[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')up yup. Far as I can see the inevitable environmental result of vegetarianism is a larger food supply leading to more hominids. IMHO, there are way too many hominids already.

[edpeak]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.') Far as I can see the inevitable environmental result of vegetarianism is a larger food supply leading to more hominids. IMHO, there are way too many hominids already.

[oowolf]

I tried going without meat once as an experiment. I lasted almost 2 weeks. I made sure I was getting all the amino acids,etc,etc but after 10 days I developed such a craving for meat I felt like I would die. It was all I could think about. On the 13th day, I surprised a yearling whitetail in the yard-it panicked and ran into the garden deer fence real hard--I was hoping it would hang itself so I could carve it up. The thought of that tasty, young deer meat was more than I could take. I knew then I could never be a vegetarian by choice. I actually think life without meat wouldn't be worth living. Fortunately, I live in an environment filled with 1000 pound ruminants.

[Narz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oowolf', 'I') tried going without meat once as an experiment. I lasted almost 2 weeks. I made sure I was getting all the amino acids,etc,etc but after 10 days I developed such a craving for meat I felt like I would die. It was all I could think about. On the 13th day, I surprised a yearling whitetail in the yard-it panicked and ran into the garden deer fence real hard--I was hoping it would hang itself so I could carve it up. The thought of that tasty, young deer meat was more than I could take. I knew then I could never be a vegetarian by choice. I actually think life without meat wouldn't be worth living. Fortunately, I live in an environment filled with 1000 pound ruminants.

[manu]

At least all the meat eaters should give up cow meat. You can make curd steaks out of the milk which is better tasting then the rotting flesh you are eating, esp. if fried in ghee (purified butter).
After all, when the dust settles and no tractors to plow the fields because the oil was all blow up, you will wish you had a ox to plow the field. When you go out to hunt but dont get anything at least you have the cow to milk.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('manu', 'A')t least all the meat eaters should give up cow meat. You can make curd steaks out of the milk which is better tasting then the rotting flesh you are eating, esp. if fried in ghee (purified butter).
After all, when the dust settles and no tractors to plow the fields because the oil was all blow up, you will wish you had a ox to plow the field. When you go out to hunt but dont get anything at least you have the cow to milk.

[Snowstorm]

After you get rid of domestic animals because of their methane, then how about all the wild ungulates, especially go to Africa and kill all the elephants, zebra, wildabeest. Next when the world is rid of all the large beasts go to Asia and drain every rice paddy, they're a source of methane too, then go after the natural wetlands. Hey, you got to get rid of as much methane as possible. The ends justify the means.[/sarcasm]

[seven]

It's a lot easier to refuse meat when lots of other foods are available. If you have a choice of what to eat, consider yourself very fortunate.

Thanks ever so much for the 'guilt ambush poll', but I'll stick with my meat-eating.

I've experimented with different diets, and have found that my system definitely needs meat- I don't do very well on strictly vegetarian foods; particularly a lot of carbohydrates - I become weak, lethergic, run down - and literally dream of meat. It seems likely that many human's genetic systems are set to run on the old hunter-gatherer foodstuffs, not the 'recent' agrarian diet....mine certainly is.

I appreciate this opportunity to castigate myself for something I was born with, however, and look forward to the next guilt-opportunity poll, "Are you breathing more than your share of air?"

[dohboi]

The juggernaut of the rapacious world economic system is on the verge of completely destroying the habitability of the earth for humans and most (perhaps all?) other creatures. But this does not let me off the moral hook. In fact, as evidence grows by leaps and bounds every day that we are cooked, I find myself less and less interested in participating in parts of the system most powerfully driving this destruction--not because such change in indivual behavior has much or really any hope of changing the outcome; but simply out of revulsion. This is the main reason I have minimized my meat and dairy intake to nearly vegan levels, along with giving up flying and almost all driving.

By and large, of course, we are all stuck in the system, forced to cooperate and contrubute to our destruction and the destruction of (nearly?) all future life. We are all, in otherwords, trapped in a kind of moral hell, forced to do irreperable, permanent, and perhaps absolute harm to the fragile web of life on earth.

There are plenty of ways of minimizing your participation, but none of us should kid ourselves that such personal choices alone (or probably even in conjunction with enormous activism) is going to make a bit of difference in the great downward spiral. We're already halfway down the toilet bowl, folks.

Vegetarianism and veganism (or near approximations of these) are certainly significant ways of reducing your participation in the universal holocaust, especially if most of the food is local. But, as Michael Polan points out in his latest book 'Omnivor's Dilemma,' eating a nearly all animal and animal-products diet can be as sustainable as a vegan diet (especially a grain based one) if the animals are eating healthy, perenial, organically grown, native grasses.

To my svelt, 30-inch-waste friend, your ecological weight as an industrially-grown-meat eater is twenty-plus times that of even a robust, portly vegetarian or vegan. The cows you eat have eaten twenty pounds of usable grain and bean protein (not to mention brains, ofal, and all manner of other disgusting crap) for every pound of juicy steak they provide. Even more massively wasteful is the use of water, oil, and every other resource you can think of. (And I'm not even going to mention that by eating industrial meat, you are support a system which is rapidly undermining th usefulness of antibiotics by constantly injecting them into their livestock--oops, I just did)


In the earth's eyes, my friend, you are simply enormously obese. Sorry if that puts a crimp in your self admiration.

A midget driving a Hummer is far more destructive than Andre the Giant on a bicyle.

It is a bit disheartening to hear how many people, even here on a fairly enlightened website, find it shocking and repulsive to even consider taking the actually quite minor step of reducing their meat and dairy intake (or switching to local, grass-fed meat)--a step that is, by most accounts, also the most certain way to improve your chances against the biggest killers: heart disease, diabetes and cancer. That the intelligent, concerned people here mostly won't consider even this tiny step reconfirms my view that there really is no chance for a sustainable future.

So, if not this, is there anything substantial the "meat forever" crowd (not including hunters, eaters of grass-fed livestock, and folks who raise there own) would be willing to do to slightly disengage from the massively destructive system we all find ourselves in? Give up (or greatly reduce) flying? Driving? Cooling your home in the summer? Heating it in the winter? Severe limits on what you buy? How much you make? For a rough guide to the relative value of these and other options, check out
myfootprint

OK, sorry, that was too long. I'm outa here.

Dohboi

"There is hope, but not for us." Kafka

[HamRadioRocks]

I don't eat that much beef. Most of the meat I eat is in the form of chicken or turkey. (I use ground turkey as a substitute for ground beef when I cook.) Shouldn't I be cut some slack for eating poultry instead of beef?

[edpeak]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') tried going without two pints a day of ice-cream once as an experiment. I lasted almost 2 weeks...but after 10 days I developed such a craving for double pints of ice-cream I felt like I would die. It was all I could think about.

[seven]

What really amuses me is the precious energy being consumed by all the moralistic and ecologically-superior-to-thou posters - how much electricity is being wastefully burned by the computer you use while you post your condescending lecture, widely-known medical facts, or smugly moral stance?

If you're that freaked out about doing the right thing morally and ecologically, you shouldn't have bought a pc - nor should you even be online.

The point - most of us are energy wasters in some form or another...whether we realize it or not.

Edpeak, I'm crushed at the thought of your disapproval.

[edpeak]

Ham radio --As far as being cut slack, I don't think beating up
on yourself is useful...

I *also* don't buy the "don't guilt trip us"side either if it's just educational facts...grown ups should be able to hear the facts, without saying "don't give me liberal guilt trips" but neither do I think it's productive to beat up on meat eaters as "you are so evil!" (but I can forgive a just-=turned-veggie 16 year old for screaming that, if they can get it out of their system and then stop screaming and start educating and leading by example..)

So yes, cut yourself slack... But if you want to keep growing, keep
researching (recipes at www.veganchef.com are great) and expanding your options. It never hurts to have more options, even
if you decide to keep eating chicken forever, but having more options (more recipes that are delicious and nutritious) will let you make a fuller freer choice..

If you do made changes, I don't recommend you go cold turkey or
do it overnight...some people think anyone who eats a plant based diet as I do, must want to convert everyone else overnight..no, sudden changes might work for some people, but for most of us it is only wise and prudent to go sloooooooooly and listen to our bodies (that goes for you vegans our there who eat vegan fried/junk food and you know you need to cut THAT out..!) so our bodies have time to get used to the new healthier ways of eating :-)
EDpeak

[seven]

Edpeak, this isn't a kindergarten class. Many people are aware of the facts - they just don't necessarily make the same choices you do, while knowing those facts. Thanks, however, for your gently condescending pep talk and inanely transparent 'when you want to grow!' recommendations...

[Narz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowstorm', 'A')fter you get rid of domestic animals because of their methane, then how about all the wild ungulates, especially go to Africa and kill all the elephants, zebra, wildabeest. Next when the world is rid of all the large beasts go to Asia and drain every rice paddy, they're a source of methane too, then go after the natural wetlands. Hey, you got to get rid of as much methane as possible. The ends justify the means.[/sarcasm]

[seven]

Narz, I was being facetious, in main.

On this topic:
Many vegetarians fall into one of the following two broad groups -
1. The "it's healthier" vegetarians
2. The "killing/eating animals is wrong" vegetarians
Both of those groups have a percentage of FANATICS, and those who are SURE their opinion is the correct one for everyone. (like any group, of course)

On this site, a third large group exists -
3. The "eating meat is wrong because of the impact of the meat industry" vegetarians
(of course, there are other reasons, and many people are members of both 1 and 2 reason groups, etc - but these are the main ones)

A few more fanatics are added to our mix from group 3.
Many liberals believe that a lack of education underlies all or most 'wrong' (harmful also = wrong) choices - so therefore 'properly educating' someone must cause them to change their mind. If someone receives the education and refuses to change their mind, they just need the information to be repeated, perhaps in a different way; maybe SLOWER or more GENTLY...or louder and more rudely.

If the issue seems to have a moral element to some, then making the 'wrong' choice illustrates a lack of morals, or a lack of willpower in following one's morals. The "it's healthier" people may find a moral imperative in "being as healthy as possible", while the "bad for the environment" crowd might find it immoral because of the ecological angle, etc. Not only are there different opinions about whether there are moral elements, the morals themselves vary as well...a common occurence, these days.

The poll contains all of these elements - educate yourself by reading this article, and if you read it and still don't change your mind, then you are an ignorant, morally-flawed, planet-destroying savage.

If one simply says "I'm a meat eater, I'm not changing, and I don't feel guilty" as one poster said he would prefer, that person would be jumped on by some of the MORAL faction, groups 2 and 3. (go ahead, deny it would happen...)

Conversely, if one simply and politely lays out one's experimentation with vegetarianism, or one's other reasoning, yet still plans to eat meat (which doesn't rouse the moralists as much; you did try, after all) earnest teachers, usually from group 1,
launch their 'education' strategy, assuming you simply don't KNOW enough; even if you are decently articulate and seem otherwise intelligent and well-informed...obviously you're not well-informed ENOUGH. Or, since they themselves (or their cousin, or aunt) succeeded after 3 months of effort, or 6 months, you simply haven't tried LONG enough, or HARD enough. (you're lazy, weak, giving up too easily, keep trying!) These methods and attitudes are insulting and presumptuous, but somehow many well-meaning people don't seem to realize it. Because surely if you KNEW, if you were SMARTER, if you were more EDUCATED (like them!) you would make the 'right' choice...which would be agreeing with them, of course. If you just TRIED HARDER, you would find that THEY ARE RIGHT and you are WRONG.

(Naturally, there are some who start out as educators and switch to being moralists when you don't respond to being educated...and vice versa..or both simulataneously)

If you don't mention that you don't eat much meat anyway, or that you can't afford to buy it very often, or blah blah blah explain every possible angle of your situation - or how you are making up for your meat eating by some other sacrifice, whatnot, someone makes assumptions and upbraids you for the ultimate lack of morals - NOT CARING ABOUT THE PLANET AT ALL!

When you do not respond appropriately to being 'educated', that is to say you don't convert, or agree to 'try' becoming a vegetarian, you receive the 're-education' - often in increasingly pedantic, condescending language - and you also start being the target of the 2 and 3 groups, the MORALIZERS...who are usually more abusive than the 'educators'...but at least they are direct.

In short, this is a topic that is a minefield to respond to at all, if you aren't a vegetarian. The same thing happens with many other liberal (especially pc) topics...the EDUCATORS and the MORALISTS lurk everywhere...and woe unto you if you just want a polite, intelligent, rational discussion of ideas - because it's not going to happen.

The only real difference I see between many liberals and the religious fundamentalists is the BELIEFS - the methods, moralizing, pressure, and rigid expectations of conformity are exactly the same.

[edpeak]

Seven: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')any people are aware of the facts - they just don't necessarily make the same choices you do, while knowing those facts.

[edpeak]

Briefly on each of several points...

1. I agree the poll is biased, but it's either a self inflicted wound or a deliberate attempt to be anti-vegetarianism because the third answer can sooooooo easily be read as sarcastic. It would have been much more pro vegetarianism if it had a milder third line... So, like you, I noted the strong language of the third choice, and like you, I see a bias there, but unlike you, I see it as a bias towards making people actually less likely to listen to the information in the article, with a ready-made excuse of "ha! look at the ultra-strong lanauge of choice three! they are ridiculous! therefore, I can ignore and have a ready made excuse to ignore, everything else".. it would have been harder to make that excuse for oneself is the language wasn't so strong in the third option.

2. The label "liberal" is thrown in front of things at the drop of a hat these days. Like, "liberals" is thrown out in the case of climate when it's really "climate scientists and those who have listened to what the former have said" but you label 'em all liberals and suddenly they are fair game...same here, it's not "liberalism" but "ethics" in the case of animal rights, not "liberalism" but "health/science/medicine" in the case of the health argument, and not "liberalism" per se but environmental research in the case of the environmental case for moving towards a plant based diet (or a diet closer to being plant based)...but it's much harder to bash those disciplines and groups, so we trot out 'liberal' instead.. not just you personally, but in discussions like this, all the time...hmmmm....

3. The word "moralists" or "moralizers"... what is wong about using moral arguments? I have nothing against moral arguments by folks I disagree with (e.g. the ban-all-abortion crowd). I can disagree with their conslusion, disagree with their tactics (blow up people in clinics) disagree with their faulty logic, or disagree with what they think is or is not moral, but the one thing I do not disagree with them at all is that morality should have something to say about public policy. Similarly, you may disagree with this claim or with that conclusion or with that tactic...but how can you disagree with the idea itself, of using moral arguments (about not hurting the environment, animals, the human body's health, or other aspects like feeding the world) as part of what caused one to first, change one's own mind and second, caused one to try to convince others too? Is there anything wrong with the use of moral aguments per se? I don't think so..if you agree, then using the above terms may cause confusion...

4. There is at least a fourth reason, human hunger worldwide and the much higher calories per acre, and higher even grams of protein per acre, when using plant based diets to feed people... but that doesn't mean anyone who eats any meat is 100% evil, it's just about awareness of what we know about effects of choices... lots of people cut the amount of meat they eat but don't cut it out completely, just as many people cut down how much gasoline they burn up per year, but don't cut down to zero, and from the standpoint of the above reasons for a plant based diet, that works wonderfully..
EDpeak

[manu]

Here is one for you seven, the ultra religous fanatic.
You will have to take a hellish birth for every hair on the cow's body. Those you raise it to be slaughtered, transport it, kill it, cook it and eat it will all get the karma.

[MrBill]

I really do not eat very much meat, but I do enjoy a varied diet including meat & fish. Having vegans or vegetarians lecture me about what I eat is about as enjoyable as having a Jehovah Witness on my doorstep to lecture me on why my interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Why do they both have to have such missionary zeal to convert the non-believers?