Medicine (and millions of other people) has already proven that we don't need meat to survive. We have plenty of alternatives now.
But we are addicted to meat - because it gives us pleasure. But then you have to ask yourself, is it OK for sentient beings to horribly suffer for us[1], so we can experience some pleasure that could be easily achieved by consuming alternative foods[2] and shifting our perception. Consuming meat is also not the best way to efficiently feed the world.
Here is what Dr Neil Barnard says about bacon:
Power Foods for the Brain (17min) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_ONFix_e4k
[1] Earthlings - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc2oizSsmUs (I challenge you to watch this and not think 'WTF')
[2] Beyond Meat - great presentation by Ethan Brown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x8jfiaLCPY
If animals can think and they eat other animals perhaps they will be able to teach us why it may be an acceptable choice.
* Veganism isn't about health[1]. It's about avoiding exploitation of other sentient and intelligent beings and reducing suffering on many levels.
* The difference between us and other animals is that we have the ability of critical thinking. We can change our attitude and mind when presented with new information. A lion can't do this (also, a lion needs meat to survive, modern humans don't).
There is a great quote by Aaron Swartz[2] and in that vein I encourage you to watch the videos that were posted in this thread - you might be surprised.
[1] "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.[...]"
[2] “Think deeply about things. Don’t just go along because that’s the way things are or that’s what your friends say. Consider the effects, consider the alternatives, but most importantly, just think.”
1) Eat animals and plants. Remember the animals you eat also eat plants. This creates maximum suffering and damage.
2) Eat plants only. This creates less suffering and damage than option 1.
To answer your question though, if it's scientifically proven that plants are sentient and feel pain like we do (i.e. suffer) then I would only eat what plants produce (e.g. nuts, legumes, apples, etc) rather than the plant itself (e.g. carrots).
Personally, at least until we can efficiently synthesize arbitrary dietary proteins, fats, and fibers, I'll keep using my computer built from rare earths mined with exploited workers to post about the delicious, factory-slaughtered chicken I just ate.
'If one can't save everything, one must save nothing?'
You should watch the presentation by Ethan Brown, he talks about creating meat using plant protein.
He's a great entrepreneur and 'hacker'. You might enjoy it.
"plants can see hear and respond" http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-...
Provided this is true don't they deserve more protection over animals because they can't defend as well as animals
This doesn't imply at all that they are sentient or have feelings, which is what we care about (or should, in any case) when we discuss harming or protecting other living things.
Of course, there are other considerations such as ecological, but that's not what we're discussing here.
One can readily see that the answer to this question is "yes" even when the suffering is that of humans, much less animals.
Many people readily consume products that are created in sweatshops, that are the product or cause of wars and/or environmental damage that has severe (and often deadly) consequences on other humans. Most people don't really care enough to change their consumption habits.
Out of sight, out of mind is a maxim many live by both when they eat and when they buy. Few people want to look in to the proverbial sausage factory or slaughterhouse to find out how their food is made, or in sweatshops to find out how their clothes are made. May if they did they'd change their consumption habits, but most don't really want to. They'd rather bury their head in the sand and enjoy their life. As long as they or their loved ones don't directly suffer the consequences, they effectively couldn't care less how their pleasure was got.
In truth, if we offer animals a good life and harvest them in a compassionate manner, the ethical arguments against eating meat are weak.
People also underestimate the capacity for plants to feel. Plants in conventional monoculture farms are much more susceptible to pets and disease. Disease susceptibility is a fairly universal response to sustained stress in animals, so it seems reasonable to me that the conditions we are keeping plants in cause them distress as well. Just because plants "think" on long time-scales using gene regulation (plant biochemistry is incredibly complex) rather than short term activation of neurons doesn't mean their experience is any less salient.
We, humans, are inflicting much more suffering to flora and fauna by the simple fact of participating in the industrial modern lifestyle. Buying food at the supermarket, using the internet, travelling, AC, and pretty much any activity we can think of.
The underlying problem is that to sustain 7+ billion people we need industrialisation which requires massive amounts of resources (energy, land, minerals, etc). The modern lifestyle doesn't help either.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/eat-less...
The second one is deforestation.
The third one is industry.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?artic...
Animal agriculture is extremely destructive. Forestry being in that category, one of the biggest causes of deforestation is expansion of cattle grazing and feed lands, especially in the Amazon.
> Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector come mostly from agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and deforestation. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector.
Not only the number includes crop agriculture, but also deforestation is caused by quite a large number of factors.
It's important to understand the claims your making if you're going to state that animal again is not a significant portion of that 24%. As much as it seems like you'd like to deny, animal agriculture is a substatial driver of man made climate change.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120925091608.h...
Why not? Try to not be part of the throwaway culture, avoid falling for gimmicks and new toys and try to build a environmental Friendly lifestyle. It's not perfect but it's perfectly possible to escape the modern lifestyle to a huge degree
I'm a vegetarian partly out of compassion for the animals who might be eaten and partly because of the other harmful effects of industrialized meat production.
In addition, I don't own a car and try to avoid non-human-powered transportation in general, I use air conditioning extremely sparingly despite living in Louisiana, I avoid buying crap I don't need online or in person, and I choose my foods and their sources carefully.
These are all personal choices, and I'm sharing them not to lecture or to be holier than thou. I'm just trying to say this: Maybe the correct reaction to "being a vegetarian alone won't save the world," is "I should be thoughtful about all the ways my choices impact the world" rather than "I'll have the 72oz steak."
I was like you a few years ago. Even left the world and moved to an off the grid cabin for a year until I realized I was only trying to feel better about myself.
Me installing some solar panels on that cabin: http://imgur.com/5mfDVHv.jpg
Everything that we do, like using the internet, is still consuming massive amounts of energy and resources. From manufacturing the computer(s) you are using, to networking.
Energy consumption for example is the number one cause of CO2 emissions, not transportation, and certainly not the food industry.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
Animal agriculture is a huge drain on resources and the environment. There's clear cutting of the Amazon for cattle feed and grazing. Cows and cattle emit huge amounts of methane, many times more potent in climate change than CO2. Nearly a quarter of ice free land in the world is dedicated to animal ag.
Some estimates put 20 kg of grain for a single kg of beef. That is not efficient.
https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?artic... check out this link.
Yes every human activity uses energy. Does that mean we shouldn't try be consious in limiting our consumption and be damage we inflict on others?
That second sector includes quite a few things. For example deforestation for non livestock agriculture, city building, etc. None of which are alleviated by vegetarianism.
Also note this:
> This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector.
So in practice this 24% is really 19.2%, and less than that is really caused purely by livestock.
> Some estimates put 20 kg of grain for a single kg of beef. That is not efficient.
Indeed, but chicken or pork produce less emissions than fruits or even dairy products.
> Does that mean we shouldn't try be consious in limiting our consumption and be damage we inflict on others?
Sounds good in theory.
In practice if you care about suffering, you should realise that agriculture is one of the biggest environmental disasters of the last couple thousands years. Agriculture has destroyed (and destroys) entire ecosystems.
And before you argue about organic agriculture: that would not feed 7 billion people. Maybe aquaponics / hydroponics could save the world, but it remains to be seen.
If you do really care about emissions and your impact on the planet you could do a number of things like not having kids and getting out of the industrial lifestyle. Many have done it (I tried and failed). Otherwise there is really no moral high ground in vegetarianism.
But it's been proven that producing meat requires more resources than producing plant based foods. So if we truly care about feeding 7+ billion people, then we would reduce our meat consumption or move to a plant based diet completely. This is one thing each of us can directly do something about - by simply buying different foods. You should watch that presentation by Beyond Meat founder Ethan Brown.
Also, when talking about moral reasons, this is not just about minimising the suffering of animals. What do you think seeing animals being killed, sliced open alive etc day in day out does to the human psyche - you can find out here: http://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2157... - also see this quote [1].
If you couldn't get any other job other than working in a slaughterhouse or food prep shop and they both pay the same - which job would you pick? Would you want to kill animals every day or rather wash, cut, peel fruits and veg every day?
Our buying choices do matter.
[1] "The worst thing, worse than the physical danger is the emotional toll. If you work in that stick pit for any period of time, you develop an attitude that lets you kill things, but doesn’t let you care. You may look a hog in the eye that’s walking around down in the blood pit with you and think, God, that really isn’t a badlooking animal. You may want to pet it. Pigs down on the kill floor have come up and nuzzled me like a puppy. Two minutes later I had to kill them-beat them to death with a pipe. I can’t care (Dillard, p. 398, 2008). "
It's true, but you can see the global sources of emissions here.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
As I hope you can see we have bigger problems to worry about.
> What do you think seeing animals being killed, sliced open alive etc day in day out does to the human psyche
My grandparents killed animals on their farm regularly. Not only they were good moral people, but their way of life was much more sustainable and respectful of the planet than any of us here.
By focusing on something that shocks you personally you are missing the whole picture.
But why can't we act on multiple fronts? We can do many things to reduce our carbon foot print, and choosing not to eat meat or reducing it is one of those things.
Our meat consumption is a big problem environmentally - see https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meat-and-environm...
Also, the way we farm animals now a days is completely different to when your grand parents farmed them. Using factory farming to feed the world is just not sustainable.
Look, I get it - most people can't give up meat, we're addicted to it and it's also cultural. But what we can do is giving a signal to the market that we demand better, by choosing to buy alternatives that are better on many fronts, like Beyond Meat etc.
That's why I really admire the work by Ethan Brown, he's trying to create meat using plant protein. You should watch the presentation by him I posted earlier - you might find it interesting.
> But why can't we act on multiple fronts?
Yes, as long as we don't forget where the big problem really lies and we also act there.
I've met quite a number of vegetarians that believe that not eating meat is the solution to all problems. Of course they fly to Thailand for their yoga retreat, buy food at supermarkets, buy products that have been transported all over the world, and a very long etcetera. It's easy to ride on the moral high ground of vegetarianism blindly ignoring every other facet of our modern lifestyle. From a seemingly benign Google search, to watching a movie at the theatre.
I don't like to touch this subject but another big and controversial issue is having kids. Every kid we put on this planet will produce a number of tons of CO2. About 7 on average, about 20 for a US kid.
http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/per_capita_em...
So can we act on multiple fronts?
Can we remove a glass of water from a sinking ship at the same that we pour buckets of water in it?
You tell me.
Also, what is the point of having a moral high ground? It doesn't accomplish anything. Even if some people's motivation for not eating meat is to feel morally superior, it shouldn't be a deciding factor for others to not eat meat.
For me personally it's about values[1]. I remember watching Star Trek as a kid and I think Riker said something along the lines that humanity doesn't enslave animals anymore[3]. We need a vision for the future and not oppressing and exploiting other beings for our own culinary pleasures is a good value to have I think.
We don't have to wait until the 24th century either. The future is already here, it's easier now than ever to choose not to kill animals, there are so many other delicious recipes[2] out there - if one would invest the time to research this.
And in terms of having kids - I think it was Hans Rosling who said that birth rates seem to fall in the developed countries. Also, imagine we would show a toddler how his sausages etc are made - from beginning to end. How do you think small kids would react if they knew what actually happens to peppa pig and friends? Why don't we show our kids the process of producing meat?
------------
[1] Best quote on this is from Dr Alex Hershaft. Holocaust survivor and FARM founder. He drew many similarities between what the Nazis did and what we do to farm animals. His story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7dZv43A0g0
His quote:
"[...]It's about us. It's about who we are, how we treat the least defensible, the most oppressed, the weakest in our society. What does it say about us?"
[2] http://annajones.co.uk/books
[3] EDIT: found that Riker quote from TNG: https://youtu.be/sS7NRtEJBcA?t=31s
I think pier25's point is we should spend our time advocating for the most important issues. See the forest, dont focus on one tree. It is true that beef has a large impact, but maybe time would be better spent advocating renewable energy subsidies and or carbon taxes? You can only complain so much before people get sick of you right? :P However I think their point was weakened by the anecdotes about vegetarians who do other unsustainable things and calling them delusional.
I think cryodesign's point is that every little bit counts. The forest is made up of trees after all. And it easier to avoid meat than it is to invent renewable power that can provide base load.(well I love meat, but I have been reducing my beef consumption) I think they focused too much on how it feels. You can humanely kill an animal imo. As someone who grew up on a farm, I found the quote about killing them with a pipe unbelievable.
In terms of what happens on animal farms and slaughter houses, you should check out the 'Earthlings' documentary I posted. Most meat that is consumed comes from factory farms. Those places are hell holes.
In terms of humanely killing, I think it's an oxymoron, the same way that 'humane oppression' is an oxymoron. Animals don't want to be killed. Humans don't need meat anymore to survive, so why are we continuing to oppress and exploit these beings? Could you kill and slaughter an animal? If not, why demand that others do it for you?
I see more and more people waking up to this fact and researching this and finding out that everything they believed was misguided, e.g. needing meat to be strong etc. One of the strongest person (Patrick Baboumian) on the planet is vegan, and more athletes are also becoming vegan.
If we create more demand for plant based foods, we will see more options in stores. Here in Europe, even Aldi and Lidl have vegan products now.
If one can't save everything, one must save nothing?
Are we saving 1%, 10%, or 30%?
Because if we are saving 1% we are being delusional.
I think there is a real movement and push back against all this political correctness and endless 'feelings' based discussion thankfully.