Kip

Hello GPL.

I am still not exactly how serious your original post was. But for whatever reason I will defend the vegetarian position here and I would love to have a reasonable discussion of the issues. I have discovered that the decision of how we eat is one of the most important decisions we make in our life and too often we are uninformed or apathetic. I think the approval of flesh-eating is a widespread illusion or mistake not unlike the widespread belief in a God or Gods. Indeed, I think vegetarianism and atheism are both minority positions that are better informed and more honest than the majority positions.

Would you believe me if I said that I would do that? Indeed, there is no doubt that I would. You might scoff at that idea but I think the question is deceptively subtle. I also suspect the confidence in your decision may wane as you approach your deathbed. It is very easy to casually dismiss the advantage of an extra few years while we live with deceptively bountiful youth but could an old, decaying, cancerous man on his deathbed be so secure with his refusal to eat wafers?

Let's do the math here. We are not talking about an extra 6 years, much less five or less years (for which I would nevertheless make dramatic sacrifices). We are not even talking about one decade, or two decades, or even three. We are talking about 4 decades of extra life. Now you may raise questions about the quality of life. I assume that we are not considering four decades of sickly, cancerous life, and likewise, we are not considering 4 decades of super-athletic, youthful life. So we can compromise and consider the relatively disease-free life of a middle-aged person about 50 years old (drastically decreasing as the person ages).

If 6 years is a long time, 4 decades is a very, very long time. How many historical figures never even reached the age of forty? How much can be accomplished in 40 years with today's technology?

This hypothetical person, however, will not work with today's technology. I was born in 1981 so if I ate your wafers I would witness the turn of the 22 century before dying. I would die in the year 2101. Most futurists cannot even fathom what the world will be like in the year 2101 and do not bother trying. Many informed observers are convinced that the human race will reach a "Singularity" as early as the year 2050, fifty years before I would even die. Considering the genetic revolution and the potentials of nanotechnology, I think we can safely say that new discoveries during the next 100 years will further supplement my wafer lifespan to beyond the year 2101, and that new discoveries will be made during this extended, extended period, and so on, so that my lifespan would be indefinite.

So, yes, I could content myself to eat wafers.

Of course this argument can work both ways. I am sure there are many pleasurable activities whose risk of injury is so high, instead of so low, that the idea of experiencing them despite the risk is ridiculous. Jumping out of a plane without a parachute is probably, not considering the certain death, a very exciting activity. So, there must be a scale, with a skiing on one end and parachuteless plan leaving on the other. The question is at what point on this scale do we refrain from the activity?

My only response to you is that I am afraid that you have drastically overestimated the advantages of eating meat. I would surely miss driving a car or taking plane (although I do not like to ski precisely because skiing is dangerous and I never was any good). But I do not eat meat and I do not miss meat. Even as a non-vegetarian I did not eat much meat because the meat was too greasy and the hard kernals of fat sickened me. Perhaps you would miss eating animal flesh so much that you would drastically increase your risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. In that case, we are simply different people, and I will probably live six years more than you (the years will probably be 2044 to 2050).

I would also like to mention that accidents (such as planes, trains, cars, stairs) are the fifth leading cause of death, BEHIND cancer, stroke and heart disease, and that the majority of these accidents are alcohol related:

<a href="http://www.ritecode.com/aerobicgardening/topkill.html" target="_blank">http://www.ritecode.com/aerobicgardening/topkill.html</a>

Indeed, the risk of dying by accident is only 13% of the risk of dying by heart disease. So simply avoiding alcohol (although you cannot force other drivers to avoid alcohol) will dramatically reduce a risk of death that is already significantly less than the risk of cancer and heart disease vegetarians avoid.

Again, I wonder how you came to feel that the consumption of animal flesh is such an essential and wonderful part of your life. I cannot help but suspect that you are simply exaggerating whatever "taste" advantage there is to eating animal flesh simply to support your anti-vegan argument. Perhaps meat is a "fantastic delight", I tend to think the meat is pretty slimy, greasy, and gross. The more I learn more about factory farming and the slaughter, bleeding, amputating and skinning of conscious cattle, the more meat tends to lose its aesthetic and culinary appeal. But learning about plant food production has yet to ruin my appetite for a burrito with spicy soy meat, whole grain granola with nuts and brown sugar, or South Indian sweet potatoes and black beans with a large salad. The thought that I am eating healthy food that will extend my life also adds a psychic appeal to the vegetarian diet.

Also, as I argue above, 6 years of life is not a "wee bit" and such statements are an insult to the people who die young each year of terminal diseases. I think people can only make such rash statements from deceptively comfortable position of youth.

As for your assertion that disease is largely "genetic" related, of course genetics is a factor is disease but the claim that genetics is a "far more" significant factor, much less that doctors would agree, is simply not supported by science and betrays an ignorance of the facts. I do not have the time to dig up the many scientific studies and quotes from informed persons but I can upon request. There is a quote, for example, from a former surgeon general to the effect that nothing is more influencial than diet upon the health of the American people.

This is an honest and important question, and also the primary reason I decided to respond. The standard vegan answer, when you finally discovery it, is not very convincing. The vegans claim that we evolved a diet for B-12 because the world used to be far less clean and B-12, which is produced by bacteria, was available is dirtier water and skin, etc. I am not strongly suggesting that idea, although there may be some truth to the claim.

What I will say is that:

1. Asking annoying questions that imply veganism is not healthy does not alter the undeniable evidence that veganism is very healthy and far more healthy than nonvegetarianism. Asking why vegans need B-12 does not, for example, alter the fact that vegans live 6 years longer.

2. Vegans need to supplement B-12 because the available diet to humans is not theoretically ideal. If there were plant foods that produced B-12, we would eat that. Unfortuntely there are not. We have to do the best with what we have. Veganism in this world may not be perfect, we may need to supplement B-12, however, that does not imply that non-veganism is somehow superior. The arguments "non-meaters need supplements, meat eaters do not, THEREFORE meat eating is superior" or "vegans need to supplement B-12, THEREFORE veganism is not healthy" are bad arguments. The best available option may not be ideal, but still the best we have.

That said, I sympathize with you. The question is important. A third reason is probably that veganism is slightly extreme. I do not feel, however, that the question begins to invalidate or undermine the obvious benefits of eating a plant-based diet. Our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, have diets of about 5% meat, which, although drastically less than Americans eat, is still 5% more than vegans eat. Perhaps those scraps is where early humans obtained B-12.

In summary, whatever alleged problems vegetarianism may cause are rare and usually the result of an unhealthy vegetarian diet (not vegetarianism itself), for example trying to create infant formula from soy milk. There are also studies that suggest health advantages. One study found that vegetarian children had higher IQs (so do atheists). There is no evidence whatsoever that vegetarian children are necessarily malnourished (spelling?) and, of course, there are millions of healthy adults and athlete who were raised vegetarian.

I would recommend simply learning more about plant based diets and how varied and delicious they can be. Perhaps learning more about the conditions of modern factory farming, if you have ethical concerns about eating animals (who are often fed the ground up remains of other animals) would also help. The primary obstacle seems to be your love for your precious animal flesh. All I can say is "gross".

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Kip ]</p>

Kip

please delete repeat post

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Kip ]</p>

Happy Wonderer

Just wanted to say that I think that was a great post. As a more-or-less vegetarian I too am surprised by the hostile reaction that I get. I generally try not to make a point of what I eat, but sometimes you do have to let friends know so that they don't spend hours making a chicken dish that you won't eat. If it wasn't for that, I don't think that I'd tell anybody.

HW

seanie

Originally posted by Strawberry:

So suffice to say that nobody is going to change anyone else's position on the issue and everybody has something to say about it.

Correct. So let's at least try to inject a little humour along the way.

Just 'cause someone is vegan doesn't mean that they are putting your meat-eating future in jeopardy.

Simply following a vegan diet, no. But for many vegans it is a moral issue. Slaughtering animals and eating their flesh is wrong. It should stop. I don't care that other people choose not to eat meat. However they do care that I choose to eat meat. What I'm doing is a best morally dubious and at worst evil. And since they have righteous moral indignation on their side the vegans are likely to win in the long run. A burger and a beer can induce a terrible lethargic apathy.

Please, please, please, be respectful. I know lots of vegans who are really cool people taking part in one alternative lifestyle out of the myriad of options. They're proud of who they are! Remind them to be respectful if you feel they're out of line, but don't condemn them as a group, because no matter what anyone says, stereotypes *never* hold.

Great. I fully respect their right to pick and choose their lifestyles. And if they don't condemn my eating of meat I won't condemn their constant eating of salad and tofu.

I'm not vegan, but I don't eat any meat. I preach as little as possibly because I hate the concept of preaching in general, but I do agree with all the tree-hugging vegan arguments presented above. If I thought I could go vegan and eat a responsible diet that still included chocolate, I might even (if only briefly) consider it.

You can get vegan chocolate (although I'm guessing it tastes crap.)

Nevertheless, when "the" conversation comes up with my omnivorous friends--and it inevitably does--a lot of people are surprisingly angry about my dietary choices.

Your friends are your choice. It's not my fault if they're intolerant idiots.

I have been told a lot of things about "us vegetarians," and let me just say how the stereotyping never makes anybody want to be anything but hostile and hurt.

I sympathise, I really do. The blanket statements you cite are ridiculous (I'd quibble the word hilarious).

However in the course of this thread I as a meat-eater have been told I'm selfish, scared, hysterical, lacking empathy, destroying the environment and the economy, a reasonable target for self-righteous indignation, less informed, less honest, morally dubious, indulging in a mistaken illusion akin to theism, going to die sooner, and that I probably have a lower IQ.

Gee, that really puts me in an easy-going frame of mind.

Anyhow. Enough of this. I just see some of the anti-vegans here being as malicious and preachy as the militant vegans themselves. I'd like to hope that even if you "don't like vegans," you'll still show enough respect (not to mention maturity) to hear them out and then respond *civilly* with your own views.

I strenuously object to this.

I'm not being malicious and preachy.

I'm being malicious and sarcastic.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: seanie ]</p>

The AntiChris

That's nothing.

You should check out some of the previous threads on this topic!

Chris

seanie

What really annoys me is that they hardly know me, yet they've got me down to a tee.

It's just a lucky, lucky guess on their part.

Pseudonymph

Wow...I've never come accross such a self serving attitude in my whole life.


*correction* The majority of people who eat meat probably have the exact same attitude you do...you just seem to able to admit it freely. Kudos to you.

Personally I've never seen a better reason from a meat eater for eating meat then "I like the taste so fuck off".

I always hear the argument that children love meat and will gobble it up. This is true. They will also gobble up handfuls of glass and tinfoil if you were to feed it to them. Feeding your children meat occasionaly obviously will not harm them, but why not teach them little healthier habbits earlier on? Far too often I see parents feeding kids this total crap food(IE most fast food) You are setting these children up for health habbits that are going to kill them at a young age.

This is not dogma, or speculation, or anectdotal stories. This is evidence and should you demand I provide some proof I will be more than happy to swamp you with it.

I don't believe it is morally wrong to kill an animal for your sole survival, but I highly doubt any mcdonalds goers would hunt down a deer if the need arised.

I do not think that meat eaters are immoral bastards...I do however think that most are ignorant of just what they are doing to themselves. In the long long run, constantly eating foods high in saturated fat and cholesterol(red meat, chief among these) will cost you years of your life, and if you do survive that first heart attack, you better hope your leg doesnt mind having it's main vein removed to sustain the damaged one in your chest.

I don't wish to make anyone stop eating whatever they want. I wish only to make people aware of what they are doing to themselves.

Seanie...you've been very candid and scathing in your remarks thus far and now it's my turn...If people choose to ignore what is established health principals and eat and drink themselves into oblivion, I have no problem with that. Natural selection and evolution exist for a reason, and people like this won't be societies problem for any solid length of time.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: SirenSpeak ]</p>

seanie

Wrong.

Natural selection and evolution do not exist for a reason.

And by the time my alcohol corroded liver and my furred arteries claim me I'll have already infested the world with my desired number of inferior progeny.

There's already one of 'em. She's 18 months olds and called Etta.

Kip

Perhaps others have but I would not accuse you of any of those (except destroying the environment, which factory farming can do). I do not even know you.

But which of these is not true? In my experience carnivores DO tend to be less informed about the issues of factory farming and the relationship between meat meating and heightened risk of death. Contributing to or approving of the amputation, bleeding, skinning, gutting, stunning and killing of billions of cattle IS morally dubious. Or do you find such actions obviously righteous? In my experience the idea that meat-eating is healthy, normal, or acceptable IS a sort of mistaken illusion that the majority believes, not unlike theism. And finally, vegetarians do tend to have higher IQs than meat eaters and you DO eat meat. You may draw your own conclusions.

Pseudonymph

Uh...Did you take a high school biology course?

Natural selection exists to keep the planet from overpopulating and running out of resources. Evolution is the idea that beneficial and healthful changes or habbits are awarded and detrimental attributes will leave you behind...

(oh and to the experts...please no arguments about evolution etc...that's for another thread...)