Sustainability Vegetarianism for the Environment

[strongvoicesforward]

Do you always tell everyone what they can and cannot say or what they should say etc SVF?

Where have I done those? I merely quoted KrazyKat, agreed with his analysis and then added some more to tighten it up a little.

This thread is as good as dead.

It`s life doesn`t depend on your participation.

"Sigh"...Its like you believe you are some moral high ground to everyone else, and whenever somone questions parts of your beliefs or makes points about them that could shake them, you ignore them-

You haven`t made any strong points backed up by research or data to shake my beliefs. I haven`t ignored your points. I have showed why they are not valid. But I did accept anomalies. You rested your beliefs on anomalies and possibilities -- and not on the reality of the situation.

I wouldn`t be debating my side if I didn`t think I was right. If you want to assign that the moral highground, then be my guest. Gandhi, too, that that vegetarianism was the moral choice to make, but that is a different thread.

...you would do well to learn a little more in the way of "tact" and "respect" with other members here if you want to more people to participate in your threads positively.

Where have I disrespecte you?

Anyhoo...'Nuf said. I don't agree with your opinions, but then again you barely even consider mine, so the way i see it, i have no reason to take yours into consideration anymore seriously.

I have considered your opinions. I found them lacking in regards to the reality of the situation. Your reason to consider my opinion should be based on the data and real world cases I have given you.

Remember, I had offered you several posts ago for us to end with "agreeing to disagree," but you went spastic on that ranting.

Good luck with your converting of people to veganism because ... to be honest i don't think you are doing much positive for the image of vegetarians and animal rights activists a like here on this forum in general currently.

People change slowly. I have no expectation that someone will read a post and have an epiphany. However, I had the same view of people who championed vegetarianism strongly before I adopted it, but, their words did seep into my mind and wiggle around after time. I don`t think I am so unique that there aren`t others who may view these threads and be given thought as I was on the topic. As for me, I was able to divorce the messenger from the message. I think others here are capable of that as well.

My Uncle died a couple of days ago so think carefully before you try to make any comments on this post as i am not exactly very long-tempered right now.

Sorry to hear that. My condolances to you.

Take care and keep lurking in on the thread when you can. Participants and sideline observers are welcome.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

It has already been shown in this thread the damage from cattle to the environment/fauna in South America and Canada. This post will now focus on damage caused by cattle in Africa.

Take the grasslands of Bostwana for instance. There are 3 million heads of cattle on the grasslands, more than double the human population.

Because of European restrictions on the fears of disease from imported beef from Africa, these animals must be confined. That has caused large savana/grazing areas to be fenced, which in turn causes migratory routes to be broken restricting animals from reaching water and food supplies when seasonal changes causes drought or famine.

Scientists invited by the government of Botswana to study Botswana's cattle problems, concluded that "when the interests of wildlife and cattle come into conflict, the wildlife loses".​

and

Cattle rearing in the southern African state of Botswana is decimating the country's wildlife, according to a stinging rebuke published last week by a team of scientists who visited Botswana at the government's invitation.
'Vast areas of natural habitats have been degraded in many parts of the country,' says the scientists' report. 'The main cause is the expansion of the cattle industry.'​

and

But some 3000 kilometres of fencing around cattle pastures blocks these migration routes. During droughts, thousands of animals die at these fences trying to reach water.​

Excerpt from New Scientist Magazine. See story extract here: Beef for Europe threatens Botswana's wildlife

 

[Rich303]

Dear SV-F,

I appreciate your views, and I can see the point you are trying to make.

Mankind's industialisation of farming has created many problems (BSE, Foot and Mouth disease, destruction of rain forests etc...) + all the other day to day wrongs you mention.

However, I don't think you should use JREF as a platform to force your views on people. Many people here have strong views about various things, but I think you are a little confrontational in your approach.
Just my humble opinion.

Peace!

 

[strongvoicesforward]

However, I don't think you should use JREF as a platform to force your views on people. Many people here have strong views about various things, but I think you are a little confrontational in your approach.

Dear Rich30-3,

I can`t force my views on anyone. How can I do that? If someone were sitting next to me, I guess I could try to force them to drink a coke, or sit on the sofa and watch a TV show, but how can I force a view on someone through the internet? There is no "forcing." I am however, stating my views and putting them out there for rebuttal -- which you are invited to do.

What sentence in particular do you feel is so "confrontational" that makes it not worthy for being presented and if those are against forum rules please be so kind to outline how? You may be able to find a few "confrontational" sentences, but to say that the majority of my sentences are "confrontational" is quite off the mark. Merely stating opinions or facts without adding "IMO" or "I think" does not mean they are confrontational or objectionable in what is often used in public debate.

But to be fair, a certain degree of confrontation is needed for those who seek out strong debate. "Confrontation" is not bad so long as it does not devolve into name calling, expletives, and threats.

I asked you a few questions above. I would appreciate it if you could answer with a little more detail on those matters.

"Peace!"

 

[Rich303]

I'm not even going to try, because I know you will do me every time.

I actually agree with many things you say.

You've obviously got your sh*t together much more than me, but I just think you should be rallying parliament or something, rather than a Japan information website.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I'm not even going to try, because I know you will do me every time.

I wouldn`t refer to it as "do." I would be rude to do so in that way.

I actually agree with many things you say.

Glad to hear.

You've obviously got your sh*t together much more than me, but I just think you should be rallying parliament or something, rather than a Japan information website.

I, along with other activists, DO do that. We write, we try to visit offices, we petition, we leaflet, demonstrate, etc... However, when I have time at home, I would rather engage others than watch TV or play computer games.

Just because you see activity here, don`t let that make you think that is all there is. Engagement here is just one prong of the things I or other activists do.

I choose a Japan site because I live in Japan and this is my community. Japan lags far behind the rest of the world in Animal Rights. It took a while for the UK to export to American their views on AR, and now we are trying to get a foothold in Japan with more stronger agitation for AR.

Just takes time.

 

[Rich303]

I wouldn`t refer to it as "do." I would be rude to do so in that way.

Don't worry, I wouldn't think you were rude if you did.

I, along with other activists, DO do that. We write, we try to visit offices, we petition, we leaflet, demonstrate, etc... However, when I have time at home, I would rather engage others than watch TV or play computer games.
Just because you see activity here, don`t let that make you think that is all there is.

Fair enough, glad to hear you are making some inroads
I don't watch TV much myself, and have never owned a games console in my life, so that's something we have in common!

and now we are trying to get a foothold in Japan with more stronger agitation for AR.
Just takes time.

Good luck with that. I respect your efforts.
from Rich

 

[strongvoicesforward]

In the journal Earth Interactions, assistant professors Eshel and Martin from the University of Chicago of Geo Physical Sciences opined:

The duo have said that the average American diet requires the production of an extra ton and a half of carbon dioxide-equivalent, in the form of actual carbon dioxide as well as methane and other greenhouse gases compared to a strictly vegetarian diet. Plant-based diets are healthier for people as well as for the planet.​

See full article here: Vegetarianism may also be healthier for planet, claims study

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Fair enough, glad to hear you are making some inroads
I don't watch TV much myself, and have never owned a games console in my life, so that's something we have in common!

lol. Yes, indeed.

Good luck with that. I respect your efforts.
from Rich

Thanks.

Keep checking in on the thread from time to time, Rich.

 

[Tofu]

Bio-Diesel?

Let us try and clear this up.
It doesn't in no form whatsoever. What about the huge gas guzzling harvesters used to collect grain crops?

I think Bio-Diesel is the most common fuel over here in US for farming, because farmers can just use leftover or bi-product of their crops to make the fuel. Though even if thta's not the case, it is not a good reason to cause more harm to environment or any living things.

 

[Revenant]

I thought I should add this. Vegetarians could be at risk of a vitamin B12 deficiency. But Vitamin B12 is actually not naturally found in animals, it is introduced into animals via bactaria on plants, thus the animal becomes a source of vitamin B12.

A reliable source of Vitamin B12 for strict vegetarians would be Red Star Nutritional Yeast. A couple of table spoons a day easily fulfils the daily RDA.

There are other plant food that sometimes have B12, such as natto, tempeh, seaweeds, etc. However these are not reliable sources.

 

[RockLee]

I thought I should add this. Vegetarians could be at risk of a vitamin B12 deficiency. But Vitamin B12 is actually not naturally found in animals, it is introduced into animals via bactaria on plants, thus the animal becomes a source of vitamin B12.
A reliable source of Vitamin B12 for strict vegetarians would be Red Star Nutritional Yeast. A couple of table spoons a day easily fulfils the daily RDA.
There are other plant food that sometimes have B12, such as natto, tempeh, seaweeds, etc. However these are not reliable sources.

What coincidence! I was reading the wikipedia site on vegetarians yesterday and found out they could risk a vitamin B12 shortage.

 

[Maciamo]

There are 3 reasons for choosing to become a vegetarian. Those are:

1. Moral/ethical (may be based on religious beliefs or not)
2. Health
3. Environmental​

I haden't joined this discussion so far. So here I am. I haven't read replies yet, but here are my views about the original post. For the record I am not a vegetarian and never wanted to be.

1. Moral/ethical : carnivorous animals would eat us if hungry. I don't this the wrong in eating them (e.g. fish, frogs, pigs... can all eat meat). As for non-meat eater, they would be eaten by carnivorous for carnivorous to survive. So refusing to eat meat for the sake of not killing would mean that strictly carnivorous species (including your pet cat) should disappear for the animal world to be moral. I prefer to keep these species and let the law of nature apply. Otherwise the oceans and rivers would be empty of animal life.
Incidentally, I see humans as just another animal species. So if we humans refrain from eating animals to avoid killing them, why would a different rule apply to other animals ? We cannot put ourselves in a lower position than other species.

2. Health : If eating too much red meat is not healthy, not eating meat at all isn' better. The body needs proteins, and not just muscles. Humans got bigger brains in a stage of their evolution because they became meat eater. We wouldn't be discussing the morality of eating meat had our ancestors never eaten meat. Never forget that.

3. Environmental : I agree that endangered species shouldn't be eaten. I also agree that keeping farm animals create a lot of CO2 and uses a lot of vegetal resources. But let's not forget that there has never been so many chickens, turkeys, cows and pigs as today, because we raise them to be eaten. If we stopped eaten them, it could even be argued that some of these species would disappear, as they cannot cope by themselves in today's world (well, depends how industralised the country is).

Note that eating eggs or drinking milk create as much CO2 as eating these animals' meat. We still need to raise them and feed them as much. There is not the slightest moral reason to eat eggs and drink milk though. It's also good for health. So point 3. would occur even in absence of point 1. and 2.

This being said, I haven't eaten beef in 5 years because of BSE risks. I go for ostrich or kangaroo instead when it's available (i.e. not in Japan).
I also agree that meat should be eaten in moderation. Fish can be eaten more often. It's important to keep a diversified and balanced diet, but meat should be part of it.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I haden't joined this discussion so far. So here I am. I haven't read replies yet, but here are my views about the original post.

Hi Maciamo. I was wondering when you would join it. Glad to see you here.

Ok, I will address the three points in seperate posts so that the lengths will be cut down. The environment is the main theme of the thread so I may probably focus on that more here. The other two I think had been gone into greater detail on a couple other threads. I might bring those back up.

For the record I am not a vegetarian and never wanted to be.

lol. I had the same thought at one time. Not saying you will change -- but I had never even imagined I would become a vegetarian.

1. Moral/ethical : carnivorous animals would eat us if hungry.

Non-human animals are captive of their passions. We are not. Our desires do not control us. We have the ability to control our desires from within of our own choice. Carnivorous animals are opportunistic and satisfy their hunger when they can take advantage of a situation. We have the ability to extend "the principle of equal consideration of interests." I guess some would say that is the "Golden Rule." It is irrelevant if animals can extend that to us because they are unable to. We do not have "inability" as an excuse.

I don't think it is wrong in eating them (e.g. fish, frogs, pigs... can all eat meat).

I don`t think it is wrong in eating anything if it comes down to survival. But in today`s modern world (except for some jungle or Arctic tribes) we are not eating to survive. We are butchering to please the palate -- even when science has shown that a modern vegetarian diet is just as healthy as a flesh eating diet -- and the vegetarian diet offers benefits.

As for non-meat eater, they would be eaten by carnivorous for carnivorous to survive. So refusing to eat meat for the sake of not killing would mean that strictly carnivorous species (including your pet cat) should disappear for the animal world to be moral. I prefer to keep these species and let the law of nature apply. Otherwise the oceans and rivers would be empty of animal life.

The animal world, being captive of their passions, are unable to live morally. We can. Their inability and our ability is a standard that sets us apart from one another on what we can choose to do to lessen suffering.

By humans not imposing our wills on animals would in fact probably mean those animals which were bread for our interests may disappear. But, cows going extinct or persian cats going extinct would do nothing to the echo-system in a negative sense. It would probably be beneficial. There is no suffering in death and many would want death to release them or hope that their children not be born if they knew they were going to be sentenced to an eternal Holocaust.

Incidentally, I see humans as just another animal species. So if we humans refrain from eating animals to avoid killing them, why would a different rule apply to other animals ? We cannot put ourselves in a lower position than other species.

I see ourselves as another animal species as well. But, we have a different ability than the other animals which I already mentioned above. By refraining from exploiting animals for our palate, and still being able to survive quite well (if not healthier), then I am hard pressed to see how that would put us in a lower position. Why would we be in a lower position if we can survive in the modern world just as well on a modern vegetarian diet -- with the added benefits it offers health wise and environmental wise?

 

[Mycernius]

Non-human animals are captive of their passions. We are not. Our desires do not control us. We have the ability to control our desires from within of our own choice.

Oh yes we are. We might be able to control them a bit better, but our basic desires are still there and it doesn't take as much as you think for them to come to the fore. Just look at the wars we have fought over territory, hatred of our neighbours, even soccer caused a war in South America. If we could control our base emotions as well as you think then our world would be a peaceful planet with no crime or hate. Even reading something that doesn't fit with our opinions brings anger to the fore. How many times have politicians got you worked up into anger?

 

[Maciamo]

Non-human animals are captive of their passions. We are not. Our desires do not control us. We have the ability to control our desires from within of our own choice.

I think that some mamals are also able to control their desires. I am pretty sure that some dogs (depends on their intelligence and upbringing) would never kill their masters, or even any human (even a baby) if they were extremely hungry, and would rather die of hunger instead. They'd rather sacrifice their own life rather than harm a beloved one. This is almost like us humans. Don't forget than cannibalism has long existed among humans, and even civilised people have eaten other dead humans to survive (that story about the plane crash in the Andes, if you have seen the movie).

If a dog can refrain from eating a human or another dog, then more intelligent mamals (pigs, dolphins, whales...) also could. Depends a bit on their personality and "culture/education" like for humans.

Btw, cats are supposedly carnivorous and not omnivorous like humans, pigs or dogs, but I have had a kitten that was always hungry and would eat the vegetables and potatoes from the dog's bowl (and not just occasionally, everyday !). This can became omnivorous, and at one point almost vegetarian ! If cats can do this, other mamals can too.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

2. Health : If eating too much red meat is not healthy, not eating meat at all isn' better.

I think you would not find an indepth study by a well reputed org or research institute not biased to the meat industry which would explictly back that sentiment up.

If you look on from post #112 on (where I entered the conversation) the "Are You Vegetarian" thread here (I think you created that), you will see some posts on the position paper of the "American Dietetic Association" (The largest association of dietetics in the world). You can link to their position paper from my posts or just follow my posts for a while to get a jist of what they have said on vegetarianism for health. Their paper is well referenced for their sources.

The body needs proteins, and not just muscles.

We agree. But, all proteins can be supplied adequately from a vegetarian diet.

Humans got bigger brains in a stage of their evolution because they became meat eater.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I don`think that has been definitively decided. Besides, even if I do concede that point, that point relies on the immediate task at hand -- survival in a world where taking opportunity of anything by any means meant the difference between life or death when not knowing where your next meal is going to come from. Today we do not exist in such a situation. Humans' brains did not get large just merely because they ate meat -- they got large because they could satisfy their protein needs.

The form of the protein is not important. Today we can get all our dietary protein needs by plants. If we could at that time, it would only be logical that our brains would have had the same enlargment effect as eating meat -- provided that that was the only reason for getting a large brain, which I am not sure it was. Are you sure that was the only reason?

We wouldn't be discussing the morality of eating meat had our ancestors never eaten meat. Never forget that.

Do you think past traditions should dictate future actions? If evolution means change and it is good, then we can choose to evolve by changing an act that we need not keep.

More and more the positive benefits of a vegetarian diet are coming to light with more studies, as well as the negative effects meat production is having on our environment.

Let`s face it. We no longer live in a hunter gatherer world and therefore should not keep to traditions that are less beneficial to us and the world when others present themselves. Why not be the opportunists we naturally are and embrace that lifestyle that will serve to benefit us and the environment we live in? Do we not do it just out of tradition and the pleasure of the palate?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
Non-human animals are captive of their passions. We are not. Our desires do not control us. We have the ability to control our desires from within of our own choice.

Oh yes we are. We might be able to control them a bit better, but our basic desires are still there and it doesn't take as much as you think for them to come to the fore.

Of course we have passions and they can come to the fore. But, we can control them. In fact, our legal systems expect us to control them because governments know it is within our ability to do so.

Just look at the wars we have fought over territory, hatred of our neighbours, even soccer caused a war in South America. If we could control our base emotions as well as you think then our world would be a peaceful planet with no crime or hate. Even reading something that doesn't fit with our opinions brings anger to the fore. How many times have politicians got you worked up into anger?

lol. Believe me. I have no delusions for a Utopia of non-violence to set in. It takes effort to control our passions and many have the other vice that often prevents that -- laziness or apathy.

But, it quite within the realm of possibility of man to choose to not eat meat when all his dietary needs can be satisfied via a non-flesh diet.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
Non-human animals are captive of their passions. We are not. Our desires do not control us. We have the ability to control our desires from within of our own choice.

I think that some mamals are also able to control their desires. I am pretty sure that some dogs (depends on their intelligence and upbringing) would never kill their masters, or even any human (even a baby) if they were extremely hungry, and would rather die of hunger instead. They'd rather sacrifice their own life rather than harm a beloved one. This is almost like us humans.

Agreed. But dogs are an anomaly. They are not representative of most natural carnivores. But like you said -- it depends on conditioning (or training) and perhaps intelligence at the hands of humans. A ferrel dog may be a more apt model for carnivores if we are talking about natural behaviour and controlling passions.

I would probably trust my neighbor's labrodore retriever sitting on the sofa next to my baby before I would with my baby on a picnic blanket with ferel dogs circling. The labrodore has had its passions controled somewhat through humans who see the value in controling passion and hence have to some degree grafted them onto the dog.

Don't forget than cannibalism has long existed among humans, and even civilised people have eaten other dead humans to survive (that story about the plane crash in the Andes, if you have seen the movie).

Yes, excellent movie. Have read the book, too. Highly recommend it. But, made my fear of flying even worse.

But I am not sure what point/connection you are trying to make with cannibalism and controlling passions so that we can choose an alternative to supply all our needs. Cannibalism can be opportunistic for survival (as the Andes plane crash) or it can be to degrade another or obtain the power of another. The latter two are usually myth, superstitious or religious based.

If a dog can refrain from eating a human or another dog, then more intelligent mamals (pigs, dolphins, whales...) also could. Depends a bit on their personality and "culture/education" like for humans.

Yes, and they do. Most animals have a preference for what kind of meat they prefer. I am sure there is a scale of degree to what amount of passions animals can control. Ours however, is by far much greater and wider in range.

Btw, cats are supposedly carnivorous and not omnivorous like humans, pigs or dogs, but I have had a kitten that was always hungry and would eat the vegetables and potatoes from the dog's bowl (and not just occasionally, everyday !). This can became omnivorous, and at one point almost vegetarian ! If cats can do this, other mamals can too.

If your cat went too long on a vegetarian diet, Maciamo, it would die. Cats need a certain protein from meat that needs to be digested in their system.

If other mammals can, then that should be left to them to decide to do it or not. We should not base our actions on the failings/successes or choices or non choices of other animals. Do you think we should? If so, why?

 

[Maciamo]

​

Agreed. But dogs are an anomaly. They are not representative of most natural carnivores. But like you said -- it depends on conditioning (or training) and perhaps intelligence at the hands of humans. A ferrel dog may be a more apt model for carnivores if we are talking about natural behaviour and controlling passions.
I would probably trust my neighbor's labrodore retriever sitting on the sofa next to my baby before I would with my baby on a picnic blanket with ferel dogs circling. The labrodore has had its passions controled somewhat through humans who see the value in controling passion and hence have to some degree grafted them onto the dog.

And don't you think that some (primitive) humans also lacked such control ? What about prehistoric humans ? I believe that civilisations gradually taught humans (and domesticated animals) to change their natural behaviour. But in a "wild" (precivilisation) state, I don't think there is so much difference. A well-trained labrador may be more able to control its "passions" than a primitive human.

If your cat went too long on a vegetarian diet, Maciamo, it would die. Cats need a certain protein from meat that needs to be digested in their system.

That was his choice. Sometimes he would just eat the vegetables and not the meat (cat or dog food) next to it !