Ask HN: Why Aren't You Vegan?
I'm interested in the reasons why you aren't vegan, if you accept the premise that we should try to minimise the avoidable suffering of animals.
It can and should certainly be done with respect, but industrialized process being what they are means that the absolute minimum is paid to doing so (as always, economics gets in the way). Thus we need stricter laws to force operators to comply (if left to their own devices they'd do nothing).
As I pointed out in my earlier post, animals are sentient beings so I'd add here that it's not just a matter of dispatching an animal quickly, we also have to consider that they are very aware that other animals around them are dying (especially so if they can see the execution process happening). However, it's not nearly enough just to keep the process out of the site of waiting animals as they've a much keener sense of death in the air than we humans have.
We therefore need to take this into consideration so as not to alarm or frighten them. It seems to me that we've still a lot more to do in this regard—as the welfare of the animals ought to be paramount but all too often it's not.
(That's not a call to veganism, rather it's a demand that we be kind to all living creatures even if we have to eat them for food).
Since agriculture is more modern than keeping livestock, I'd say that eating vegetables is more unnatural.
Additionally, while I don't agree with how some livestock are kept for multinationals ( McDo probably), most of the world gives their livestock plenty of room to live ( Europe) and steroids are forbidden here ( unlike in the US)
Source: my dad is a veterinarian and I came across, what you call "industrial processes" ( = farming) daily in my youth. My dad only had 1 client who kept his animals in bad conditions ( long story, but my dad acted correctly with the means possible)
Correct, animals are food and I reckon that vegans and vegetarian philosophies forget that fact. We humans are omnivores and eons of evolutionary history have established that we're well adapted to eating meat as a significant portion of our diet.
"Nature is violent, period."
Absolutely, nature is very violent. It seems to me that much of the reason for why vegans and those who do not like eating meat or reject it altogether comes down to the argument about it being cruel to animals (in ways that's true and rightly it ought not be so). Nevertheless, I think it's misplaced logic and it often has more to with the fact that modern Western society has now been divorced from the process of slaughtering and preparing animals for food for many years and that long absence has meant that some significant numbers of people now develop squeamishness at even the thought of the process. Whether, I'm right or wrong, the fact remains that that for most of human history people have never had the luxury of ignoring the fact that nature is both violent and cruel and that gathering one's food had to involve both. In the not-to-distant past, one's only alternative would have been to starve.
I eat considerably more fish than I do meat, lamb, beef, etc. but that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy meat—that I certainly do. Recently, I had some lamb chops, which I'd not eaten in many decades (they having been a staple food in my childhood), and I simply cannot express how much I enjoyed them—so much so that it's now a truly memorable experience. To my mind, there is no meat substitute—and I've tasted many—that comes anywhere near the real thing. That's not to say that I don't like them, I do but there is always something missing. No matter how good the vegan/vegetarian chef is, no matter the circumstance, I always feel that something is missing in these substitutes (it's as if my body was calling out 'where's the beef?').
That said, I must point out that I'll often eat things that not only vegans would reject but so would many others—I'll pick a lemon off a tree and eat it straight, same with boiled lentils without any condiments, completely unsweetened cocoa (which is very bitter), noodles that haven't been cooked or softened, drinks with lots of bitter quinine in them (but not often as it's dangerous in excess), and so on. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate food that a gourmet would salivate over, I love first-growth Bordeaux wines with a passion but I can no longer afford them since prices have skyrocketed, same with excellent cheese but I don't each much due to its high animal fat content. (I recall once being in a cheese shop in Normandy with French relatives who thought I'd gone a little mad when confronted with such a vast range of chèvre cheeses. I love chèvre with a passions and the fact that I couldn't taste every one was extremely frustrating.)
This is where vegans and I part company; I can never imagine myself willingly giving up a great delicacy like chèvre. It makes no sense to me whatsoever to do so, and from my perspective there has to be a whiff of Puritanism about veganism when I consider that so little is to be gained from such a harsh regimen (right, for me, adopting the practice would truly be medicine). From a selfish perspective, the more vegans the better, as there would be less competition or demand for cheese and therefore it'd be cheaper for me to purchase. I reckon there's another factor at work here too, most vegans that I know and come across never seem to have the same passion for food that I do, thus it's much easier for them to act out of principle. As the saying goes, 'some eat to live, others live to eat', and I'm firmly with the latter.
[Note, I've not forgotten the matter of environmental veganism which is integral to my argument but it's full subject of its own and too long to include here, so I'll post it separately.]
As humans, it's good that at least a large percentage of us try to reduce the suffering of animals whenever and wherever possible. However, look at the facts, which are that a huge percentage of animals eat nothing else except other animals, thus cruelty is innate within the animal kingdom. Let's take a tuna for instance, it eats smaller fish and that process continues down the food chain to the tiniest living things (it's why these top feeders so easily accumulate heavy metals like mercury).
Whenever I see a film of say a lion chasing a wildebeest I always hope that it escapes capture and being eaten, but that belies the fact that if that didn't happen the lion would then starve as it eats essentially nothing other than meat. The lion's only concern is that the wildebeest is food; it has no concern for the wildebeest's suffering whatsoever.
Essentially, we humans are the only animals who have concern about the pain and suffering experienced by other animals—yes, I know there are a few odd exceptions but my point is generally the case. What I've always found somewhat strange is that nature requires animals to suffer when they're in the process of becoming food—nature is not only violent but it's also cruel. Of course, implying that animals suffer cruelty and pain presupposes that they also exhibit some degree of sentience—and I'm almost certain that they do. Whenever I accidentally tread on my dog's tail and he yelps in pain I don't believe that I'm seeing just an automatic response from an automaton. If I did then I'd just ignore it, instead what follows is a lovey-dovey hugging session between us and he seems to accept the fact that I didn't mean it and I'm sorry. The upshot of this is that nature doesn't give a damn if animals suffer. However, as humans, we understand their suffering through having an anthropomorphic connection with them—we know what pain and suffering is, so it also hurts us to see them suffer.
That nature has left us with this horrible dichotomy is the problem—but it's our problem, not nature's! Many of us hate to see our food suffer whilst we're preparing it to eat, so much so that we usually leave it to the less squeamish in society to carry out the dirty work. I've seen animals killed and have partaken in eating them hours later but that hasn't lessened my concern that we need to take great care over the welfare of these animals and it's absolutely paramount that we do not let them suffer in the process of becoming our food.
As you'll have gathered I like my food very much but I'd suggest that vegans would have more chance of convincing me to adopt their ways than they would many others. Remember, at a pinch, I'll eat dry noodles and plain boiled lentils (if you've lived on army ration packs then you'll have learned to eat just about anything). However, I would suggest that convincing a statistically significant percentage of the population to adopt veganism when such a small† percentage of the population is now vegan will be extremely difficult. In a world that's already so picky about its food I just don't see it happening. In fact, I reckon that one may as well whistle Dixie.
† In my post on environmental veganism, I'll provide these statistics.
- Animal protein is superior to plant-based protein if you consider the natural amino acid profile. Plant-based protein simply lacks several amino acids and many sources aren't "complete" proteins. - Vitamin B12 is essential for the body and found almost exclusively animal proteins. A Vitamin B12 deficiency can be serious over time and lead to some nasty side effects. Of course, you can always supplement Vitamin B12 and eat fortified foods. My personal preference is to get as much vitamins and minerals from my diet. - Satiety. Animal proteins simply tend to be more satiating (at least for me). - Calorie content. It's really difficult to eat the calories needed on a vegan diet. A massive calorie deficit (especially long-term) can wreak havoc on your hormone profile and bring about a number of other health issues. - Animal overpopulation. If we don't hunt certain species of animals periodically, they'll overpopulate. Hunting keeps nature at a healthy balance of which the available habitat can support. The hunting license fees also support wildlife conservation so that we can protect wild animals and their natural habitats. frnkng mentioned wild boars... they serve as a great example of the threat to pose to farms, because they damage acres and acres of crops.
With that said, my diet varies throughout the week. I'll have moderate amounts of meat for a few days and then I'll switch to plant-based proteins for a few days. I find that it's better on my digestive system.
This really is the wrong way to argue.
So what was the situation before we developed tests to detect amino acids and Vitamin B12? Did vegans get to correctly argue that nutritionally plants were equivalent to animal foods? No.
Well they still incorrectly argue based on what you said that all that one needs to do be successful vegan is to eat a variety, take some b12 and some protein power and the nutritional aspect is taken care off, They can also they can argue that plants contain useful compounds not found in animal foods, how do you you argue?
My point being that must ultimately look at the health outcome of each food group experimentally.
I am not challenging the merits of vegetables, as I realize they are absolutely essential for optimal health. One needs at least a moderate source of protein and fats with a plentiful source of vegetables to support a healthy metabolism.
No I didn't saying you were arguing (in the negative sense of the word). I meant argue as in, argue a case, which has a neutral connotation.
>One needs at least a moderate source of protein and fats with a plentiful source of vegetables to support a healthy metabolism.
How do you know? Because research/science said so?
Empirically, infact many people have lots of digestive problems with vegetables. Some health problems AFAIK believe can be reliably traced to excess consumption of some vegetables.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
- Habit is part of it (cow's milk in hot drinks, for example)
- Availability is a factor (almost all products now have vegan substitutes, which is great, but they may not be so widely-distributed)
- Taste and presentation - while vegan meals can be as enjoyable as meat-based dishes, fewer chefs and restaurants seem to specialize in them currently (somewhat related to availability)
- Hesitation regarding change - change is always difficult, for people, communities, events and industries. It'd be best to minimize avoidable suffering to both humans and animals.
So far, protein/nutrition hasn't been a factor for me personally. If anything, I feel broadly healthier since reducing meat intake, although that effect could also be due to other lifestyle changes.
Perhaps readers might consider answering some less polarizing questions that help the author to get more relevant data:
1. Do you see eating vegetables as important for your diet?
2. Do you feel it’s important to care for animals? How would you best care for animals raised for food?
3. Would you consider eating less meat products if it benefitted society to do so?
4. Would you consider eating more vegetables if it benefitted society to do so?
5. Do you fear that vegetable protein alone is insufficient nutritionally?
6. If it were healthier to eat a diet of primarily vegetables and whole grains with less animal products, would you consider trying such a diet?
And so on...
My opinion: Animal products are deeply intertwined with human culture. The path to less animal suffering and more vegetable consumption is most likely one of reduction in meat eating as opposed to elimination.
Factory farms and slaughterhouses exist because of demand. If we all just worked toward less meat consumption—all 10 billion of us-we could probably make life better for humans and for all animals-not just those raised for food. It’s worth a try.
That's why I started with opposite premise: "if everyone would be vegan, why keep those animals alive", to get the conversation going.
Veganism is a first world luxury problem.
Eg. For cows, they "earn" the land with meat/milk.
Without that, the land would be reporposed ( not every country has available land in abundance) for other things. Eg. For growing crops
Every part of a pig is useful (skin, bristles, intestines, etc.). No part of the animal should be wasted.
- I eat fish and other animal-based non-meat products (eggs, milk) regularly for nutrition reasons. I tries going full vegan and ended up having trouble eating enough of everything. Probably a cultural thing -- I just never learned how to live like that.
- I very occasionally eat other types of meat to make sure my digestive system doesn't forget how to deal with it.
Also worth mentioning that I'm of the opinion that it's a roughly linear scale where the difference between 99 % vegan and 100 % vegan is small, and I'm okay being at 70 % the way there for the time being.
I have no doubt that we have a serious problem with the environment and that it's getting considerably worse as the world's population increases. Also, I've no doubt that those who engage in environmental veganism do so mostly for the best of reasons. However, I would contend that given the fact that vegans only represent a tiny percentage of the world's population, and that the world's population is exploding exponentially, that their net effect on the environment is negligible and likely to remain that way into the near future. To put it bluntly, they may as well be pissing in the wind for all that it matters.
Sure that comment seems unkind but let's look at the figures and then judge:
Current world pop: ≈7,800 million. [1]
No. of vegans sans India: ≈195 million, ≈2.5% of world pop. (max) [2]
No. of vegans in India: ≈375 million, ≈4.8% of world pop.[3]
∴ No. of vegans incl. India: ≈570 million, ≈7.3% of world pop. [3]
Est. world pop in 2100: Between 7,300 & 15,600 million [4]
(Thus, the world's largest block group of vegans will not follow the substantially higher growth rate as experienced by those outside its ranks as it's not subject to the modern popularity of veganism that's driving veganism elsewhere (exactly what the average annual growth rate in vegans is worldwide is still unclear). Thus, estimates of veganism growth rates must be based on the remaining 2.5% figure (as they're substantially higher in that group). Given that the vegan population outside the Indian group is effectively very small at only 2.5%, then it's clear that if veganism is to contribute in any significant way towards improving the world's ecosystem in the critically short time available left to us, then it will have to increase its growth rate very dramatically to achieve that impact (and on current figures this seems doubtful).
The enormous elephant in the room is population growth and it's not something that people other than demographers are taking with sufficient seriousness. Moreover, population growth is a factor that environmentalists have continually played down for decades, as they well know that proselytizing that people shouldn't have any children would severely undermine their mission. They, therefore, push every other factor that has a negative environmental impact on the planet for all it's worth. There's nothing wrong with this but given the figures it's unlikely to be enough to achieve what's necessary (as we need the population to fall rapidly). Moreover, to my mind, sweeping the elephant under the carpet is utter hypocrisy and sheer foolishness (remember, the upper estimate of the world's population by 2100 is 15.6 billion, if that figure were to be achieved then it would be a catastrophe).
As we've seen from the failure of China's one-child policy, no one wants to be told that they cannot have more than one child, and no government in the world would be game to impose a population growth limit of less than one child per person (even though some counties, albeit too few, are headed that way). In fact, many governments are concerned that their populations are declining for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the environment (and the fact that they think this way is a real problem). Of course, no one seriously criticizes them for wanting increased population numbers for the very reasons I've already stated.
Let's address this a little further. In my lifetime, the world's population has grown at least 250%—and I've noticed it and I don't like what I see for a multitude of infrastructural reasons. Moreover, at present, it's growing by nearly a billion people per decade and even though it's expected to stabilize eventually, it will not do so for some considerable time.
Now let's address what that actually means in practical terms: every child that is brought into the world will consume resources. For starters, during that individual's life he/she will consume about 100 tons of food (some estimates say 70). Can you envisage what 100 tons of food actually looks like? Now multiply that figure by eight, nine or ten billion. Then there's all the other goods and accoutrements one gathers throughout one's life—clothing, cars, houses, furniture, smartphones and computers (and these electronic devices use a number of valuable elements such as cobalt, tantalum, indium and others that are currently in very short supply). Then there's even more children that that child will bring into the world. Moreover, for vegans, your child may be wayward and decide not to follow your veganism. (It doesn't look good for the environment, does it?)
Simply, if we decrease the population then we lower the demand on every other type of resource proportionally (and that means proportionally less carbon dioxide is produced). In quantitative terms, reducing the population remains by far the best option to achieve a sustainable world—but one has to concede that it's also the most difficult to achieve.
Right, vegans will not consume quite as much of the world's resources per capita but each individual vegan will still consume a huge amount of resources including all those goods that everyone else will acquire. Then there's all that extra vegetable matter that they'll need to supplement and offset the fact that they are not consuming meat. Moreover, this extra bulk vegetable matter will require additional land to grow on—and that land area will need to be incremented even further given the fact that vegan food contains significantly less energy than does meat. Leafy vegetables have very few calories, carbohydrates, bread etc.: ≈5 calories/gram (≈21kJ/g); animal protein: 7 calories/g (29.4kJ/g); animal fat: 9 calories/g (37.8kJ/g).
In the end, given that vegans will also own homes, smartphones and lots of other junk as well as food-eating children, the net benefit of their efforts are unlikely to be anywhere near as effective as they would hope—or that they would have the rest of us believe. They will however assuage themselves of some degree of guilt and, no doubt, this will add a few happiness utiles to the world.
Vegans may be very sincere but the figures show that they're not going to make a huge difference in the little time we've left to rectify matters.
No matter what, the world has a huge problem left to solve in a very short time. It still remains very unclear how that will pan out (with population estimates varying wildly between 7,300 and 15,600 million by 2100, then the only thing that is clear is that we still have no definitive plan about how to tackle the problem let alone be way down the path towards fixing it.
[1] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populat...)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country)
[3] Note: India's huge number of vegans is based on centuries-old custom, and thus this number is lower and more constant when it comes to measuring the potential growth of veganism. Check the other links for specific details.
The HN item links to a lecture given by Baez on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUqqQXFTHUY.
He discusses issues that mathematics faces in the 21st Century and as part of that he discusses what both mathematics and mathematicians can do in the new Anthropocene epoch (human era) and he raises the subject of the greatest challenges humankind is now facing such as the high level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, dangerous changes to the biosphere and global warming (even veganism gets a mention).
At 33:24 into the lecture, he quotes the following point on a slide:
"Consider having fewer children or adopting. In the US each extra child adds 9,400 tonnes of carbon dioxide to the air" [over his/her lifetime of 80 yrs].
He goes on to say the statement is controversial and gets people annoyed, and they get extremely emotional about it.
You can download Baez's lecture slides here: https://topos.site/topos-colloquium/assets/slides-2021-03-25...
And the source of his reference comes from here: https://terra.oregonstate.edu/2011/05/one-less-child/ Quote:
" The Oregon State University professor of statistics and OSU colleague Michael Schlax published a paper in the journal Global Environmental Change describing an individual’s “carbon legacy” — the amount of carbon likely to be emitted in the future by one’s descendants. Parents, they reasoned, could be held accountable for one half of their children’s emissions, one quarter of their grandchildren’s and declining portions down through the generations."
I was unaware of these new statistics until now but I'm not the least surprised at what they show. As I've already mentioned in my earlier post, the Green/Environmental movement has deliberately played down these stats for decades as the subject is so sensitive. Baez also makes the point to the effect that if no one mentions the issue then it remains in the background and it won't go away.
As I've discussed earlier, the biggest elephant in the room is population growth. The fact that many people find the subject very confronting and too unpalatable to discuss is a great problem for the human race. As we've seen before, this issue is almost too 'hot' to handle and it's a game person who mentions it—as it's a case of 'shooting the messenger' for anyone who does.
For example, Stanford Professor Paul R. Ehrlich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich) and his wife Anne received considerable criticism for their widely read 1968 book The Population Bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb. That said, the Ehrlichs published that book 53 years ago and I'd suggest that now, given the huge amounts of newly-measured environmental data and much more sophisticated models of climate change, it will be much harder to dispute these claims.
Given the subject's very controversial and emotional nature, I doubt that the passage of time will have made its acceptance any easier to swallow.
__
† Baez's Wiki bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Baez