A Vegetarian future?

[Ten oz]

I wasn't sure where to put this thread. It is an environmental and political question about our long term sustainability. Grains and a variety of vegetables require less water, energy, and land to produce than meat. We often hear in the media that going green means buying fluorescent lights and driving hybrids but long term will humans need to alter our diets? Does anyone in here believe in the future everyone will be vegetarian?

 

"It takes, on average, 28 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of meat protein for human consumption, [whereas] it takes only 3.3 calories of fossil- fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of protein from grain for human consumption. "

David Pimentel, Cornell University

 

"A report from the International Water Management Institute, noting that 840 million of the worlds people remain undernourished, recommends finding ways to produce more food using less water. The report notes that it takes 550 liters of water to produce enough flour for one loaf of bread in developing countriesbut up to 7,000 liters of water to produce 100 grams of beef. "

UN Commission on Sustainable Development, WaterMore Nutrition Per Drop, 2004

 

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, I am not a vegetarian. I don't eat red meat but I do eat fish and chicken.

[Prometheus]

Whether it makes sense in terms of global resource management is one question. Whether people would willingly choose to stop is quite another - eating meat is a large part of our culture. You would have to seriously contend with the notion of limiting people's freedom to eat what they like. I think it would meat a lot of resistance.

 

The calorie comparison is quite interesting. Perhaps we need to reintroduce the idea of meat as being a luxury item (luxury items typically (stereo-typically?) being somehow more expensive). I've been thinking of reducing my meat intake for a while now - part of the reason is that most of the meat I consume is in ready-meals, and the enjoyment i get from it is virtually non-existent, so why consume all that energy and put an animal through all that just for mediocrity. Steak, however, is another question.

[Greg H.]

I'm not sure that we'll all become vegetarians, but we may alter the kind of meat we eat, opting for more small animals that can be economically raised with less food and water consumption (chickens, sheep, goats, fish, etc).

[Phi for All]

Cultured meat development removes most of my concerns about forcing the human population of Earth to give up meat.

[Ten oz]

Cultured meat development removes most of my concerns about forcing the human population of Earth to give up meat.

"Forcing" people? Our diets are merely a reflection of culture. There are 500 million vegetarians in India and another 50 million in China.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-02-01/news/46897985_1_faye-wong-vegetarian-meat-dishes

 

People become accustom to the diet they are raised on. That is why the average person in the south eats more fried food while an average person in New York eats more pizza. Travel the world and the differences in diets grows considerably. Once a vegetarian diet was realized and people were raised that way I don't think it would require any force in terms of strict regulations to maintain. If it is the most efficient and sustainable solution why shouldn't it be the most desirable one?

I'm not sure that we'll all become vegetarians, but we may alter the kind of meat we eat, opting for more small animals that can be economically raised with less food and water consumption (chickens, sheep, goats, fish, etc).

As an advanced species do you think there is value in us finding ways to eat that don't involve killing animals? I eat chicken and fish. So I am not passing judgement. Just wonder from time to time if our taking of life without true necessity is ethical within the basic rules of nature. In the wild animals primarily only kill out of neccessity and with the burden of risk. As an intelligent species who don't need to kill any animal should we be killing them anyway out of preference? Killing them even though it is less efficient and sustainable?

[iNow]

To put things in perspective, imagine your idea was instead to force people to ONLY eat meat globally and you COMPLETELY outlawed produce. Imagine the reaction and problems with that. Why would you think implementing a no-meat rule is any different? Just because it happens to align with YOUR personal worldview and preferences?

[Ten oz]

^ I don't intend to force people to eat anything. It is a philosophical question about the future. I don't imagine it is something that would ever happen in my life time. I myself eat meat.

Whether it makes sense in terms of global resource management is one question. Whether people would willingly choose to stop is quite another - eating meat is a large part of our culture. You would have to seriously contend with the notion of limiting people's freedom to eat what they like. I think it would meat a lot of resistance.

 

The calorie comparison is quite interesting. Perhaps we need to reintroduce the idea of meat as being a luxury item (luxury items typically (stereo-typically?) being somehow more expensive). I've been thinking of reducing my meat intake for a while now - part of the reason is that most of the meat I consume is in ready-meals, and the enjoyment i get from it is virtually non-existent, so why consume all that energy and put an animal through all that just for mediocrity. Steak, however, is another question.

Good post!

By future I am referencing generations beyond ours. Today the idea of a global vegetarian diet can not be achieved. Much like we will continue to use fossil fuels until we run out we too will continue to eat meat until we can. Eventually the calorie comparison and population growth will meet critical mass. That is when a change will come.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Ten oz

[Phi for All]

If it is the most efficient and sustainable solution why shouldn't it be the most desirable one?

 

Because desire isn't just about efficiency. Meat tastes great. And it has vitamins I can't get elsewhere. All the B12 they add back into vegetarian products comes from animals at some point.

[Ten oz]

Because desire isn't just about efficiency. Meat tastes great. And it has vitamins I can't get elsewhere. All the B12 they add back into vegetarian products comes from animals at some point.

I am considering the long term. I eat meat, you eat meat, and that isn't changing. This thread is about the future. Not about now. I think with population growth, running out of fossil fuels, and climate change future generations aren't going to change considerably. All manner of human consumption will have to change. It is obvious that humans will wait until the last possible minute but change in inevitable.

I am not advocated anyone in here consider being a vegetarian. I am trying to have a conversation about the future. A time beyond our life time.

[Greg H.]

As an advanced species do you think there is value in us finding ways to eat that don't involve killing animals?

Not really, except as a safeguard against population growth exceeding production capacity. It may be that, in the future, killing animals is the least efficient way of harvesting large amounts of proteins, as well as nutrients we can only get from meats, and feeding everyone that needs fed. In which case, I expect we'll stop killing the animals, and eat lab grown meat products. But I don't expect we'll stop eating meat.

[iNow]

Perhaps a more realistic thought experiment would involve a future off-world colony. When we ultimately make the step to setting up habitats for ourselves in outer space or on other worlds, we're not likely to put a bunch of cattle and chickens and grain seeds on to the shuttle with us to allow for that. Hence, a more vegetarian existence with many protein alternatives would not only be practical, but likely.

 

What then is the question to discuss? Which sources to bring? How to adjust our mindset away from carnivorous life? How to creatively cook lentils in other ways 365 days a year and avoid a conditioned taste aversion? I'm unsure what the open question is...

[Ten oz]

Not really, except as a safeguard against population growth exceeding production capacity. It may be that, in the future, killing animals is the least efficient way of harvesting large amounts of proteins, as well as nutrients we can only get from meats, and feeding everyone that needs fed. In which case, I expect we'll stop killing the animals, and eat lab grown meat products. But I don't expect we'll stop eating meat.

Vegetarians drink milk, eat cheese, yogurt, and other animal products.

[dimreepr]

 

Because desire isn't just about efficiency. Meat tastes great. And it has vitamins I can't get elsewhere. All the B12 they add back into vegetarian products comes from animals at some point.

 

Which makes, vitamin B 12 the answer to the question ‘why aren’t humans naturally vegetarian?’

[Dekan]

This issue has (like most things) been addressed in Science Fiction. For example in Frederick Pohl's SF novel "The Space Merchants". This envisages a huge ever-growing mass of chicken-meat ("Chicken Little"), which is cultivated in a vat. Chicken Little hasn't got a head, so it isn't sentient. Therefore it doesn't raise any ethical concerns about killing animals.

 

The vat would of course require energy to run it, which leads to the other point referred to in Ten oz's #9 - the exhaustion of fossil fuels.

 

Such exhaustion could be avoided by making the vat solar-powered. Possibly boosted by intestinal gasses, recaptured from consumers of the chicken?

Edited June 3, 2014 by Dekan

[Greg H.]

Vegetarians drink milk, eat cheese, yogurt, and other animal products.

Which is all very well and good, but what do you do with the animal that can no longer produce those products? At some point, you're going to have a lot of dead cows on your hands - it is inevitable - and you will need to dispose of them. Better to control the burial problem ahead of time and render it into food before it becomes inedible.

[Phi for All]

This thread is about the future.

 

A vegetarian future, going by the title.

 

I'm just saying that I don't see humans giving up omnivore behavior if we're not forced to by decree and/or circumstance. The fact that we need things a strict vegetarian diet doesn't have, coupled with efforts to grow in vitro meat to remove any ethical concerns, leads me to think it's really not going to be a big issue in the future.

 

I hope, in the future, The Science Channel and The Food Network get together and make cultured meat that's good for us and tastes delicious.

[Ten oz]

Which makes, vitamin B 12 the answer to the question ‘why aren’t humans naturally vegetarian?’

Vegetarians eat dairy and eggs (eggs as produced in the united states are not fertilized). That provides all the b12 humans need and is more efficient because one animal can produce milk or eggs repeatedly over time whereas eating the animal is a one time use of that animal.

A vegetarian future, going by the title.

 

I'm just saying that I don't see humans giving up omnivore behavior if we're not forced to by decree and/or circumstance. The fact that we need things a strict vegetarian diet doesn't have, coupled with efforts to grow in vitro meat to remove any ethical concerns, leads me to think it's really not going to be a big issue in the future.

 

I hope, in the future, The Science Channel and The Food Network get together and make cultured meat that's good for us and tastes delicious.

 

What do we need that dairy products and eggs don't provide? Vegetarian diets include dairy products and eggs. Vegetarians are not vegans.

 

I agree that humans will not give up meat unless forced by decree and/or circumstances. However I do believe the circumstances will come. The population of the united states in projection to by 100 million over the next 50yrs. The world population will grow by over 3 billion during the same time. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/10-projections-for-the-global-population-in-2050/

 

As it stands today we are challanged by available land, water, energy, etc. the cost of meat is already on the raise. Beef is at a record high even when adjusted for inflation http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/14/news/economy/beef-prices/

 

As for the seafood industry commercial fish populations are down 90% since the 50's http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html

Which is all very well and good, but what do you do with the animal that can no longer produce those products? At some point, you're going to have a lot of dead cows on your hands - it is inevitable - and you will need to dispose of them. Better to control the burial problem ahead of time and render it into food before it becomes inedible.

What do they do with those animals now? Leather, glue, pet food, fish food, fertilizers, etc, etc, etc. We do not bury them.

[dimreepr]

Vegetarians eat dairy and eggs (eggs as produced in the united states are not fertilized). That provides all the b12 humans need and is more efficient because one animal can produce milk or eggs repeatedly over time whereas eating the animal is a one time use of that animal.

What do we need that dairy products and eggs don't provide? Vegetarian diets include dairy products and eggs. Vegetarians are not vegans.

 

Eating the foetus of any animal seriously calls into question ‘what is a vegetarian?’

[Ten oz]

Eating the foetus of any animal seriously calls into question ‘what is a vegetarian?’

 

Eggs sold in the supermarket are not fertilized. They do not develop and if left alone would never become a chicken.

http://www.localharvest.org/blog/26992/entry/facts_about_fertilized_chicken_eggs

[dimreepr]

Eggs sold in the supermarket are not fertilized. They do not develop and if left alone would never become a chicken.

http://www.localharvest.org/blog/26992/entry/facts_about_fertilized_chicken_eggs

 

But for human intervention, they are foetuses, so where does the line blur?

[Ten oz]

A fetus by definition is fertilized. An egg alone or sp3rm alone is not a fetus. I see not contradiction or blurring of the lines.

[dimreepr]

OK then, milk is a direct result of the exploitation of animals, and fish are certainly animals; the use of either, for food, must call into question the term ‘vegetarian’; therefore the line that’s inevitably blurred is that between vegetarian, vegan and, what I’d like to call, ‘normal’.

[Ten oz]

Perhaps a more realistic thought experiment would involve a future off-world colony. When we ultimately make the step to setting up habitats for ourselves in outer space or on other worlds, we're not likely to put a bunch of cattle and chickens and grain seeds on to the shuttle with us to allow for that. Hence, a more vegetarian existence with many protein alternatives would not only be practical, but likely.What then is the question to discuss? Which sources to bring? How to adjust our mindset away from carnivorous life? How to creatively cook lentils in other ways 365 days a year and avoid a conditioned taste aversion? I'm unsure what the open question is...

500 million people in India are vegetarians. That's more people than the whole population of the united states. 50 million people in China are vegetarian. That is greater than the population of Canada. In other words a whole lot of people. So I don't understand why you would consider the idea as less valid than an off world thought experiment?

 

Do you believe your diet is one entirely of choice? You and I are products of our environment. Just like I speak English because I was raised to do so our diets are a reflection of culture. For the most part we do not willfully choose a diet as adults. We eat the things we were raised eating as a matter of habit. It is like religion in that way. A person born in a Christian country will most likely grow up Christian. A person in a Muslim country will grow up Muslim.

 

Coke, along with all other soda companies, use to to use cane sugar. For economic reasons they switched to high fructose corn sryup. Taste test after taste test show people prefer cane sugar better but at the end of the day we drink what we are given. Same goes for American beer. To cut costs large American companies use rice and corn because they are cheaper grains. As a result American beer has to be drank cold to avoid off flavors not present in European ales that are made from high quality malts. Most in the states don't know any better and just drink what they are given. Ignorance is bliss. My point being that as economic necessitate industry has no trouble changing of tastes to accommodate their bottom line. Eventually as our population continues to grow certian markets simply won't be worth the effort. Meat require more energy, more water, and more land for a smaller return. So once economics necessitates a change we will see change.

OK then, milk is a direct result of the exploitation of animals, and fish are certainly animals; the use of either, for food, must call into question the term ‘vegetarian’; therefore the line that’s inevitably blurred is that between vegetarian, vegan and, what I’d like to call, ‘normal’.

Exploitation? I have not made an argument regarding exploitation. We exploit ever resource on this planet. My comments are primarily about efficiently producing enough food to feed people.

 

The oceans are over fished. I don't believe fish are a viable food source of the future.

 

Vegetarians drink milk and eat eggs. That isn't my opinion that is just the reality. I believe there are subgroups that forgo one or the other but that isn't relevant IMO.

[iNow]

I don't understand why you would consider the idea as less valid than an off world thought experiment?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My basic point is that such a scenario will likely be needed to actually achieve the objective you've set.

 

I did not mean to suggest your idea is invalid, only that implementing across all human inhabitants here on terra firma is IMO unlikely. Hence, my recommendation to consider the thought in another context and consider the accompanying logistics.

 

Perhaps we'll see more people moving in a vegetarian direction. I don't know. What I DO know is that those countries you cite (like India and China) are seeing dramatic INCREASES in meat consumption right now as median household income rises for their residents.

[Ten oz]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My basic point is that such a scenario will likely be needed to actually achieve the objective you've set.I did not mean to suggest your idea is invalid, only that implementing across all human inhabitants here on terra firma is IMO unlikely. Hence, my recommendation to consider the thought in another context and consider the accompanying logistics.Perhaps we'll see more people moving in a vegetarian direction. I don't know. What I DO know is that those countries you cite (like India and China) are seeing dramatic INCREASES in meat consumption right now as median household income rises for their residents.

Yeah, china is seeing an increase in meat. India not as much because their vegetarianism is tide a lot to religion. Meat, because of its higher costs, is heavily eatin' by wealthier countries.