Philosophical Vegan Forum

Hi girls and guys
My name is joey I'm from Germany (so my english sucks donkey balls) and i like to eat meat. I care about my diet and like to live healthy (which in my opinion one can do by consuming a moderate amount of meat) nevertheless I started researching veganism because of the obvious ethical problems one has to face who likes to eat meat -.- I found this forum through youtube and through the forum i found Jebus

Jebus:
''How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan. ''

I followed the advice Jebus gave me (from bottom to top ) and now after watching cowspiracy I have a question for any vegan who likes to answer.
The movies states that 51% of the worlds greenhouse emissions are caused by cattle. Let's say everyone stopped eating meat tomorrow that would still leave us with 2Billion (quick google search on ''how many cows are there'' ) cows on earth. Cows can live up to 25 years farting and even worse consuming feed for maybe 20years. Wouldn't it make more sense to eat them all as quickly as possible (and not breed any more cows) ???? would any of you vegas start eating beef to save the planet ???

Greatings from Germany Joey

Hi Joey,

joeyjojojrshabadoo wrote:I care about my diet and like to live healthy (which in my opinion one can do by consuming a moderate amount of meat)

That's like saying you can be "healthy" smoking cigarettes. To some people, maybe the state of health you can reach would be considered acceptable, but therein is the problem:

There's no such thing as "healthy", just as there's no such thing as hot or heavy.

When does a rock become heavy? When does the weather become hot?

There is certainly weight and temperature, but it's all a spectrum. One rock is heavier than another. The Earth is heavier still. One day is hotter than another. The Sun is hotter still. And there are heavier and hotter things than all of those.

Vegetables are healthier than meat. So, if you replace meat in your diet with vegetables (like broccoli, collards, etc.), generally speaking you will have a healthier diet. The only thing veggies are missing is B-12, so by combining a B-12 supplement and veggies, you get a much healthier diet.

That said, the healthiest diet is an ideal that we will never reach. But we can come close.

The healthiest diet that you can practically have does not contain meat. It is rich in vegetables and legumes with high antioxidant content, and low in methionine, saturated fat, heavy metals, and mycotoxins, etc. and it contains a B-12 supplement (which is a much healthier way to get B-12 than from animal products or contamination).

So, it depends on what you call "healthy", since the word is basically meaningless out of context. I hope that helps clear things up a little.

joeyjojojrshabadoo wrote:Let's say everyone stopped eating meat tomorrow that would still leave us with 2Billion (quick google search on ''how many cows are there'' ) cows on earth. Cows can live up to 25 years farting and even worse consuming feed for maybe 20years. Wouldn't it make more sense to eat them all as quickly as possible (and not breed any more cows) ???? would any of you vegas start eating beef to save the planet ???

Usually when people go vegan, they finish up the meat and dairy they have already bought (in their pantries or refrigerators), and then start fresh.

If the world all decided to go vegan at once (which won't happen), then doing something like that would potentially make sense. In reality it will be a gradual change, so we won't have that problem.

Even so, I hope you understand that eating Beef wouldn't save the planet now, because for every cow you eat (since it is a business), another cow is made pregnant, and another calf born to replace it.
We need to stop breeding cows -- this is the kind of law I would pass.

By purchasing meat, you are sending a signal up the supply chain to produce more meat, which means breeding more cows.
By not purchasing more meat, the supply decreases to compensate for the drop in demand. It takes a little time to catch up, but not much. You can read meat industry reports about the dropping demand in North America. There are now slightly fewer cows than there used to be due to lower demand for their meat.

You don't have a tiger by the tail here: It makes a difference to stop eating meat, just like it makes a difference when you stop consuming anything with flexible production. When people eat more meat, more animals are bred. When people eat less meat, fewer animals are bred.

Hi brimstoneSalad,

So, it depends on what you call "healthy", since the word is basically meaningless out of context. I hope that helps clear things up a little.

It did clear up things for me a little bit thank you.

That's like saying you can be "healthy" smoking cigarettes. To some people, maybe the state of health you can reach would be considered acceptable, but therein is the problem:

For me the state of health I am in now and the state of health I see in ''older'' meat eaters (like my granny) seems perfectly acceptable. I think going vegan is like going to the gym(doing sports and other stuff that benifts your well-being) everyone knows that it's good for ones health but still not everyone does it to the perfect degree. But i am open to see if I can improve my (honestly great state of health from my point of view ) by going vegan...

Usually when people go vegan, they finish up the meat and dairy they have already bought (in their pantries or refrigerators), and then start fresh.

If the world all decided to go vegan at once (which won't happen), then doing something like that would potentially make sense. In reality it will be a gradual change, so we won't have that problem.

Even so, I hope you understand that eating Beef wouldn't save the planet now, because for every cow you eat (since it is a business), another cow is made pregnant, and another calf born to replace it.
We need to stop breeding cows -- this is the kind of law I would pass.

The question was a hypothetical. I never thought I had a tiger by the tail cos my question did rely on the fact that we would stop breeding cows . I didn't mean to say (and I think I didn't say) that eating beef now would save the plane.

It would in my opinion make sense to eat beef in the scenario I was describing (and you agree ).
The question was aimed more at the morality of killing Billions of animals we bred in order to save the planet.

In the movie cowspiracy the guy did something that was questionable to me. After telling us how the animals we breed fuck up our planet he saved a chicken from beeing killed and eaten. That chicken went to a farm where it will live a long happy chicken life consume feed and produce waste. The Question was aimed at vegans who believe that even if there was such a thing as sustainable farming it would be immoral to kill animals in order to eat them. So for anyone who likes to join in.. would you kill 6 billion farm animals and eat them in order to save the planet ???

joeyjojojrshabadoo wrote: The question was aimed more at the morality of killing Billions of animals we bred in order to save the planet.

I see. Yes, I understand now.

Although this is worth mentioning:
Cows who are freed, and no longer given hormones and grains, will both eat less (and more grass, less farmed food), and produce less methane, particularly as they get older. The reason cows produce so much now is that they are constantly growing, and killed as soon as they reach full size. These are the periods of most extreme consumption and metabolic activity, and it's accelerated even more by an extreme diet. Once cows are full grown, growth and food consumption should drop, so even if we freed them, we would be looking at a smaller fraction of the methane output (maybe half?), which would reduce more as they lived their natural lives and died on their own. We would in the very least need to neuter/spay them.

joeyjojojrshabadoo wrote:In the movie cowspiracy the guy did something that was questionable to me. After telling us how the animals we breed fuck up our planet he saved a chicken from beeing killed and eaten. That chicken went to a farm where it will live a long happy chicken life consume feed and produce waste.

I agree, but for more reasons; it's the same reason we should not buy slaves out of slavery. When you do, the slavers just capture more slaves.

And like what said above about cows, the same applies to chickens, although probably to a larger extent. I don't know the numbers, but I would surprised to see them eating more than 25% the amount on a light calorie sustainable diet vs. the monster growth diets they're on during their growth spurts. Animals have to eat much more to grow compared to just maintain. Think of teenagers with their "hollow legs".

joeyjojojrshabadoo wrote:The Question was aimed at vegans who believe that even if there was such a thing as sustainable farming it would be immoral to kill animals in order to eat them.

I believe it would be immoral to kill animals in order to eat them, because we do not need to do that. However, it could be moral to kill them to save the world from environmental destruction. Just like I understand killing invasive species, or killing pest populations. There's a huge difference between need (self defense/preservation) and want (taste/pleasure).

brimstoneSalad wrote:

joeyjojojrshabadoo wrote:In the movie Cowspiracy the guy did something that was questionable to me. After telling us how the animals we breed fuck up our planet he saved a chicken from being killed and eaten. That chicken went to a farm where it will live a long happy chicken life consume feed and produce waste.

I agree, but for more reasons; it's the same reason we should not buy slaves out of slavery. When you do, the slavers just capture more slaves.

Would it be better (from a moral standpoint) to liberate the chicken (from the farm) or the slave (from the slaver) without paying?

Would "stealing" the chicken or slave be...

...worse than buying,

...much better than buying, or

...slightly better than buying, but still problematic?

joeyjojojrshabadoo wrote:Hi girls and guys
My name is Joey. I'm from Germany...

Welcome to the forum, Joey Jojo Jr. Shabadoo (is that your actual full name?). Glad to see that you have an interest in veganism, and the ethical & environmental problems of animal agriculture. I hope to see your insights in future discussions.

I'm glad to see another German on the forum. While I was born and raised in California, I do speak German. I have German family (specifically Saxon), as well as Netherlandish family (specifically Frisian).

ArmouredAbolitionist wrote: Would it be better (from a moral standpoint) to liberate the chicken (from the farm) or the slave (from the slaver) without paying?

Better than buying?

It depends on if it's legal or illegal where you are.

If slavery is illegal, then it's probably slightly better to liberate the slave by force than buying IF you do it competently because it harms the slavers economic interests rather than supporting it.
However, it's also very dangerous to you, and you might harm others in the process. It's better to do nothing than liberate slaves by force. If it (the slavery) is legal on top of that, you're also liable to go to jail, and that doesn't help anybody.

Waging a physical war with slavers is a bad idea; arms will always oppose you as long as there is economic force behind them to engage in their trade. And each slave you steal will only be replaced by another. The same with the chickens.

ArmouredAbolitionist wrote: ...slightly better than buying, but still problematic?

This one. The only reason it's slightly better is because it slightly harms their economic interests. It's a trivial amount of spillage, though.

If you want to hit them hard, you do it in the wallet. Make it so they can't make money doing it by cutting off their income, and they'll stop -- and you never had to raise a fist.

Now if they come after you violently to intimidate you (like breaking your legs) for legally and non-violently interfering with their business... yeah, then all bets are off. Sometimes this will happen, particularly in places and markets (black markets, like drugs) where the rule of law doesn't extend.
Animal agriculture mainly does it through the law, though, since they are legal entities engaging in legal business; which means suing you. There's an easy fix there: Just have no assets, or stay anonymous so they can't touch you.

@BrimstoneSalad: Thanks for your reply. I agree with it. I especially would be worried about the personal risks of ALF-style liberations of animals, and I think that this has a high oportunity cost: the time that I could have spent on educational (and legal) vegan activism. This I think is the best thing that we can do for animals.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Now if they come after you violently to intimidate you (like breaking your legs) for legally and non-violently interfering with their business... yeah, then all bets are off.=

I hope it won't come to that. Do you think that there will come a time that the vegan movement becomes strong enough to really make the animal-exploiting-industry officials freak out? Would these wealthy corporations go to violent measures to silence vegan activists? Even if they did I think many activists would still not give up; indeed many historical & modern figures have gone to great lengths to promote a worthy cause despite great cost to themselves. Anyways, whatever hardships we go through as vegans now doesn't compare to what the animals are going through.

ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:Do you think that there will come a time that the vegan movement becomes strong enough to really make the animal-exploiting-industry officials freak out? Would these wealthy corporations go to violent measures to silence vegan activists?

Not in western countries where the rule of law is strong. They may do this today in other countries, though.

In the West, our major corporations have diversified interests. Like major dairy companies also own soy milk and almond mink brands. Milk consumption drops, alternatives go up, they make money either way, and there are just fewer cows damaging the environment.