The significance of non-human life

[Uberdude]

Millions of vegetarians/vegans manage to live long, healthy lives without the "necessity" of killing animals for food.

It is still only a very tiny percentage of the population of this planet which are vegans/vegetarians by choice now, even if they count in millions.

Just making a drive-by comment, but India is a big country with high rates of vegetarianism.

[Bantari]

Millions of vegetarians/vegans manage to live long, healthy lives without the "necessity" of killing animals for food.

It is still only a very tiny percentage of the population of this planet which are vegans/vegetarians by choice now, even if they count in millions.

Just making a drive-by comment, but India is a big country with high rates of vegetarianism.

Since we are doing drive-bys, ever heard of chicken tikka masala?

PS>
Here is an unrelated quote from an unrelated article: "India has the highest number of undernourished people in the world".
Here is the unrelated article in question: India is still world's hunger capital.

There are, of course, many reasons for the things being so bad. All I say is - not a very convincing example.
You would do better to point out the the relatively high percentages of vegetarians in CA.

[Uberdude]

Just making a drive-by comment, but India is a big country with high rates of vegetarianism.

Since we are doing drive-bys, ever heard of chicken tikka masala?

Yes, as I am from the country which invented it and where it is eaten, namely Britain.

[tchan001]

Millions of vegetarians/vegans manage to live long, healthy lives without the "necessity" of killing animals for food.

It is still only a very tiny percentage of the population of this planet which are vegans/vegetarians by choice now, even if they count in millions.

Just making a drive-by comment, but India is a big country with high rates of vegetarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country
Just making a drive-by comment, but China is a big country with low rates of vegetarianism.
And the majority of Indians are not vegetarian according to the sources in the Wikipedia article.

[EdLee]

When Mike is refining his 'we' to 'we (humans)' and you continue to say one has to be very careful with the word "we", how should that be interpreted?

It seems you missed the flow and branches of the discussion.

[daal]

Here is the unrelated article in question: India is still world's hunger capital.

There are, of course, many reasons for the things being so bad. All I say is - not a very convincing example.
You would do better to point out the the relatively high percentages of vegetarians in CA.

From the article you linked to: "The UN estimates that hunger now affects one in six people, compounded by factors such as war, drought or floods, high food prices and poverty. Most of the hunger in a world of plenty results from grinding, deep-rooted poverty." In other words, yes, the hunger in India is unrelated to vegetarian diets. And yes, there is a high percentage of vegetarians in CA that is not suffering from malnutrition. So your point is ...?

In an earlier post you question whether it would be possible to provide enough protein for the world's population without meat:

I am not sure of exact numbers, but it will be interesting to figure out if a pasture with some cows can be really replaced with the same amount of land growing lentils to produce the same amount of nutrients

Why not? A professor for environmental science at Cornell University claims: "Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein..."

[DrStraw]

Bantari, as a vegetarian who has researched your questions deeply I can answer most of them. I could provide references to back up my statements if you need them but it would take some effort and I am not prepared to do that at this point.

It is still only a very tiny percentage of the population of this planet which are vegans/vegetarians by choice now, even if they count in millions. I am not sure we could produce enough vegan/vegetarian nutrition (especially protein) without eating animal protein to sustain the whole world. We seem to have trouble doing it as it is (although granted, there are other problems as well, like distribution.)

We most definitely could. Most people in the western world eat way too much protein. It is not just the land used for grazing which would be freed up. It is also all the land used to grow feed for those times when they are in the feedlot or during winter. The number of acres required for each animal is way more than you would imagine and that land could be used to grow a lot of food. Admittedly, not all the land is arable , but there is enough of it. Most people grossly underestimate the amount of protein which is available in such vegetarian fare as beans and greens. Plus, it takes a lot more water to produce a pound of meat protein that to produce a pound of vegetable protein. And it don't just mean twice as much, although I forget the exact number. It is a huge multiple. And as we all know, water is in short supply and is slated to become the next gold. Nestle is buying up water rights all over Africa and selling the water back to the locals. The same is happening in other parts of the world.

All in all, I think that being a vegan/vegetarian is not easy, you need to know what you are doing to get the necessary nutrients and stuff. Still, I am not an expert, and I might be wrong here. Always ready to learn.

This is true. Our daughter has been vegetarian since her teen days, even before we were. She survived in college on pasta and cheese sauce. It was not a healthy diet. But if we assume that the transition to a vegetarian diet for the masses will be gradual then there is plenty of time to education people on how to eat well. The bottom line is that there is a huge number of studies which show than a vegetarian lifestyle is a healthy one if done correctly. The majority of studies which show eating meat is necessary are sponsored by the meat marketing boards.

Speaking of animals themselves:
I am not sure of exact numbers, but it will be interesting to figure out if a pasture with some cows can be really replaced with the same amount of land growing lentils to produce the same amount of nutrients - and which nutrients people need more? But even if this was the case - where would the cows graze? Or will they go extinct as a species, replaced by lentils? How about sheep, chicken, and so on... all extinct? Replaced by green beans? How about all the other ecosystems which will need to get converted to agricultural factory-farms to feed the planet? How many species will go bye-bye because we need to grow more lentils?

As I pointed out above, the answer is yes. We definitely could produce the necessary food. And if we did not eat meat then there would be no need to produce all the animals which are currently required to supply it. As I posted earlier in the thread, this frankenmeat could be phased out very quickly. Cows, sheep and chicken, as produced by nature are already close to extinction. The ones produced by factory farming are gross distortions pumped full of antibiotics and other drugs in order to plump them up to achieve greater value. When you eat them you also get you share of those same antibiotics, and guess what it does to you.

I have no answers to any of that. All I know that it is not trivial.

You may not, but there are out there with a little research. Just make sure to ask yourself who is sponsoring any published article. Those which promote vegetarianism are sometimes sponsored by pro-vegetarian groups and organizations, but those which promoted meat-eating are almost always sponsored by those with a financial interest in the matter.

[SmoothOper]

Bantari, as a vegetarian who has researched your questions deeply I can answer most of them. I could provide references to back up my statements if you need them but it would take some effort and I am not prepared to do that at this point.

It is still only a very tiny percentage of the population of this planet which are vegans/vegetarians by choice now, even if they count in millions. I am not sure we could produce enough vegan/vegetarian nutrition (especially protein) without eating animal protein to sustain the whole world. We seem to have trouble doing it as it is (although granted, there are other problems as well, like distribution.)

We most definitely could. Most people in the western world eat way too much protein. It is not just the land used for grazing which would be freed up. It is also all the land used to grow feed for those times when they are in the feedlot or during winter. The number of acres required for each animal is way more than you would imagine and that land could be used to grow a lot of food. Admittedly, not all the land is arable , but there is enough of it. Most people grossly underestimate the amount of protein which is available in such vegetarian fare as beans and greens.

Beans and rice actually don't have much protein compared to whole wheat. In my experience, being vegetarian in college and now going low meat(to control weight and for health), is not the protein but lipids and cholesterol. When I was a vegetarian I had a skin condition, at some point I had a blood test, and I was two standard deviations lower than normal, started eating butter, it went away. Now, omega-3 is the challenge I take fish oil supplements.

[Mike Novack]

Something to consider carefully.

1) There may well be environmental reasons to suggest that only a comparatively small amount of animal be eaten.

However one cannot get from there to none. The vegetarian position (none) can only be based on moral arguments. Please, I am not saying that those aren't valid. I am saying that just because eating less (much less) meat would be better for the environment does not mean that none even better <<because not true* in the factual sense>>

2) Not all land on which livestock could be raised could be converted to growing grains and (large seeded) legumes. For example, soybean roots provide close to zero resistance to erosion nor does this crop fix more nitrogen than it needs for its seeds (not even that much) so should only be grown on fertile very flat land. Land with even a few percent grade shouldn't be plowed but even 10-20% grade land can support permanent pasture/mowing of small seeded legume/grasses mix without damage.

3) No, completely untrue that people who are on the omnivore side of the argument support eating meat for financial reasons. Extremely few have anything to do with raising meat animals, processing meat animals, etc.

* Rather easy to prove. Assume that the most non-destructive (to the environment) amount of vegetable food for humans is already being raised. Not all parts of these plants are edible by humans nor is all ground suitable for raising them on. But these parts not directly usable by humans are potential food for animals, particularly the ruminants, so some animals could be raised and eaten in addition to the previously assumed maximum food situation -- so that was clearly not the maximum.

Again please note, that is not saying anything about the morality of eating meat, just the factual situation. You can't get from "eating very little" to "none" based on "most food" arguments.

[hyperpape]

Yes, protein is actually not too hard for a vegetarian. The FDA recommendation is 50g of protein for a 2000 calorie diet. That corresponds to 5 grams per 200 calories. Whole wheat pasta, almonds and cashews beat that mark by a small amount, soy beans, black beans, tofu all surpass it by a lot. Vegetarians who eat eggs and other dairy should have almost no problem.

I eat a low-meat, low-milk diet (combination of ethical concerns and lactose intolerance) so I pay constant attention to the quantities of protein in things I eat, but it's really not bad, as long as you don't eat a ton of empty calories. The trick is to imagine your current diet with meat being replaced by protein rich vegetarian foods, not your current diet minus the meat.

A bigger challenge for a lot of vegetarians is iron, and supplements are probably a good idea. She didn't check with a doctor, but my wife was probably anemic last month, and she started taking vitamins with iron.

[Monadology]

This is just a question of genuine curiosity, not some sort of challenge:

What are the main sources of vitamin b12 for vegetarians and especially vegans?

A bigger challenge for a lot of vegetarians is iron, and supplements are probably a good idea. She didn't check with a doctor, but my wife was probably anemic last month, and she started taking vitamins with iron.

I thought spinach was pretty iron-rich. Is that not true?

[illluck]

This is just a question of genuine curiosity, not some sort of challenge:

What are the main sources of vitamin b12 for vegetarians and especially vegans?

A bigger challenge for a lot of vegetarians is iron, and supplements are probably a good idea. She didn't check with a doctor, but my wife was probably anemic last month, and she started taking vitamins with iron.

I thought spinach was pretty iron-rich. Is that not true?

It's not particularly iron-rich, see:

http://www.uamshealth.com/?id=883&sid=1

[DrStraw]

This is just a question of genuine curiosity, not some sort of challenge:

What are the main sources of vitamin b12 for vegetarians and especially vegans?

There are some natural sources. Tempeh is a good one. Vegetarians don't need to worry too much as they consume eggs and dairy. Vegans should consider taking a B12 supplement. But it does not take a lot of B12 and it hangs around in the body so a little goes a long way.

[Bantari]

Sorry if I appear grumpy. I am.

Here is the unrelated article in question: India is still world's hunger capital.

There are, of course, many reasons for the things being so bad. All I say is - not a very convincing example.
You would do better to point out the the relatively high percentages of vegetarians in CA.

From the article you linked to: "The UN estimates that hunger now affects one in six people, compounded by factors such as war, drought or floods, high food prices and poverty. Most of the hunger in a world of plenty results from grinding, deep-rooted poverty." In other words, yes, the hunger in India is unrelated to vegetarian diets. And yes, there is a high percentage of vegetarians in CA that is not suffering from malnutrition. So your point is ...?

Same as the previous poster - drive-by. I thought we were sharing interesting facts about India.
I have not started it. You have nothing else to pick on?

In an earlier post you question whether it would be possible to provide enough protein for the world's population without meat:

I am not sure of exact numbers, but it will be interesting to figure out if a pasture with some cows can be really replaced with the same amount of land growing lentils to produce the same amount of nutrients

Why not? A professor for environmental science at Cornell University claims: "Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein..."

As you can see by what I wrote, fossil fuel was not the resource I was wondering about. It never even crossed my mind, to be honest. Fossil fuel is not the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about growing lentils, or raising chicken, but now that you mention it, I realize it is also needed for large scale farms. In any case, the fact that both plant protein and animal protein production require large amounts of fossil fuel makes both models not really sustainable in the long run. So we have to switch to something else eventually, and who knows where the dividing line will fall then. All you say is that while we can survive slightly longer as global vegetarians, we still cannot survive long.

Also, did the good professor thought in global terms, or was he only paid to make a point? For example - if we all become vegetarians, was part of the calculation all the fossil fuel required to transport the food we produce to the central Africa or Japan? Is that part of the equation? Because if it is not, the data is meaningless in the context of whole world becoming vegetarian.

Anyways. There are many more issues involved here than just fossil fuel, which is just one of the indicators. For example - some land is not appropriate to grow protein-producing plants, but you can grow plants that can feed protein-producing animals. Without animals, such land would be used inefficiently, if at all. How does that fit in with what the good professor says? Other issues and resources can be important as well, just google it.

I am not really sure what you are trying to tell me. Its a very complex issue, as I have said.

[Bantari]

Bantari, as a vegetarian who has researched your questions deeply I can answer most of them. I could provide references to back up my statements if you need them but it would take some effort and I am not prepared to do that at this point.

It is still only a very tiny percentage of the population of this planet which are vegans/vegetarians by choice now, even if they count in millions. I am not sure we could produce enough vegan/vegetarian nutrition (especially protein) without eating animal protein to sustain the whole world. We seem to have trouble doing it as it is (although granted, there are other problems as well, like distribution.)

We most definitely could. Most people in the western world eat way too much protein. It is not just the land used for grazing which would be freed up. It is also all the land used to grow feed for those times when they are in the feedlot or during winter. The number of acres required for each animal is way more than you would imagine and that land could be used to grow a lot of food. Admittedly, not all the land is arable , but there is enough of it. Most people grossly underestimate the amount of protein which is available in such vegetarian fare as beans and greens. Plus, it takes a lot more water to produce a pound of meat protein that to produce a pound of vegetable protein. And it don't just mean twice as much, although I forget the exact number. It is a huge multiple. And as we all know, water is in short supply and is slated to become the next gold. Nestle is buying up water rights all over Africa and selling the water back to the locals. The same is happening in other parts of the world.

Hi Steve,
This is a HUGE subjest, so let me post a few more question and thoughts in here, then I will address the rest of your post separately.

Tell me - how does water-based protein fit into that? I mean - fish and other seafood. When you stop fishing, its not like you can plant lentils there or anything on the land. Seafood is a huge source of protein and nutrition in the world, and to cut out this source without any replacement will not be easy, if even possible. There are whole communities, regions, and countries who rely heavily on fish protein. For example - Japan. They simply do not have enough land to grow what they need, and without fish they would have to either starve, or move, or pay through the nose for others to give them food. I am not sure this would be good right now.

You say "western world". But there is much more to the world than the west and the US of A.

There are huge regions in the world, for example in Africa, where people can easily have some chicken and wilderbeasts to sustain themselves on eggs and an occasional butchering, but where the land and the climate prevents any large-scale farming. Or even small-scale farming. If we take away all their livestock, how will they survive? Who will produce their food, and how will they pay for it? Are you and your family willing to work double hours to feed a family in Africa?

But lets say we can grow extra corn in the US, do you know how much it takes to transport it to the heart of Africa in a form that is still edible and nutritious? I don't, but I am sure the cost is astronomical. How do we solve this problem? Will you and your family be now working 3 times that hard to pay for that too? People in Africa don't have much to pay you with, and we can't just let them starve. Or can we?

Also there are other issues with plant food production, ones that I seldom see mentioned by the veggie-sauruses, but which concern me.
One example is: pesticides. Won't we have to use more pesticide to have more plant-producing land and make this land more efficient? Overall, this is not so good, is it? But if we all become vegetarians, we might realize we need to put a lot more of that stuff into the ground and on our food. Even as it is, you need to scrub each apple you get really hard before you can safely eat it, or so the doctors seem to say, and I for one believe them.

Another example is that of frankenplants. You mention later in your post frankenherds, and you are right. But most of the plant food we eat is as heavily modified on a genetic levels as the livestock, if not more so. And who knows what other stuff is put in there so the strawberries always look red and shiny (even if they test like crap) and people spend more money on them. But even without greed - how much chemicals and engineering we need to grow enough corn to be enough for all? And how much more aggressive we will have to be in this respect if we cut out all the animal protein and now have to produce even more corn?

Somehow, when people talk about genetic engineering of plants they are proud, while genetic engineering of animals is looked at with suspicion. Personally, I see no difference, you tinker with Mother Nature either way, and you are just guessing what kinds of results it will produce long-term. Or shall we burn all the engineered crops and stuff, like we kill off all the engineered cows? I would be *very* surprised if we then still had enough resources to produce enough to survive.

I already skimmed this - but how about transportation then? Right now, a lot of plant food is picked before they ripen and then go through the nitrogen process during transport - this is the only way we know, or at least the only way which is affordable, to deliver edible products to the end user. By and large, this process kills a lot of the nutrients, or prevents the nutrients to develop in the first place, not to mention it ruins most of the taste. What about that?

And the price. Some time ago I switched to a 100% organic diet, mostly locally grown and raised, and the difference was HUGE. Both in terms of my health, my well-being, and my enjoyment of food. But it is very expensive, and most people probably could not afford it. Also, very little food is grown organically right now, the process is simply not as efficient.

So, as a race, we are doomed to the genetically engineered, nitrogen-ripened, cardboard-tasting, and nutrition-low varieties of most of the veg. How to solve that? I imagine this problem will be magnified when we have to start feeding the rest of the world, as we will have to do when the whole world becomes vegetarian.

I mean - when you speak as a person who made the choice to move away from civilization, live on simple local food from local growers,, and generally live a healthy life surrounded by nature, what you speak of seems very possible, even desirable. And I cannot argue with you, you have it good in this respect, from what I understand. But from my perspective, of somebody living in a big city in the middle of the desert, tied in here by my job and lots of other stuff - it all looks less rosy, and questions just keep popping up.

So you see, the issue is not quite as simple for me, and while I am not an expert, I know enough to know that many of the problems I mention are not solved and not solvable right now. And there are tons of other problems and questions. Its a complex issue.

Although on personal level - it is simple. This is why I believe in personal choice and both choices being equally valid.