and let tradition. As long as you're not eating humans, I really don't care what you eat or do not eat.
Speaking for myself, I can say that I'm a vegetarian not because I genuinely expect less animals to be slaughtered as a result of lowered demand, but because I don't feel comfortable with the idea of deliberately putting money into a system of meat production that I feel is cruel. If the system could be adjusted, that'd be great, but I'm really only one person, obviously, so I'm not expecting some kind of giant change. It's more of a personal choice than anything.The folly of that argument which has been made to me too in the past is simple: They're assuming that the food industry is going to respond to this, unfortunately I can guarantee otherwise, the scale and size of the industry literally does mean almost any product be it steak or potatoes is as interchangeable for something like computer chips or plastic bags that their point is moot. I mean the farmers are still going to raise the same amount of animals for slaughter, the slaughter houses will still cull them just as effectively and the supermarkets will still stock the food. Or failing that governments will buy the meat produce to donate to charitable causes meaning a whole lot of starving people are suddenly going to get given a meat rich diet.I argue this same point to people, and then they hit me with the "Oh, but you eating it gives them permission to produce more meat. We need more people to be vegan, so that the amount of food sent to the store gradually becomes less."
On the flip-side lets say that supply and demand does take effect, fruit and veg are in higher demand and the meat market shrinks by say 33% what happens then?
Well 33% meat market drop will require a 33% growth in the fruit and veg market people will still need to eat the same amount of food/calories/meals. This will require at least a 66% growth in arable farming land suitable for crops. The reason why I settle on 66%? Well really I'm being generous you're meant to farm a field for like 4 years then leave it going fallow for 4 years so that the soil builds up some nutrients again, I'm suggesting 1 year farm, 1 year fallow with nutrient rich fertilizers.
Ideally we're talking about 132% growth on the land needed. Where does this land come from? Most of our regular meats such as; lamb, pork, chicken can be farmed and raised on land unsuited to crop growing looking at lamb in particular Wales and New Zealand being the two biggest exporters of the stuff in the globe, most of the land mass in both countries being mountainous and poor in terms of soil quality. We create a bigger global problem than we already have with starvation, we also cause problems with dust bowl effects as America should well understand by now considering the experience it has with this. With the reduced meat market the source of powerfully rich manure/fertilizer goes down too making the issue with dust bowls worse too don't forget.
Then we look at the human problem for the farmers of meat such as lamb, pork or chicken their income is dropping dramatically we force thousands of farmers who are already poor further below the poverty line. And for what? A group of people to be happy that we aren't eating meat? We are omnivores simple really we are designed to eat both meat and veg and as our population on this earth grows we're unlikely to be able to change that any time soon unless of course we find a way of terra-forming and colonizing Mars then simply use the planet purely to farm crops and force population to live out there working the soil. But then we'd need to work out a way of continuously shipping crops between the two planets.
As for being designed as omnivores, well, sure, but I don't feel like being "designed" a particular way should dictate what I do. If I was "designed" to eat meat, tough luck to my designer, I guess! :P I still get all of what I need to stay alive and healthy, so I'm not too worried about not putting my ability to digest meat to use.
You weren't designed to, we all just evolved that way because it was beneficial. Those who ate both meat and veggies died less often/reproduced more often than those who ate just veggies.
everything is wrapped in gray
i'm focusing on your image
can you hear me in the void?
Then you clearly haven't put much thought or research into the topic. Which is fine--not everyone needs to be an expert on everything--just saying that the benefits of replacing animal proteins with vegetable proteins and with reducing the demand for meat farming aren't really arguable.[...]I don't believe they're doing their health or the planet any good.Yeah, it's weird that, when a person makes sacrifices for their health, planet, and morals, a lot of people react by giving them trout for it.
Well yeah, I know that. I just felt like it was appropriate to reply in the same terms that Iceglow used is all.You weren't designed to, we all just evolved that way because it was beneficial. Those who ate both meat and veggies died less often/reproduced more often than those who ate just veggies
No I'm merely arguing the logic of agriculture and food production more than anything. The logic of not eating meat = better for the environment/planet is utterly flawed and wrong and you don't need to have studied geography past GCSE to know that if you overly farm a region of land you end up with a big old Dust Bowl effect and America found that out the bloody hard way in the early 20th century. It's also pretty explanatory at that level of Geography that farmers have to leave fields to go fallow and recover and that there are many different soil types some of which are not suitable for growing crops the simple maths of it is the Earth would be irreparably damaged by as little as a 33% global demand. Maybe not immediately no, but within 40 years yes. I thought the whole idea was to leave something for future generations not strip the soil bare of nutrients meaning it cannot and will not provide enough food to support the already growing and aging population.
Still if we wanted to go on to health issues. I've been vegetarian which is more than most people who disagree with it can say. I've been there and tried it for several years. There are issues with health that vegetarianism does not help with.
What do you mean when you say that there are issues with health that vegetarianism doesn't help with? It seems like it would go without saying that it doesn't help with everything. Or am I just misunderstanding what you mean?
What do you think livestock eats?No I'm merely arguing the logic of agriculture and food production more than anything. The logic of not eating meat = better for the environment/planet is utterly flawed and wrong and you don't need to have studied geography past GCSE to know that if you overly farm a region of land you end up with a big old Dust Bowl effect and America found that out the bloody hard way in the early 20th century. It's also pretty explanatory at that level of Geography that farmers have to leave fields to go fallow and recover and that there are many different soil types some of which are not suitable for growing crops the simple maths of it is the Earth would be irreparably damaged by as little as a 33% global demand. Maybe not immediately no, but within 40 years yes. I thought the whole idea was to leave something for future generations not strip the soil bare of nutrients meaning it cannot and will not provide enough food to support the already growing and aging population.
The existence of health issues that aren't helped by vegetarianism doesn't mean it's not healthier overall. No one said vegetarianism was a cure-all. I feel like you didn't think your phrasing through on that one.
They're more arguable than most people think, but I doubt this is the thread, or even the forum section, to get into that.
They're less arguable than you think, you hussy.
Ahh but you see you're missing my point. We can raise livestock on poor soil such as is commonly found in places like Wales and Scotland but we cannot grow many if any crops there. Sheep will happily live their entire lives eating grass humans won't.
EOFF: where the playground retorts you learned in the 1st grade are still perfectly valid arguments.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
