Philosophical Vegan Forum

I'm gogogadgetarms (not my birth name). I subscribe to atheist beliefs. I do not subscribe to vegan beliefs.
Religious people don't really bother me. I try my best to ignore the annoying ones. If someone I don't know asks me about my religion, I usually just say no thank you. I don't really like telling them I am an atheist unless I know them well. I believe views on the universe and creation are too personal for first time encounters. I don't want to try to offend anyone, but if someone is offended because they want to talk about God or some other religious concept and I don't, that's too bad. I can't help it if people who know me better are uncomfortable that I don't have a religion and am fanatically skeptical about their religious beliefs, as I said not a topic I openly discuss with religious people often.
As for vegan beliefs, sorry folks, I eat meat. I am actually interested in your beliefs. I am all for reducing animal cruelty and making the animal product industry more environmentally sustainable. I am a little ashamed of my carnivorous tendencies because I know they must die so I can eat them. Since it doesn't affect me or other humans directly, I'm not too concerned (no one is perfect ). I'm interested in eating animals that are not only better for my health, but also for the Earth's health. I do avoid eating animal products when in front of my vegan and vegetarian friends, mostly to avoid bothering them and to try new tastes. I always avoid eating animals for fashion and beauty purposes and I try to eat the antibiotic-free, free-range critter, just as I try to eat organic veggies and grains. I am not against eating insects and other non-conventional animal products to avoid raising animals just for my consumption habits. Everyone has their pleasures and not all pleasures are complete free of moral choices. My pleasure may cause some animal suffering as a byproduct of satisfying my palette. I can live with this moral choice. I can't wait for lab grown meat to be delicious, healthy and cheap. I feel that ends the argument with vegans in a bizarre way. It may have interesting implications for the religious crowd, but whatever.

Welcome to the forums!

gogogadgetarms wrote:(not my birth name)

Oh, that's a relief.

sorry folks, I eat meat.

Apology accepted.

I am actually interested in your beliefs.

Belief is a strange word for veganism. I would prefer words like view, conviction, lifestyle, etc. Belief has a religious baggage that does not apply to veganism. I am glad you are open to other views though!

I'm interested in eating animals that are not only better for my health, but also for the Earth's health.

Animal products are the greatest cause of the greatest killers in the world: cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesitas, Alzheimers to a lesser extent, etc. They are certainly not better for your health than plant foods.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionso ... t/protein/
I'd recommend watching the documentary Forks over Knives; they don't get everything right, but the bulk of it is true. It's what introduced me to veganism.

As for the earth's health; animal agriculture is the greatest emitter of greenhouse gasses, especially methane - which is much worse than Co2. Animal agriculture is also a major cause of deforestation, due to its inefficient use of crops.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neal-barn ... 26979.html

It seems like you empathize with vegan views and realize your eating habits are immoral. I must wonder, why would you not stop? Do you think you cannot eat delicious food on a vegan diet? Do you think you need meat? It does not seem you're convinced your pleasure justifies your behavior.

Just to clarify, atheism doesn't have beliefs, it's the lack of beliefs.
and also, eating meat doesn't help the earth. All of the world's factory farms pollute the earth more than all the world's automobiles combined. and also what miniboes said.
oh yea and welcome to teh forumz!!!!!111111

gogogadgetarms wrote:Since it doesn't affect me or other humans directly, I'm not too concerned (no one is perfect ). I'm interested in eating animals that are not only better for my health, but also for the Earth's health.

Welcome to the forum. It looks like you have a lot to learn regarding diet choices, the environment and morality so you have definitely come to the right place. You are right in that no one is perfect, but that does not give you an excuse not to strive for perfection.

miniboes wrote: Animal products are the greatest cause of the greatest killers in the world: cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesitas, Alzheimers to a lesser extent, etc. They are certainly not better for your health than plant foods.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionso ... t/protein/
I'd recommend watching the documentary Forks over Knives; they don't get everything right, but the bulk of it is true. It's what introduced me to veganism.

Well said.

miniboes wrote: As for the earth's health; animal agriculture is the greatest emitter of greenhouse gasses, especially methane - which is much worse than Co2.

Greatest easily preventable method.

Remember, Methane is half of anthropogenic global warming, and animal agriculture is 1/3rd of that methane.
Most of the rest of the methane is released from drilling oil/mining coal, etc.

http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... ?f=7&t=654

The reason it's easily preventable, is all we have to do is stop eating meat and switch to vegetable proteins (instead of feeding them to the animals as a middle-man).

Ending other emissions is much more complicated, and would mean grinding the world's economy to a halt, or dramatically expanding nuclear power infrastructure and ethanol production for vehicles.

Interestingly, ending animal agriculture is also a great way to replace gasoline for cars, thanks to the surplus in corn that would be left over. So there's a bit of a synergy there.

miniboes wrote:Welcome to the forums!

Thank you kindly.

Belief is a strange word for veganism. I would prefer words like view, conviction, lifestyle, etc. Belief has a religious baggage that does not apply to veganism. I am glad you are open to other views though!

I don't imply belief in the religious sense of the word. You hold true to a set of principles based on fact. I don't imply blind faith whatsoever. I agree the word makes some atheists uncomfortable. Not me. To each their own.

Animal products are the greatest cause of the greatest killers in the world: cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesitas, Alzheimers to a lesser extent, etc. They are certainly not better for your health than plant foods.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionso ... t/protein/
I'd recommend watching the documentary Forks over Knives; they don't get everything right, but the bulk of it is true. It's what introduced me to veganism.

I will look more closely at your links. However, I still believe there are worse killers out there than consumption of animals or use of animal products. I am open to being proven otherwise. I believe your statement to be more sensational than factual correct me if I'm wrong.

As for the earth's health; animal agriculture is the greatest emitter of greenhouse gasses, especially methane - which is much worse than Co2. Animal agriculture is also a major cause of deforestation, due to its inefficient use of crops.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neal-barn ... 26979.html

The meat industry is certainly awful for the environment. Although is it actually the worst? I can image things much worse for Earth's health such as nuclear and toxic waste..

It seems like you empathize with vegan views and realize your eating habits are immoral. I must wonder, why would you not stop? Do you think you cannot eat delicious food on a vegan diet? Do you think you need meat? It does not seem you're convinced your pleasure justifies your behavior.

I think my eating habit are immoral. I have abstained for brief periods in the past. I don't stop because I appreciate the diversity of diet. Veganism, for me, restricts diet choices and experience to much to commit to for life.
I have had many delicious vegan foods, however a non-vegan diet offers more choices. I don't want to be limited. I am convinced my pleasure justifies my behavior. I apologized.

I look forward to discussing with you. Your points seem very reasonable as do your views, convictions and lifestyle choices.

miniboes wrote: As for the earth's health; animal agriculture is the greatest emitter of greenhouse gasses, especially methane - which is much worse than Co2.

Greatest easily preventable method.

Remember, Methane is half of anthropogenic global warming, and animal agriculture is 1/3rd of that methane.
Most of the rest of the methane is released from drilling oil/mining coal, etc.

http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... ?f=7&t=654

The reason it's easily preventable, is all we have to do is stop eating meat and switch to vegetable proteins (instead of feeding them to the animals as a middle-man).

Ending other emissions is much more complicated, and would mean grinding the world's economy to a halt, or dramatically expanding nuclear power infrastructure and ethanol production for vehicles.

Interestingly, ending animal agriculture is also a great way to replace gasoline for cars, thanks to the surplus in corn that would be left over. So there's a bit of a synergy there.

[/quote]
You provide some great substance to that argument. I agree meat consumption is easily preventable from an individual standpoint. However I think you sell out (excusably) on reasons for other emissions a little. Would it really grind the world to a halt? Do we really need so much energy? Is nuclear power the only source of that energy?

I agree bio fuels could be produced using animal feed. Would it really be a better use for excess crops? The environmental argument is really about excess anyway. In principle your argument has the same flaws carbon trading does. I do understand there will be a net gain. However, viability of bio fuels is a whole different question altogether.


*************************************************************************************************
I'm more interested in animal suffering and morality opinions than environmental arguments. My co2 impact is low enough compared to the average person in my society. Obviously it could be lower if I didn't eat meat. However since I'm well below average, significantly lowering my co2 impact more is not a goal in my life.

gogogadgetarms wrote:I am all for reducing animal cruelty and making the animal product industry more environmentally sustainable.

That's good. If so, you should support that with your purchase choices by not supporting cruel and unsustainable practices.

gogogadgetarms wrote:I am a little ashamed of my carnivorous tendencies because I know they must die so I can eat them.

Life and death are irrelevant. What matters is harm to a sentient being's interest. It's only wrong to kill something that actually wants to live.

E.g. it is not wrong to kill a plant in itself (although this could be wrong for other reasons due to being wasteful or damaging the environment if you aren't replacing the plant).
It's also probably not wrong to kill "lower" animal life like sponges and oysters and jellyfish, which are probably not sentient.

Along that line, it may be a little wrong, but less wrong, to kill insects and such.

And then most wrong to kill higher animals like cows, chickens, humans, pigs, which are sentient and aware of their environments, with a sense of time and want that are on the same order of magnitude.

gogogadgetarms wrote:Since it doesn't affect me or other humans directly, I'm not too concerned (no one is perfect ).

That's a terrible fallacy. Let me illustrate.

If I stab you with a knife, I'm not affecting you directly, am I? So it should be OK.

I'm only affecting the knife. And the knife is affecting you.

So, anything that's not "direct" should be acceptable?

Think about that a little bit.

When cause and effect are inextricably linked, regardless of how long or short the apparent chain reaction is, you are affecting somebody -- and it is direct in any meaningful sense. It doesn't matter how "direct" or "indirect" you want to call it, that's just semantic nonsense, what matters is how MUCH you're affecting others.

By eating meat, you're contributing to at least 16% of global warming, which is a very serious matter; possibly upwards of 30% considering opportunity costs of ethanol production and wasted farmland.

Beyond that, you're harming your health, and causing upwards of 200 intelligent, sentient animals to suffer and die against their wills every year.

Eating meat is the only bad thing about our behavior that we can easily change. Other things require huge infrastructure investments. Whether that is moving to green energy, or developing bioreacted meats -- it takes a long time.

gogogadgetarms wrote:I'm interested in eating animals that are not only better for my health, but also for the Earth's health.

Great. Then just eat rope grown oysters. They're probably not sentient, and their cultivation isn't damaging to the environment. They're also better for you than the meat you're eating now.

Absolutely avoid the 'common' meats, like chicken, cows, pigs, and ocean-caught fish.

There are moral grey areas though, like invasive species, such as this fish from the ocean:

http://www.reef.org/lionfish

And this fish from internal waters:

http://www.asiancarp.us/faq.htm

Eating invasive species caught in a NON-sustainable way (that is, with the goal of eradicating them) for the purpose of protecting the environment could be justifiable (unlike other fish, which is not justifiable in any way).

In the case of most fish, you're harming the fish and the environment. In the case of invasive species, you're harming the fish but helping other fish and the environment, so there's a trade-off there, and you can make an argument for it.

It's easy to condemn people for eating animals and harming the environment -- it's much harder to judge somebody who eats the rare invasive animal to help the environment.

gogogadgetarms wrote:I always avoid eating animals for fashion and beauty purposes and I try to eat the antibiotic-free, free-range critter, just as I try to eat organic veggies and grains.

That doesn't mean much of anything, it's mostly just a marketing gimmick. Look into some of the criticisms of those.
Organic food can be worse for you than conventional food.

gogogadgetarms wrote:I am not against eating insects and other non-conventional animal products to avoid raising animals just for my consumption habits.

I hope you do that.

gogogadgetarms wrote:Everyone has their pleasures and not all pleasures are complete free of moral choices. My pleasure may cause some animal suffering as a byproduct of satisfying my palette. I can live with this moral choice.

It's not a moral choice to please yourself at the expense of others. Particularly when you can be just as happy and satisfied without harming others. That's just selfishness combined with laziness and resistance to change. I hope that's not you, and that you'll be open minded to changing your attitude toward that.

gogogadgetarms wrote:I can't wait for lab grown meat to be delicious, healthy and cheap.

And you shouldn't wait. That will take years.

You're harming the environment now, harming your health now, harming animals now.

Why not quit supporting these harmful products now, and in a decade when lab grown meat comes out you can eat whatever again -- and for the rest of your life, you'll know you did the right thing when it needed to be done, instead of putting it off for ten years until it was too late and didn't matter anymore?

FYI, Vegan Cheese is almost here. It's made with genetically engineered yeast to produce the same protein molecules in milk. Super awesome.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/real ... e#activity

gogogadgetarms wrote: I will look more closely at your links. However, I still believe there are worse killers out there than consumption of animals or use of animal products. I am open to being proven otherwise. I believe your statement to be more sensational than factual correct me if I'm wrong.

There are also unhealthy plant-foods, such as oils with high omega-6 content, or just too much oil in general. Sugary carbonated beverages are also vegan, and terrible for health. There's also palm oil, which is terrible, and trans-fats.

The main thing that makes animal products the worst thing is the prevalence with which they are consumed, and the type that are consumed (beef, chicken, and pork being very common along with dairy and eggs).
Aquatic animals (save those high in heavy metals, such as larger predatory fish) are less damaging to health with proper preparation.
Although modern fishing practices are extremely damaging to the ocean's environment. Amazing that we're actually managing to empty the oceans.

gogogadgetarms wrote: The meat industry is certainly awful for the environment. Although is it actually the worst? I can image things much worse for Earth's health such as nuclear and toxic waste..

Nuclear waste isn't really a big problem. The issue is exaggerated by sensationalist media.
I'll get to that in your later comments though.

gogogadgetarms wrote: I think my eating habit are immoral. I have abstained for brief periods in the past. I don't stop because I appreciate the diversity of diet. Veganism, for me, restricts diet choices and experience to much to commit to for life.
I have had many delicious vegan foods, however a non-vegan diet offers more choices. I don't want to be limited. I am convinced my pleasure justifies my behavior. I apologized.

Your pleasure by definition can not justify your harm to others.

Try to compare to other harms: Is a pedophile justified in molesting children because he gets pleasure from it? No, of course not. His pleasure does not make his actions just.

You can't apologize and admit something is immoral, and then say you are justified in doing it. You're kind of contradicting yourself here. Either it's immoral, or you're justified.

You are by definition not justified in doing it if the only excuse you can come up with is "because I like it".
Justification doesn't work like that.

Justification is like "I was stuck on a desert island, and I had to eat Joe to survive."
Or "Joe was coming at me with a knife, I had to shoot him."

It takes something that is harmful, and makes it not immoral by virtue of that justification.

gogogadgetarms wrote: You provide some great substance to that argument. I agree meat consumption is easily preventable from an individual standpoint.

Maybe we should specify individual too -- in fact, that's the most important standpoint from which we need to make personal moral choices, since we can't control the actions of others (and any attempt to tends to lead us to tyranny, which isn't a good thing either).

gogogadgetarms wrote: However I think you sell out (excusably) on reasons for other emissions a little. Would it really grind the world to a halt? Do we really need so much energy? Is nuclear power the only source of that energy?

Good questions. Development, yes -- and that's one of the largest contributors. Particularly production of cement and steel for infrastructure.

There are still nearly a billion people who don't have access to clean water. 100 million homeless, and more than that living in shacks and slums.

There are people without heat who have to burn coal fires and garbage to keep warm in the winter, billions of them.

In the developed world, it's true that we can technically cut back quite a bit. But you have a false picture of your carbon footprint if you're just looking at how many miles you commute, or how long you leave the lights on at night. The infrastructure you rely on requires constant maintenance and repair, and it has a limited life after which it has to be torn down and rebuilt. The roads you need to bring you food, the pipes and sewers to bring in clean water and carry away and process waste. There's a vast amount of energy expenditure that goes unseen.

There's an ignorant trend today to buy locally -- localvore, they call it sometimes. It's terrible for the environment, and people don't understand why.

The vast majority of embodied energy in any food or product is IN the product itself, in production, NOT in transportation. A slight increase in efficiency in production -- in a more favorable climate, where there's more water, central places where goods can come together -- is much more meaningful than a slight reduction in the distance the final product needs to be transported to the end consumer.

I mention this, because it's a perfect example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing when you don't have the whole picture.

gogogadgetarms wrote:I agree bio fuels could be produced using animal feed. Would it really be a better use for excess crops?

Than meat, which pumps out methane and animal waste? Absolutely.

gogogadgetarms wrote:The environmental argument is really about excess anyway. In principle your argument has the same flaws carbon trading does.

The important point of carbon trading isn't the trading, it's the capping.

I can explain this in more detail if you want.

gogogadgetarms wrote:I do understand there will be a net gain. However, viability of bio fuels is a whole different question altogether.

There are better things than biofuels, but it's an infrastructure issue. Biofuels are pretty much plug and play; ethanol can fit into current transportation and fueling infrastructure, and ethanol production itself isn't very complicated. Distilling is the energy intensive part, which can be done with natural gas rather than oil.

gogogadgetarms wrote:My co2 impact is low enough compared to the average person in my society. Obviously it could be lower if I didn't eat meat. However since I'm well below average, significantly lowering my co2 impact more is not a goal in my life.

Are you interested in being slightly better than average, and still being a harmful human in the world. Or in actually doing more good than harm in the world in your life?

It's easy to be better than average. That doesn't make you a good person though.

Anyway, it's not the CO2 impact that's the most meaningful, it's the methane.

gogogadgetarms wrote:I'm more interested in animal suffering and morality opinions than environmental arguments.

Animals suffer. Animals die. They don't want to do either of those things.

We bring these beings into the world just to suffer and die for our pleasure. I don't think it's a complicated argument.

I'm not sure exactly what you want to hear on that front...