nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Applied Vegetarianism

minusorange

Vegetarianism for me is just a lifestyle choice that I don't impose on anybody else, least of all my pet dog. I became a vegetarian because I don't think eating animal protein is healthy. The opposite is true for my furry friend. Meat is an essential part of his diet and I think it would be cruel to allow my personal opinions effect his well being. But what if I was a strict vegan and thought the killing of animals was the worst kind of cruelty?

How do I reconcile

A) Denying an animal (which you are in control of and responsible for) it's most basic dietary requirements.

with

The systematic (though necessary?) murder of defenceless animals.

A is dependent on B
B is necessary for A

This isn't intended to be a kind of ethical paradox. I expect it's been addressed somewhere before but I haven't come across it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Child Item

Comments

ChocolateSauce

minusorange wrote: »

Vegetarianism for me is just a lifestyle choice that I don't impose on anybody else, least of all my pet dog. I became a vegetarian because I don't think eating animal protein is healthy. The opposite is true for my furry friend. Meat is an essential part of his diet and I think it would be cruel to allow my personal opinions effect his well being. But what if I was a strict vegan and thought the killing of animals was the worst kind of cruelty?

Please forgive me for saying, but I cannot understate this: It is very intellectually injurious to be a vegetarian because you believe animal protein is bad for you. I'm a scientist, and I can tell you that of your non-calcium dry body weight, the majority of it is animal protein. Animal protein is very good for you, and is largely the very same stuff which regulates your own body. Humans are naturally omnivorous and we have evolved over the last 4 million years eating meat. If four million years of meat eating hasn't harmed our species (or our cousins), it isn't going to harm us now. Anyway, you've probably decided not to eat mean for other reasons.

How do I reconcile

A) Denying an animal (which you are in control of and responsible for) it's most basic dietary requirements.

with

The systematic (though necessary?) murder of defenceless animals.

A is dependent on B
B is necessary for A

This isn't intended to be a kind of ethical paradox. I expect it's been addressed somewhere before but I haven't come across it.

It's very simple in my eyes. You need to decide which is worse, supporting an industry you think is cruel, or being cruel yourself by denying your pet his basic needs. Maybe you could get his food in the form of scraps from a butcher for free? They'll be scraps regardless of if your dog eats them or not.

Evilsbane

minusorange wrote: »

How do I reconcile

A) Denying an animal (which you are in control of and responsible for) it's most basic dietary requirements.

with

The systematic (though necessary?) murder of defenceless animals.

I know this doesn't help you much, but would you be less hesitant about meat if the animal WEREN'T defenseless? It's just occurred to me that no-one eats the meat of carnivores. It's always herbivores that reach my plate. It seems we hold animals like the wolf and the lion in high esteem as 'noble' creatures, and so we feel no guilt about eating less 'noble' creatures like the cow even though between a cow and a lion, a cow would be more docile.

I'm not suggesting that we all switch to eating lion but it strikes me as odd that humans get along better with animals that are more likely to try and bite/claw them (such as cats and dogs), simply because they appear to be more intelligent.

With that said...

To prevent animals being killed for food, we would have to starve half the animals in the world to death. Frankly, I think the food chain is there for a reason, and if mankind didn't farm cows for food then they'd probably be extinct by now (they're not too bright, nor fast enough to escape predators). In fact, I read recently that buffalo, which had nearly been hunted to extinction, were not extinct mostly because they're now farmed and so get treated like kings compared to their previous fight for survival.

In my opinion, I think humans already are way ahead of the rest of the animals in that at least we have rules to prevent the animals we eat from suffering. A lion, for example, would just rip a cow's throat out and let it bleed out. A komodo dragon bites its prey and waits for it to die a slow, painful death from septicaemia.

All of which is my way of saying that your dog likes meat and has no moral objections to eating it. If you think that makes it cruel, then you've bought the wrong kind of pet, to be honest. Try goldfish :P

minusorange

Regarding animal protein.

The China Study, if your not familiar with it, was the largest and most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted, carried out over 20 years by Oxford University and the Chinese Academy of Preventative Medicine. It explored the link between the consumption of animal products and the development of breast, bowel and prostate cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity and auto-immune diseases amongst many others. Resulting in "8000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease.” and confirming that “People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease and people who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored" - Dr T. Colin Campbell. The resulting book discusses in detail the link between animal protein and high blood pressure for example, and all it’s associated conditions. It also explores the relationship between the phosphoprotein casein and breast cancer, heart disease and tumour development. At one point Dr Campbell says that he can “switch on and off” cancer growth in mice by administering casein. This group of proteins account for up to 80% of proteins found in cheese and cow’s milk.

I'm not a scientist so I have to put my faith in people that are. I've only read The China Study by Dr Campbell, the study’s commercial publication. As a scientist you might have access to the hundreds of peer reviewed journals his research was printed in over the course of two decades.

If you disagree with his findings you will at least prove that nutrition is a highly contentious area of study. As a member of the general public the best I can do is make the most informed decision based on the information at hand. I believe that’s what I’ve done. I don’t think I’m being ‘intellectually injurious’ as you put it. If I am you can also charge the following with being the same, all of whom lavished praise upon the findings of the china study.

Robert C. Richardson, PHD, Nobel Prize winning Professor of Physics, Cornell University.

Marilyn Gentry, President of the American Institute for Cancer Research.

Sushma Palmer, Former Executive Director, Food and Nutrition Board, U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Junshi Chen, Senior Research Professor, Institute of Nutrition and Food Safety.

Neal Barnard, President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Regarding my original point.

When I asked "How do I reconcile.." I was placing myself in the shoes of a strict vegan with strong moral principles regarding the use of animals. It's not a question I was asking myself, or even you, I was merely trying to highlight a possible contradiction in ethical standards. I have one over zealous vegan friend who can be a bit aggressive towards those that eat meat and as a result support the killing of animals. Despite this he thinks nothing of buying canned dog food and fails to notice the almost laughable hypocrisy he is guilty of. He is himself in breech of his own ethical standards by supporting an industry that he believes is immoral. It's something I noticed before and I thought I'd ask your opinion. I should have explained myself better.

one-angry-dwarf

Evilsbane wrote: »

A lion, for example, would just rip a cow's throat out and let it bleed out.

Very often that's pretty much the way we do it too. bolt guns are expensive. a big knife isn't.

Evilsbane

one-angry-dwarf wrote: »

Very often that's pretty much the way we do it too. bolt guns are expensive. a big knife isn't.

I was under the impression that simply bleeding an animal to death was illegal? The law states that any unnecessary or avoidable suffering is a summary offense.

ChocolateSauce

I'll give my thoughts on the China study as I go along. I've just entered the website.

My very first thought it that it is interesting it comes in a book and not a journal. Of course, books are often the final verdict of many studies.

I'm slightly suspicious of the phrase "Ignored by the mainstream media". Proper science is ignored by the media all the time. It isn't the mainstream a scientific work should be pandering to, it's the peer-reviewed journal medium.

Another thing I would be wary of is that they blame obesity squarely on animal proteins, not even mentioning lack of exercise, over-eating, thyroid disorders, genetic pre-dispositions to obesity, viral links to obesity, and so on.

A good deal of their work goes on "western" diseases, mainly caused by sterols, cholesterol in particular. There is nothing groundbreaking in that, it is known that large amounts of cholesterol is bad for you. It is also known that not enough cholesterol is bad for you. They're "western" because our lifestyles have caused us to become unhealthy, mostly through eating too much fat, which is of course found primarily in meat and butter.

The authors state that the consumption of animal protein increases the acidity of blood and tissues and that to neutralize this acid, calcium, a very effective base, is pulled from the bones.

To the best of my knowledge, this is untrue. If the pH of our blood changed by even 0.1, we'd get very ill and possibly die. To ensure this doesn't happen, there is a buffer in the blood which conjugates the pH as is required. Indeed, of all the ions in the blood, none is as sensitive as calcium. Even the tiniest change of blood Ca can lead to death, so to think it is pulled from the bones to combat blood pH change is rather absurd. The fact that the authors didn't know this should be setting off alarms.

It is worth noting of in the book "The China Study", only 39 of 350 pages are actually devoted to said study. Also worth noting is that from "8000 statistically significant associations", Campbell was able to draw one single, unifying principle. That's a pretty tall order indeed, I mean, they ALL point to the same thing? Such a proposition is frankly preposterous.

After following several links and reading for over an hour, I can safely and without reservation dismiss the book entitled "The China Study" as shoddy, dishonest science with a mind to call it vegan propaganda.

Don't fret minusorange, to the non-scientific (aka most people's) eye it can look very convincing, and that is the point. The authors are not trying to do science, they're trying to gain support for their cause. I'm not going to condemn vegans, and I'm certainly not going to hold it against people who are taken in by something which is frankly designed to take them in (it took me an hour of reading before I decided, ok, this is BS), but I will definitely condemn the dishonest use of science to further one's own agenda. I'd recommend looking at the sources in the wikipedia entry for the book for more info.

minusorange

I honestly cant believe that a scientist would dismiss something so easily without having even read it.

It is not at all interesting that it comes as a book. I said in an earlier post that the book itself is only a commercial release. The China Study proper was released as a peer reviewed journal which is mentioned right from the start of the book. Actually reading something before commenting on it is pretty good practice.

I cant comment on or criticise the remainder of your post however. You obviously know what your talking about and I wont embarrass myself by getting into a scientific argument.

The only reason I referred to this book was because you seemed to regard my personal opinions as frivolous. I don't claim to have all the answers. I try to keep up to date with current scientific trends and arguments but I have no scientific education. So the type of material I read is the type found in bookstores. Not scientific journals. If a book like the china study can receive such praise and positive feedback from such respected institutions, the reality is someone like myself will be satisfied with the information it provides.

You might label the book as vegan propaganda but I want to make it perfectly clear that I made no effort to promote this book. I'm seriously opposed to the idea of pushing questionable science on people as part of a social/political agenda and I resent the tone you seemed to adopt toward the end of your last post, which I felt was directed at me and not the book.

Ultimately, I can only base my opinions on information I deem to be proven correct. Preferably information that is supported and validated by people or institutions that I can trust, knowing they accept only the highest standards of empirical evidence. If tomorrow morning the china study was proven to be complete rubbish and Dr Campbell revealed as a crackpot vegan I would be very surprised, but more so disappointed in the large number of universities, government health boards and medical professionals who would then seem to have very poor scientific standards. Not to mention the Nobel prize winning physicist who's standards could very well even surpass yours.

For the time being I'll prefer the argument put forward by Dr Campbell to yours. If I'm wrong I can busy myself questioning the integrity of a large part of the scientific community.

minusorange

I see you edited your last post since I first read it. So I take back what I said about the particular tone I thought you were directing towards me. It did appear that way in your original post though. I fully agree with the point your last paragraph makes. I try my best to avoid such propaganda and usually do a pretty good job of it. You were correct in your original post when you said there may be additional reasons for my being vegetarian. I do get tired of being laughed at and I was perhaps relieved when reading the china study to have come across a plan B for dealing with inconsiderate pigs! Anyway, now I can say I had a debate with a scientist!:)

minusorange

ChocolateSauce

minusorange wrote: »

The only reason I referred to this book was because you seemed to regard my personal opinions as frivolous.

I'm sorry if I sounded that way, it wasn't my intention.

Anyway, you seem to be well informed.. The China study (the study, not the book) doesn't draw conclusions like "it's bad to eat meat", it is simply a large amount of data which needs to be interpreted. I very much respect your commitment to what you read, many many people would simply form their own conclusions and cling to them.

And I could of course be wrong. I don't believe I am, but this is just my humble opinion. I'd recommend you keep seeking answers for yourself, and not rely solely on what you're told by scientists. Of course, you seem good at that already!

ChocolateSauce

minusorange wrote: »

I see you edited your last post since I first read it. So I take back what I said about the particular tone I thought you were directing towards me. It did appear that way in your original post though. I fully agree with the point your last paragraph makes. I try my best to avoid such propaganda and usually do a pretty good job of it. You were correct in your original post when you said there may be additional reasons for my being vegetarian. I do get tired of being laughed at and I was perhaps relieved when reading the china study to have come across a plan B for dealing with inconsiderate pigs! Anyway, now I can say I had a debate with a scientist!:)

No bother, sorry again if I was a bit too confrontational. I would add that there are a number of known advantages to not eating meat (totally aside from the moral question), probably the most obvious being that it's hard to eat unhealthily on vegetables!

gondorff

minusorange wrote: »

inconsiderate pigs

Defenceless animals.

In what way are pigs inconsiderate?

minusorange

gondorff wrote: »

Defenceless animals.

In what way are pigs inconsiderate?

It's a turn of phrase. Your not half as witty as you think you are!

How about adding to an articulate conversation with something worth reading?

minusorange

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

No bother, sorry again if I was a bit too confrontational. I would add that there are a number of known advantages to not eating meat (totally aside from the moral question), probably the most obvious being that it's hard to eat unhealthily on vegetables!

This really is the holy grail of veggie arguments.:)

I followed the links you recommended which I really enjoyed (honestly!). I don't think I would have made such a confident post earlier if I were familiar with these criticisms. I suppose it's a lesson learned. Seeking out information that is universally proven and accepted as fact is really all I'm trying to do. If I have to swallow my pride along the way then so be it.

Thanks for the info and advice!

minusorange

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

No bother, sorry again if I was a bit too confrontational. I would add that there are a number of known advantages to not eating meat (totally aside from the moral question), probably the most obvious being that it's hard to eat unhealthily on vegetables!

This really is the holy grail of veggie arguments.:)

I followed the links you recommended which I really enjoyed (honestly!). I don't think I would have made such a confident post earlier if I were familiar with these criticisms. I suppose it's a lesson learned. Seeking out information that is universally proven and accepted as fact is really I'm trying to do. If I have to swallow my pride along the way then so be it.

Thanks for the info and advice!

ChocolateSauce

minusorange wrote: »

This really is the holy grail of veggie arguments.:)

I followed the links you recommended which I really enjoyed (honestly!). I don't think I would have made such a confident post earlier if I were familiar with these criticisms. I suppose it's a lesson learned. Seeking out information that is universally proven and accepted as fact is really I'm trying to do. If I have to swallow my pride along the way then so be it.

Thanks for the info and advice!

Glad to help! Here's another little thing: There is no such thing as "proof" in science, only very high probability. If I have 10 studies which show x is good, and 15 that show x is bad, which do you believe? Hard to tell, and just because there are more which show it is bad doesn't make it so. You might have 3 that show y is bad, and 50 that show y is neither good nor bad. You have then weigh up the evidence and make your choices in that context.

Even gravity is "only" a theory, meaning that while we have our mathematical models to explain it, what happens is a better model is developed? Does that mean the old model was wrong? This actually happened when Einstein came up with his theory of gravity, which is much better the Newton's. Newton's isn't wrong or false, it just isn't as good. Some day someone may best Einstein!

taibhse

From a philosophical rather than a scientific point of view, I would say that you couldn't reconcile "hardcore" veganism with feeding your pet meat.

If you were a hardcore vegan, surely you shouldn't own a pet? Is this not a bit contradictory to have ownership over a living creature when you do not believe animals should serve any purpose for humans?

As a veggie I wouldnt have as extreme views as those which you have mentioned. I do have a cat and I do feed it meat. In my view, humans do not have to eat meat to be healthy and can survive perfectly well without it. We have the intelligence to be able to empathise with animals and can make the decision to abstain from eating meat. Cats and dogs can't do this. They are carnivores they need to eat meat, they cant choose not to. They have hunting instincts, which people cannot suppress, it's their natural behaviour.

MarkTheChap

I would say that I used to be a vegetarian but now I'm joining the reserves and so I have to meat up

Donny5

MarkTheChap wrote: »

I would say that I used to be a vegetarian but now I'm joining the reserves and so I have to meat up

The DF have vegetarian options.

deereidy

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Please forgive me for saying, but I cannot understate this: It is very intellectually injurious to be a vegetarian because you believe animal protein is bad for you. I'm a scientist, and I can tell you that of your non-calcium dry body weight, the majority of it is animal protein. Animal protein is very good for you, and is largely the very same stuff which regulates your own body. Humans are naturally omnivorous and we have evolved over the last 4 million years eating meat. If four million years of meat eating hasn't harmed our species (or our cousins), it isn't going to harm us now. Anyway, you've probably decided not to eat mean for other reasons.

It's very simple in my eyes. You need to decide which is worse, supporting an industry you think is cruel, or being cruel yourself by denying your pet his basic needs. Maybe you could get his food in the form of scraps from a butcher for free? They'll be scraps regardless of if your dog eats them or not.

What kind of scientist?? It's a pretty broad term and doesn't add much credence to your comment

Joycey

Have a read of this folks. Interesting stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/an-animal-s-place.html?pagewanted=1

Pretty horrific reading at times...

Child Item