about veganism

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

didn't you?

I haven't deleted any posts. Feel free to quote where in this discussion I said that.

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

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 1 hour ago by Moontanman

The Conversation piece says that any diet could be environmentally friendly if produced in an environmentally friendly manner. Then lists various ways plant based diets aren't environmentally friendly as they could be. That isn't to say meat currently is, doesn't address the cost of making meat more sustainable, and doesn't discuss ways plant based diets could be made more sustainable. For example hydropnics can remove the air shipping and waste the article highlights. 

The CNN article is the same article, the Conversation's piece. Even lists it as its source. For this reason I wonder if you yourself bothered to read these or if this post is just gish gallop? There is no advantage to double linking the same article. I consider it rude for posters to just copy and paste a bunch of links to waste peoples time with. The links I have provided you contain specific information I have noted and addressed. 

The Independent article is just punditry which criticizes individual regional agricultural process.

The Quartz article basically agrees with my position from the vegetarian thread I linked previously. It clearly states people should eat far less meat than we do and meat requires more land to produce.  So again I am left wondering if you actually read it. You either did not read it or you significantly misunderstand my position. 

Your link:

Quote

 

The bottom line: Going cold turkey on animal-based products may not actually be the most sustainable long choice for humanity in the long term.

 …the vegan diet wastes available land that could otherwise be used to feed more people. 

Of course, this is not an argument to embrace a meaty diet. The study says striving for plant-based diets (with a little bit of meat on the side, at most) is the way towards environmental efficiency (in other words, using land more sustainably to produce more food).

The average US consumer today requires more than 2.5 acres (over two football fields) of land each year to sustain his or her current diet. That number decreases dramatically as you reduce meat consumption and add in more vegetables. Three of the vegetarian diets examined in the study would use less than 0.5 acres of land per person each yea, freeing up more land to feed more people.

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

 

 

Edited July 29, 2018 by Ten oz

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I haven't deleted any posts. Feel free to quote where in this discussion I said that.

The Conversation piece says that any diet could be environmentally friendly if produced in an environmentally friendly manner. Then lists various ways plant based diets aren't environmentally friendly as they could be. That isn't to say meat currently is, doesn't address the cost of making meat more sustainable, and doesn't discuss ways plant based diets could be made more sustainable. For example hydropnics can remove the air shipping and waste the article highlights. 

The CNN article is the same article, the Conversation's piece. Even lists it as its source. For this reason I wonder if you yourself bothered to read these or if this post is just gish gallop? There is no advantage to double linking the same article. I consider it rude for posters to just copy and paste a bunch of links to waste peoples time with. The links I have provided you contain specific information I have noted and addressed. 

The Independent article is just punditry which criticizes individual regional agricultural process.

The Quartz article basically agrees with my position from the vegetarian thread I linked previously. It clearly states people should eat far less meat than we do and meat requires more land to produce.  So again I am left wondering if you actually read it. You either did not read it or you significantly misunderstand my position. 

Your link:

 

This discussion is about veganism, which is an extremist dietary position... vegetarians do not qualify.

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The Conversation piece says that any diet could be environmentally friendly if produced in an environmentally friendly manner. Then lists various ways plant based diets aren't environmentally friendly as they could be. That isn't to say meat currently is, doesn't address the cost of making meat more sustainable, and doesn't discuss ways plant based diets could be made more sustainable. For example hydropnics can remove the air shipping and waste the article highlights.

Hydroponics? Really? Have you ever grown anything legal hydroponically? Do you know why this question is relevant? 
 

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

The CNN article is the same article, the Conversation's piece. Even lists it as its source. For this reason I wonder if you yourself bothered to read these or if this post is just gish gallop? There is not advantage to double linking the same article. I consider it rude for posters to just copy and paste a bunch of links to waste peoples time with. The links I have provided you contain specific information I have noted and addressed.

No more rude than contant baseless assertions backed up by a fluff piece. This is not an issue that is one dimensional, far too many sides have to be examined and things like cutting down forests to grow crops, rice, one of the largest world wide crops being a very poor choice for the environment is a big factor. Your "link" doesn't deeply address much of the environmental factors involved or the problems of energy density of food. 

 

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

The Independent article is just punditry which criticizes individual regional agricultural process.

The Quartz article basically agrees with my position from the vegetarian thread I linked previously. It clearly states people should eat far less meat than we do and meat requires more land to produce.  So again I am left wondering if you actually read it. You either did not read it or you significantly misunderstand my position. 

Your link:

 

Back at you dude... 

PETA forever! 

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Hydroponics? Really? Have you ever grown anything legal hydroponically? Do you know why this question is relevant? 

I assume you are concerned with UV lamps and the electricity?  One can grow via hydroponics outside. UV lights are not a requirement for hydroponics. There are places already using rooftop hydroponic tank to produce food. 

21 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

No more rude than contant baseless assertions backed up by a fluff piece. This is not an issue that is one dimensional, far too many sides have to be examined and things like cutting down forests to grow crops, rice, one of the largest world wide crops being a very poor choice for the environment is a big factor. Your "link" doesn't deeply address much of the environmental factors involved or the problems of energy density of food. 

I have not linked any media created punditry in the discussion. I have only linked research papers with cited sources. What I linked is a 28 page source analyse of the environmental and economic impact. You didn't read it. You are under no obligation to read it but don't be dishonest and call it a "fluff piece" in an attempt to pretend you have read it. You didn't even review your own links.

 

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

I assume you are concerned with UV lamps and the electricity?  One can grow via hydroponics outside. UV lights are not a requirement for hydroponics. There are places already using rooftop hydroponic tank to produce food. 

No, hydroponics is not just very expensive the things you can grow with it are also limited. Hydroponics are being used widely to grow lots of very expensive crops of limited energy density. Growing fish along with the plants help these figures quite a bit but it's not what we are talking about is it? 

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

I have not linked any media created punditry in the discussion. I have only linked research papers with cited sources. What I linked is a 28 page source analyse of the environmental and economic impact. You didn't read it. You are under no obligation to read it but don't be dishonest and call it a "fluff piece" in an attempt to pretend you have read it. You didn't even review your own links.

 

I read it, it was quite one sided, being a official research paper doesn't give it the power of the word of god dude. 

[Ten oz]

33 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This discussion is about veganism, which is an extremist dietary position... vegetarians do not qualify.

 

21 hours 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/

 

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. 

"Veganism, no" are the first 2 words I posted in this thread. I am not arguing that everyone should turn to veganism. Rather I am pointing out that humans currently eat far too much meat and it is not sustainable indefinitely or the best use of our resources. Our diets need to change in my opinion. 

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

No, hydroponics is not just very expensive the things you can grow with it are also limited. Hydroponics are being used widely to grow lots of very expensive crops of limited energy density. Growing fish along with the plants help these figures quite a bit but it's not what we are talking about is it? 

This is inaccurate. I could link you examples of people using hydroponics to cheaply go large amounts of food by you don't read links. So feel free to google it yourself. 

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I read it, it was quite one sided, being a official research paper doesn't give it the power of the word of god dude. 

 Is there nothing between "fluff piece" and "word of god"?

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

"Veganism, no" are the first 2 words I posted in this thread. I am not arguing that everyone should turn to veganism. Rather I am pointing out that humans currently eat far too much meat and it is not sustainable indefinitely or the best use of our resources. Our diets need to change in my opinion. 

Then you are hijacking the thread dude, this thread is about veganism, not vegetarianism... 

[Ten oz]

29 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Then you are hijacking the thread dude, this thread is about veganism, not vegetarianism... 

It isn't off topic to reference a middle ground between the status quo and veganism. The problem your having is that you misunderstood my position and haven't taken the time to consider the information thoroughly. When you previously posted that you remember the Vegetarian thread I started I should have pointed out to you then that you hadn't participated in it. I think you remembered some other unrelated discussion and it muddled context.

Veganism outright isn't something I advocate. That said something has to give because our current diet is unsustainable. Human diets have changed a lot over the millennia. Change is a constant. It may not be Veganism next but a shift in diets will need to happen for the majority of humans on earth less billions are just to be left without. Likewise fossil fuels are unsustainable. One can criticize any individual alternative to fossil but it doesn't change the fact that eventually fossil fuels will be gone and alternatives will be what human use. 

Edited July 29, 2018 by Ten oz

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It isn't off topic to reference a middle ground between the status quo and veganism.

I would suggest you read the OP again my friend.. 

22 hours ago, Itoero said:

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

 

[Ten oz]

Just now, Moontanman said:

I would suggest you read the OP again my friend.. 

 

I read the OP. I already quoted the OP and responded to it directly. 

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

I read the OP. I already quoted the OP and responded to it directly. 

That doesn't give you the right to hijack the thread, I would be the first to stand up and say the eating of more plant products is a good thing but humans are not herbivores, we are omnivores and that trait is a big part of how we became human. We traded long complex intestines that were used to digest plants for short intestines that could digest meat and yes raw meat but cooking might have been a catalyst toward even bigger brains than the shorter meat digesting intestines allowed. 

[Itoero]

On ‎28‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 10:56 PM, 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. 

Animal agriculture has also a big effect on Global Warming. I'm wondering if this "achieve an equitable global standard of living our diets " is ever possible.

[MathGeek]

Catching my own fish and shooting my own deer has always been pretty environmentally friendly - certainly friendlier than stuff raised on factory farms.

 

On 7/28/2018 at 4:07 PM, Itoero said:

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

Any high moral ground depends on the preferred diet being voluntary.  Once you push your preferred diet on others, you've become nothing more than a despot.  If you can't cnnvince others in the free market of ideas, you don't deserve to have others follow your preferred diet.

 

[Ten oz]

15 hours ago, Itoero said:

Animal agriculture has also a big effect on Global Warming. I'm wondering if this "achieve an equitable global standard of living our diets " is ever possible.

Just as with global warming there is a lot of propaganda out their and it is in both the financial and convenience interest of many to ignore the problem. It is too easy to just hide behind criticisms and enable the status qou to continue. The fishing industry is another example. They over fish a specific type while arguing against evidence of over fishing until all that fish are gone and then just move on to other and continue.

Adopting change is harder to do than responding to crisis. When all the fossil fuels run out we will switch to alternatives. 

The following link goes into the environmental impact in good detail.

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

[dimreepr]

32 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Just as with global warming there is a lot of propaganda out their and it is in both the financial and convenience interest of many to ignore the problem. It is too easy to just hide behind criticisms and enable the status qou to continue. The fishing industry is another example. They over fish a specific type while arguing against evidence of over fishing until all that fish are gone and then just move on to other and continue.

Adopting change is harder to do than responding to crisis. When all the fossil fuels run out we will switch to alternatives. 

The following link goes into the environmental impact in good detail.

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

Indeed, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy; much like the myth of the frog sitting happily in the water that slowly increases in temperature until it cooks, let's we hop out like any normal frog would (we're smarter than frogs ).  

16 hours ago, Itoero said:

Animal agriculture has also a big effect on Global Warming. I'm wondering if this "achieve an equitable global standard of living our diets " is ever possible.

But that's no reason for veganism.

[Moontanman]

14 hours ago, MathGeek said:

Catching my own fish and shooting my own deer has always been pretty environmentally friendly - certainly friendlier than stuff raised on factory farms.

 

Any high moral ground depends on the preferred diet being voluntary.  Once you push your preferred diet on others, you've become nothing more than a despot.  If you can't cnnvince others in the free market of ideas, you don't deserve to have others follow your preferred diet.

 

Don't let PETA find out, they are one of the big backers of Veganism and are about as truthful about veganism as they are about their goals around hunting, fishing, pets and farm animals. Eating meat is a controversial issue in many circles but the issue is complex and is not easily broken down into black and white sections.

I see you are already a member of my unauthorised version of PETA, hang in there! 

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, MathGeek said:

Catching my own fish and shooting my own deer has always been pretty environmentally friendly - certainly friendlier than stuff raised on factory farms.

 

I think we both agree that factory farms are immoral, cruel and unnecessary, but farms over hunting? Every time, given our population.

Edited July 31, 2018 by dimreepr

[CharonY]

On 7/29/2018 at 8:40 AM, 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. 

Ecologically this is only relevant if those areas would be needed in a plant-based diet and if the ares used to produce feed or used for pasture are unable to sustain other crops. In fact, in many scenarios (including factory farming) materials such as grain, hay and silage are actually harvested from prime croplands. Looking at lit, you'll see that e.g. by shifting beef production exclusively to pastureland will sustain ~42% of current beef production. Using the prime crop land to produce vegetables instead would increase net calorie and protein amount by 2-20 times.

From what I can see, it is not quite clear what the most efficient model is in terms of land-use, environmental impact, calorie and nutritional demand is. but a cursory glance at the literature suggests that a vegetarian diet (as opposed to vegan) seems to be able to reduce current land use and reduce emissions, while still allowing a balanced diet. While I doubt that there is a firm consensus on this matter, most data points to the fact that the current (and increasing) demand for meat is unlikely to be a sustainable model for the future. 

From an ecological viewpoint, a reduction from current meat consumption levels, especially of ruminants seems to have a strong impact, as well as the type of crops being grown (the latter more in terms of water use). It is somewhat clear that reducing meat consumption to the levels found in the USA to roughly half (about the level of Japan) is associated with better health outcomes and better carbon footprints.

Specifically regarding veganism, most data point to the largest net reduction in carbon footprint, though the magnitude is disputed. There are efforts underway using meta-studies to score diets according to environmental impact as well as nutritional content. Some of the bullet points from these studies seem to be:

- even with lower meat consumption, high diary intake can raise carbon footprints

- diets with high nutritional scores that also have decent carbon footprints include Mediterrenean, Atlantic as well as vegetarian 

- diets with high intake of plant products especially legumes and low intake of animal products (including diary) tend to score well on both axes

- within classes of food it is possible to replace high with low carbon footprint choices while maintaining nutritional values (e.g. pork vs ruminants)

While the situation is clearly complex and requires studies from many different angles, it is safe to say that sustainability is going to be an important factor and barring massive changes in agricultural practices, at least in some countries diets may have to shift eventually.

Edited July 31, 2018 by CharonY

[naitche]

On 29/07/2018 at 6:07 AM, Itoero said:

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

I Don't think Vegans have the moral high ground, Until thats the only option we leave viable.

 

If it is needed,  we will have new problems related to that 'choice'. 

We tend to settle and  build our cities on the most fertile and watered lands as populations increase, and monocultures, Well, they only have one thing going for them at any time.

Pasture lands often act as a buffer zone protecting crops from predation, while retaining a measure of diversity. Inter-generational farmers are learning .Free range live stock production often serves as incentive for reclaiming desert lands, and increasing diversity.

Sustainability is still  the problem,  until causative issues ( of the reasoning for veganism being the moral choice) are recognised and addressed.

 

i think a moral choice would be to recognise and address the issues that answer 'yes'  to your questions.

 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by naitche

[jfoldbar]

wanted to put my 2 bobs worth in and see what others thought.

having grown up on a mid scale vegetable farm in rural australia i have a bit of first hand knowledge on land use for veges vs meat. in regards to our country anyway.

now i know what we do here in oz is much different to other parts and doesnt mean much in total population.

here, most meat animals eat grass. roaming around the paddocks, living their life until they end up on our dinner plate. i think this is a better option than grain fed meat, because as moontanman said, most of the land they are on is not much good for anything else. a lot of the beef farms here are virtually desert where the cattle are rounded up using helicopters.

what we waste a huge amount of good land on though, is dairy , wine and sugar. 3 things that are much less necessary than meat to our diets. a lot of the vegans here try to jump on their high horse about the meat department, but then they are all good about their wines and lattes that took much more of the best land then the meat. and they are almost all city dwellers that have never been to the country and probably wouldnt even know the different between a vegetable farm and a beef farm.

sure, on average humans could eat less meat. but theres a ton of other stuff we could also do that people seem to not worry about cause its "hip"

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, jfoldbar said:

what we waste a huge amount of good land on though, is dairy , wine and sugar.

I don't know about wasting the land on these things, but you've got a good point. Obviously grapes, canes, beets, and feed grains can't be grown on scrub land. I like the argument that sugars, alcohol, and dairy are health risks just like eating meat, but at least free-range meat takes advantage of land the others can't use.

[MonDie]

On 7/28/2018 at 3:46 PM, detricky said:

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

 

Many alternatives to the meat and vegetables diet exist:

hexapods (insects) might be more sustainable than livestock, and over 1 million species are identified, and more generally, arthropods include "fiber" in the form of chitin, although we don't eat the shells of crustaceans;

earthworms are Annelids, which AFAIK do not use us as hosts although the leeches do suck our blood (the body type called "worm" probably evolved ten times);

edible jellyfish;

protistan algae (brown algae/seaweed) and non-plant archaeplastida (green and red algae/seaweed) contain medically interesting compounds;

UV treated mushrooms provide vitamin D, but the fungi unfortunately are more abundant than diverse (some 100K known species)

 

Maybe we'll eventually find ways to eat microscopic organisms like mites or the cyanobacterial relatives of chloroplasts.

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by MonDie