Is Veganism Really the Optimal Choice?

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Keith

Changing to a healthy vegan diet requires some nutritional knowledge and planning. I wonder how many of the vegans you've spoken to didn't take that seriously?

A big trap is to just stop eating meat and fail to replace it with sufficient vegetable protein (nuts, seeds, grains & legumes - in combination, preferably).

You can get everything you need (except probably B12) from vegan sources, but it requires a rethink of how you eat. And, at the beginning, you have to start all over at the Unconscious Incompetence stage...

A big trap of stop eating meat? lol

and........

Changing to a healthy vegan diet requires some nutritional knowledge and planning.

LOL

This is just cracking me up.....as if the majority of ominvores on their cancer inducing artery busting western diet of processed gunk sit down and plan their meals, lol.

Oh! I forgot, we have the guidance of the western government food pyramids........groan

[gberardi]

Well, the problem with the standard diet is that people don't plan out their meals, and then they wonder why they have health problems. The problem being described is someone who stops eating meat and doesn't think to eat more than one or two types of fruit or vegetable.

And then the meat-eaters point and say, "See? I knew you couldn't last on that diet", and because this new vegetarian was somehow supposed to be an expert on vegetarian nutrition, the meat-eaters become convinced that a vegetarian diet isn't healthy.

Anytime you do something that puts you in the minority and requires a conscious decision, people question your actions/motives, and they expect you to know all of the answers. Whether you prefer Free/Open Source to proprietary programs or eat a vegan diet, you somehow become THE example to your friends and family of an entire movement or organization. If you can't just answer "simple" questions, your inability becomes proof that you are wrong, or at least that they are right.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Stephen

A big trap of stop eating meat and then not getting enough protein from plant sources? lol
and........
Changing to a healthy vegan diet requires some nutritional knowledge and planning.
LOL
This is just cracking me up.....as if the majority of ominvores on their cancer inducing artery busting western diet of processed gunk sit down and plan their meals, lol.

No they don't plan their meals. And they're hideously unhealthy for it. Do you really want the same for new vegans?

Say someone on your "cancer-inducing artery-busting omnivorous diet of processed gunk" becomes vegan without planning what they're going to eat.

Odds are they just end up eating a cancer-inducing artery-busting vegan diet of processed gunk instead. Then they get just as sick from a fat-rich and sugar-rich diet as the average westerner.

And despite your ridicule, the average omnivore does obtain some vitamins and minerals almost exclusively from meat, fish, eggs and dairy (B12 is a big one).

If they become vegan, and don't figure out how to meet those needs in a vegan context, they risk malnourishment (B12 is, again, particularly insidious because it takes a long time to show).

It is irresponsible and dangerous to mocking the importance of nutrition in a vegan diet (or any other). I find it disturbing that you're more interested in scoring cheap points than in people's health.

P.S. I added back in the important bit of text that you conveniently forgot when you quoted me (in bold).

[escapee]

less meat means longer lives

Those studied were either vegans, who eat no meat, fish, eggs or dairy products, vegetarians, who eat eggs and dairy products, but no meat or fish, and occasional meat eaters.

Across the group, there was an average of 59 deaths for every 100 deaths in that age range in the general population during that period.

But completely avoiding meat was not the healthiest diet, the researchers found.

For every 100 deaths among vegans, there were 66 among vegetarians and 60 among occasional meat eaters.

[escapee]

The study also includes the comparison between smoker and non smokers ,

Amongst smokers, the mortality rate was 70% higher than non-smokers ( Do you believe in this correlation ? ), while those who took the most exercise reduced their mortality rates by more than 30%. Moderate alcohol made no discernible difference to lifespan, the researchers concluded.

Therefore to live a longer and healthier live .. here is my own summary

1 ) Maintain an active daily physical activities

2 ) Predominantly whole food plant based diet with little meat intake (preferably fish?)

3 ) No smoking and no excessive alcohol consumption



Is there anything to add or modify on the list ?

[bix]

Amongst smokers, the mortality rate was 70% higher than non-smokers ( Do you believe in this correlation ? ) ...

It does not matter at all whether or not I believe in it. Intense smoking has been shown not only to correlate with a decreased lifespan but also to cause it. Being vegeterian, as far as I know, has not.

There have been links to articles on this forum which talk about the reverse correlation between being vegeterian and living long years.

So, yes, I think you have been a little too fast with your list.

[escapee]

Likewise , eating a rich vege diet has been linked to decrease in heart disease rate, cancer and various chronic diseases . The proof is every where . and it doesnt matter i believe it or not .

So, yes, I think you have been a little too fast with your list.]

You are a little fast in reading my post .The second list is not a vegetarian diet but i appreciate your comment on my proposed list ..

We are here to share knowledge about ways to promote longevity( yeah putting aside the ethical treatment of animals ) , lets not discuss in way that will increase our blood pressure ( at least to me )

[bix]

You are a little fast in reading my post . Second list is not a vegetarian diet .

No, I am not. I did notice that your item 2 was not for a vegeterian. The reason I think you have been too fast with this item is that it is too vague. Just how dominant do the whole food plants have to be? How much meat is allowed? Noone here disputes the value of eating plants, so telling that in order to live longer you should eat plants is a bit redundant. Similarly, I can not imagine anyone disagreeing with the other two items. So, well, I guess, thanks for the summary...

[escapee]

If that's the case , then # 3 is contentious as well because we dont know how much exercise or alcohol consumption is optimal . As we know , Over exercise kills .

I thought i have made myself clear by using the term "little/less meat" on # 2 like how the research termed it to get the correlation vs Vegan and general population. Oh well , you are more than welcome , it's just summary from a layman.

[escapee]

By the way , one of my favorite nutrition based doctors is MCdougall who treated his heart disease patients with almost or complete vegetarian/vegan diet .
Look at what he says

"The truth is, this study of nearly 50,000 older women, ages 50 to 79 years, has only reinforced the well-known fact that “skinning your chicken” and “drinking low-fat milk” is inconsequential. The Women’s Health Initiative was not the first, nor is it likely to be the last, study to prove that what most people consider to be a “reasonable, moderate or prudent diet” is at best a trivial improvement over the disease-causing, standard American diet.

Proof that the low-fat diet intervention used in this study was ineffective is the report of an average of one pound (0.4 Kg) of weight loss after 8 years of dieting (compared to those not dieting). Furthermore, the women’s blood levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, and blood pressures hardly changed after all that effort. Their dietary histories revealed that even though the low-fat diet group received “an intensive behavior modification program that consisted of 18 group sessions in the first year and quarterly maintenance sessions thereafter,” they continued to eat nearly the same amount of fiber, protein, red meat, chicken, fish, and grains. The addition of one more serving of fruits and vegetables daily may have accounted for the 9% reduction in breast cancer observed for the low-fat group.

People worldwide have been, and are still being, betrayed by investigators who spend taxpayer’s dollars on useless dietary research—and they should not be forgiven because they have always known better. Since the 1950s studies have shown that the more plant-foods, and less processed and animal foods, populations consume, the less breast and colon cancer and heart disease they will develop. Furthermore, there is no “safe threshold”—in other words, the lower the fat intake, the less the cancer and heart disease. In fact, long before the Women’s Health Initiative study was conceived, Dr. Ernst Wynder had published extensively on the benefits of the very-low fat (10%), almost vegetarian, Japanese diet for prevention and treatment of breast cancer. So why was a “moderate” diet, instead of the best one, tested?

My nearly 40 years of experience, working with hundreds of influential doctors and scientists, leads me to believe they have a very low opinion of patients and the public in general. They believe we are too stupid and too uninterested in our own welfare to make meaningful changes in our diet—specifically, to follow a plant-food based diet. When I suggest such powerful dietary changes, they respond with, “That’s unreasonable; no one will follow a vegetarian diet.” Even if they were correct, you and I still deserve to know the truth, so that this option for preventing illnesses and premature death is available to us.

You may have heard about the discontent among medical professionals. Many doctors are retiring early, and some are looking for other jobs, even becoming Amway distributors, rather than practice medicine any longer. They blame the paper work, low-pay (not true), and bureaucratic control over their practices for their misery. No doubt these are annoyances, but if they had job satisfaction, these dedicated doctors would not be quitting. If their patients stopped medications, lost weight, lowered their blood pressures, reduced their sugars, cholesterol, and triglycerides, and felt better with each monthly return visit, then every doctor would treasure every day at the office. But, as Jeff Armstrong told us about his doctor, “…out of all of his patients he has only had 3 or 4 that have been able to do what I have accomplished.” Can you imagine succeeding only three or fours times in an entire career spanning decades of hard work?

Now, besides regaining your lost health and appearance, you have a responsibility to show your doctors the true meaning of proper patient care. Help them understand that sick people take drugs and that their duty is to encourage people to become healthy and “drug-free.” If these potions made patients well, then there would be good reason to promote them. Anti-diabetic medications never cured anyone of diabetes and antihypertensive medications never restored to health a single person with high blood pressure – so why continue to place them at the forefront of medical care? Help your doctors, like Jeff and Allison (and may others of you) have, learn that a simple change to a low-fat, plant-based diet, some exercise, and clean habits cures the majority of problems he or she sees everyday in the hospital and in the office. With your assistance, honor, fulfillment, and success can be returned to the profession of medicine.

Any opinion ?

[Reyv]

You know what I don't get? What this obsession with longevity is all about. Everyone (especially the media) is talking about living longer, while I personally couldn't care less about whether I live to be 60, 80, or 100. I'm not afraid of death!

What I do care about is creating my best possible experience in the here and now, and that includes feeling great from a physical standpoint. Being strong, fast, agile, energetic, and so on. I don't really see what difference some extra 10 years will make when I'm 70 if I haven't made the most of my earlier life anyway.

[escapee]

I personally would like to live a fast, energetic, strong and healthy life until 90s .

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Dharma

NEWS FLASH! Meat eating now associated with Hitler, rapists , paedophiles, and mass indiscriminate murder!

ROTFLMAO!

But, but, Hitler was a vegetarian! I always enjoyed that bit of irony.

Gene

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Reyv

You know what I don't get? What this obsession with longevity is all about. Everyone (especially the media) is talking about living longer, while I personally couldn't care less about whether I live to be 60, 80, or 100. I'm not afraid of death!
What I do care about is creating my best possible experience in the here and now, and that includes feeling great from a physical standpoint.

I believe the two are generally linked. People who live to be 100 will do so because they're in good health. That same health should give them the energy and feeling of well-being to enjoy (at least most of) those 100 years.

[escapee]

More "absurd discovery "

McDougall Vegetarian diet stops MS , now does any one here know MCdougall secret recipe & lifestyle plan ? oh wait it's freeeeeeeeeeeeee , help spread it around especially to those who are in the obese category

This instructional material offers you a real opportunity for rediscovering your health and appearance. However, diet is powerful medicine. Do not change your diet or start an intense exercise program if you are seriously ill or on medication unless you are under the care of a physician knowledgeable in nutrition and its effects on health. Do not change medications without professional advice. When appropriate, share this message with your doctor.

The McDougall Program uses a pure-vegetarian diet based around starchy vegetables with the addition of fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables. If you follow the diet strictly for more than three years, or if you are pregnant or nursing, then take a minimum of 5 micrograms (mcg) of supplemental vitamin B12 each day.
Even though this instructional material is quite complete for changing your life, there is much more information to be found here on the McDougall web site in the McDougall books. Altogether with the web site and books you have over 2200 recipes to choose from. One of the most helpful and inexpensive experiences you can have is to view one of the sets of the McDougall DVDs. However, those of you desiring serious change in your health and medical care should consider becoming involved in one of the many programs at the McDougall Health Center. The 10-day live-in McDougall Program is where you become a patient of Dr. McDougall’s. This is the controlled and comfortable environment where you will progress rapidly to become medication-free, feeling great, trim, active, and in excellent health.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Keith

No they don't plan their meals. And they're hideously unhealthy for it. Do you really want the same for new vegans?

Say someone on your "cancer-inducing artery-busting omnivorous diet of processed gunk" becomes vegan without planning what they're going to eat.

Odds are they just end up eating a cancer-inducing artery-busting vegan diet of processed gunk instead. Then they get just as sick from a fat-rich and sugar-rich diet as the average westerner.

And despite your ridicule, the average omnivore does obtain some vitamins and minerals almost exclusively from meat, fish, eggs and dairy (B12 is a big one).

If they become vegan, and don't figure out how to meet those needs in a vegan context, they risk malnourishment (B12 is, again, particularly insidious because it takes a long time to show).

It is irresponsible and dangerous to mocking the importance of nutrition in a vegan diet (or any other). I find it disturbing that you're more interested in scoring cheap points than in people's health.

P.S. I added back in the important bit of text that you conveniently forgot when you quoted me (in bold).

Er Try and read #8 of this thread. You will see that your comments above are irrelevant, as I had already suggested a strong nuritional education in the first couple of lines.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Reyv

You know what I don't get? What this obsession with longevity is all about.

It's just a mental point of justification. "My way is better because blah blah blah." Its purpose is to ignore one's creatorship of one's health by blaming everything on food, when your health is a choice you make in the moment, as is the food you eat. The two choices are not linked, but the game is to link them so you don't see your creatorship.

Then the mind thinks of all these things to justify the linkage instead of seeing the denial (that the choice of food and health are separate).

[Michelle]

Originally Posted by Dharma

Then the mind thinks of all these things to justify the linkage instead of seeing the denial (that the choice of food and health are separate).

This is good. Very very good.

[escapee]

A little story about the fate of a giant in nutritional field - Dr John Mc dougall

Originally Posted by China study

when Dr John McDougall finished his formal medical education , he set up a practice on the hawaiian island of Oahu. He began writting books about nutrition and health and established a national reputation . In the mid-1980 John was contacted by St helena hospital in Napa valley cal, and asked if he would accept a position running its health center . The hospital was a seventh day adventist hospital; If you recall fro chapter seven ,. The seventh day adventists encourage followers to eat a vegetarian diet . It was an opportunity too good to pass up , and John left hawaii and headed for carlifornia.

John had a good home at St helena for number of years . He taught nutition and used nutrition to treat sick patients, which he did with fantastic success . He treated over 2000 very sick patients and over the course
of sixteen years . he has never been sued or even had a letter of complaint . Perhaps more importantly, John saw these patients get well . Throughout this time, He continued his publishing activity, maintaining a national reputation . But as time passed, he realized that thing werent quite the same as when the first arrived . His discontent was growing of those later years he says , " I just didnt think i was going anyplace, the program had150 or 170 people a year and that was it . Never grew . wasnt getting any support from hospital and we had gone through a alot of administrators"

He had small clashes with other doctors at the hospital. At one point , the heart department objected to what john was doing with heart patient. John told them ," i'll tell you what , i will send every one of my heart patients to you for a second opinion if you send'll yours to me" it was quite an offer, but they didnt accept it . On another occasion John had referred a patient to a cardiologist and the cardiologist incorrectly told the patient that he
needed to have bypass surgery. after a couple of these incidents, John had reached the limit of his patience . Finally, after the cardiologist recommended surgery for another one of John patients , John called him and said, "I want to talk with youand the patient about this .
I would like to discuss the scientific literature that causes you to make this recommendation"

The cardiologist said that he wouldnt do that , to which John responded ." why not? you just recommended that this guy have his heart opened!" and you are going to charge him 50000 and 100000 bucks for it . Why dont we discuss it? Dont you think it's unfair to the patient?" The cardiologist declined,
saying that it would confuse the patient . That was the last time he recommended heart surgery for one of John's patient .

Meanwhile , none of the other physicians in the hospitalhad ever reffered a patient to John. Not once .Ohter physicians would send their Own wives and children to see him but they would never refer a patient. The reason , according John :"


They would worried their patients would come to see me , and it happened all the time when patient would come on their own. they'd come to me with heart disease orhigh blood pressure or diabetes. I'd put them on the diet and they'd go back off all their pills and soon their numbers would be normal . THey 'd go to their doctor and say : "why the hell didnt you tell me about this before? Why did you let me suffer , spend all this money, almost die, when all i had to do was eat oatmeal?" The doctor didnt want to hear this ........

[bix]

escapee: A little story about the fate of a giant in nutritional field - Dr John Mc dougall ...

Your point? Do you mean to induce from this story that not eating meat means better health? Or did you intend the story as an anecdote?

[escapee]

Another giant in nutritional field : Dr Esselstyn

Originally Posted by China study

An interesting situation is now developing : just as with Dr McDougall , many of the clinic "bigwigs" with heart disease have themselves gone to Esselstyn for treatment and lifestyle conselling . THey know it works , and they seek out the program on their own . As Ess says, the could be developing into a very interesting crisis L

I have now treated a number of senior staffs with coronary disease at the clinic - Senior staff physicians . I have also treated a number of senior staff trustee . one of the trustees knows about the frustrations that we've had trying to get this into clinic, and he says " I think, if the word gets out the Cleveland Clinic , and it's been used by senior staff and he's treated senior trustee, but he's not permitted to treat the common herd, we could be open for a lawsuit."

For the time being ,Ess , with his wife's help , will continue to use counselling sessions out of his own home because the institution to which he gave the greater part of his life does not want to endorse dietary approach that competes with its standard menu of pills and procedures .

[escapee]

Originally Posted by bix

Your point? Do you mean to induce from this story that not eating meat means better health? Or did you intend the story as an anecdote?

I was just trying to imply that diet and lifestyle change can be a powerful measure against chronic diseases . This is in addition to my own experience of healing my own prolonged gum disease and mild chest pain with plant based diet and i'm only 28 years old .

[joey m]

Originally Posted by Gene

But, but, Hitler was a vegetarian! I always enjoyed that bit of irony.

Gene

This is a widespread myth. Hitler was a devout meat-eater. Here is one link discussing this myth:

The Food Revolution

Best,
Joey

[escapee]

continuing with the story of the fate of Mcdougalll . ( A good story needs a good ending )

Dr swank revolutionary dietary approach against multiple sclerosis

Originally Posted by courtesy of the China study

John had contacted Dr Swank when he learned that swank was about to retire. John had known and respected Dr roy swank for long time, and he offered to take over the swank multiple clerosis program and merge it with his health clinic at
St Helena hospital , preserving it in honor of Dr Swank . Dr swank agreed , much to John's excitement. As john said, There
were four reasons that this would be a perfect fit for St helena's

- It fit in witht he philosophy of the adventists : dietary treatment of disease
- They would be helping people who desperately needed their help
- It woulld double their patient census, helping to grow the program
- It would cost almost nothing

In thinking back on it , John said," could you think of any reason not to do this ? It was obvious!" So he took
the proposal to the head of his department . After listening, she said that she didnt think the hospital wanted to do this. She said, " well, i dont think we really want to introduce any new program right now." John ,
dumbfounded , asked her, " please tell me why. what does it mean to be a hospital ? why are we here? I thought we were here to take care of
the sick people"

Her response was a doozy : " well, you know we are , but you know, MS patients are not really desirable patients. You told me yourself that most
neurologists dont like to take care of MS patients. " John could not believe what he had just heard . In a very tense moment , he said:

Wait a minute, I'm a doctor. This is a hospital, as fas as i know out job is to relieve the suffering of the sick . These are sick people just because other doctors cant help them in their suffering doesnt mean that we cant. Here's the evidence that says we can . I have an effective treatment for peopple
who need my care and this is a hospital . Will you explain to me why we dont want to take care of those kinds of patients?

He continued :

I want to talk to the head of hospital . I want to explain to her why i need this program and why the hospital needs this program and why the patients need this program , i want you to get me an appointment .

Ultimately , Though , the head of the hospital proved to be just as difficult. John reflected on the situation with his wife . He was supposed to renew his contract with the hospital in a couple of weeks, and he decided not to do it. He left on cordial terms and to this day he does not hold personal grudges. He just explains it by saying that their directions in life
were different . John would prefer to remember St helena for what it was. a good home to him for sisteen years, but a place nonetheless that was " just into the whole drug money thing."

Now John runs a highly successful "lifestyle medicine" program with his family help, write a popular nesletter that he makes freely available ( drmcdougall.com: Home ) .......

[escapee]

An ancient story provides the food for thought about the relationship between diet and health

Originally Posted by Courtersy of China study (Dr campbell)

I found out that scholars have been arguing over the nature of health for centuries, even millenia. Almost 2500 years ago, plato wrote a dialogue between two characters, socrates and Galucon , in which they discuss the future of their cities. Socrates says the cities should be simple, and the citizens should subsist on barley and wheat, with relishes of salt , olives, cheese and " country fare of boiled onions and cabbage", with desserts of figs, pease , bean" roasted myrtle berries and beechnuts, and wine in moderation . Socrates says and thus passing their days in tranquility and sound health, they will in all probability live to an advanced age ..."


But Glaucon replies that such a diet would only be appropriate for a "community of swine", and that the citizens should live "in a civilied manner". He continues , " they ought to recline on couches.... and have the usual dishes and dessert of the a modern dinner." in other worlds, the citizens should have the luxury of eating meat .Socrates replies," if you wish us also to comtemplate a city that is sufferring from inflamation.... we shall also neeed great quantities of all kinds of cattle for those who may wish to eat them , shall we not?"

Galucon says, " of course we shall ." Socrates then says," then shall we not experience the need of medical men also to a much greater extent under this than under the former regime?" Gaucon cant deny it . "Yes, Indeed" he says. Socates goes on to say that this luxurious city will be short of land because of the extra acreage required to raise animal for foods. THis shortage will lead the citizens to take land from others, which could precipitate violence and war, thus a need for justice.
Furthermore, Socrates writes , " when dissoluteness and diseases abound . not Law and physic begin to hold their heads high, when numbers even of well born persons devote themselves with eagerness to these profession ?" in other words, in this luxurious city of sickness and disease, lawyers and doctors will become the norm .

Plato , in this passage, made it perfectly clear : We shall eat animals only at our own peril . though it is indeed remarkable that one of the greatest intellectuals in the history of western world condemned meat eating almost 2500 years ago. I fint it even more remarkable that few know about this history. Hardly anybody knows , for example, that the father of western
medicine., Hipprocrates, advocated diet as the chief way to prevent and treat disease or that the man instrumental in founding the American Cancer society , Federick L Hoffman , knew that diet was the way to prevent and treat disease . .. ..



How did Seneca, one of the great Scholars 2000 Years ago, a tutor and advisor to Roman Emperor Nero , Know with such certainty the trouble with consuming animals when he wrote .

An ox is satisfied with the pasture of an acre or two : one wood suffices for several elephant. Man alone supports himself by the pillage of the whole earth and sea. What! Has nature indeed given us so insatiable a stomach, while she has given us so insignificant bodies? ... The slaves of the belly ( as says sallust) are to be counted in the number of the lower animals, not of men . Nay, not of them , but rather the dead .... You might inscribe on their doors " these have anticipated death"

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Er Try and read #8 of this thread. You will see that your comments above are irrelevant, as I had already suggested a strong nuritional education in the first couple of lines.

Then why on Earth did you make fun of me in this post) when I'd just said exactly the same thing? Were you just being rude for the hell of it then?

And why quote only half a sentence out of context to create a strawman to laugh at when it agreed with you until you did that? Are you deliberately trolling?

[edit]
Hmm, looks like my ego got the better of me there. I won't edit what I said because I don't want to be disingenuous, but oops, sorry about that.

[Jerry K]

It is always amazing to me how quickly discussions about veganism can veer into conversations about murder, rate, and specifically Hitler and the holocaust. Fortunately the concept & term "Vegan" was coined in 1944 by Donald Watson, during the holocaust, thereby giving us a convenient cultural touchstone to compare the meat-eating practices that humanity has engaged in for oh, 100,000 or 200,000 years. If the Holocaust hadn't happened, what would vegans compare meat-eating too? I say this as someone who has tried veganism, understands the logic, but also find that eating meat actually does make me feel somewhat healthier. For those who try veganism and find they feel healthier, than they have discovered their own path of eating. But to take a fifty year old philosophy and blow it up into this moral argument that somehow tars all of meat-eating humanity with the brush of murdereres, rapists, and immoral beings, is quite a leap to make. What about people who live in places where meat-eating is a primary source of food, who haven't heard about or discovered veganism? Are they savages, immoral beasts?

The whole veganism as "higher morality" smacks to me of the same arguments that the Christian right uses to justify their attacks on gay people for instance - our bible (or in the case of vegans, Donald's ideas, or for some vegans the actual bible serves as the source) can be interpreted to say that sex/marriage should be between a man and a woman for the sake of procreation. Therefore, gay sex/marriage is bad. Our moral code universally says that killing another human for anything other than self-defense is wrong, but it does not automatically follow that killing an animal for nourishment is wrong.

Each of us has to find their own moral pathway outside of the handful of basic standards (don't murder people, don't steal, don't lie, etc), but the idea that once you find your own nuanced pathway outside of these basics, you should then hold everyone else to your standard, is illogical and presumptous. Would the world be a better place if everyone was vegan? Maybe. It would also be a better place if everyone spent their days lifitng people out of poverty, stopping the destruction of the environment, and teaching illiterate people how to read. So if you're vegan, or an activist, or a peace worker, that is fantastic and you will find yourself in the position of being a role model or inspiration for others. Attacking others for their opposing viewpoints however, regardless of whether the views seem illogical or wrong to you, won't convert anyone. Dropping bombs on people never changed anyone's mind, but leading by example does. Equating eating a hamburger with the murder of millions of people does no service for the argument for veganism. It's all about your intention, whether your eating meats or plants or whatever you're doing.

[joey m]

Jerry,

You make some very good points here. I think the best point is to live as a role model or inspiration for others. Well put, and I try and live by this ideal.

However, I would to make some comments on your post. I do not think most vegans would or should claim that we should have always been vegans. Therefore everyone who ate meat prior to 60 years ago would not equate to "savages, immoral beasts." Indeed, animal husbandry practices were far more humane and reasonable until the concept of agribusiness evolved rather recently. The comparison to concentration camps comes more from the concept that animals are now kept in such deplorable conditions that they literally spend their whole existence in unimaginable torture. This would not be true, say, for cows who spend their whole existence roaming freely in the alps until the cows are killed for food. It is not killing animals per se that equates to concentration camps.

Second, in the past, we have not had an easy choice to be vegan because there was survival at stake. If we did not eat some meat (at least in most parts of the globe), we could have starved from calorie deficiency. There were certain cultures that were fortunate enough not to need meat to survive because of the vegetation surrounding them, but a lot did. That's fine.

But, now we can no longer make the argument that it is necessary to eat meat to get sufficient calories. Indeed, research shows that a plant based diet results in greater longevity and less disease. The choice now is different than it ever has been. The truth is, whether most people wish to see this or not, eating animal foods is now a luxury -- but it is certainly not essential, nor ideal, for long-term survival.


Lastly, you said

Each of us has to find their own moral pathway outside of the handful of basic standards (don't murder people, don't steal, don't lie, etc), but the idea that once you find your own nuanced pathway outside of these basics, you should then hold everyone else to your standard, is illogical and presumptous.

Well, why do you draw the line that murdering people is so bad, but killing animals isn't? However many years ago, being a racist was also fine. Being anti-homosexual is only recently becoming not OK, and in many parts of the country it is considered moral to be anti-homosexual. Why are animals so different? In legal cases, animals were orginally treated as nothing more than property. More recently, though, they have been afforded greater legal standing, and this to me is a good progression.

I can't say I am in agreement with you that everyone needs to find their own pathway when we promote torture and agony to other living, sentient creatures. I think it is our duty to be custodians of this planet and to care for creatures that we have placed under our control. It is a narrow view that the only "standard" is to treat humans well. For my purposes, I would much rather "lie" than be responsible for the death and torture of another living being.

It is also not only about intention, but awareness. Many people do not intend to do harm, but through ignorance they can do harm anyway. One must be aware and informed as well.

Just thoughts.

Best,
Joey

[kjbill]

Hello Folks!

Here are some other useful links:

http://www.savvyvegetarian.com/index.php

http://www.goveg.com/pdfs/VSK_celeb.pdf

http://www.goveg.com/vegetarian101.asp

http://www.vegparadise.com/

http://www.vegetarianreport.org/

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...19356345/print

[Jerry K]

Joey,

Thanks for your reasoned response to my post. I TOTALLY agree that the conditions most animals are kept in is quite abominable, and that's what I was talking about when I said people have to find their own moral pathway, and that's it all about intention. For some people, they aren't at a point in their own emotional development where the source of their meat matters to them and they'll eat any meat that's offered. For others (such as myself) I am quite a bit more discriminating about what meat I eat, where it's come from, how it's raised, and offering my own version of gratitude for the nourishment. For others, all meat consumption is against their moral standards so they abstain.

Racism still exists, as does homophobia, misogyny, nationalism, and speciesism (might not be spelling that last one right, sorry!) I think we agree that no one's mind was ever changed through legislation or berating them. People are unbelievably set in their ways. My issue with the vegan approach of equating meat-eaters with torturers is that it goes from square one to square 100 without giving your audience an opportunity to catch up with what it means. In other words, because a vegan has already gone through your own transformation from meat-eater to conscious-eater (let's call it that for a moment, instead of vegan) they are un-intentionally or perhaps intentionally trying to shock Joe Meat Eater into thinking of himself as a torturer, one shade away from Adolf Hitler, rocket-shooting him from meat-eater to vegan in one fell swoop. All that this kind of resistance does is further entrench the vegan and him in different camps, rather than simply saying, "Listen, I learned a lot of things about where our meat comes from and how it's treated and what it's doing to the environment that are pretty shocking. Can I tell you about some of them?"

Meat eating isn't just about survival. There's a pleasure to eating meat that many people don't plan to give up. And before we get into a converstaion about the ethics of murder for pleasure, we should make a complete inventory of every single piece of clothing, furniture, paper, electronics, transportation methods, medicines, cosmetics, packagaing, water sources, etc that we use, to see if any of the comforts and luxuries that we enjoy that have nothing to do with meat might also come from a supply chain that also includes murder, environmental degradation, torture, and agony - and perhaps the murder, torture, and agony might even be of the human variety rather than animal. I was shocked recently to discover how much of the precious gem trade is based on obscene treatment of human slaves, for instance. I had no idea.

But I also wonder why we choose to use the treatment of factory raised farm animals as a euphism for the Holocaust when there are very real Holocausts happening all over the globe right now. There's no need for the moral substitution. It just seems to me to be a convenient way to elevate veganism to a position of moral superiority encompassing a much grander view of what not eating meat means, especially for vegans (and here I say carefully I don't know how involved anyone reading this is in world issues, that's my caveat) - especially vegans who aren't actively involved in stopping the human murder, agony, and torture that we all know is going on right now. It's like sitting in a room watching a human being tortured and saying "I'm not going to eat that hamburger because I don't agree with this torture, and so by not eating a murdered animal I am making my statement." Unless that person very very rapidly progresses to being involved in an active way in stopping the torture of the person, the not eating of the meat is really an empty gesture and borders on hypocrisy.

The middle ground as I see it is a part of the big conversation that is emerging about the environment - and I'm using environment in the big sense to include physical & spiritual. It's time for people to take more responsibility for the moral and physical harm that is done by this mis-guided notion that we should have tons of meat available at all times (and fresh vegetables in NYC in December, and cheap tee shirts, and cheap computers, etc etc). All of this abundance at such a cheap price has a cost. I believe the day is coming sooner than we think that more people than we can imagine will wake up and realize that maybe they should be more concerned about where their meat (and clothes, and vegetables, and computers, and furniture, etc etc) comes from, that the source and transporation of these things has an effect on our moral/spiritual/physical environment. If 50% of the people in the USA alone started insisting that the meat they eat be raised humanely and slaughtered humanely, that would be a huge reduction in the amount of unnecessary suffering in the world.

I also think (and this is a seperate conversation) that there is a direct link between the way we treat the animals we raise for the bulk of the meat eaten in the US and the way we deal with issues of poverty/racism/women's rights.

Let's keep talking, this is great.