|
Iron is carcinogenic Link as are lots of things if you want to ignore any qualifiers. Too little or too much of most nutrients are bad. If you ever get a blood test then most of the results show whether you are in a healthy range for whatever they are testing for. Individual requirements can vary drastically, genetics predispose us to process differently. On top of which food interactions change things. As an example vitamin C helps your body absorb iron, while tea and calcium do the opposite. Link There is a lot of misinformation around dietary requirements in general. If you eat a traditional diet then you sort of benefit from others having balanced the nutritional value historically. If you eat a modern western diet you probably have too much sodium, sugar and potentially minor deficiencies. Do vegans take supplements, sure. Do they need to is a different question. Other than B12 a balanced diet isn't any harder to make with a plant based diet. It doesn't even need to be a pill, plenty of products are fortified.
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2022 12:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:Focusing on how iron is carcinogenic when taken in large amounts seems more than a little misleading, given that vegans often have to pay special attention to their diets to ensure that they get enough iron. Iron deficiency is the most common nutrient deficiency in the world. I don't think that iron being carcinogenic is an issue, sorry if I didn't get that across in my post. I was actually trying to. There are a lot of ways to get iron into your diet. Lentils, chickpeas, beans and tofu are all good sources of iron (and protein) and as I said in my post, vitamin c helps with the uptake. For example a tofu stir fry with veggies like broccoli is great. Women are more prone to iron deficiency and apparently in the US 79% of vegans are women. It is an issue that can be fairly easily mitigated. For vegans specifically B12 and to a lesser extent calcium are the ones to watch. As this is well known a lot of targeted products are fortified with them, such as soy milk. In answer to your question the average non-vegan diet is not unhealthy due to an abundance of iron. Large amounts of red meat does cause an increased risk of death. This interesting article suggests that over 3 servings a week is bad and that a typical steakhouse fillet is 3 and half servings.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I feel like eating meat, especially from industrial farms, is going to look pretty barbaric in retrospect, like probably within our lifetimes. For both animal welfare as well as environment/climate reasons. You are in good company, over five hundred years ago Leonardo da Vinci said "I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
Fun fact, 75% of the population are lactose intolerant. Most people have gastrointestinal bacteria that allows them to process it to some degree. Many vegans have bacteria that has adapted to their diet. From experience surprise cheese can come at a high price. The pescatarian who works with people in marginalized communities in which meat dishes are cultural and traditional touchstones seems like an amazing person. I assume that you agree the analogy with your friend refusing an incorrect order of nachos could be seen as antagonistic.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I dislike the philosophical argument because I think it follows the flawed modern logic that we exist outside of nature but I'm with the rest of it since even with a view that we exist within nature as a large predator we're still committing actions that will lead to a collapse of our species and a large diet change would help stop that. What about environmental or health based arguments? I don't see a lot of value in judging other people on what they choose to eat, I do find hearing their reasoning interesting though. Think of it like recycling, on a global scale I am fully aware my impact is next to nothing. That doesn't stop me from doing it because it meshes with my moral philosophy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2022 00:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I feel like veganism specifically is odd from an environmental point of view because volume matters a lot more than your personal elimination of every particular product. If everyone cut like, I dunno, a tenth of the meat they eat it would have the same effect as making one in ten people completely vegan. I would interpret it as a very after-the-fact argument. The personal moral one is more consistent. Sure, but given you only really have agency over yourself, if you cut it out it achieves the same as if ten people had cut down as by your example.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:... I might as well rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic I suppose. It's something to do. I don't really disagree with your analysis. If you chooses to be vegan and are a realist you pretty much have to accept you are doing it for yourself. Depending on how you feel about the various arguments, doing something you feel is right can make you feel a little better about yourself as a person. Sometimes that is enough.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2022 02:24
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:I think it will demonstrate that they are either hypocrites or doomers How did you become a vegan, for you personally was there an issue that held more weight? Your first post was diverse, which I think is great because in my experience there are many different reasons why people choose to become vegan. I don't know if you would view my posting as that of a doomer, but it is somewhat apparent we have reached a similar point through different paths. Is the position of the two longer arguments you quoted something you disagree with? If so, why? Personally I'm inclined to agree that individual action is limited. But so what? This is true for almost all of the greater issues facing society. Rather than dismissing their arguments, you can easily point out that you are doing what you can. You did more than me by starting this conversation. I would like to thank you for that by the way. I generally lurk and the way you raised the topic made me engage. You raised a contentious topic with a good effort post including varied arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2022 10:27
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:in a world of completely vegan humans, how would we handle pet cats and other obligate carnivores? That question presupposes that vegans are a monolith. We aren't and as a thought experiment, a premise that nobody believes will come to pass isn't particularly useful. I can only speak for myself, to me the decision to choose my actions and their consequences is the fundamental reason I am vegan. I don't see cats as being capable of similar decision making and as you say they are obligate carnivores. In New Zealand before the arrival of humans there were two mammals, both bats. Cats were brought over and now we have a feral cat issue. There are many wonderful and endangered species of birds that do not exist anywhere else in the world. Life is full of plenty of compromises. I acknowledge the reasons that people run trap lines to catch and humanely kill cats. I know that I personally do not have it in me to do this. Maybe there is some degree of hypocrisy in that, I view it as being self aware.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:What is wrong with industrial agriculture? Similarly, what problems does de-industrializing agriculture solve? The first post in this thread has multiple sections about the issues with industrial agriculture that are well laid out, brief and even has links.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:The last time there was a vegan discussion I asked if anyone could post good vegan recipes that didn't involve something weird as a subsistute. Think of it like eating any different cuisine, if you just use vegan substitutes for ingredients you are familiar with it will probably taste wrong to your sensibilities. Lots of meat free recipes are predicted on the fact people don't like getting outside their comfort zone, which is why you get something pretending to be cheese or fake fishfingers. You mentioned ghee, so obviously you aren't unfamiliar with Indian food. There are plenty of Indian dishes that don't contain meat and never have. For a long time, meat was expensive so most cultures have plenty of dishes that don't have much if any meat in them. Your comment about lard in veggie chilli and salads without cheese or dairy based dressing make it sound like you want to eat meat and dairy without having to defend yourself. Personally I feel if that is the case, go ahead. Not sure why you would need to post about it in this particular thread though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Out of curiosity, is there a vegan position on "rewilding" ideas involving the reintroduction of animal species to habitats in order to improve their resiliance? There are plenty of positions, many of which have outspoken members who will tell you that they speak with authority for all vegans. My position would be that nothing exists in a vacuum. Climate change makes the idea of stable habitats pretty dubious. I am not quite sure what you think I oppose. Is there an argument predicted on the idea that vegans should oppose animals behaving naturally or is it some other aspect?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
There is an argument that the action of intentionally causing suffering is harmful in and of itself. I'm not a particularly optimistic person, I don't see the liklihood of vegans as a movement being in a position to make the larger societal decisions you are talking about. While such hypotheticals are interesting, I think that the decision to become vegan is basically a personal one. Usually based on animal welfare although from an ecological point of view meat reduction is hard to argue with.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:This seems to be a fundamental disagreement on what harm means. I mean they could specify further, but killing is generally considered harm. You may not agree with the ethical argument as to whether it matters, but a dead animal was definitely harmed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:assuming we end animal agriculture, what happens to all the cows? where is the place set aside for cows to live wild and free? If it suddenly occurred due to magic, this would be an issue. Realistically I don't see society as a whole going vegan and any change would be gradual. So farmers will over time reduce herd numbers. I know here in New Zealand we just sold off a 1100 hectare sheep and beef farm to the parent company of IKEA. Presumably they will both use the wood and get carbon credits from the land.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 06:58
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:A maybe unsavory truth is that most people who dedicate themselves to a political/social/moral causes beyond posting about them on the internet do it because the issue personally affects them and solving the issue would improve their own status in society. I don’t see how you get that for animal welfare. Most vegans just don't fit the strawman example you have created to complain about. People are seldom going to say that a single issue is the only problem in the world. Assuming I can acknowledge multiple issues with society, in what way is my diet harmful to you? There are valid criticisms and plenty of situations where the decision to go vegan will complicate an individuals life. There are hypothetical issues that arise in an all vegan world, which will remain hypothetical. If you feel the need to keep posting, please engage with those.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
Be nice to think a lot of lies, my gut tells me you struggle with that though. Probably why you would hesitate before pressing the imaginary button.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:in the short term, who is responsible for caring for the animals raised for meat who are spared the slaughterhouse? In the short term 2-6% of the (US) population are vegetarian or vegan and under capitalism if the demand for animals raised for meat goes down then they don't get spared, the farmers are subsidised so maybe landfill? In the mid term if demand drops then the land used for farming any product gets repurposed to a more profitable product. I gave an example of IKEA buying farms here in NZ to turn into forestry. The long term you describe is not realistically on anyone's radar. Using your argument though, aren't you just as uncomfortable with maximising suffering through the process of the forced breeding of sentient beings that might suffer?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:sure, which is why i'm saying its possible to modulate the level of suffering by methods other than simply reducing the number of beings who suffer. in my ideal livestock-for-meat scenario, we would walk back as much as possible from industrial methods of controlling the population to methods which more resemble the animal's natural lifecycle, even if it does reduce yields of product Demand is an interesting thing. If I am reading you correctly, your issue appears to be with how capitalism and farming interact. If you are willing to pay more and do research it is theoretically possible to eat meat that you would find more ethical. In New Zealand there was a lot of exposure on the treatment of battery farmed chickens. Some video was leaked and the demand for free range eggs went up. The biggest change in response was the adoption of the term "cage free" and some redefinition of battery farming.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I, however, do. Whatever choice we make, animals die. I think that providing them food and shelter and a field to roam around in before killing them quickly for meat, is a better lot than they would be afforded in nature. As well as entirely morally consistent with having say, national parks full of wildlife existing in a cruel state of nature simply because we find the idea romantic, or because we need them to preserve a biosphere for us to live in. Not sure if you understand how factory farming works, but "providing them food and shelter and a field to roam around in" isn't representative of their lived experience. Capitalism isn't overly motivated to change that any time soon. Hypotheticals aside, given you personally don't control either the post vegan global dictatorship or the industrialised production of meat, do you think your personal actions count? Do you think objectively your actions would be less moral as a vegan?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think paving over gigantic stretches of land to make them uninhabitable to all life would be a bit weird when you could just practice agriculture to half decent standards on it instead. Earlier in the thread I mentioned the conversion of land currently used for animals to forestry. Paving over gigantic stretches of land isn't exactly a common solution, especially when there is profit to be made.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Why is it more okay for animals to suffer and kill one another in that forest than it is for us to have some nice farms for a couple of well treated cows? I tried to look up the percentage of animals that are factory farmed in the US, lots of animal welfare sites suggest it is 99%. I assume that this is a numbers game and chickens make the reality a bit more complex. Cows seem to be around the 80% mark. While I agree with the idea it would be more ethical if there were nice farms and well treated cows, that pretty clearly isn't the reality we live in. (I think OwlFancier is in the UK, it is only 70% there.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
Should we be accountable for our own actions, even if we accept the premise that they will not create significant change? If for a given value the welfare of animals matters to you personally, is being vegan more ethical? It seems like a bunch of people feel it doesn't matter, either because their actions cannot bring about immediate noticeable change or they do not view animal welfare as an important factor. Parallels for the first issue exist with climate change. While acknowledging individual action is not enough to prevent a 1.5 degree rise, I see no negative consequences to doing the best where I have agency. I honestly find the second argument more understandable. If your premise is that you don't care about animal welfare, then any argument about their ethical treatment is invalid.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
Time for a low blow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As I said I don't really think that that my personal choice to eat or not eat animal products makes a great deal of difference in that regard, and I don't find it necessary to perform specific actions in this instance to attain a personal sense of moral superiority, nor really do I think any such actions are actually available to me, I would not think I was achieving anything if I became vegan, certainly not any more than just, I dunno, eating slightly less meat or whatever. The absolutist position holds no value to me on a personal level because I am fairly aware of all the myriad miseries I am complicit in anyway. It is not able to generate a sense of moral purity. I think my actions are consistent enough for my own satisfaction, they cannot be absolutely consistent nor do I expect them to be. Entirely out of curiosity, do you eat much meat? You've raised that reduction is nearly as good multiple times. I think that for those who view it as the 'right' thing to do there is a mental health benefit in consistency that isn't about feeling superior to others. I agree that complete moral purity is a lie as there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
The original post made an argument and by proxy raised a question to be debated with the thread title. Why You Should Go Vegan. Very few points have been made to refute the OP. Instead the focus seems to have abandoned reality. I don't understand why the defence being made for the current system seems to depend so heavily on a system of ethical farming that we can show to be a statistical minority. Do people have any issues with factory farming, not necessarily ethical, they could be anything mass deforestation to environmental runoff or even antibiotic use? Because that is where the majority of your meat comes from. Focusing on what we should do with bespoke farms when the vegans use their superpowers to overthrow capitalism is a weak gotcha that only works if you insist on ignoring the reality we actually live in. Cows are not facing extinction due to you as an individual becoming vegan, personal lack of impact has even been repeatedly cited as a motivation not to become one. While I disagree with the conclusion that comes with the argument, could you at least use it consistently.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2022 05:02
|
|
|
I don't think that there is any real expectation from the vegan posters that the world is going to suddenly go vegan. In New Zealand 50% of our climate emissions output is from agriculture, dairy farming is a problem so I disagree with the suggestion that we should push vegetarianism. As far as the moral/ethical question, I don't think I am particularly judgemental. A long time ago I asked myself what I believed and compared the answer to how I acted. I felt that it wasn't acceptable so I changed my behaviour to match my personal standards. From what I have observed, introspection like that makes some people uncomfortable. The conversation has drifted from the original proposition, which is fine. The first post was well thought out with a reasonable amount of cited information on "Why you should go vegan" and the majority of the dissent has been suggesting that society isn't particularly interested in doing so. Which is fair.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2022 03:35
|
|
|
Colonel Cool posted:The issue is that this is begging the question. Of course if you define harming sentient beings as inherently unethical then everything else in your argument follows logically from that. I don't define harming sentient beings as inherently unethical, so the rest of your argument is unconvincing to me. We lack the ability to convince each other, because the disagreement flows from a different moral foundation. Just like how I can't convince someone who thinks that human beings are worthy of moral consideration from the moment of conception of anything related to that, and he can't convince me of anything related to that. It is fair to say that if you don't share the presupposition "harming sentient beings (for consumption) is unethical" then arguments that follow from that are not going to be particularly compelling. This is why people often point out the clear environmental harm, inefficiencies, potential health risks and other impacts. It is fairly likely that one or more of these will impact your existing moral concerns.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 05:56
|
|
|
Colonel Cool posted:I don't think there's any one trait that makes humans special, rather it's a whole host of traits that combine to make humans special as a category. And humans clearly are very different in a great many ways than any known animal species. The idea that a problem is too big for personal actions to impact it has come up a few times. While I agree, there are other factors to consider. Firstly, despite it's many issues even capitilist society does change due to public demand. Secondly most people feel happier about themselves if their actions reflect their beliefs. I have to wake up as myself, so I try to match my actions with my values. As someone pointed out upthread, very few people are arguing that factory farming is good or even sustainable. Even if large scale changes don't come about in my lifetime, I don't want to have been a part of the problem with no internal justification.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
World Famous W posted:since the thread has revived and i just noticed it, i would like to ask for opinions s on something ive pondered for a minute. ive mostly given up buying meat because of environmental reasons (animal ethics and rights are not a huge concern of mine). however, i help at a foodbank at least once a week and bring home meat from it. it amounts for most the meat in my diet. Sounds like you are freegan, which has different ethical standards. I can't speak for anyone else, but the question I would ask myself in your position is how does it make me feel. Then make my decision based off of that. For me it's a hard no, maybe for you it's okay, food waste is a massive issue. I can't show hard figures, but in as much as I recall demand will decrease if it is discarded. When it is consumed it can be used as a tax write off or for other purposes. Regardless, congrats on reducing your meat intake, doing what you believe to be ethical is generally good for your mental health.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2023 09:00
|
|