A Vegetarian future?

[EdEarl]

 

Wikipedia

Only bacteria and archaea have the enzymes required for its synthesis, although many foods are a natural source of B12 because of bacterial symbiosis.

The source of B12 is not meat; although, meat contains lots of B12.

 

Economics, ethics, and health are the three reasons people will switch from eating meat to become vegetarian or vegan, IMO. And, none of these are likely to compel masses to change. People develop preferences for foods in their diet, and change is difficult as to stop smoking or drugs.

[Ten oz]

The source of B12 is not meat; although, meat contains lots of B12.

 

Economics, ethics, and health are the three reasons people will switch from eating meat to become vegetarian or vegan, IMO. And, none of these are likely to compel masses to change. People develop preferences for foods in their diet, and change is difficult as to stop smoking or drugs.

To your point I saw the video of an interview with Richard Dawkins where he stated that he wished the world was vegetarian or vegan while admitting that he was not. The prospect of changing ones own behavior is hard even for those who understand the need for it.

The generation that follows change deals much better with it. I am biracial. When my parents married it was still against state law for them to be married in several states. Now here we are a generation or two later and the president of the United States is biracial.

If children grow up in a more agrarian society they would be able to more easily accept the idea of vegetarianism than those of us who grew up on McDonalds and Taco Bell.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Ten oz

[EdEarl]

To your point I saw the video of an interview with Richard Dawkins where he stated that he wished the world was vegetarian or vegan while admitting that he was not. The prospect of changing ones own behavior is hard even for those who understand the need for it.

The generation that follows change deals much better with it. I am biracial. When my parents married it was still against state law for them to be married in several states. Now here we are a generation or two later and the president of the United States is biracial.

If children grow up in a more agrarian society they would be able to more easily accept the idea of vegetarianism than those of us who grew up on McDonalds and Taco Bell.

It is difficult. I made the switch from to mostly vegan (I'm not perfect) about three years ago for health reasons. I took blood pressure meds for many years, but no longer and my BP was 120/76 today even though I am overweight and old enough for a 130/90 to be OK. Occasionally, my BP is low enough that I need to consume salt to make it higher. This BP is an indication my blood circulation has significantly cleared of plaque, which caused me to have a heart attack in 2000. People who read this will have doubts it would affect them in the same way, and even if the believe it would, they are unlikely to alter their diet.

[Ten oz]

It is difficult. I made the switch from to mostly vegan (I'm not perfect) about three years ago for health reasons. I took blood pressure meds for many years, but no longer and my BP was 120/76 today even though I am overweight and old enough for a 130/90 to be OK. Occasionally, my BP is low enough that I need to consume salt to make it higher. This BP is an indication my blood circulation has significantly cleared of plaque, which caused me to have a heart attack in 2000. People who read this will have doubts it would affect them in the same way, and even if the believe it would, they are unlikely to alter their diet.

That's great! I haven't gotten into the health benefits aspect of us changing our diet in this thread because the efficiencies and sustainability side is what I think will eventually create change. At some point the population will be so great, water so little, and energy so constrained that industry will prefer grains over livestock. As you correctly pointed out though there is a health benifit to it as well. How many people take a handful of pills a day that could be replaced with a better diet?

I eat fish and chicken but gave up red meat. I also don't eat meat (chicken/fish) with every meal.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Ten oz

[EdEarl]

IIRC once you stop eating meat and animal produces (cheese, milk, eggs, etc) for two weeks, the bacteria in you stomach have changed and help to give you the benefits of a vegan diet. You can then eat meat once a week or less and maintain the benefits. Someone will probably challenge this statement, but it is the advice I give based on my experience and reading. If you intend to become vegan, slowly withdraw meat and animal products from your diet, even if it takes several years to get to once a week or less. Don't give up.

[Acme]

... Does anyone in here believe in the future everyone will be vegetarian? ...

I do not.

 

.

... Someone will probably challenge this statement, but it is the advice I give based on my experience and reading. ...

Who are you to give dietary advice Ed? Are you a doctor? A dietician? Have any schooling or certifications to support giving dietary advice?

 

Again; humans are omnivores. Past, present, and in the future.

[iNow]

Geesh. Relax a bit. Ed even qualified that comment as his personal opinion. That earns him some cushion IMO and your response (which I'm sure was well intentioned) was far too harsh and aggressive given the exchange taking place.

[Ten oz]

Geesh. Relax a bit. Ed even qualified that comment as his personal opinion. That earns him some cushion IMO and your response (which I'm sure was well intentioned) was far too harsh and aggressive given the exchange taking place.

Thank you.

[Acme]

Geesh. Relax a bit. Ed even qualified that comment as his personal opinion. That earns him some cushion IMO and your response (which I'm sure was well intentioned) was far too harsh and aggressive given the exchange taking place.

Thank you for sharing your insight with me. I should have instead followed your example in post #6

 

The facts are that Ed has offered nothing more than opinion here, and in his numerous threads promoting vegetarianism in which he did provide a link we have found his reading of and conclusions on those articles flawed. Granted that Ed earlier linked to an article on B12, but we covered that issue in one of the other threads. IIRC I brought it into the discussion because a vegetarian diet does not supply B12.

 

The only scientifically justifiable reason for adopting a vegetarian diet -the others being sociocultural reasons- is health, and while studies show there are certain types of meat-eating diets that have higher incidence of certain disease or decreased longevity, there is no evidence that vegetarianism is healthier overall. Even then, some of the aforementioned studies have caveats about compounding circumstances such as vegetarians are less likely to smoke and drink or be wealthy.*

 

Vegetarianism is also an overgeneralized term because of all the variations such as have been brought up already, such as eating eggs or dairy products but not meat, or excluding only red meat, or including fish, and so on. Given that there is no hard consensus among even experts, then it is logical not to accept the advice of amateurs.

 

Omnivores, balance of foods, and moderation in consumption is the most widely accepted healthy human eating condition by my reading of qualified literature.

 

*Vegetariansim @ Wikipedia (bold underlining mine.)

Longevity

 

A 1999 metastudy combined data from five studies from western countries.[93] The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters (eat meat less than once per week) to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters had the base mortality rate of 1.0, while the number for vegans was very uncertain (anywhere between 0.7 and 1.44) due to too few data points. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts". Out of the major causes of death studied, only one difference in mortality rate was attributed to the difference in diet, as the conclusion states: "...vegetarians had a 24% lower mortality from ischaemic heart disease than non-vegetarians, but no associations of a vegetarian diet with other major causes of death were established".[93]

 

In Mortality in British vegetarians,[94] a similar conclusion is drawn: "British vegetarians have low mortality compared with the general population. Their death rates are similar to those of comparable non-vegetarians, suggesting that much of this benefit may be attributed to non-dietary lifestyle factors such as a low prevalence of smoking and a generally high socio-economic status, or to aspects of the diet other than the avoidance of meat and fish."[95]

 

The Adventist Health Studies is ongoing research that documents the life expectancy in Seventh-day Adventists. This is the only study among others with similar methodology which had favourable indication for vegetarianism. The researchers found that a combination of different lifestyle choices could influence life expectancy by as much as 10 years. Among the lifestyle choices investigated, a vegetarian diet was estimated to confer an extra 11/2 to 2 years of life. The researchers concluded that "the life expectancies of California Adventist men and women are higher than those of any other well-described natural population" at 78.5 years for men and 82.3 years for women. The life expectancy of California Adventists surviving to age 30 was 83.3 years for men and 85.7 years for women.[96]

 

The Adventist health study is again incorporated into a metastudy titled "Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?" published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which concluded that low meat eating (less than once per week) and other lifestyle choices significantly increase life expectancy, relative to a group with high meat intake. The study concluded that "The findings from one cohort of healthy adults raises the possibility that long-term (≥ 2 decades) adherence to a vegetarian diet can further produce a significant 3.6-y increase in life expectancy." However, the study also concluded that "Some of the variation in the survival advantage in vegetarians may have been due to marked differences between studies in adjustment for confounders, the definition of vegetarian, measurement error, age distribution, the healthy volunteer effect, and intake of specific plant foods by the vegetarians." It further states that "This raises the possibility that a low-meat, high plant-food dietary pattern may be the true causal protective factor rather than simply elimination of meat from the diet." In a recent review of studies relating low-meat diet patterns to all-cause mortality, Singh noted that "5 out of 5 studies indicated that adults who followed a low meat, high plant-food diet pattern experienced significant or marginally significant decreases in mortality risk relative to other patterns of intake."[97]

 

Statistical studies, such as comparing life expectancy with regional areas and local diets in Europe also have found life expectancy considerably greater in southern France, where a low meat, high plant Mediterranean diet is common, than northern France, where a diet with high meat content is more common.[98]

 

A study by the Institute of Preventive and Clinical Medicine, and Institute of Physiological Chemistry looked at a group of 19 vegetarians (lacto-ovo) and used as a comparison a group of 19 omnivorous subjects recruited from the same region. The study found that this group of vegetarians (lacto-ovo) have a significantly higher amount of plasma carboxymethyllysine and advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) compared to this group of non-vegetarians.[99] Carboxymethyllysine is a glycation product which represents "a general marker of oxidative stress and long-term damage of proteins in aging, atherosclerosis and diabetes" and "[a]dvanced glycation end products (AGEs) may play an important adverse role in process of atherosclerosis, diabetes, aging and chronic renal failure".[99]

 

...

Edited June 5, 2014 by CaptainPanic
Link to wikipedia fixed on request by Acme

[Iota]

There's speculation that in the future the West will perhaps adopt a more Asian diet of insects. There's far more of them, far easier, more environmentally friendly and economical for a population to eat. Healthy too.

[Ten oz]

Thank you for sharing your insight with me. I should have instead followed your example in post #6The facts are that Ed has offered nothing more than opinion here, and in his numerous threads promoting vegetarianism in which he did provide a link we have found his reading of and conclusions on those articles flawed. Granted that Ed earlier linked to an article on B12, but we covered that issue in one of the other threads. IIRC I brought it into the discussion because a vegetarian diet does not supply B12.The only scientifically justifiable reason for adopting a vegetarian diet -the others being sociocultural reasons- is health, and while studies show there are certain types of meat-eating diets that have higher incidence of certain disease or decreased longevity, there is no evidence that vegetarianism is healthier overall. Even then, some of the aforementioned studies have caveats about compounding circumstances such as vegetarians are less likely to smoke and drink or be wealthy.*Vegetarianism is also an overgeneralized term because of all the variations such as have been brought up already, such as eating eggs or dairy products but not meat, or excluding only red meat, or including fish, and so on. Given that there is no hard consensus among even experts, then it is logical not to accept the advice of amateurs.Omnivores, balance of foods, and moderation in consumption is the most widely accepted healthy human eating condition by my reading of qualified literature.*Vegetariansim @ Wikipedia (bold underlining mine.)

"An ovo-lacto vegetarian (or lacto-ovo vegetarian) is a vegetarian who does not eat animal flesh of any kind, but is willing to consume dairy and egg products. In contrast, a vegetarian who consumes no animal products at all is called a vegan. Veganism even excludes animal products found in clothes, such as wool, fur, and other animal based products."

"In the Western world lacto-ovo vegetarians are the most common type of vegetarian. Generally speaking, when one uses the term vegetarian a lacto-ovo vegetarian is assumed."

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Lacto-ovo_vegetarianism.html

 

I think your point about b12 is exaggerated. The most common type of vegetarians consume dairy products and eggs which are both good sources of b12. Besides, 500 million vegetarians in India and 50 million in China proves humans can safely be vegetarian.

 

Within the context of this discussion mentioning that some vegetarians eat fish doesn't really contribute useful information. It seems more like a complaint. This thread is about efficient and sustainable food for the future. Fish populations are on the decline. Our oceans are over fished. So unless you are looking to introduce information about advancements in fish farmering the comment seems out of place.

There's speculation that in the future the West will perhaps adopt a more Asian diet of insects. There's far more of them, far easier, more environmentally friendly and economical for a population to eat. Healthy too.

 

This is possibly an alternative of the future too. As it stands the united states is only 5% of the world population but we consumer 25% of the worlds resources. It is clearly not sustainable. Our two biggest food producing states California and Texas are both dealing with droughts. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

What happens when our population grows? Demand isn't shrinking and it is fairly obvious to me beef isn't a sustainable or efficient food to use as a dietary center piece the way we currently do.

[Acme]

[Acme] "An ovo-lacto vegetarian (or lacto-ovo vegetarian) is a vegetarian who does not eat animal flesh of any kind, but is willing to consume dairy and egg products.

Yes I know. That is well covered in the article I linked to.

 

I think your point about b12 is exaggerated. The most common type of vegetarians consume dairy products and eggs which are both good sources of b12. Besides, 500 million vegetarians in India and 50 million in China proves humans can safely be vegetarian.

I don't think it's a matter of whether it's safe or not; it's a matter of whether vegetarianism is 'better'.

 

Within the context of this discussion mentioning that some vegetarians eat fish doesn't really contribute useful information. It seems more like a complaint. This thread is about efficient and sustainable food for the future. Fish populations are on the decline. Our oceans are over fished. So unless you are looking to introduce information about advancements in fish farmering the comment seems out of place.

OK. Shall we convert our pets to vegetarianism?

 

Sales of cat and dog food rose to $19 billion in 2012.

 

Each year the pet food industry purchases millions of tons of meat, poultry, seafood, grains and other agricultural inputs to produce highly nutritious food products for cats and dogs. In addition to keeping America's cats and dogs well nourished, pet food companies are an important part of the U.S. agricultural sector.

Pet Food Sales

 

 

This is possibly an alternative of the future too. As it stands the united states is only 5% of the world population but we consumer 25% of the worlds resources.

Who's complaining now?

 

It is clearly not sustainable. Our two biggest food producing states California and Texas are both dealing with droughts. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

What happens when our population grows? Demand isn't shrinking and it is fairly obvious to me beef isn't a sustainable or efficient food to use as a dietary center piece the way we currently do.

Are there problems? Of course. When haven't there been? Hand-waving and crying out doom-and-gloom is neither a solution nor a clear path to solutions. As to meat being a dietary centerpiece, I have not made that argument. The argument I made, again, is that humans are omnivores and do best with a balanced diet of meat, grains, and vegetables of moderate portions.

 

I also want to point out that for many poor people, fresh vegetables [and meat] are simply not available or too expensive. Do you suppose individuals or fast-food purveyors purchase more meat from producers?

 

Why Low-Income and Food Insecure People are Vulnerable to Overweight and Obesity

Low-income neighborhoods frequently lack full-service grocery stores and farmers markets where residents can buy a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat dairy products (Beaulac et al., 2009; Larson et al., 2009). Instead, residents especially those without reliable transportation may be limited to shopping at small neighborhood convenience and corner stores, where fresh produce and low-fat items are limited, if available at all. One of the most comprehensive reviews of U.S. studies examining neighborhood disparities in food access found that neighborhood residents with better access to supermarkets and limited access to convenience stores tend to have healthier diets and reduced risk for obesity (Larson et al., 2009). ...

[dimreepr]

"An ovo-lacto vegetarian (or lacto-ovo vegetarian) is a vegetarian who does not eat animal flesh of any kind, but is willing to consume dairy and egg products. In contrast, a vegetarian who consumes no animal products at all is called a vegan. Veganism even excludes animal products found in clothes, such as wool, fur, and other animal based products."

"In the Western world lacto-ovo vegetarians are the most common type of vegetarian. Generally speaking, when one uses the term vegetarian a lacto-ovo vegetarian is assumed."

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Lacto-ovo_vegetarianism.html

 

I think your point about b12 is exaggerated. The most common type of vegetarians consume dairy products and eggs which are both good sources of b12. Besides, 500 million vegetarians in India and 50 million in China proves humans can safely be vegetarian.

 

Within the context of this discussion mentioning that some vegetarians eat fish doesn't really contribute useful information. It seems more like a complaint. This thread is about efficient and sustainable food for the future. Fish populations are on the decline. Our oceans are over fished. So unless you are looking to introduce information about advancements in fish farmering the comment seems out of place.

This is possibly an alternative of the future too. As it stands the united states is only 5% of the world population but we consumer 25% of the worlds resources. It is clearly not sustainable. Our two biggest food producing states California and Texas are both dealing with droughts. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

What happens when our population grows? Demand isn't shrinking and it is fairly obvious to me beef isn't a sustainable or efficient food to use as a dietary center piece the way we currently do.

 

Keeping a dairy herd is tremendously wasteful, if run without the beef industry; the same is true with the poultry business, although much less so if run as a battery farm.

 

Definitions of vegetarianism aside, you say “This thread is about efficient and sustainable food for the future.” and without animal husbandry which includes meat, I don’t think so; the idea is only sustainable without dairy and eggs and with our constant fabrication of B12.

 

This is of course achievable but only while we have that ability, the loss of which would quickly starve hundreds of millions; it ‘MAY’ be more efficient but is it sustainable?

[sunshaker]

I have been a veggie for many years, The thought of taking a life to feed myself repels me, I can go to any shop and purchase the protein i need without a life being taken, I understand this is not the case the world over and some "have to eat meat to survive" (same as an animal cannot go to a supermarket,

Being a veggie is a "conscious choice for me", I am "lucky enough" to be able to choose, Most here have this freedom of choice.

 

Only when enough of us make this choice will anything change, There is always another way.

 

I do believe our descendants will look back at these times in disbelieve that we where still eating the flesh of fellow creatures (When we had a choice).

 

PS find a fly or bee in your sink water it is not dead, just in shock, Fish them out and life returns to them.

[Acme]

I have been a veggie for many years, The thought of taking a life to feed myself repels me, I can go to any shop and purchase the protein i need without a life being taken, I understand this is not the case the world over and some "have to eat meat to survive" (same as an animal cannot go to a supermarket,

Being a veggie is a "conscious choice for me", I am "lucky enough" to be able to choose, Most here have this freedom of choice.

Protein is not the only nutrient that meat provides and getting those other nutrients in a vegetarian diet takes a considerable variety of vegetable foods and a consequent amount of knowledge, expense and time for planning meals and seeking out the sources.

 

From the Wiki article I quoted in post #34, many of these special cases are cited. [Note: My link in post #34 is incorrect and I'll ask staff to fix it as my opportunity to edit has expired.]

 

The link is here: >> Vegetarianism @ Wikipedia

 

...Western vegetarian diets are typically high in carotenoids, but relatively low in omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin B12. Vegans can have particularly low intake of vitamin B and calcium if they do not eat enough items such as collard greens, leafy greens, tempeh and tofu (soy).

...

Proteins are composed of amino acids, and a common concern with protein acquired from vegetable sources is an adequate intake of the essential amino acids, which cannot be synthesised by the human body. While dairy and egg products provide complete sources for ovo-lacto vegetarian, several vegetable sources have significant amounts of all eight types of essential amino acids, including lupin beans, soy,[51] hempseed, chia seed,[52] amaranth,[53] buckwheat,[54] pumpkin seeds[55] spirulina,[56] pistachios,[57] and quinoa.[58] However, the essential amino acids can also be obtained by eating a variety of complementary plant sources that, in combination, provide all eight essential amino acids (e.g. brown rice and beans, or hummus and whole wheat pita, though protein combining in the same meal is not necessary[citation needed]). A 1994 study found a varied intake of such sources can be adequate.[59]

...

Vegetarian diets typically contain similar levels of iron to non-vegetarian diets, but this has lower bioavailability than iron from meat sources, and its absorption can sometimes be inhibited by other dietary constituents.[60] According to the Vegetarian Resource Group, consuming food that contains vitamin C, such as citrus fruit or juices, tomatoes, or broccoli, is a good way to increase the amount of iron absorbed at a meal.[61] Vegetarian foods rich in iron include black beans, cashews, hempseed, kidney beans, broccoli, lentils, oatmeal, raisins, spinach, cabbage, lettuce, black-eyed peas, soybeans, many breakfast cereals, sunflower seeds, chickpeas, tomato juice, tempeh, molasses, thyme, and whole-wheat bread.[62

...

Vegetarians, and particularly vegans, have lower levels of EPA and DHA than meat-eaters. While the health effects of low levels of EPA and DHA are unknown, it is unlikely that supplementation with alpha-linolenic acid will significantly increase levels.[73][clarification needed] Recently, some companies have begun to market vegetarian DHA supplements containing seaweed extracts. Similar supplements providing both DHA and EPA have also begun to appear.[74] Whole seaweeds are not suitable for supplementation because their high iodine content limits the amount that may be safely consumed. However, certain algae such as spirulina are good sources of gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), linoleic acid (LA), stearidonic acid (SDA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and arachidonic acid (AA).[75][76]

...

Calcium intake in vegetarians and vegans can be similar to non-vegetarians, as long as the diet is properly planned.[77] Lacto-ovo vegetarians that include dairy products can still obtain calcium from dairy sources like milk, yogurt, and cheese.[78]

 

Non-dairy milks that are fortified with calcium, such as soymilk and almond milk can also contribute a significant amount of calcium in the diet.[79] The calcium found in broccoli, bok choy, and kale have also been found to have calcium that is well absorbed in the body.[77][78][80] Though the calcium content per serving is lower in these vegetables than a glass of milk, the absorption of the calcium into the body is higher.[78][80] Other foods that contain calcium include calcium-set tofu, blackstrap molasses, turnip greens, mustard greens, soybeans, tempeh, almonds, okra, dried figs, and tahini [77][81] Though calcium can be found in Spinach, swiss chard, beans and beet greens, they are generally not considered to be a good source since the calcium binds to oxalic acid and is poorly absorbed into the body.[78] Phytic acid found in nuts, seeds, and beans may also impact calcium absorption rates .[78]

...

Only when enough of us make this choice will anything change, There is always another way.

You disregard the [uS] folks who can't make the choice; the poor that I just referenced for example. What is their way? Is it just their own damn fault or bad luck that they are poor? Whose fault is it that the food they have access to and can afford is too high in meat & fat and low in vegetables and raw grains?

 

I do believe our descendants will look back at these times in disbelieve that we where still eating the flesh of fellow creatures (When we had a choice).

Again, not everyone has a choice. Whether meat isn't available as in some cultures or vegetables aren't available as in others, choice is limited. I don't see that changing any time soon. Nor do I buy into the guilt trip of eating our fellow creatures. How do you feel about killing those same creatures to feed our pet fellow creatures as I earlier alluded to?

 

 

While I'm on the topic of humans feeding animals to animals, there is the matter of zoos. We'll ignore the issue of whether keeping animals in zoos is 'good' or not. I haven't found data for all zoos, either in the US or worldwide, so I'll let just 1 stand as representative.

 

Animal Food & Nutrition Center @ St. Louis Zoo

Zoo Grocery List

Here are a few of the items on the Zoo's grocery list each year to keep our animals well fed and nourished:

5 tons of carrots

20 tons of herring

7.5 tons of bananas

5.5 tons of apples

18 tons of romaine lettuce

6 tons of primate biscuits

85 tons of herbivore pellets

13,000 bales of hay

1.5 tons of squid

15 tons of mackerel

5 tons of smelt

1,200,000 adult crickets

75 pounds of earthworms

1,625,000 mealworms

675,000 waxworms

22,000 adult mice

...

Holy mackerel! Is that sustainable? How many people would that feed? (I notice there is no red meat listed there and wonder why. What -and how much- do the large carnivores eat?

Edited June 4, 2014 by Acme

[Arete]

Besides, 500 million vegetarians in India and 50 million in China proves humans can safely be vegetarian.

 

Not to say that being a vegetarian is inherently unhealthy, but the number of vegetarians in the world does nothing to prove or disprove it. 870 million people are chronically malnourished - that doesn't mean it's safe/healthy to not eat enough food.

[Ten oz]

I have been a veggie for many years, The thought of taking a life to feed myself repels me, I can go to any shop and purchase the protein i need without a life being taken, I understand this is not the case the world over and some "have to eat meat to survive" (same as an animal cannot go to a supermarket,

Being a veggie is a "conscious choice for me", I am "lucky enough" to be able to choose, Most here have this freedom of choice.

 

Only when enough of us make this choice will anything change, There is always another way.

 

I do believe our descendants will look back at these times in disbelieve that we where still eating the flesh of fellow creatures (When we had a choice).

 

PS find a fly or bee in your sink water it is not dead, just in shock, Fish them out and life returns to them.

I have primarily focused on the efficiency and sustainability aspects of a vegetarian diet but there is a discussion that could had about the ethical aspects as well. I have often wondered if future generations will look back on us poorly for our treatment of animals. Animals in nature kill out of necessity. We kill as a matter of preference. I think there is something unnatural about that. However I don't think we will change our ways for ethical reasons. I think as the population increases and our resources become more strained economics will for a shift. Edited June 4, 2014 by Ten oz

[Acme]

... Our two biggest food producing states California and Texas are both dealing with droughts. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

What happens when our population grows? Demand isn't shrinking and it is fairly obvious to me beef isn't a sustainable or efficient food to use as a dietary center piece the way we currently do.

I'll have a look at whether Texas is 2^nd to Cali in food production or not. Little doubt that the oil production in Texas is not sustainable though.

 

As to population, the US exports food so demand isn't tied to just our population.

 

Speaking of popular demand not shrinking and California drought, it is neither vegetable nor animal food production sucking up & polluting water resources in the North of the state; it's weed. This makes your argument above something of a strawman. Edit: Or is that a red herring?

 

Marijuana farms worsen California drought

SAN FRANCISCO Some drought-stricken rivers and streams in Northern California's coastal forests are being polluted and sucked dry by water-guzzling medical marijuana farms, wildlife officials say an issue that has spurred at least one county to try to outlaw personal grows.

 

State fish and wildlife officials say much of the marijuana being grown in northern counties under the state's medical pot law is not being used for legal, personal use, but for sale both in California and states where pot is still illegal.

 

This demand is fueling backyard and larger-scale pot farming, especially in remote Lake, Humboldt and Mendocino counties on the densely forested North Coast, officials said.

 

"People are coming in, denuding the hillsides, damming the creeks and mixing in fertilizers that are not allowed in the U.S. into our watersheds," said Denise Rushing, a Lake County supervisor who supports an ordinance essentially banning outdoor grows in populated areas.

...

Edited June 4, 2014 by Acme

[Ten oz]

Not to say that being a vegetarian is inherently unhealthy, but the number of vegetarians in the world does nothing to prove or disprove it. 870 million people are chronically malnourished - that doesn't mean it's safe/healthy to not eat enough food.

 

Safe and healthy are not the same thing. It was a broad remark. I just feel too much is being made of b12. There are ways to get b12 without the status qou. The united states consumes 3 times more meat than the global average. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/

Humans are omnivores. However many of the meats we consume would make us sick if we tried to eat them uncooked. I think consuming eggs, fish, and insects along with plants better reflects the type of foods humans actually evolved eating than does pork chops or buffalo wings.

I'll have a look at whether Texas is 2^nd to Cali in food production or not. Little doubt that the oil production in Texas is not sustainable though.As to population, the US exports food so demand isn't tied to just our population.Speaking of popular demand not shrinking and California drought, it is neither vegetable nor animal food production sucking up & polluting water resources in the North of the state; it's weed. This makes your argument above something of a strawman.Marijuana farms worsen California drought

And cars aren't the only things that use fuel so I guess cafe standards are a strawman too? There are no silver bullets that can fix our issues of sustainability.

 

"Ongoing drought conditions have also reduced the supply of cattle in Texas, the nation's largest state for beef production, contributing 6.3 billion pounds in 2012, 15 percent of the national total, Texas Department of Agriculture Spokesman Bryan Black said.

Some cattlemen have begun to rebuild their herd, primarily in East Texas, where drought conditions have subsided

"Since January 2011, the total number of cattle and calves in Texas has declined by 2.4 million head to 10.9 million head," Black said.

Beef cow numbers have dropped by 20 percent over the same period to 4.35 million head."

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/cattle-ranchers-forced-to-cull/26595624

Edited June 4, 2014 by Ten oz

[Acme]

Safe and healthy are not the same thing. It was a broad remark. I just feel too much is being made of b12. There are ways to get b12 without the status qou. The united states consumes 3 times more meat than the global average. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/

Humans are omnivores. However many of the meats we consume would make us sick if we tried to eat them uncooked. I think consuming eggs, fish, and insects along with plants better reflects the type of foods humans actually evolved eating than does pork chops or buffalo wings.

Well broad remarks seem to drive your and Ed's arguments. Yes we eat too much meat and a lot of the wrong kinds of meat (that is, factory raised fed on grain and pumped full of antibiotics is the 'wrong' kind). No one is contesting that. But it's a fallacy to go from that to conclude everyone should be a vegetarian and/or vegan in the future. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

And cars aren't the only things that use fuel so I guess cafe standards are a strawman too? There are no silver bullets that can fix our issues of sustainability.

Café standards? Hold on while I look that up...OK, got it. I don't see your point there. I waited in gas lines in the 70's and I agree the lesson was quickly forgotten. Since hydrocarbons fuel not just passenger cars but farm equipment, as well as natural gas and coal being the basis for fertilizer production, there is certainly a sustainability problem inasmuch as hydrocarbons aren't renewable.

 

As to silver bullets, it sure looks to me like that is what you are ascribing to vegetarianism.

...

"Ongoing drought conditions have also reduced the supply of cattle in Texas, the nation's largest state for beef production, contributing 6.3 billion pounds in 2012, 15 percent of the national total, Texas Department of Agriculture Spokesman Bryan Black said.

Some cattlemen have begun to rebuild their herd, primarily in East Texas, where drought conditions have subsided

"Since January 2011, the total number of cattle and calves in Texas has declined by 2.4 million head to 10.9 million head," Black said.

Beef cow numbers have dropped by 20 percent over the same period to 4.35 million head."

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/cattle-ranchers-forced-to-cull/26595624

Yes, I have heard of those loses. But again you broad-brushed your original statement when you said Texas was the second largest food producing state. I do appreciate your narrowing the scope to some specifics.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Acme

[Ten oz]

Well broad remarks seem to drive your and Ed's arguments. Yes we eat

 

Yes, I have heard of those loses. But again you broad-brushed your original statement when you said Texas was the second largest food producing state. I do appreciate your narrowing the scope to some specifics.

you referred to the water issue as a strawman. I posted that bit about Texas to show that water is impacting cattle production in the states I referenced.

Far as refferring to Texas as the second largest agricultural state.....you got me. Texas is not #2, it is #3. I don't see how that changes my point about water though.

[EdEarl]

Actually, I think the possibility of running out of food is remote, even though traditional farms may be shut down because they use vast amounts of water. Israel desalinizes vast quantities of water for both public and agrarian use. In Minnesota, a 1 acre farm using greenhouses produces a million pounds of food a year. The reason people starve is not that food does not exist, but distribution of food is not effective because it is an economic resource.

 

The challenges faced by humanity are primarily those of establishing a culture that solves problems, instead of endlessly debating.

[Ten oz]

Actually, I think the possibility of running out of food is remote, even though traditional farms may be shut down because they use vast amounts of water. Israel desalinizes vast quantities of water for both public and agrarian use. In Minnesota, a 1 acre farm using greenhouses produces a million pounds of food a year. The reason people starve is not that food does not exist, but distribution of food is not effective because it is an economic resource.

 

The challenges faced by humanity are primarily those of establishing a culture that solves problems, instead of endlessly debating.

Desalinization is another thing I think with be considerably more common in the future. It comes with a higher price tag though because of the energy required which will impact the agricultural industry. It will also impact the energy industry as a whole because desalinization will become yet another market requiring huge amounts of energy.

You are right that people don't starve because there isn't enough food. IMO people starving is absolutely an economic issue. Hydrophobic gardening I'll hopefully become more prevalent and allow for my food to be grown locally and help reduce the transportation cost of shipping food.

[Acme]

you referred to the water issue as a strawman. I posted that bit about Texas to show that water is impacting cattle production in the states I referenced.

Far as refferring to Texas as the second largest agricultural state.....you got me. Texas is not #2, it is #3. I don't see how that changes my point about water though.

What I said was 'bit of a strawman' and then added 'or is that a red herring'. I was both making a 'bit' of a joke and making a point that there is more than cattle ranching that contributes to and suffers from the California drought.

 

As far as the Texas thing I was making a point that you make a lot of statements and claims and yet provide little to no backup. That's not say you are wrong, only that this is a science forum after all and science is all over facts and precision like mushrooms on cow pies.

 

Drought is a problem. Nothing new there. The drought in the 1930's combined with poor farming practices created the infamous dust bowl era throughout the Midwest US. Was it a disaster? Mmmmm....definitely. Was it the end of civilization? No. Did people learn from it and change? Yes. Did it take a lot of work, scientific/logical thought, and meet resistance? Hell yes.

 

We're in a similar circumstance now. Corporations, climate change deniers, wealthy folk, etcetera all resisting change to further their own interests over the better interest of the whole. Disaster? Too early to say. Are we all gonna die? Not likely. Well, other than we're all gonna die sooner or later. That you have read enough to feel alarmed is evidence enough that smart people know more than a little about the current and future problems and are working to ameliorate the damage. Knee-jerk ideas like everybody become vegetarian do not help in this regard. Mm'k?

Actually, I think the possibility of running out of food is remote, even though traditional farms may be shut down because they use vast amounts of water. Israel desalinizes vast quantities of water for both public and agrarian use. In Minnesota, a 1 acre farm using greenhouses produces a million pounds of food a year. The reason people starve is not that food does not exist, but distribution of food is not effective because it is an economic resource.

 

The challenges faced by humanity are primarily those of establishing a culture that solves problems, instead of endlessly debating.

Agreed; desalinization may help for coastal areas if things get serious enough. The greenhouse project; very nice. Distribution of food the real cause of hunger; absolutely. Rather than gild the lily and say 'economic resource', let's just call the probelem what it is; greed. The challenge is not simply solving problems, the challenge is overcoming greed.

 

The earth supplies enough for everyone's need, but not everyone's greed. - Mahatma Gandhi

[Ten oz]

What I said was 'bit of a strawman' and then added 'or is that a red herring'. I was both making a 'bit' of a joke and making a point that there is more than cattle ranching that contributes to and suffers from the California drought.As far as the Texas thing I was making a point that you make a lot of statements and claims and yet provide little to no backup. That's not say you are wrong, only that this is a science forum after all and science is all over facts and precision like mushrooms on cow pies.Drought is a problem. Nothing new there. The drought in the 1930's combined with poor farming practices created the infamous dust bowl era throughout the Midwest US. Was it a disaster? Mmmmm....definitely. Was it the end of civilization? No. Did people learn from it and change? Yes. Did it take a lot of work, scientific/logical thought, and meet resistance? Hell yes.We're in a similar circumstance now. Corporations, climate change deniers, wealthy folk, etcetera all resisting change to further their own interests over the better interest of the whole. Disaster? Too early to say. Are we all gonna die? Not likely. Well, other than we're all gonna die sooner or later. That you have read enough to feel alarmed is evidence enough that smart people know more than a little about the current and future problems and are working to ameliorate the damage. Knee-jerk ideas like everybody become vegetarian do not help in this regard. Mm'k?Agreed; desalinization may help for coastal areas if things get serious enough. The greenhouse project; very nice. Distribution of food the real cause of hunger; absolutely. Rather than gild the lily and say 'economic resource', let's just call the probelem what it is; greed. The challenge is not simply solving problems, the challenge is overcoming greed.The earth supplies enough for everyone's need, but not everyone's greed. - Mahatma Gandhi

Other than calling the third largest agricultural state the second largest what "claims" have I made that isn't true? There are facts a person uses to highlight a truth and then there are board general statements meant to help frame perspective. I have provided links for everthing I have posted that highlighted a truth. You have latched on to general statements meant to frame perspective or provide context in an attempt to delegitimize ideas you do not agree with. The big picture here isn't whether or not Texas is the second or third largest agricultural states. Thus far it seems the most you have contributed to this discussion is to give a review of what others have posted. I don't see how that is useful. If your complaints culminated is an alternative there would definately be value in that.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Ten oz