Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[Abject]

That's not what I meant. Imagine that you grow 20,000 kCal of wheat. You alternately feed this in equal amounts to chickens who produce eggs and feed it to steer who produce beef. You get 3,000 kCal worth of eggs and 1,000 kCal of beef. This is what I meant by caloric ratios of 3:1 vs. 10:1.
ebola

Eggs should be compared to dairy farms, chicken meat with beef/veal. Weight for weight, I'd like to see the credible source.

Also as far as protein goes 2.2g of protein per kg, or 1g per lb, is a good number to aim for daily. The leaner you are, the less you eat, the higher you should aim for. The fatter you are, the more you eat, the less you'll need.
I eat heaps of protein/meat because nothing can provide that sort of satiety and it's the best macro imo
We also need at least 1g of fat per kg, or .4g of fat per lb. Some of us do better on at least double that, as fat impacts the endocrine system and other hormone activity, but it's quite personal and circumstantial.
Carbs aren't essential.

Giving up the best source (meat/animal product) of the things we need (protein, fat) to eat things based on carbs which we don't need, seems illogical and unhealthy to me.

 

[Ninae]

Giving up the best source (meat/animal product) of the things we need (protein, fat) to eat things based on carbs which we don't need, seems illogical and unhealthy to me.

You mean it would be inconvenient (which it is at first). But it's not illogical or necessarily unhealthy. Saying it's the easiest and most convenient way to eat and get all the nutrition you need is kind of obvious but that's not really what those who are opposed to it focus on.

 

[ebola?]

Being a vegetarian (as opposed to eating meat) is kind of like not eating pig meat (as opposed to eating all meat), in the sense that you're still consuming animal products but you're being selective about it.

Sure, I'm happy to concede that lacto-ovo vegetarianism is more similar to omnivory than it is to veganism in this way, but this doesn't really discount my prior, more quantitatively oriented argument. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be evaluating ethicality in terms of some deontologial system, whereby one evaluates the validity of the maxims one choose to live by. Instead, I am coming from a more utilitarian perspective (at least implicitly), where one must weigh sum harm and benefit wrought (even if quantification isn't wholly viable) mostly in terms of consequences.

If you eat meat, but you eat it once a month, then your "value" might be less than the average vegetarian.

But not by much, at least per my scheme of evaluation. And I'm okay with that. . .

Forgive me if I didn't totally understand what I'm responding to. I'm quite stoned and sometimes, I think, you write in relatively inaccessible terms. I can usually understand what you write, but it often takes a bit more work than with (most) other Bluelighters. What you write, generally, could be written in a way that is easier to digest for people who aren't accustomed to that sort of language (which is most of the population, I would imagine)... I imagine that many people, who are less educated than me, find it even more difficult to comprehend some of your posts (relative to other people's posts) when they are inebriated... I'm rambling, I apologize.

No, you got it.


Sorry to have obfuscated. Honestly, this is just kinda how I talk, which is just kinda how I think. I'm doing this for fun, so I didn't put a great deal of effort into translating myself. Honestly, it's kind of pretentious to assume that your audience can't understand your language because it's too advanced, and then translate yourself based on these assumptions. I also don't trust these assumptions. Thus, I find it easier to just let people ask questions / for clarification.

Eggs should be compared to dairy farms, chicken meat with beef/veal. Weight for weight, I'd like to see the credible source.

Er...I think that you misunderstood the purpose underlying my argument. I was talking primarily about raw efficiency in terms of energy (we should think of the proportion of the sun's energy input into the food chain involved in agricultural production that makes it into our mouths), and in terms of how many people can be fed at a given energy input with different types of foods. I was not speaking from a health standpoint.

Giving up the best source (meat/animal product) of the things we need (protein, fat) to eat things based on carbs which we don't need, seems illogical and unhealthy to me.

Well, most people are happier to eat carbs than you, so plant sources of protein should be put up for comparison. However, none of this invalidates your health based arguments. I personally think that you recommend a great deal more protein than is needed or even optimal, but I also think the dietary science doesn't yet have a good grasp on this particular dynamic, so who knows.

ebola

 

[jemery]

I have considered the whole vegetarian thing. I know that I could do it. People say "but watta bout the iron and the protein crap u need?" I've met one gent who is vegan but is quite sickly(i think he is on the verg of an eatin disorder) Yet others who have a nice balanced look about them. I'm not against eating meat. God placed these things in our midst when other nutrients are not available. But sadly we live in a world where things are tooooo available ALLLL the time. this is the problem.

 

[Ninae]

I've been a vegetarian for 13 years this summer so I can almost have a litte anniversary. But I've had regular blood samples taken and the only thing I've come out deficient in is iron (because I haven't taken iron supplements).

 

[ebola?]

Me too, actually (14 years as of January). I haven't noticed any health differences transitioning to vegetarianism, to veganism (and to omnivory and back, on account of having moved to Korea). I haven't noticed any differences in health among these diets, except I ate a far greater volume of food as a vegan (to compensate for reduced caloric density). It was fun. Eating food is great, so eating more of it increases your sum daily hedonism. I did gain a good bit of weight in Korea, but I also had an injury that reduced (well, temporarily eliminated) exercise (I usually bike 6-12 hours / week).

To anyone doubting, you can change your diet. The human body is extremely flexible.

ebola

 

[Ninae]

The healthiest time of my life was when I lived as a health-freak for a year. I juiced a lot and ate a lot of fruit and vegetable salads. Every morning for breakfast I used to juice 3 oranges and make a blend of cottage cheese (which is rich in amino acids), chopped banana, ground up nuts, seeds, and grain, and berries or some other kind of citrus (and drink lemon/honey in hot water first).

I would also take all the supplements I needed, like certain amino acids that are precursors to important neuro-transmittors, and 5-htp. So I would sometimes doze off from a Serotin-high after I had breakfast. It was a lot of work but it was worth it, I had lots of energy.

But living as a vegetarian health freak is definitely much better than the average diet that includes meat.

 

[ForEverAfter]

NSFW:

Honestly, it's kind of pretentious to assume that your audience can't understand your language because it's too advanced, and then translate yourself based on these assumptions. I also don't trust these assumptions. Thus, I find it easier to just let people ask questions / for clarification.

Fair enough. I don't think it's pretentious. It's more a question of efficiency... Hemingway wrote with increasingly simple language as his body of work developed... On the contrary, it might be more pretentious to use unnecessarily high-tier vocab when your point can be expressed with more common language. Some terms don't have a simple alternative, so "advanced" language might be unavoidable in those situations... But, more often than not, what you're expressing can be done in a way that is easily digestible to the layman.

It's not that I can't understand your language because it's too advanced... More that it appears more advanced than it is and - although it might sound ignorant - I couldn't be bothered learning long academic synonyms for perfectly functional words that don't need to be replaced... I studied writing and there were a lot of people who did linguistic acrobatics due to the expectation that "true/worthy literature" consists of sophisticated language. In the end, I decided I'd rather have a wider audience. It is more challenging - I think - to attempt to simplify what you're trying to say as much as possible without losing the meaning...

Of course, if you simplify too much you're likely to lose (some of) the "sophisticated" audience.
But, personally, if I write something for publication, I'd rather it be understood by the masses.

^O/T...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be evaluating ethicality in terms of some deontologial system, whereby one evaluates the validity of the maxims one choose to live by. Instead, I am coming from a more utilitarian perspective (at least implicitly), where one must weigh sum harm and benefit wrought (even if quantification isn't wholly viable) mostly in terms of consequences.

This is a perfect example. I couldn't be bothered looking up words in order to understand what you're saying. I don't know what deontological means. Most people don't... And, while it would probably take me less time to look it up then it did to write this part of my response, I'd rather not introduce it into my vocabulary because I don't want to distance myself - intellectually, or otherwise - from the common man... (also, honestly, I just couldn't be bothered... like I don't bother looking up the meaning of internet acronym slang)

I think I understand what you're saying, here, anyway, and - assuming I do understand it - it could be expressed in a simpler more efficient way... Similarly, efficient mathematics shouldn't involve any unnecessary terms. (Less is more.) Anyway:

This thread is about whether or not it is ethically wrong to consume animal products... So, yes, that's what I'm discussing... Whereas you seem to be justifying (what you admit is) unethical behavior by comparing it, in relative terms, to your neighbor?

If so, was morality/ethicality different during the holocaust?
Isn't justifying unethical behavior by means of comparison dangerous?

I mean everything is relative, right? Without comparing yourself, by implication, to people who contribute more suffering upon animals, how can you justify your behavior?

If something is wrong it is wrong, isn't it?
How does a (relatively) "small amount of wrong" become a right?

 

[ebola?]

It's more a question of efficiency.

To me it is as well though. I choose those words that get my meaning across in the fewest syllables possible. Often, this involves the use of less common terms or more complex syntactic patterns. Phrasing otherwise might actually make my prose more cumbersome.

ebola

 

[ForEverAfter]

But it isn't practically efficient if you're using terms that most people aren't familiar with, regardless of syllabic efficiency... I edited my post, above. Please respond to the comments towards the end of the post about ethics (if you're so inclined).

 

[sekio]

In this day and age where you can literally find the definitions of words without getting out of your seat, there's no reason to take exception to people using big words if they'd like to.
(Philosophy is not the venue to pander to the lazy unwashed masses, either. Big words should feel at home here, of all places.)

 

[Abject]

Er...I think that you misunderstood the purpose underlying my argument. I was talking primarily about raw efficiency in terms of energy (we should think of the proportion of the sun's energy input into the food chain involved in agricultural production that makes it into our mouths), and in terms of how many people can be fed at a given energy input with different types of foods. I was not speaking from a health standpoint.

Well, most people are happier to eat carbs than you, so plant sources of protein should be put up for comparison. However, none of this invalidates your health based arguments. I personally think that you recommend a great deal more protein than is needed or even optimal, but I also think the dietary science doesn't yet have a good grasp on this particular dynamic, so who knows.

ebola

You're right, you still haven't clearly explained your 3:1 to 10:1 ratios or whatever they were, but you also misunderstood my point. You said meat is less effective than dairy/eggs (which I originally misunderstood) and now I am saying a dairy farm would require a different level of calories than an egg farm (balanced out for the weight of produce) and to say 10:1 for meat seems very illegitimate to me as the amount of energy required to raise veal to adult cows, or comparing chickens with cows (weight for weight) i highly doubt they would be of equal needs.

Furthermore, it's not that I'm unhappy to eat carbs, it's that it would be impossible for me to do anything but gain weight on a vegan diet. To live off carbs would leave me constantly hungry and deprived of large amounts of either fat or protein. As for recommending too much protein (or dietary fat) all my numbers are backed up so feel free to look into basic nutrition requirements. As I said if you have a higher BF%, sit on your ass all day, and eat a higher calorie diet, your needs for protein are much less than that of the skinny mexican trimming your yard.
There are many things dietary science doesn't understand, but the benefits of higher protein diets is too obvious to misinterpret. The hormonal deficiencies in a low fat diet are too obvious to misinterpret. You take away carbs and ketosis is pretty kind on the body.
I don't care what other people do with their bodies, they can eat all the transfats and sugar and meth they want, but I'm personally of the belief that most peoples attempts at veganism are pessimal. I've seen few people eat healthy vegan diets, most trick themselves into thinking they're eating positively when they're not getting all the nutrients they should be. I mean I can think of examples where veganism is actually better than a logical diet, but only because of the high calories and psychological effect (not from the nutrients in the food, but the diet itself, idk how to explain it)
I feel if humans weren't to be omnivores we'd function much healthier as carnivores than herbivores.

 

[murphythecat]

You're right, you still haven't clearly explained your 3:1 to 10:1 ratios or whatever they were, but you also misunderstood my point. You said meat is less effective than dairy/eggs (which I originally misunderstood) and now I am saying a dairy farm would require a different level of calories (balanced out for the weight of milk compared to eggs) and to say 10:1 for meat seems very illegitimate to me as the amount of energy required to raise veal to adult cows, or comparing chickens with cows (weight for weight) i highly doubt they would be of equal needs.
It's not that I'm unhappy to eat carbs, it's that it would be impossible for me to do anything but gain weight on a vegan diet. As for recommending too much protein (or dietary fat) all my numbers are backed up so feel free to look into basic nutrition requirements. There are many things dietary science doesn't understand, but the benefits of higher protein diets is too obvious to misinterpret.

like everything, moderation is key. seeds and nuts in moderate quantities are great: note that you can eat as many Macadamia nuts as you want but not almond. cheese and tofu also moderately.
but eggs and beans, lentils, barley are food that you can eat as much as you want and will, in combination, gives you enough protein

 

[ForEverAfter]

In this day and age where you can literally find the definitions of words without getting out of your seat, there's no reason to take exception to people using big words if they'd like to. (Philosophy is not the venue to pander to the lazy unwashed masses, either. Big words should feel at home here, of all places.)

It doesn't bother me, particularly. I'd just - honestly - rather have conversations in regular English. Philosophy is for the "lazy unwashed masses" as much as it is for the academic and this is a public forum. If ebola wants to continue using relatively inaccessible language, that's fine, but it restricts his/her audience. Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything. I hesitated, for good reason I suppose, and then I went ahead and posted it anyway...

Sure people can look up words on the internet. People can look up words on their phones during verbal conversations, also, but they are unlikely to... The expectation that people should be ready to educate themselves mid-conversation is unrealistic and having to do so is a little tiresome.

Like I said, it makes sense to use "big words" when they're necessary.
Otherwise, it comes across (to me) as a little gratuitous.

Let's just pretend I didn't say anything.
I didn't mean any offence and I can see this is falling on deaf ears.

Perhaps, I'm crazy.

[/Off Topic]

 

[swilow]

^If so, its a good crazy

I don't care what other people do with their bodies, they can eat all the transfats and sugar and meth they want, but I'm personally of the belief that most peoples attempts at veganism are pessimal. I've seen few people eat healthy vegan diets, most trick themselves into thinking they're eating positively when they're not getting all the nutrients they should be.

I often feel wary when I hear people describing what "most" of a sub-group do. I mean, unless you've conducted a broad survey of vegans, I'm not sure you have grounds for such a statement. I don't know heaps of vegans, but the ones I know (and I include myself) have been able to supply ourselves with what we need, and in true style . My closest friend is a vegan and the healithiest dude I know. Proves nothing, just that- IME- most vegans are healthier then most meat eaters. The capacity for healthiness as a quality is equal amongst both groups; such has been my experience. Again though, I often feel wary when I hear people describing what "most" of a sub-group do.

Its harder to eat a complete diet as a vegan; its easier to eat meat. I think this statement is probably true. I said earlier that 'easiness' is perhaps not the best basis for an ethical decision. Because something is more difficult then something else doesn't actually say anything about either somethings Both diets have positives and both have negatives. For most vegans, the difficult ethical choices of meat-eating make being a vegan substantially easier then the alternative.

Veganism does fail the fabled "post-apocalypse test scenario" in that, when the dead rise, I am pretty sure veganism will fall. I imagine that veganism, as a viable dietary choice, is only possible in 'civilised' society. I'm not sure if there was much of a vegan movement during the Victorian era, or during the Roman empire. I think that now, because we can safely and healthily be vegans, we have little reason not to. That is, of course, my sole opinion. I'm not sure we can really reflect on the grandeur of our civilisation whilst we sustain our bodies in unsustainable ways. An advanced society would always take tomorrow into account, and modern farming/agriculture simply doesn't do that properly.

 

[Ninae]

Vegetarianism or Veganism is mostly an emotional/ethical or health-freak decision. If someone has none of those feelings they're not likely to have much enthusiasm for it. But it's not exactly right to say because something is easier or more efficient it's the intellectually superior thing to do. There are enough intelligent reasons not to, but most haven't looked into it so much, or don't even want to believe it.

 

[ebola?]

This thread is about whether or not it is ethically wrong to consume animal products... So, yes, that's what I'm discussing... Whereas you seem to be justifying (what you admit is) unethical behavior by comparing it, in relative terms, to your neighbor?

This wasn't what I meant at all; sorry for being unclear. What I meant is that we seem to be reaching slightly different conclusions because we use different systems to anchor our ethical judgments. Namely, you appeared to be working in terms of the question of how to generate valid ethical rules with which to guide decisions, primarily in terms of categorical judgments (as to whether you're influenced by Kant's work, thus oriented toward the goal of logically valid universalization of said rules, or moreso by others, is as of yet unclear), whereas in that instance, I was using a more utilitarian type argument.

I should note that my ethical system of choice is open and unfinished: I haven't really been happy with any ethical system that I've run into thus far, though I am somewhat satisfied with the vague direction the American Pragmatists go. I should also note that I think that veganism is ethically superior to lacto-ovo vegetarianism, so we disagree on a very minor point.

If ebola wants to continue using relatively inaccessible language

Okay. I guess one challenge is that I actually don't know with a great deal of accuracy or precision what words other people do and do not know. It's also problematic that there is some specific philosophical jargon that also tends to drastically increase efficiency of communication.

You're right, you still haven't clearly explained your 3:1 to 10:1 ratios or whatever they were

I'm honestly running out of ways to explain this. Do you recall my example about growing 20k kCal worth of crops? Did it make sense to you? To revisit it, The whole point is to look at what proportion of calories present within plants used to feed animals makes it to usable muscle and organ mass used as food by humans (yes, this includes hot dogs, etc.). With eggs, this is typically one third (milk is similar), but with adult steer, this is one tenth. Eating plants directly, 100 percent of the plant calories are used for food, so the ratio is 1:1 (for what should be obvious reasons). I should also note that only one tenth or so of the energy falling on wheat is converted into energy stored in starch.

Securing sufficient micronutrients really involves a drastically lower volume of crops compared to those we use primarily as caloric sources (think of the total amount of leafy greens we grow compared to the total amount of corn we grow, for example), and omnivores still need to eat these crops we grow primarily for micronutrients (pretty much any healthy diet involves a lot of non-starchy fruits and veggies). Thus, nutritional superiority has little bearing on energy-efficiency.

i highly doubt they would be of equal needs.

You're entirely correct. The ratio is roughly 3-4:10 for chicken meat. The 10:1 figure was specific to adult steers. I have no idea what it would be for veal.

I'm personally of the belief that most peoples attempts at veganism are pessimal.

Well, I've had good luck, though I get a lot of exercise, so I actually burn through about 800+ kCal / day working out; I use up those carbs and really need them to perform decently.

ebola

 

[ebola?]

If someone has none of those feelings they're not likely to have much enthusiasm for it.

I pretty much made the decision on the basis of cold introspection and logical inference; meat still isn't gross to me, and I don't feel particularly deeply empathetic. However, it took a profoundly empathetic experience induced by MDMA to push me in this direction in the first place. . .

ebola

 

[Ninae]

Meat and the idea of eating animals is gross to me and I think those "kinder-garden reasons" are morally superior to what a desentised jaded adult feels.

 

[ebola?]

I'm not saying that my path is superior. If anything, it's ass-backwards (involving use of cold logic to wander back toward empathy which would function better more directly).

ebola