about veganism

[Itoero]

Do you think veganism will be necessary in the future? Do vegans have the moral high ground?

[Moontanman]

19 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Do you think veganism will be necessary in the future? Do vegans have the moral high ground?

I'd have to ask why you would think veganism would be necessary or moral... 

[StringJunky]

30 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Do you think veganism will be necessary in the future? Do vegans have the moral high ground?

With a few exceptions, life needs life to keep itself going.

[detricky]

I don't think veganism is necessary in the future. If we turn to bugs for proteine we should be just fine. 

 

[Ten oz]

40 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Do you think veganism will be necessary in the future? Do vegans have the moral high ground?

Veganism, no. I started a thread a few years back outlining reasons I thought people will be vegetarians in the future. It takes far more energy, land, water (resources) to produce the same amount of calories from meat as it does from other forms of agriculture. As the population grows and if we are ever to achieve an equitable global standard of living our diets will have to change. Diets heavy in meats are simply not sustainable. 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83542-a-vegetarian-future/

 

9 minutes ago, detricky said:

I don't think veganism is necessary in the future. If we turn to bugs for proteine we should be just fine. 

 

I suspect that bugs and shell fish were humans first regular source of b12, iron, protein, etc. Humans do not have the teeth or digestive systems to process raw animal meat for the most part. Fire was discovered between 300 & 400 thousand years ago so prior to that and probably for a long time after the diets of human related species probably include lots of insects and shoreline seafood. 

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Veganism, no. I started a thread a few years back outlining reasons I thought people will be vegetarians in the future. It takes far more energy, land, water (resources) to produce the same amount of calories from meat as it does from other forms of agriculture. As the population grows and if we are ever to achieve an equitable global standard of living our diets will have to change. Diets heavy in meats are simply not sustainable. 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83542-a-vegetarian-future/

 

You forget that quite a bit of land is not suitable for the growing of food crops, humans cannot eat grass nor can we eat many of the things we feed our animals. Veganism, and I do remember your thread, would require a huge amount of land be farmed to grow amounts of things that simply cannot be grown in enough amounts to feed everyone. Yes some of us can currently, if we want, eat only plants but it's very expensive to do so. I would starve to death if I had to only eat plants, I can't afford the cost, we simply cannot grow enough complete foods to feed the entire planet or even a small portion of it... 

[StringJunky]

33 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

You forget that quite a bit of land is not suitable for the growing of food crops, humans cannot eat grass nor can we eat many of the things we feed our animals. Veganism, and I do remember your thread, would require a huge amount of land be farmed to grow amounts of things that simply cannot be grown in enough amounts to feed everyone. Yes some of us can currently, if we want, eat only plants but it's very expensive to do so. I would starve to death if I had to only eat plants, I can't afford the cost, we simply cannot grow enough complete foods to feed the entire planet or even a small portion of it... 

In a meat-free world with no animal husbandry there would be more malnutrition than there is now. Being a vegan with a complete diet is an exercise that requires significant effort and the ingredients need to be continuously available and pretty local in terms of gaining advantage in carbon footprint.

Edited July 28, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

You forget that quite a bit of land is not suitable for the growing of food crops, humans cannot eat grass nor can we eat many of the things we feed our animals. Veganism, and I do remember your thread, would require a huge amount of land be farmed to grow amounts of things that simply cannot be grown in enough amounts to feed everyone. Yes some of us can currently, if we want, eat only plants but it's very expensive to do so. I would starve to death if I had to only eat plants, I can't afford the cost, we simply cannot grow enough complete foods to feed the entire planet or even a small portion of it... 

There are 500 million vegetarians in India. The median income in India is 620 U.S. dollars. The cost of produce is relative to where one lives. Currently the worlds food industries are totally focused on profit and not sustainability. Humans grow what crops make them the most money. Throughout South America and Africa much of the nutrient rich soil is used for coffee rather than food crops for example. However growing methods like hydroponics enable people to grow virtually anywhere. 

As for meat in the U.S. and Australia the average person eat nearly 200 pounds of meat per year. In Canada and Europe its about 150 pounds per year. The total  population of U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia is about equal to that of Africa (1.2 billion) and with the exception of South Africa (50 million) all nations are eating under 50 pounds of meet a year. India has even a greater population still (1.3 billion) and eats less that 10 pounds of meat per person per year. If everyone ate the way we do in U.S. Canada there simple wouldn't be enough to go around. 

 

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There are 500 million vegetarians in India. The median income in India is 620 U.S. dollars. The cost of produce is relative to where one lives. Currently the worlds food industries are totally focused on profit and not sustainability. Humans grow what crops make them the most money. Throughout South America and Africa much of the nutrient rich soil is used for coffee rather than food crops for example. However growing methods like hydroponics enable people to grow virtually anywhere. 

As for meat in the U.S. and Australia the average person eat nearly 200 pounds of meat per year. In Canada and Europe its about 150 pounds per year. The total  population of U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia is about equal to that of Africa (1.2 billion) and with the exception of South Africa (50 million) all nations are eating under 50 pounds of meet a year. India has even a greater population still (1.3 billion) and eats less that 10 pounds of meat per person per year. If everyone ate the way we do in U.S. Canada there simple wouldn't be enough to go around. 

 

 You cannot be so naive to think that food costs in India are in anyway similar to those in the US or that india doesn't have a very high rate of malnutrition... 

Edited July 28, 2018 by Moontanman

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There are 500 million vegetarians in India.

In India 51.4% of women in reproductive age between 15 to 49 years are anaemic.

https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger

[Ten oz]

Just now, Moontanman said:

 You cannot be so naive to think that food costs in India are in anyway similar to those in the US or that india has a very high rate of malnutrition... 

We are talking about the future and not present day. Who is to say there will be a U.S. or India. You are claiming that it is more expensive to eat plant based foods than meat yet the chart I provided clearly shows that the more affluent the nation the more meat the eats and not vice versa. It is poor people who can't afford meat. People in the U.S. eat 30 times the amount of meat as people in India. Also people in the  U.S. people eat 2 1/2 times more meat than they eat in Japan. Are Japanese people malnourished? People in Japan have a have a average life expectancy several years greater than people in the U.S. 

Your dismal of India doesn't address the issue that as the world's population continues to grow our dietary needs cannot be met (everyone on the planet) with our current habits. 

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

In India 51.4% of women in reproductive age between 15 to 49 years are anaemic.

https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger

That is besides the point. I am not implying we should all eat a diet similar to what they eat in India. Rather Moontanman was claiming it was too expensive to eat a plant based diet.

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

That is besides the point. I am not implying we should all eat a diet similar to what they eat in India. Rather Moontanman was claiming it was too expensive to eat a plant based diet.

My point was that at least a quarter of those 500 million vegans you mentioned are anaemic, which supports what i said earlier about it being quite difficult to get a vegan diet complete for a healthy body.

edit: corrected my numbers

Edited July 28, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

My point was that at least a quarter of those 500 million vegans you mentioned are anaemic, which supports what i said earlier about it being quite difficult to get a vegan diet complete for a healthy body.

edit: corrected my numbers

Do you have stats on the 500 million that are anemic as apposed to the 800 million who are not? I would argue that poverty and not vegertarian is the bigger factor. 

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Do you have stats on the 500 million that are anemic as apposed to the 800 million who are not? I would argue that poverty and not vegertarian is the bigger factor. 

You are not reading into it properly  and I never  said 500m are anaemic. We are talking about veganism.. let's stick to those that do it.

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

My point was that at least a quarter of those 500 million vegans you mentioned are anaemic, which supports what i said earlier about it being quite difficult to get a vegan diet complete for a healthy body.

edit: corrected my numbers

 

[Moontanman]

I think we have two questions to answer there, will veganism be necessary and or is it morally superior. It's late and i have to get some sleep but I'll try to dig up the numbers that show that being vegan uses more land to feed even less people than we currently use. The moral basis for veganism is questionable as well but possibly more because morals are subjective and i see no objective way to say eating meat is immoral. 

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You are not reading into it properly  and I never  said 500m are anaemic. We are talking about veganism.. let's stick to those that do it.

 

Right, but at least a quarter of the non vegetarians are potentially anaemic too. So again, poverty is what I would argue is the bigger factor. Your stat doesn't speak to vegatarianiam directly. You cannot quantify the impact of vegetarianism on the number who are anaemic.

Edited July 29, 2018 by Ten oz
Typo

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Right, but at least a quarter of the non vegetarians are potentially anaemic too. So again, poverty is what I would argue is the bigger factor. Your stat doesn't speak to vegatarianiam directly. You cannot quantify the impact of vegetarianism on the number who are anaemic.

How did you work that one out from the information given? You are pulling stuff out of thin air, mate. My statistic spoke of the vegan part (500m) and,  yes, half the women, who make up about half of the 500m, of whom the anaemic  constitute a quarter of the the 500m. What I can't do from that information is to say what the total number of anaemic people is in India.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

How did you work that one out from the information given? You are pulling stuff out of thin air, mate. My statistic spoke of the vegan part (500m) and,  yes, half the women, who make up about half of the 500m, of whom the anaemic  constitute a quarter of the the 500m. What I can't do from that information is to say what the total number of anaemic people is in India.

This issue has been and is being studied. Correlation doesn't mean causation. Yes there are many vegetarians in India and there are also many anemic women in India. That doesn't automatically mean that vegetarianism is the reason or that non vegetarianism would be preferable. From the studies I have read the issue is one of access and education. Different people in India, both vegetarian and non vegetarian, have varying levels of health. The below link study details vitamin, protein, carbohydrate, and  etc levels of people from across India. It is far lengthier than the portion near the conclusion I quoted so please at least scan through it. The second link reflects what the govt in India is looking at regarding the issue of anemia.

India has 300 million people living below the global poverty limit and the median national income is 460 pounds or just over 600 U.S.dollars. India has many challenges in healthcare, education, infrastructure, worker conditions, public safety, and etc that impact the health of their citizens which are not directly relevant to this dietary discussion. Any insistence that being non vegetarian vs vegetarian in itself in India would resolve any specific issue is an over statement and not supported by any data I have seen.

Quote

 

We found positive effects of vegetarian diet compared to the non-vegetarian diet in terms of food consumption patterns and nutrient intake across four geographic regions and diets of India. Vegetarians consumed greater amounts of legumes, vegetables, roots and tubers, dairy and sugar, while non-vegetarians had greater cereals, fruits, spices, salt, fats and oils. Vegetarians consumed greater amounts of carbohydrates, vitamin C and folate and less fat, protein, vitamin B12 and zinc than non-vegetarians. The lower fibre intake by both vegetarians and non-vegetarians may be confounded by socioeconomic status in our study population.

RDA comparisons indicated that a greater proportion of vegetarians were consuming adequate amounts of protein and micro-nutrients (iron, calcium, vitamin C and folate) and also consumed less total energy than non-vegetarians in different regions and locations. Our study is in contrast to findings of a lower intake of protein among vegetarians that has been found by other studies [12, 34], although a recent study of Buddhist vegetarians found a compensatory increase in protein from plant sources resulting in a higher overall protein intake in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians [11]. Recent systematic review [35] and meta-analysis [36] have also indicated possible benefits of plant proteins for cardiovascular health.

We also found a sufficient intake of iron in vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians, which is similar to some [11, 37, 38] but not all previous studies [39, 40]. One explanation is that non-heme iron is found in abundance in plant sources such as legumes, roots and tubers and their bio-availability is increased with concomitant intake of vitamin C-rich diet [10, 38, 39, 41]. Other explanations for increased bio-availability of non-heme iron include baking chappathis in iron plates and the addition of ascorbic acid to cereals and pulses [42, 43]. However a study on young women from Bangalore (India) estimates that only 2.8% of iron (non-heme) is available from plant sources [44].

https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-13-55

 

 

Quote

 

RESULTS:

Sixty-five percent of respondents had hemoglobin less than 11g/dL and were anemic. Only 35% respondents obtained free IFA through public health programs. While 53% of respondents knew that they should eat green leafy vegetables, only 8% reported daily consumption of these vegetables. Focus group discussions highlighted issues around lack of food, especially for slum women, and low decision-making power in the household. Stock-outs of IFA in facilities often pushed women to purchase IFA from chemist shops.

CONCLUSIONS:

Clear gaps emerged in pregnant women's knowledge and practice regarding diet and IFA tablet use. Lack of control over decision-making due to their low status of women was also hindering IFA use and healthy eating.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27009090

 

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

This issue has been and is being studied. Correlation doesn't mean causation. Yes there are many vegetarians in India and there are also many anemic women in India. That doesn't automatically mean that vegetarianism is the reason or that non vegetarianism would be preferable. From the studies I have read the issue is one of access and education. Different people in India, both vegetarian and non vegetarian, have varying levels of health. The below link study details vitamin, protein, carbohydrate, and  etc levels of people from across India. It is far lengthier than the portion near the conclusion I quoted so please at least scan through it. The second link reflects what the govt in India is looking at regarding the issue of anemia.

India has 300 million people living below the global poverty limit and the median national income is 460 pounds or just over 600 U.S.dollars. India has many challenges in healthcare, education, infrastructure, worker conditions, public safety, and etc that impact the health of their citizens which are not directly relevant to this dietary discussion. Any insistence that being non vegetarian vs vegetarian in itself in India would resolve any specific issue is an over statement and not supported by any data I have seen.

9

The point is neither side is entirely correct, some areas/cultures favour one over the other for good reason, for instance, reign deer are cultivated in areas where almost nothing but lichen grows, try a vegan diet in Siberia and see how it goes...

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The point is neither side is entirely correct, some areas/cultures favour one over the other for good reason, for instance, reign deer are cultivated in areas where almost nothing but lichen grows, try a vegan diet in Siberia and see how it goes...

The thread is referencing the future. What goes on in Siberia today doesn't speak to future needs globally. Food and the resources required to produce are global commodities. 1 in 3 people globally suffer from malnutrition. Things do need to change. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/one-in-three-people-worldwide-suffer-from-malnutrition

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I think we have two questions to answer there, will veganism be necessary and or is it morally superior. It's late and i have to get some sleep but I'll try to dig up the numbers that show that being vegan uses more land to feed even less people than we currently use. The moral basis for veganism is questionable as well but possibly more because morals are subjective and i see no objective way to say eating meat is immoral. 

Meat is less sustainable there are any number of studies out there. The Carbon foot print is greater, it is more expensive, and is less able to feed the worlds population long term. The study I linked outlines the environmental impact, health implications, govt subsidies, and ethics while drawing direct comparisons to alternatives.

Quote

 

Abstract Meat production will be unsustainable by 2050 at current and projected rates of consumption due to high resource intensity and destructive cost. This opens a large market for nutritious protein alternatives which can provide comparable taste, texture, and nutrition density. This paper looks at the impacts of industrialized meat production and population demands to estimate the inflection point by which meat-rich diets become unsustainable. We also evaluate the total available market for meat alternatives, current players, barriers to entry, and opportunities for future innovation.

Date: November 10, 2015

Authors: Indira Joshi / Director Samsung  - Seetharam Param / Sr Director R&D, VMware, Inc  - Irene / Technical Lead & Manager Google Inc - Milind Gadre / Director R&D, VMware, Inc

http://scet.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/CopyofFINALSavingThePlanetSustainableMeatAlternatives.pdf

 

 

[Moontanman]

46 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The point is neither side is entirely correct, some areas/cultures favour one over the other for good reason, for instance, reign deer are cultivated in areas where almost nothing but lichen grows, try a vegan diet in Siberia and see how it goes...

Yes! beat me to it! Much of our meat is grown in areas where farming vegetables is either impractical or the land is unsuitable for anything but raising meat animals. Humans cannot eat grass, brush, or trees. Growing plants in areas like deserts or areas with a growing season that is too short precludes growing crops but meat animals do well in these places. 

This is not a right/wrong issue and eating vegan in a healthy way is expensive eve now. Bring up the number of people looking to eat vegan the prices go up faster than production of suitable veggies. 

Are you going to suggest we raise our children vegan next? Children do not do well on vegan diets, their caloric needs are higher, babies and toddlers have died when raised on a strict vegan regime. 

Humans are not vegetarians, veganism is an option that has only been possible in the last few thousand years, before that we ate meat, lots of it. Humans are healthier eating some meat at least. We evolved to eat meat, we exchanged a digestive system that could effectively digest plants for a more meat based diet so we could support larger brains. Even our closest relatives, chimps, eat meat... unless you are going to say insects don't count and they do hunt, kill, and eat small animals including other primates. 

http://theconversation.com/is-a-vegetarian-diet-really-more-environmentally-friendly-than-eating-meat-71596

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/veganism-environment-veganuary-friendly-food-diet-damage-hodmedods-protein-crops-jack-monroe-a8177541.html

https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/health/vegetarian-diet-conversation/index.html

https://qz.com/749443/being-vegan-isnt-as-environmentally-friendly-as-you-think/

Edited July 29, 2018 by Moontanman

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

The thread is referencing the future. What goes on in Siberia today doesn't speak to future needs globally. Food and the resources required to produce are global commodities. 1 in 3 people globally suffer from malnutrition. Things do need to change. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/one-in-three-people-worldwide-suffer-from-malnutrition

What makes you think the future will lead to fewer extremes?

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

What makes you think the future will lead to fewer extremes?

This is a strawman. I never said the future would lead to fewer extremes.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I never said the future would lead to fewer extremes.

didn't you?

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Yes! beat me to it! Much of our meat is grown in areas where farming vegetables is either impractical or the land is unsuitable for anything but raising meat animals. Humans cannot eat grass, brush, or trees. Growing plants in areas like deserts or areas with a growing season that is too short precludes growing crops but meat animals do well in these places. 

This is not a right/wrong issue and eating vegan in a healthy way is expensive eve now. Bring up the number of people looking to eat vegan the prices go up faster than production of suitable veggies. 

Are you going to suggest we raise our children vegan next? Children do not do well on vegan diets, their caloric needs are higher, babies and toddlers have died when raised on a strict vegan regime. 

Humans are not vegetarians, veganism is an option that has only been possible in the last few thousand years, before that we ate meat, lots of it. Humans are healthier eating some meat at least. We evolved to eat meat, we exchanged a digestive system that could effectively digest plants for a more meat based diet so we could support larger brains. Even our closest relatives, chimps, eat meat... unless you are going to say insects don't count and they do hunt, kill, and eat small animals including other primates. 

http://theconversation.com/is-a-vegetarian-diet-really-more-environmentally-friendly-than-eating-meat-71596

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/veganism-environment-veganuary-friendly-food-diet-damage-hodmedods-protein-crops-jack-monroe-a8177541.html

https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/health/vegetarian-diet-conversation/index.html

https://qz.com/749443/being-vegan-isnt-as-environmentally-friendly-as-you-think/

No plant plant-based foods provide vitamin B_12. Supplementary tablets are produced only by a specific bacterial process.  We need this vitamin to avoid anaemia, amongst other important things. What this tells me is that we are evolved to eat and need animal products. Veganism is not natural behaviour... it's an arbitrary indulgence for the middle and chattering classes that have too much time on their hands.  

Edited July 29, 2018 by StringJunky