Veganism, Vegeterianism, Omnivorism

[santaman2000]

Interestingly the state of Alaska doesn't buy any meat whatsoever for the inmate population of the State Prison. They're entirely supplied with road kill. Granted Alaska's a thinly populated state with a small inmate population and the road kill (moose, caribou,etc.) is huge.

 

[santaman2000]

Quinoa has more nutritional value but the taste is almost identical to grits to me. It just takes on the flavor of whatever you add. Like grits, I usually just add salt and butter but I'll probably eventually try it in one or more of the casseroles I make with grits:

-2 or 3 cups of cooked grits
-A proportional amount of cooked greens (collard greens, mustard greens, spinach ---- your choice)
-A proportional amount of cooked, chopped pork (bacon or ham)
-A proportional amount of shredded cheese of your choice
-A raw egg to bind
-Salt and pepper to taste

Mix all ingredients reserving a portion of the shredded cheese. Pour into casserole dish and top with remaining cheese and bake at 350f until warm all the way through to a safe temp for the egg and cheese is melted. Quinoa should be a good and more nutritious sub for the grits I'd think.

Edited for typo/spelling correction

 

[Prophecy]

The point is that carbs are the primary calorie source for most vegetarians and as a diabetic I need to avoid carbs (or at least, severely limit them) Mind, I like carbs almost as much as I like meat so it ain't an easy task. Green leafy type veg are very healthy, but low in both calories and protein by comparison.

Not all vegetarians. I've been on a month long ketogenic vegan diet where carbohydrates were less than 5% of my daily macro split. It's also possible to have a mostly protein split as a vegan. There are plenty of high protein vegan foods. ie sunflower seeds are the same as chicken per 100g. They're also calorie dense. Nuts are very calorie dense foods which are high in fats and protein. Google 'vegan bodybuilders and athletes if you want to see results of high protein vegan diets. Not that we need that much protein to be strong and healthy.

The meme is pretty straighforward. Plant agriculture (monoculture) is far, far less diverse than ranching regarding coexisting wildlife.

Isn't the field of fodder in that meme a monoculture? Are you saying that a field of grass is better than a field of carrots, because there are cows on it? What coexisting wildlife are you referring to? Doesn't that exist on a potato field? Perhaps if you show me a source for what you mean I could look into it better. And that's not sarcasm.

I'd say the majority of cows are now factory farmed. We don't have the space to let them all roam on pastures due to the demand. So we clear large areas of land for that, much like the second image in your photo, grow a crop, cut it down and feed it to the animals as grain.

 

[Prophecy]

I hope we still can keep a civilized discussion, and listen and learn from each others experiences and knowledge!

Me too! But it's frustrating for me because what's happening is I am presented with a supposed problem with veganism, then I do the research and post scientific journals and links and videos. Once you (plural) see that I've rebutted your issue, you don't look at the evidence I've provided or even acknowledge it. You just move straight onto another supposed problem. This isn't just an online thing, but also in person.

But yes, I'm certainly learning. I hope we all are.

 

[Prophecy]

Likewise the vast majority of animals aren't sentient (self aware that they'll eventually die, and with a sense of "why are we here?") Elephants may be an exception.

That's incorrect. The overwhelming majority of animals are sentient and can feel pain.

Definition of sentience at Merriam-Webster:

1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2: aware
: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

And a definition at Oxford Dictionary:

able to see or feel things through the senses

Plants are, on the other hand, non-sentient.

 

[santaman2000]

Not all vegetarians. I've been on a month long ketogenic vegan diet where carbohydrates were less than 5% of my daily macro split. It's also possible to have a mostly protein split as a vegan. There are plenty of high protein vegan foods. ie sunflower seeds are the same as chicken per 100g. They're also calorie dense. Nuts are very calorie dense foods which are high in fats and protein. Google 'vegan bodybuilders and athletes if you want to see results of high protein vegan diets. Not that we need that much protein to be strong and healthy.



Isn't the field of fodder in that meme a monoculture? Are you saying that a field of grass is better than a field of carrots, because there are cows on it? What coexisting wildlife are you referring to? Doesn't that exist on a potato field? Perhaps if you show me a source for what you mean I could look into it better. And that's not sarcasm.

I'd say the majority of cows are now factory farmed. We don't have the space to let them all roam on pastures due to the demand. So we clear large areas of land for that, much like the second image in your photo, grow a crop, cut it down and feed it to the animals as grain.

That's not a "fodder" or a "field of grass." At least not an artificial one. That's the natural open range as it's been for a few thousand years.

-A monoculture? Hardly, it has all the same wild plants that have also been growing there for thousands of years and all the fauna that's been native there as well.

-Doesn't that exist on a potato field? (and by extension, any other crop?) Nope. All that flora is razed to plant whatever crop and all fauna is killed (deliberately) if it enters the field.

Add to that flora crops often need irrigation whereas livestock are simply turned onto the range to forage and find natural water. Factory farmed? For cattle this IS a factory farm: huge herds of hundreds of thousands head on open range of several thousand acres. I've also harvested hay to "feed the livestock as you put it. It's deliberately grown to a small extent but mostly it's just cut from the same wild fields or ranges; you just rotate which field or range the cattle are on. Whether the field or range has cattle on it or not, the native wildlife continue as if nothing has changed. SOME land is dedicated to raise the grain to "finish" cattle before slaughter, but that's negligible.

Regarding how much protein we need, my medical team advises more than half my caloric intake be protein. My blood glucose levels are much more manageable when I follow their advise.

 

[Fadcode]

The problem with posting material to defend your views is that it will kill a debate, if you google "problems with being a vegan" a lot of reasons and research by Dr.s professors etc will point out the disadvantages of a vegan/vegetarian diet, which will not back your arguments up, nor will it be against them, its a well known fact that most research is funded by interested parties, it all depends what you beleive, and of course the path you choose, for me you lost your argument when you implied that the humane slaughter of animals was murder,and the decrying of the effects on plantlife, I mean I have seen programs which have measured the effects on plants under stress, that of course doesn't mean they have feelings, or does it?

There are just as many problems with being a vegan as there is being a vegetarian, or an omnivore, plants contain toxins which are produced as a defense mechanism, too much reliance on Soy can kill you, too much meat can kill you, too many bananas can kill you, too much water can kill you,

We here in the UK and no doubt in many other countries have seen the devastation of the environment through, excessive farming practices where hedges, roads, building have all been removed to make these super farms for growing cereals, human occupancy of land in the UK is a mere 5%, so we have plenty of spare land available for animal grazing, we have vast forests which are not looked after and some are actually dangerous to walk around in, the trees are struggling and in competion with each other for light and nutrients, and its not unusual to see many fallen and standing rotted trees, why, simply because there is no money in looking after them, even though most owners are in receipts of grants to look after them, and of course no one is interested in maintaining the wildlife, 95% of all known animal life is extinct, and its not because they have been harvested for food,(although some have), a few years ago I looked into bringing the American Bison here to Cornwall, as I had the idea that they could roam freely on the moors and survive, and I am sure they would do well, but the legalities of doing it were prohibitive,( they are classed as dangerous animals).

Plants can feel the warmth of sunlight, so they must be able to feel, they know when to open up to attract the birds to help pollenation, etc etc, so it could be argued they are sentient, maybe its better if we think they aren't so we feel better whenwe eat them..........this is said in jest....but you can see i hope how an argument can be turned.

Although this is an interesting thread, I have yet to see any proof that eating plantlife is of benefit, its ok to say vegans are healthier, but you could say that about omnivores, how do you actually prove the statement to be true, I know a lot of people are allergic to many plants, nuts, as well as meats and fish as well as dairy products, this merely shows that we are not all the same, and therefore can't always follow the same path through life.

 

[santaman2000]

That's incorrect. The overwhelming majority of animals are sentient and can feel pain.

Definition of sentience at Merriam-Webster:

1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2: aware
: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

And a definition at Oxford Dictionary:

able to see or feel things through the senses

Plants are, on the other hand, non-sentient.

Miriam Webster is using American English and sensibilities. "Aware" is more than just aware of their surroundings. That and "finely sensitive" refers to a higher evolved sense of mortality and morality. The working ideal I've been taught from elementary school through university is the same one I posted. Mere instinctive reactions such as pain response and/or fear aren't sentience.

 

[Prophecy]

That's not a "fodder" or a "field of grass." At least not an artificial one. That's the natural open range as it's been for a few thousand years.

-A monoculture? Hardly, it has all the same wild plants that have also been growing there for thousands of years and all the fauna that's been native there as well.

-Doesn't that exist on a potato field? (and by extension, any other crop?) Nope. All that flora is razed to plant whatever crop and all fauna is killed (deliberately) if it enters the field.

Add to that flora crops often need irrigation whereas livestock are simply turned onto the range to forage and find natural water. Factory farmed? For cattle this IS a factory farm: huge herds of hundreds of thousands head on open range of several thousand acres. I've also harvested hay to "feed the livestock as you put it. It's deliberately grown to a small extent but mostly it's just cut from the same wild fields or ranges; you just rotate which field or range the cattle are on. Whether the field or range has cattle on it or not, the native wildlife continue as if nothing has changed. SOME land is dedicated to raise the grain to "finish" cattle before slaughter, but that's negligible.

Regarding how much protein we need, my medical team advises more than half my caloric intake be protein. My blood glucose levels are much more manageable when I follow their advise.

That wasn't quite clear from the image. Yes that's great that the cows can graze like that on natural pasture. But the majority of animals are factory farmed these days. We don't have enough land to keep them all roaming around on green pastures.

That idyllic way of raising cows would mean a huge reduction in meat-eating is necessary across the whole world. What's the total percentage of land that is left in a completely natural state like the one you showed in your meme? I would guess it's a very small figure.

 

[santaman2000]

That wasn't quite clear from the image. Yes that's great that the cows can graze like that on natural pasture. But the majority of animals are factory farmed these days. We don't have enough land to keep them all roaming around on green pastures....

Ummm. That open range is the very definition of a factory farm regarding beef cattle. Whether it be the North American Great Plains and and Southwest dessert or the South American Pampas, or the Australian Outback. That's just the way most beef is produced. Slaughterhouses don't go to stockyards and bid so much per pound on each cow as they did when I was a kid; they contract the ranchers for entire herds.

Fadcode, when I commented about the land mass in the UK available for crop production, I qualified it with "what the public would be willing to accept." I wasn't just referring to land taken up bu housing and businesses, but rather all those forests you mentioned (would the public accept them being razed for crops?) as well as mountain areas unsuitable for large scale production, etc. You have over a thousand years of history tied up in those lands.

 

[Prophecy]

The problem with posting material to defend your views is that it will kill a debate, if you google "problems with being a vegan" a lot of reasons and research by Dr.s professors etc will point out the disadvantages of a vegan/vegetarian diet, which will not back your arguments up, nor will it be against them, its a well known fact that most research is funded by interested parties, it all depends what you beleive, and of course the path you choose, for me you lost your argument when you implied that the humane slaughter of animals was murder,and the decrying of the effects on plantlife, I mean I have seen programs which have measured the effects on plants under stress, that of course doesn't mean they have feelings, or does it?

There are just as many problems with being a vegan as there is being a vegetarian, or an omnivore, plants contain toxins which are produced as a defense mechanism, too much reliance on Soy can kill you, too much meat can kill you, too many bananas can kill you, too much water can kill you,

We here in the UK and no doubt in many other countries have seen the devastation of the environment through, excessive farming practices where hedges, roads, building have all been removed to make these super farms for growing cereals, human occupancy of land in the UK is a mere 5%, so we have plenty of spare land available for animal grazing, we have vast forests which are not looked after and some are actually dangerous to walk around in, the trees are struggling and in competion with each other for light and nutrients, and its not unusual to see many fallen and standing rotted trees, why, simply because there is no money in looking after them, even though most owners are in receipts of grants to look after them, and of course no one is interested in maintaining the wildlife, 95% of all known animal life is extinct, and its not because they have been harvested for food,(although some have), a few years ago I looked into bringing the American Bison here to Cornwall, as I had the idea that they could roam freely on the moors and survive, and I am sure they would do well, but the legalities of doing it were prohibitive,( they are classed as dangerous animals).

Plants can feel the warmth of sunlight, so they must be able to feel, they know when to open up to attract the birds to help pollenation, etc etc, so it could be argued they are sentient, maybe its better if we think they aren't so we feel better whenwe eat them..........this is said in jest....but you can see i hope how an argument can be turned.

Although this is an interesting thread, I have yet to see any proof that eating plantlife is of benefit, its ok to say vegans are healthier, but you could say that about omnivores, how do you actually prove the statement to be true, I know a lot of people are allergic to many plants, nuts, as well as meats and fish as well as dairy products, this merely shows that we are not all the same, and therefore can't always follow the same path through life.

Plants are not sentient! They cannot feel pain! A CNS (central nervous system) and a brain is required in order to do so. There's no arguing that one.

Why would posting material to defend my views kill a debate? Isn't that the whole point of a debate? Trouble is you're not bringing anything to the table. Just 'plants can feel pain too!'. I have posted videos, numerous links to peer reviewed scientific clinical trials and studies between this thread and the old one (https://bushcraftuk.com/community/index.php?threads/vegan-advice.148429/) Including the most conclusive study every undertaken. Have you looked at them? No. If you're not open to new ideas and you won't change your mind with new evidence then you'll be stuck in a rut forever.

I could ask you to provide evidence like I'm doing. Without it, your claims are essentially worthless. You say plants contain toxins which they release as a defence mechanism and they are harmful to us. I don't believe you. But if you provided a citation to a scientific study that I could read into then I would genuinely like to read it. If it were true then I'd be a believer!

Again, the only one posting any evidence is me, but it's gone largely unacknowledged and refuted with anecdotes and ancient-old anti-scientific ideas.

 

[santaman2000]

....... You say plants contain toxins which they release as a defence mechanism and they are harmful to us. I don't believe you. But if you provided a citation to a scientific study that I could read into then I would genuinely like to read it. If it were true then I'd be a believer......

So unless you actually read a scientist's essay you won't believe hemlock is poisonous? Nightshade? Toadstools? All examples of plants releasing toxins to defend themselves. Poison Ivy? Poison Oak? Poison Sumac? Stinging Nettles? The Live Oak in my backyard whose leaves poison all grass and weeds under it so the sprouting acorns don't have to compete for nutrients? Chemical/biological warfare has been evolving in nature for millions of years.

 

[Prophecy]

Miriam Webster is using American English and sensibilities. "Aware" is more than just aware of their surroundings. That and "finely sensitive" refers to a higher evolved sense of mortality and morality. The working ideal I've been taught from elementary school through university is the same one I posted. Mere instinctive reactions such as pain response and/or fear aren't sentience.

Hence why I posted also the Oxford definition. Are you denying the dictionary definition of a term and replacing it with your own? What about the studies that prove most animals are sentient and can feel pain? You can read more in livescience and physcologytoday. Would you like to refute the findings? On what grounds?

 

[Prophecy]

So unless you actually read a scientist's essay you won't believe hemlock is poisonous? Nightshade? Toadstools? All examples of plants releasing toxins to defend themselves. Poison Ivy? Poison Oak? Poison Sumac? Stinging Nettles? The Live Oak in my backyard whose leaves poison all grass and weeds under it so the sprouting acorns don't have to compete for nutrients? Chemical/biological warfare has been evolving in nature for millions of years.

And these toxins are harmful to us after being cooked and consumed? How is that an argument against veganism?

 

[santaman2000]

Hence why I posted also the Oxford definition. Are you denying the dictionary definition of a term and replacing it with your own? What about the studies that prove most animals are sentient and can feel pain? You can read more in livescience and physcologytoday. Would you like to refute the findings? On what grounds?

I'm denying the Oxford definition as incompatible with what's taught in academia; not MY own definition. Studies that prove animals can feel pain? Do you seriously need a study to prove the obvious? Feeling pain isn't sentience though; it's life.

 

[santaman2000]

And these toxins are harmful to us after being cooked and consumed? How is that an argument against veganism?

Yes, they're still poisonous after being cooked and consumed. It's not an argument against veganism (the same can be said of some animal life as well) It's furthering Fadcose's argument that we don't need scientific studies from biased parties to prove the obvious (some plants are toxic)

 

[Prophecy]

I'm denying the Oxford definition as incompatible with what's taught in academia; not MY own definition. Studies that prove animals can feel pain? Do you seriously need a study to prove the obvious? Feeling pain isn't sentience though; it's life.

Right... But since animal sentience is settled science, you would need to try to refute the claim somehow.

A lot of people still don't think fish can feel pain. That was a very common myth not too long ago. Studies are carried out on lots of animals to show to what extent they feel pain, and also on their sentience, which is how we know they're sentient...

 

[Prophecy]

Yes, they're still poisonous after being cooked and consumed. It's not an argument against veganism (the same can be said of some animal life as well) It's furthering Fadcose's argument that we don't need scientific studies from biased parties to prove the obvious (some plants are toxic)

Oh OK, I misunderstood in that case. Yes, of course there are such things as toxic plants. And we don't eat them.

 

[santaman2000]

Right... But since animal sentience is settled science, you would need to try to refute the claim somehow.

A lot of people still don't think fish can feel pain. That was a very common myth not too long ago. Studies are carried out on lots of animals to show to what extent they feel pain, and also on their sentience, which is how we know they're sentient...

Exactly!. Animal sentience is settled science. Their are no "tests" for sentience. They would only be a subjective (biased) attempt to change the aforementioned concept of what constitutes sentience. In other words, those "studies" are the ones trying to refute longstanding understanding of an abstract idea.

 

[Prophecy]

Exactly!. Animal sentience is settled science. Their are no "tests" for sentience. They would only be a subjective (biased) attempt to change the aforementioned concept of what constitutes sentience. In other words, those "studies" are the ones trying to refute longstanding understanding of an abstract idea.

Scientists test all sorts of aspects of sentience within all kinds of species ie emotions, personality, altruism and even empathy. Some can be read about here which has links to scientific studies.