The Post Meat Problem

[ydoaPs]

For sake of argument, everyone has gone vegan, and has done so faster than we could eat all of the meat. What is a vegan to do with all of the livestock? It's obviously unethical for a vegan (for the purposes of this thread, the vegans are so because of ethics based on animal suffering) to kill them.

 

Do they send them off to the wild to die? How about restricting their mating into extinction?

[Moontanman]

For sake of argument, everyone has gone vegan, and has done so faster than we could eat all of the meat. What is a vegan to do with all of the livestock? It's obviously unethical for a vegan (for the purposes of this thread, the vegans are so because of ethics based on animal suffering) to kill them.

 

Do they send them off to the wild to die? How about restricting their mating into extinction?

 

 

Zoo farms? Farm zoos? Black market steaks? I can see it now Canadian meat cartels...

[StringJunky]

Sterilise and castrate them...then wait for them to die. Probably looking at 20 odd years to solve the problem though this way.

Edited July 11, 2012 by StringJunky

[ecoli]

space cows!

[ydoaPs]

Sterilise and castrate them...then wait for them to die. Probably looking at 20 odd years to solve the problem though this way.

 

You think vegans would be down for genocide via eugenics?

[StringJunky]

You think vegans would be down for genocide via eugenics?

 

Are we talking about really touchy-feely-huggy vegans here?

[ydoaPs]

Are we talking about really touchy-feely-huggy vegans here?

 

 

/me checks the OP

 

 

Yep

[StringJunky]

/me checks the OP

 

 

Yep

 

Try and convince them it's "family planning" and not genocide?

[Greg H.]

I'll take one for the team and eat them.

 

On a more serious note, call it what it is: killing creatures that we consider no longer of any use.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Greg H.

[John Cuthber]

Ask the vegans to adopt the cows in the same way that they adopted veganism.

[wanabe]

For sake of argument, everyone has gone vegan, and has done so faster than we could eat all of the meat. What is a vegan to do with all of the livestock? It's obviously unethical for a vegan (for the purposes of this thread, the vegans are so because of ethics based on animal suffering) to kill them.

 

Do they send them off to the wild to die? How about restricting their mating into extinction?

 

Set the animals free, let them roam. With all the newly freed farm land we would have more clean places to live or restore to natural habitat.

[Phi for All]

Set the animals free, let them roam. With all the newly freed farm land we would have more clean places to live or restore to natural habitat.

In the cities and towns?! They'd get killed by cars! They could stampede and hurt themselves and other creatures!

 

In the rural areas?! They'd eat crops and get hit by... tractors!

 

In the wild?! They'd get slaughtered by predators, with no one to protect them and no concept of how to survive out there!

 

 

 

 

It's clear we need to think of something different. For instance, since we'd all be weak from improper protein sources and lack of B12, maybe we could strap ourselves to the back of cows to get around....

[Greg H.]

In the cities and towns?! They'd get killed by cars! They could stampede and hurt themselves and other creatures!

 

In the rural areas?! They'd eat crops and get hit by... tractors!

 

In the wild?! They'd get slaughtered by predators, with no one to protect them and no concept of how to survive out there!

 

 

 

 

It's clear we need to think of something different. For instance, since we'd all be weak from improper protein sources and lack of B12, maybe we could strap ourselves to the back of cows to get around....

 

They can have my hamburger when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

[Phi for All]

They can have my hamburger when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

For sake of argument, everyone has gone vegan, and has done so faster than we could eat all of the meat.

As long as you just hold it and don't eat it, you won't die. For the sake of argument.

 

As a vegan, I'm absolutely devastated that all those cows are going to die horribly. It's our duty to keep them safe and fed until they die naturally, but of course that means we're going to have to live with the deliberate elimination of an endangered species. We'll literally stand by and see them go extinct, knowing we could have stopped it. I don't know how I'm going to live with myself.

 

 

 

 

Hey, I was going to ask you guys, my fellow vegans, a question that's been bothering me. If our only source of vitamin B12 is from synthetically fortified cereals, how do we consider this diet natural?

 

Oh, and that reminds me of another question. Since B12 deficiency leads to anemia, fatigue, mania, and depression, and long-term deficiency can cause permanent damage to our brains and central nervous systems, how sure are we that our vegan overlord masters were in their right minds when they decided we should all do this?

[Dynamic]

For sake of argument, everyone has gone vegan, and has done so faster than we could eat all of the meat. What is a vegan to do with all of the livestock? It's obviously unethical for a vegan (for the purposes of this thread, the vegans are so because of ethics based on animal suffering) to kill them.

 

Do they send them off to the wild to die? How about restricting their mating into extinction?

 

Man is an electro-chemical-mechanical engine. We are capable of using livestock as a source of energy. Our cells are also capable of deriving matter from livestock.

 

From an efficiency stand point. We are able to convert more energy, and convert more matter into our own via the use of plants per input of solar energy and matter vs the use of animal energy sources.

 

However.....

 

The ethical dilemma is pointless. There is no ethical dilemma.

 

Such a situation would assume we were capable of:

A: Providing all matter, and energy required threw plants. [we are]

And:

B: That the behavoir of the human race was conditioned in such a way to remove our inclination to consume livestock for energy and matter despite our capability of doing so.

C: We were for one reason or another (via conditioning, genetics, w/e) we were inclined to reduce "suffering" in livestock....

 

Canabalism in not uncommon in some cultures. Its not a matter of whether something is ethical or not, its a matter if something is possible, and if environmental and genetic variables allow it to occur.

 

But to entertain your question.... Assuming man for one reason or another was interested in reducing "suffering" you would first need to determine how you want to define suffering. Unfortunately cows are very poor at communicating with humans. Is suffering a behavoir we can monitor, and quantify? Such as the frequency of a certain moo or oink above a certain wavelength? Or do you want to to assume that stress and pain is related to "suffering", and measure the concentration of certain chemicals in the brain or blood? The vegans would then seek to minimize events that caused the oinks and the moo's using various methods, or they would try to ensure that the concentrations of stress related chemicals are below a certain level by limiting stress causing events, or providing the livestock drugs that retard the production and release of stress related chemicals.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Dynamic

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Canabalism in not uncommon in some cultures.

http://xkcd.com/285/

[JMJones0424]

..We are able to convert more energy, and convert more matter into our own via the use of plants per input of solar energy and matter vs the use of animal energy sources...

 

This comparison is invalid because you assume that all land is equally able to produce plants digestible by ruminants and plants that are digestible by humans, which it is not. If your argument is that feeding grains to ruminants is inefficient, then I would certainly agree.

[dimreepr]

 

Canabalism in not uncommon in some cultures.

 

 

 

The best way to survive such a society is to become a clown. Cannibals don’t eat clowns, they taste funny.

 

Back to topic, I don’t think a vegan only world would last very long, as pointed out in the above post’s there is no ethical way to deal with the livestock, consequently starvation would result as the livestock starts to compete with us for the available food (how long this would take is up for debate). Sooner or later some exceptions would be allowed (the thin end of the wedge) and we’d end up where we are now. All we can really do is treat the livestock well, while they wait to become food.

 

 

[Greg H.]

 

Oh, and that reminds me of another question. Since B12 deficiency leads to anemia, fatigue, mania, and depression, and long-term deficiency can cause permanent damage to our brains and central nervous systems, how sure are we that our vegan overlord masters were in their right minds when they decided we should all do this?

 

As the secret non-vegan in our society, I'll just wait until the rest of you pass out from exhaustion and take over, restoring us to our natural meat eating ways.

[Moontanman]

This is not exactly spot on topic but it is an interesting take on humans eating meat vs vegetables.

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/08/08/early-meat-eating-human-ancestors-thrived-while-vegetarian-hominin-died-out/

[wanabe]

In the cities and towns?! They'd get killed by cars! They could stampede and hurt themselves and other creatures!In the rural areas?! They'd eat crops and get hit by... tractors!In the wild?! They'd get slaughtered by predators, with no one to protect them and no concept of how to survive out there!It's clear we need to think of something different. For instance, since we'd all be weak from improper protein sources and lack of B12, maybe we could strap ourselves to the back of cows to get around....

 

Really the problem that makes this question ridiculous is no one gives a concrete indicator of how many animals there are, nor where they are. Thus reader/commenter assume the worst just to be sensational(like the media most are accustomed to), not the most realistic. The question ignores basic supply and demand. Most importantly the problem with this thread assumes ideology is the driving force behind veganism, when at its core there is just as much practicality. The people would continue to eat meat until this problem wouldn't arise.

 

People are vegan and not deficient in protein or b12 or any other thing that we actually need. Meat enzymes block the absorption of protein so some never gets absorbed in the fist place, we just don't notice because there is SO much protein. We also don't need as much protein as we consume, we are not all body builders, so it's just turning into fat anyway. Though there are vegan body builders. B12 comes from bacteria in dirt firstly not meat. B12 in meat is a byproduct of animals eating plants that are(were) in dirt, thus we would get B12 the same as animals do, and there are mushrooms of course. There are lots of vegans that are perfectly healthy who do not take supplements. Though if the supplements don't harm or take from animals then they are vegan, regardless if they are natural or not.

 

In the spirit of the question though.

 

Farms though I think are in rural areas so I don't see a huge problem there. Realistically, there wouldn't be a full farms worth of animals, the farmers would obviously hear the news about the massive vegan shift. Right before the populous went vegan; meat would have been so cheep the most die hard of the meat eaters would have had meat for every meal, and making jerky just because it was so cheep to do so.

 

It's not like we couldn't steer the animals away from traffic and our food sources. As for being prey: that is the natural world. However slow as farm animals may be, that has more to do with their diet than their static physical nature. The animals would figure out predators pretty fast and would not be as helpless as people make them out to be. Remember it was us who needed to farm in the beginning because we were weak. Animals are anything but weak.

Edited August 19, 2012 by wanabe

[iNow]

The animals would figure out predators pretty fast and would not be as helpless as people make them out to be. Remember it was us who needed to farm in the beginning because we were weak. Animals are anything but weak.

Nonsense. We've bred them for countless generations to produce massive amounts of meat at the expense of the natural ability to defend themselves against predation. Chickens with breasts 3x the size they were just 50 years ago, cattle that have never faced wolf packs... They aren't just going to magically survive attack because you want them to, friend.

[Phi for All]

B12 comes from bacteria in dirt firstly not meat. B12 in meat is a byproduct of animals eating plants that are(were) in dirt, thus we would get B12 the same as animals do, and there are mushrooms of course.

Hold on there. B12 found in plants is from bacteria in the dung left behind by animals, and that's only in traces and is (hopefully) washed off of any fruits or vegetables it's clinging to. And the amounts of B12 in mushrooms is also very miniscule and could NOT provide an adequate supply.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Sources

While lacto-ovo vegetarians usually get enough B₁₂ through consuming dairy products, vegans will lack B₁₂ unless they consume B₁₂-containing dietary supplements or B₁₂-fortified foods. Examples of fortified foods include fortified breakfast cereals, fortified soy products, fortified energy bars, and fortified nutritional yeast. According to the UK Vegan Society, the present consensus is that any B₁₂ present in plant foods is likely to be unavailable to humans because B₁₂ analogues can compete with B₁₂ and inhibit metabolism.^[62][63]

[wanabe]

Nonsense. We've bred them for countless generations to produce massive amounts of meat at the expense of the natural ability to defend themselves against predation. Chickens with breasts 3x the size they were just 50 years ago, cattle that have never faced wolf packs... They aren't just going to magically survive attack because you want them to, friend.

We do this enlargement via chemicals and corn feeding, they will lean out in a few months eating grass. There will be a huge die off yes, but all animals spook and scatter, it's so basic to their defense. Extinction or endangerment: no way Esp. considering rural animals that roam and do encounter wolves/other predators.

 

The amount of daily needed B12=

 

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12-HealthProfessional/

1. 
    
   
2. Age Male Female Pregnancy Lactation
   
3. 0–6 months* 0.4 mcg 0.4 mcg
   
4. 7–12 months* 0.5 mcg 0.5 mcg
   
5. 1–3 years 0.9 mcg 0.9 mcg
   
6. 4–8 years 1.2 mcg 1.2 mcg
   
7. 9–13 years 1.8 mcg 1.8 mcg
   
8. 14+ years 2.4 mcg 2.4 mcg 2.6 mcg 2.8 mcg
    
   As an exampleChicken, breast meat, roasted, 3 ounces 0.3mcg 5%DV
   

 

http://veganza.com/2009/10/17/bioavailable-b12-in-mushrooms-confirmed/

 

In early 2009, researchers at the University of Western Sydney confirmed that bio-available B12 exists in the skin & flesh of button mushrooms, 5% RDI (per 100g) (28g in 1 OZ).

 

Same as a chicken breast essentially. A lager volume of food is eaten as a vegan so the DV are only slightly different.

 

We can get more B12 if we farm organically and don't have to be so paranoid about washing it off. In regards to soil, yes there is a cycle so we could argue about it all day but in the end there is more earth than animals hence B12 is from dirt. Its not like were going to stop finding poop on the ground.

Edited August 20, 2012 by wanabe

[Phi for All]

http://veganza.com/2...ooms-confirmed/

 

In early 2009, researchers at the University of Western Sydney confirmed that bio-available B12 exists in the skin & flesh of button mushrooms, 5% RDI (per 100g) (28g in 1 OZ).

The link in your vegan article, the one to the actual study, has been disabled. I can't find the study anywhere, only mention of it, and only at vegan websites.

 

The PMA nutrition label for button mushrooms doesn't list B12 at all. They must be three years behind in updating their analyses, which seems strange.

 

Button Mushrooms are low in Sodium, and very low in Saturated Fat and Cholesterol. They're also a good source of Thiamin, Vitamin B6, Iron, Magnesium and Zinc, and a great source of Dietary Fiber, Riboflavin, Niacin, Folate, Pantothenic Acid, Phosphorus, Potassium, Copper, Manganese and Selenium.

 

One of the responses in your link corrected the information: http://www.veganheal.../b12/plant#mush

In 2009, a paper was published looking at the B12 analogue content of mushrooms in Australia (31). The authors used chromatography and mass spectrometry to determine whether the B12 was an active form, and they believed that it was.

 

Table 14 shows the B12 analogue content of the batches of each mushroom containing the most B12 and the batches containing the least.

 

Assuming that the B12 is active analogue, it would take anywhere from 7 to 326 cups of mushrooms to meet the RDA.

 

As for the source of the B12, the authors were not sure, but they said:

 

"The high concentration of vitamin B12 in peel suggests that it was not synthesized within the mushrooms but was either absorbed directly from the compost or synthesized by bacteria on the mushroom surface. The latter is more likely because mushrooms have no root system to take up the vitamin in the compost as is the case with the uptake of vitamins by root plants from the soil containing fertilizers."

A 2005 study from Italy found significant amounts of vitamin B12 analogue in mushrooms (33). 250 g of P. nebrodensis contained 4.8 µg of vitamin B12. They used an immunoenzymatic assay. From the paper, it appears that the soil did not have organic waste of any kind. It is not clear if the B12 analogue was active.